Log in using OpenID

Ab s t r a c t.
Two new mammoth-mollars from Norway are described:
one left upper M 2 from Vågå, and one fragment of a lower ;\;f2 from Ula.
new investigation of the earlier described teeth shows that the teeth from Skar­
vangen (Vågå) and Dovre are not Dp4 as previously assumed, but M1, and the
tooth from Otta is probably a M3.
The Scandinavian teeth most probably belong to sub.sp.
primigenius primigenius
The question of when the mammoth lived in Norway is discussed, and it
is presumed, that the mammoths had their haunts in the high mountains of
Scandinavia and that they lived here in great numbers during the last inter­
glacial period.
Finally the distribution of the musk-ox, reindeer and horse
in Scandinavia during the last interglacial period is discussed.
The remains of mammoth
(Mammonteus primigeni�ts
BACH ) are very rare in the Scandinavian peninsula.
more than
12 finds
from Sweden and
Up to now no
from Norway have been de­
scribed. The first Norwegian find was made in
the last in
All our finds are more or less well preserved teeth, and all of them have
been found in central Norway. Five are grinding teeth, two are frag­
ments of the tusks.
described by
1932 and
Three grinding teeth and one tusk were fully
BERGERSEN in 1932. The second tusk was described
1945. One of the last two grinding teeth was mentioned
1951, and the other preliminarily described by HEINTZ
The description of the two last discovered grinding teeth.
Pl. 1).
This tooth was discovered in 1933 by chauffeur ToRBJØRN BøJE
not far from the farm <<Sandbu nordre)> on the riverbank where the
river Finna runs into the river Otta. BøJE was walking along the
river, waiting for his lorry to be loaded with sand, when he caught
sight of a queer stone among the pebbles, on the bank, which
in springtime is flooded. He picked it up, washed it and thought it
reminded him of a large tooth. BøJE showed the <<stone)> to the
veterinary HoFSTAD in Vågå, who said, that it undoubtedly, was
a tooth of a prehistoric animal.
The tooth was sent to the Zoological Museum in Oslo, where the
headcurator, WoLLEBÆCK gave it to Professor BERGERSEN for descrip­
tion. Unfortunately Professor BERGERSEN did not have time to
finish the investigation, and after the war he kindly delivered the
tooth, and two drawings, prepared under his direction, to me for
description. I hereby wish to express my best thanks to Professor
BERGERSEN for his courtesy.
The tooth from Vågå (Pl. I) represents a more or less strongly worn
front part of a middle-sized mammoth tooth. The grinding surface
(crown) (Pl. I, C) is 91.5 mm long and 62.3 mm in the broadest part
(between the 6th and 7th enamel ridges). The tooth has been broader,
as the cement originally covering both sides of the tooth has completely
disappeared and the enamel ridges are also so much worn that the
dentine in the ridges on both sides is visible (Fig. l, Pl. I, A, B, d, e).
Thus it is reasonable to suppose that the tooth was at least 8 to 10
mm broader, which means that the whole tooth was about 70-72 mm
broad. It is highest at the back where it is broken and here measures
75 mm.
The grinding surface of the tooth is convex and its right side is
more worn than the left side, indicating that the tooth is a fragment
of the upper left molar.
Seven distinct enamel ridges are visible on the grinding surface
-' , ,
Hg. 1. D
ia g n u o
th e d g h t. m a ti o p ic M ' o f th
e ,u a m m o
The pNb
th -t o o th fm
a b lo p O
w o rn a w
-' it io n o<
n> V å g å ,
a y is in d
th e e o a m
,;een {<om
ic a te d . l
to 9
w b io h a
er n ar n el ri
(Pl. l, C
d g e s.
). T h e rem
ains ol tw
n more rid
m a in ly in
ges c a n als
T h e lr ofrnot n t, a n d th e
o b e seen
- · nne
is practica m a in ly b e h
a p p a re n t il
one stu<lie
b u t it s ex
m a in ly in
istence see
th e ! r o n t n th e fragment ul th
enamel rid
e n a m e l fr a
e to o th (I'i
ge preserv
g m e n t cnn
g. 1 . PL I ,
A., B , x ; C
ists o l a s
abont 16
m m 's le n g
, c' , e'). T
mall oval
slightlY co
p a r t w it h
a n d lO m
a th in shc
et nl c e m e m 's width, covered ave p la te ol
!o rm a n d
n t (l'ig. l ,
th e presen
1'1. l, C, e in th e rniddle
ce o l c e m e
n o t th e !r
', c'). I ts
indicate th
o n ta l e n a m
at what w
e l Jarnelle.
e h a v e h e re
b u t th e b
o tt o m o l
a n enamel
between two enamel ridges (Fig. l, 1-2) . Accordingly we must expect
that at least one more enamel ridge was originally developed in front
of the first, now clearly visible ridge.
At the back the tooth is broken between the 8th and 9th enamel
ridges. One can here see the bottom of the 8th enamel fold (Fig. l,
8-9. Pl. I, A, B, 8). The hind surface of the tooth in the upper part
consists of the enamel layer forming the posterior limit of the 8th
enamel ridge (Fig. l, Pl. I, A, B, e") . Further down one can see some
of the cement (Fig. l, PL I, A, B, c") placed between the 8th and 9th
ridges. Still further down the enamel layer, forming the front of the
9th ridge, is visible (e"') . Finally, at the very bottom of the surface
the dentine from the middle part of the 9th ridge is preserved.
(Fig. l, Pl. I, A, B, d") .
No traces of the roots are visible . The lower surface of the tooth
is smooth and only below the 8th enamel ridge a slight impression
can be seen. As is known, the anterior root in the mammoth teeth is
as a rule strongly developed. I have noticed that it is only in the
case of some large molars (M2 and M3) that we find that the roots are
almost completely absorbed in the front part of the tooth. It is,
however, impossible to determine with certainty whether the roots
in our specimen are absorbed or worn away during transportation.
I think, however, that the last supposition is the most probable.
We shall now try to determine if the tooth we are dealing with
belongs to the premolars (Dp) or to the molars (M). The first and
second premolars (Dp2 and Dp3 of the mammoth are so small and have
so few dentine ridges (4 resp. 8) that we can immediately see that
the tooth in question cannot belong to this group. The last molar
(M3) on the other hand, is so big and has such a great number of ridges
(from 18 to 27) that it is quite out of the question that our tooth was
M3• Finally we have the last premolar (Dp4) and the two first molars.
According to SoERGEL (1912) the ridge formula of these teeth are:
M1 9-lS M2 1 =--:
OsBORN, however, gives another
2 18,
he calls it <<typical» and it is as follows:
:\1:1 1z
Dp4 - 12
As mentioned above the tooth we are dealing with has 9 ridges.
As it is not a complete tooth but only a fragment, it is difficult to
determine with certainty how many dentine ridges have been broken
off. The broadest part of a mammoth tooth is generally placed some­
what in front of the middle of the tooth. As the broadest part of this
particular tooth, measured between the 6th and 7th enamel ridge,
is 70 mm from the front, one may assume that the total length of
the tooth was about 150-160 mm. In the preserved part of the tooth
one ridge and a cement layer is about 10 mm broad. It is therefore
reasonable to suppose that this tooth originally had about 15-16
dentine ridges. According to the above mentioned ridge formula,
the tooth can thus be either the first or the second molar (M1 or M2) .
This interpretation, based only on the number of ridges is confir­
med when we measure the width of the tooth. As already mentioned
its maximum breadth is now about 63 mm as the tooth is strongly
worn on both sides. Originally it must have been at least 67-70 mm.
Measurements of the length and breadth of a numbe r of mammoth
te eth are given in papers by PAVLOVA (1910) and ZALENSKY (1903) .
The breadth of M1 varies from 42 to 85 mm, with an average of 65
(15 te eth) . The breadth of M2 varies from 60 to 88 mm, with an aver­
age of 76 mm (12 te eth) . On the other hand the breadth of Dp4 is
remarkably smaller and varies from 39 to 54 mm, with an anrage of
45 mm (5 teeth) .
It is obvious that the tooth according to its breadth must either
be M1 or M2. However, it corresponds better with M2 both as to
the number of enamel ridges (ca. 15-16) and length (ca. 150-160)
and breadth (ca. 70-72 mm). As is known M2 has from 12 to 18
enamel ridges and is averagely 151 mm long and 76 mm broad.
Thus one can conclude with comparatively great certainty that
the second mammoth tooth discovered in Vågå in 1933 is a fragment
of a lejt upper M 2 and has belonged to a fully grown animal.
Pl. Il,
The tooth from Ula was discovered by Agent GuNNAR MoEN in
1944, the same man who found the mammoth tooth in Otta in 1910-
1911. He discovered the tooth on a fishing trip along the river Ula,
about 2 kilometers from the place where Ula runs into Lågen (Gud­
brandsdalen) . The tooth, a relatively small fragment, lay among some
large stones on the bank of the river which is flooded in the spring, and
it is sure to have been transported by the river for a considerable
As mentioned above the Ula-tooth represents only a small frag­
ment of a tooth. Originally it was strongly rolled, but became dama­
ged when MoEN picked it up. The original, strongly rolled surface,
can only be seen from one side, the other sides are broken (Pl. Il , B) .
The fragment, however, does not seem to have been much larger. It
consists of two well preserved enamel ridges (Pl. Il , A, B, Il, Il l ) , a
small fragment of the third (I) , and in the worn surface a bit of the
fourth (IV) ridge can be seen. The height of the fragment is 99 mm,
the maximum breadth 70 mm and the length only 30 mm. The grin­
ding surface is slightly concave, indicating that the tooth is a lower
molar. At the bottom of the tooth a clear and deep impression marks
the presence of a strongly absorbed or erroded root (Pl. Il, B, a) .
Of all the measurements mentioned, only the breadth can give us
some information about the position of the tooth in the dentination.
As mentioned above, the maximum breadth is about 70 mm. It
was probably somewhat broader higher up, near the grinding surface.
The tooth is strongly worn on the sides, showing that the breadth
originally must have been at least 72-75 mm, probably more, indi­
cating that we here have a fragment of a M2tooth. The mammoth
tooth from Ula is therefore most probably the lozver second molar (M2).
Some remarks about the earlier known mammoth-teeth
from Norway.
According to BERGERSEN (1932, pg. 381-84) the tooth from Skar­
vangen (Vågå) , most probably consists of 12 enamel ridges and one
isolated denticle right at the back. BERGERSEN discussed the deve­
lopment of the enamel ridges in the front part of the tooth, and men-
tioned that the distance between the front limit of the tooth and the
first enamel stripe seen (<<ersten sichtbaren Schmelsstreifem) (Pl. Il ,
C, b) is about 15 mm. He supposed that this distance was too big,
compared with the condition known in other teeth, and pointed out,
that in front of the first observable enamel stripe (b) one can see a
small triangular-shaped spot (Pl. Il , C, a) , which indicates the presence
of an enamel ridge, now completely worn off. BERGERSEN does not
give any other description of the development of the enamel figures
on the surface of this tooth, but refers to CoLLETT (1911-12) . Trans­
lated to English CoLLETT's description is as follows (CoLLETT, 1911-12
p. 725-26).
<<Enamel stripes form 10 elongated, separate ovals (besides 2 rudi­
ments in the posterior part) . Of these the first one is developed only
on one (out) side and is completely closed (Comp. Pl. Il, C, b) . The
others are also complete with the exception of the 5th, which is
represented by a single enamel stripe only.)> (Italicized here, Comp.
Pl. Il , C, x-x) .
The description is in fact very remarkable. If one remembers the
structure of the mammoth-tooth and the arrangement of the enamel
ridges, it must be obvious that the presence of a <<single enamel stripe)>
is quite impossible. This clearly shows, that CoLLETT has misunder­
stood the enamel figures in the front part of the tooth. His first <<ovah>
(Pl. Il , C. b) represents, in fact, not an enamel ridge, but the bottom
of an enamel fold between two ridges (Pl. Il , C 2-3) . As the tooth is
strongly worn here, the chewing-surface has reached the limit between
the crown and the root, accordingly the bottom of the enamel fold. One
can therefore conclude, that the minute triangular-shaped spot (Pl.
Il , C, a) mentioned by BERGERSEN is not the last trace of an enamel
ridge, but an enamel fold between two ridges (PL Il , C, 1-2) . (BER­
GERSEN (1932, p. 398) described the corresponding condition in the
front part of the tooth from Dovre). This new interpretation of the
development of the enamel ridges in the tooth from Skarvangen, does
not change BERGERSEN's determination of the number of enamel
ridges in the tooth we are dealing with. There are at least 12 of them,
besides one denticle. If we regard this denticle as a minute ridge it shows that the Skarvangen-tooth has 13 ridges. In Pl. Il , C one
can see the surface of the tooth, with the enamel ridges numbered
------- ------------ ------·-------
from l to 12 in the correct way. The dentical in the posterior part is
not visible.
As BERGERSEN points out, the number of the dentine ridges corre­
sponds well with the number known from Dp4, that is from 9 to 12.
The number of the ridges in Mv however, is almost similar - from
9 to 15 (Os B ORK mentioned 12) . It is therefore impossible to deter­
mine, by means of the enamel ridges only, whether the tooth from
Vågå is Dp4 or a M1.
However, if we also take the dimensions of the tooth into consider­
ation, the picture becomes much clearer. According to PAVLOVA
(1910) and ZALEKSKY (1903) the Dp4 teeth are very small. The 5
specimens they have measured vary in length from 82 to 110 mm
(averagely 93 mm) and in breadth from 39 to 54 mm (averagely
45 mm) . As mentioned above, the M1, however, had an average length
of 131 mm and the breadth was 65 mm. As the tooth from Skarvan­
gen is 139 mm long and 66 mm broad it is more probable that it is
the first molar (:\i,), and not, as BERGERSE:-< presumed, the last
premolar (Dp4) .
THE TOOTH FRo:\1 DOVRE (P.M.O. 66487) .
This tooth (BERGERSEN 1932, p. 395--400) shows only 6 ridges.
According to BERGERSEN, however, the tooth is strongly worn and
its posterior part is broken off. He therefore meant that there was
reason to believe that it has consisted of 10 to 12 ridges. BERGERSEN
assumes that we also here have a Dp4 tooth.
But again the dimensions of the tooth are too big. The length is
110 mm (according to BERGERSEN 115 mm) and the maximum breadth
at least 63 mm, probably more. As the front part of the tooth is che­
wed down and the back of it has been broken off, it has obviously
been at least 120-130 mm long. Thus it is most probable that also
the D o v r e t o o t h i s a M1, and not Dp4 as BERGERSEN presumeiii.
The tooth from Otta (BERGERSEN 1932, p. 386-90) IS strongly
e rroded and badly preserved. Only five ridges can be seen. BER­
GERSEN (1932) assumes that it has belonged to a fully grown animal.
The maximum breadth of the largest ridge is 80 mm (according to
BERGERSEN 78 mm). As the cement has completely disappeared, the
maximum breadth has originally been greater, probably not less than
88 mm. This corresponds well with the breadth of the last molars:
M3 (averagely 86 mm and min. 80 mm). The tooth from Otta therefore
most probably is M3•
In the conclusion of his paper (p. 400) BERGERSEN says: <<Die
beiden genannten Zahne (Vågå and Dovre) haben also ganz jungen
Tieren gehi::irt . . . . Man findet nicht haufig fossile Reste eines der­
artigen J �gendstadiums, . . . . Leider erlauben indessen die Fund­
umstande keine weitere Schlussvolgerungen in Bezug auf das Auf­
treten und Aussterben des Mammutes in unserem Lande.)> As we have
seen, this conclusion is not absolutely correct. None of our mammoth
teeth belong to especially young animals, and at least 5 (both tusks
and the teeth from Otta, Ula and the second from Vågå) certainly
come from adult or old animals.
Subspecies of Mammonteus primigenius (BLUMENBACH)
and the Norwegian mammoth-teeth.
In the posthumous volume Il of 0SBORN's monography on Pro­
boscidea (1942) eight different <<subspecies)>* of Mammonteus primi­
geni�ts are more or less completely described. 0SBORN has also at­
tempted to reconstruct the main changes during the evolution of the
species M. primigenius from <<Lower Pleistocene to Postglacial time)>.
In other Proboscidea the evolutionary changes can also be found in
a more complicated development of the grinding teeth.
The number
of the enamel ridges increases, while the breadth of the single ridges
decreases. According to 0SBORN the same tendency can be observed
in M. primigenius, which can be seen from the short description of the
molars in the different subspecies (OsBORN, 1942) .
l) Mammonteus primigenius astensis (DEPERET & MAYET) is the
oldest known subspecies of mammoth and, according to DEPERET &
MAYET (1923), belongs to the Upper Pliocene deposits in North Italy.
In many places in the Monography the word <<specieS>) is incorrectly
used instead of the word <<subspecies>). Comp. pp. 11 37, 1140, 1150, 1156, 1159
---�-��--��----- �--� ��
OsBORN, however, mentioned that it is more probable that the
deposits are from Lower Pleistocene. The two last molars (M3 ) which
have been found have only 19 and 20 comparatively broad enamel
ridges. The ridge-plate compression is 8 in 100 mm.
2) Mammonteus primigenius leith-adamsi (PoHLIG). This is a
diminutive variety of mammoth, determined by PoHLIG (1888) as
belonging to the III-d (?) Interglacial. It was found in Thuringia,
Germany. OsBORN, however, doubts that this form really belongs
to M. primigenius - phyllum, as the molars are a bit too long and
narrow and the ridges are too far apart. According to OsBORN (pp.
1140) there are 19-20. The ridge-plate compression is not deter­
3) Jvfarnmonteus primigenius hydruntinus (BoTn ). This is a
dwarfed race from the cavern of Cardanone, South Italy (BoTn ,
1891). Only one M1 and one Dp4 have been found. Both have 12
ridges. The length of M1 is about 122 mm, and accordingly it has
10 ridges in 100 mm. The geological age is not certain.
4) Mammonteus primigenius fraasi (DIETRICH). This very large
subspecies is based on a complete skeleton discovered in 1910 in
Steinheim a. d. Murr, Germany, and described by DIETRICH (1912).
It belongs to <<Mitteldiluvialen Schotterm. OsBORN, however, deter­
mined the age as III-d (?) Interglacial (p. 1138) and <<Middle (Up­
per ?) Pleistocene>> (p. 1152) . The M3 has 22 ridges and is 270 mm
long. The ridge-plate compression then, is 8 in 100 mm.
5) Mammonteus primigenius primigenius OsBORN. OsBORN is
not quite consistent and clear when he establishes this subspecies.
He only used the term M. primigenius primigenius in a few places
(1942, pp. 1140, 1143) and instead used the term M. primigenius,
<<typical M. primigenius>> (pp. 1143, 1144, 1149, 1150 a. o.) or <<true
M. primigenius<4 (pp. 1143, 1144, 1145 a. o. ). One cannot find the
concise definition of this new subspecies, as the description given on
pp. 1141-1149 concerns species Mammonteus primigenius (BLUMEN­
BACH, 1799, 1803). From this description, however, we get a clear
picture of what OsBORN meant by subspecies M. primigenius primi­
genius. According to OsBORN this subspecies belonged, to the <<Upper
Pleistocene drift (IV Glacial) and Postglacial deposits of the Fourth
Glaciatiom and is widely spread over Europe, Siberia and N. America.
Among the characteristic features of this is the more or less constant
ridge-formula of the grinding-teeth enamel ridges. The M3 has 24
ridges. The ridge-plate compressions are 10 to 12 (normally 10)
in 100 mm.
6) Mammonteus primigenius americanus ( DE KAY) . This sub­
species is based on some molar teeth from Rochester, N.Y. ( DE KAY
1942) . The type specimen has, however, been destroyed by fire.
According to OsBORN, the M3 consists of
ridges. The ridge-plate
compression is 10+ ridges in 100 mm. This subspecies seems rather
problematic and a reexamination based on new and better material
will be necessary.
7) Mammonteus primigenius alaskensis OsBORN. This subspecies*
is based on a series of crania, discovered in 1929 in Fairbank, Alaska
(FRICK, 1933) and preliminarily described by OsBORN in 1942. The
average number of ridges in M3 is 25. The ridge-plate compression
is not mentioned.
8) Mammonteus primigenius compressus OsBORN. This subspecies
is based on skeleton remains from Indiana and Alaska (OsBORN 1924)
and is probably from the Postglacial or retreat period, IV Glacial
(Wisconsin) . The number of ridges in M3 is
and the ridge-plate
compression is unusually great - 13 in 100 mm.
Besides these eight subspecies, at least two others have been pro­
posed by other authors. In 1845 BLAINVILLE mentioned two new
subspecies Elephas primigenius sibiricus and Elephas primigenius
germanicus. In 1923 DEPERET & MAYET accepted the name Etephas
primigenius sibiricus and regarded it as a variety of minute size. Also
ToLMACHOFF (1939) mentioned <<a special race>> from N. Siberia,
<<distinguishable . ... by its smaller size>> (p. 44).
OsBORN, however, believed that these two forms <<perhaps may be
regarded as geographic designations rather than as subspecies>> (1942,
p. 1391).
It seems, however, that the subspecies errected by OsBORN are
more or less indefinable and cannot be used without a revision of the
Incorrectly called <<sp.nov.>> in OsBORN 1942, p. 1159.
whole material. In fact PAVLOVA (1906) described a large M3 from the
New Siberian Islands - consequently a typical M. primigenius primi­
genius OsBORN - with 27 ridges and a ridge compression of only 9
in 100 mm. However, she mentioned that some teeth in the collec­
tion of Moscow University show <<much smaller ridges with thinner
enamel .... )) and therefore must have had higher ridge compressions.
PFIZENl\IAYER (1926) mentioned that the molar teeth of mammoth
from Siberia consist of <<zahlreiche (bis achtundzwanzig, mitunter
dreizig) . . . . Schmelzscheibem (p. 238) . In another paper PAVLOVA
(1910) published a table of the ridge-plate compression in various speci­
mens of mammoth, both from South Russia and Siberia. The table
shows that the compression varies strongly in spite of the fact that
all these specimens must belong to OsBORN's <<typicah> M. primigenius
primigenius. The lowest number of compressions is 7, and the highest
- 12. The most common, however, is 10.
Returning to the �orwegian grinding teeth, we must state that
they do not belong to any of the first four of OsBORN's <<subspecies)>.
They have all the same ridge-plate compression - that is 9 to 10
in 100 mm, and thus correspond well with OsBORN's <<subspecies
.U. primigenius primigeniusi>. The assumed number of the ridges in
the single teeth (where it was possible to determine them) also corrc­
sponds well with the <<typicah> formula proposed by OsBORN. Thus we
have every reason to presume that the mammoth-teeth we are dealing
with belonged to a form which, ;n structure of teeth, corresponds to
the most common form of mammoth, known from Eucpe, Asia and
�. America.
In his monography 0SBORN ( 1 942) does not go into detail as to
the geological age of the <<subspecies)> of 1�!. primigenius primigenius.
In many places, however, he mentions that this subspecies belongs
to <<Upper Pleistocene (IV Glaciation) and postglacial deposits)> (pp.
1137, 1138, 1140, 1141, 1150) . If his supposition is correct, however,
the Scandinavian mammoth-teeth must either belong to the post­
glacial period, or in fact be the oldest known representatives of the
<<true M. primigenius)>. As we shall see later (p. 99) both these as­
sumptions are very improbable.
In the literature on M. primigenius, however, the most common
statement is that <<typical M. primigenius)> is known (in all cases from
------- ------ -------
N. Europe) both from the Ill and IV Glaciation. SOERGEL discussed
the origin (1912) and the distribution (1941) of the mammoth in
Eurasia. In the first paper he emphasized that Elephas primigenius
had developed from E. trogontherii at the end of the Mindel-Riss
interglacial, and according to this is known as early as from Riss
(Ill) Glaciation. In the second paper he mentioned that the typical
mammoth is known <<in Mittel- und J ungdiluvium - vom Risseiszeit
komplex am (p. 32). <<Ueberal findet sich das Mammut in Mittel­
europa . . . in Schottern und Li:issen sowohl des Wiirmeiszeitkomplexes
als des Risseiszeitkomplexes>> (p. 32). In handbooks of historical
geology and palaeontology the distribution of the mammoth is always
assigned to the Ill and IV Glaciation ( ZITTEL, ABEL, KEISER,
As we have seen, OsBORN only mentioned two <<subspecies>> of
Mammonteus primigenius from the Ill Glaciation (Riss) which differ
more or less distincly from M. primigenius primigenius. - They are
A1. p. leith-adamsi, which was a <<diminutive variety>> and M. p.
fraasi - a very large form, both known only from a single specimen
of each. The specimens of M. primigenitts mentioned by other authors
from the deposits of Ill Glaciation, cannot be identical with these
two subspecies.
Consequently OsBORN's determination of <<typical mammoth>> as
a form only known from IV (Wiirm) Glaciation, cannot in any case be
the correct as to Europe. However, no uncertain find of typical mam­
moth from Ill Glaciation has to my knowledge been reported from
N. America.
The fragments of mammoth from Scandinavia clearly indicate
that the mammoth in Middle Europe must have lived during the Riss
Glaciation. Strangely enough the mammoth finds from Sweden,
Finland and Norway are not mentioned by OsBORN, and on his distri­
bution-maps of M. primigenius, Scandinavia, Finland and the north­
em part of European Russia are not coloured black (fig. l 028 and 1241).
TOL.YIACHOFF (1929), however, mentioned that <<east of the White
Sea, in the basin of the Pechora Riven> the fragments of typical
mammoth <<are just as numerous as in corresponding parts of Western
Siberia. West of the White Sea and of the Lakes Onega and Ladoga,
remnants of the mammoth are rare>>. As to the occurrence of mammoth
-----·-- ---·------ ------------·
in Scandinavia, TonrACHOFF referred to LEYL's paper from 1887 (! )
and mentioned that <<Scandinavia . . . . probably even lacked the
mammoth. The rare specimens of mammoth bones found there were,
in LEYL's opinion, brought there by ice or otherwise>>. In the paper
of 0BERMAIER (1924), however, there is a map of the distribution of
Mammoth in Europe. On this map the northern limit is drawn
correctly through Finland and Scandinavia.
When did the mammoth live in Norway ?
In my paper about the mammoth from Fåvang (HEINTZ, 1945)
I dealt with the question of when the mammoth lived in Norway.
I came to the conclusion, that the opinion expressed by most earlier
authors (BJØRLYKKE, 1941, BRØGGER, 1914, COLLETT, 1911, 12,
HOLTEDAHL, 1931, 40, 42, 53, RAMSAY, 1931, REUSCH, 1910 a. o. )
that the mammoth lived in Norway during the last interglacial period,
is correct.
P. GEIJER and 0. KULLING (1945) and later R. SANDEGREN (1950)
are of the same opinion as to the mammoth-fragments discovered in
As mentioned above mammoth-teeth and bone-fragments have
been found in Sweden at 12 different localities (Fig. 2) (SANDEGREN
1950). They are represented by 8 grinding teeth, 6 fragments of tusks
and about 10 fragments of bones (Pilgrimstad). Of these finds
only one has been found in its original position, below the ground
moraine of the last glaciation in deposits from the last interglacial
period. According to the investigation of KULLING (1945) in Pilgrim­
stad the <<Varying amounts of water in the glacifluvial streams caused
the deposits . . . . to fluctuate between varved elay and coarse, stony
gravels. In the varved clay were embedded remains of the vegeta­
tion covering the country between the inland ice and the place of
deposition . . . . The arctic plant remains preserved in the varved
clay were mainly leaves of Dryas octopetala, fragments of Salices
were less frequent and such of Betula nana exceptional. During a
somewhat later stage gravel and sand were deposited by running
water. In the sand, . . . . there were embedded remains of the animals
then living in the region, such as mammoth and reindeen> (p. 60).
As one can see, these deposits must belong to the early part of
the last interglacial period, when the condition, in this part of Sweden
were still arctic. All the other mammoth-finds in Sweden are from
secondary positions, but two of them, according to SANDEGREN (1950)
are undoubtedly from the interglacial deposits. They are the find
from Dosebacka (ALIN & SANDEGREN 1947, SANDEGREN 1950) and
that from Ramsele (SANDEGREN 1950). Five of the finds were made
in the most southern part of Sweden - in Skåne (Fig. 2, 13-16,)­
and therefore naturally belong to the same geographical and geological
region as the finds from Denmark.
The 78 mammoth-teeth and bone-fragments discovered in Den­
mark (NoRDMANN 1905, 1925, 1942,) (Fig. 2) are all, with the exception
of one, found in secondary position. The only fragment which un­
doubtedly lay in its original position in the deposits from the last
interglacial time, is the pelvic-fragment from Ejstrup (NORDMANN
1921) (Fig. 2 A). It was discovered in deposits of spawn and humus­
bearing sand with a rich temperate flora (Picea excelsa, Carpinus
betulus, Stratiotes aloides, Taxus baccata. !lex aquifolium, Pinus sil­
vestris etc.) and fauna (Bythinia leachii, Anodonta sp. Perca fluviatilis,
Abramis brama, Esox lucius, a piece of wood gnawn by Castor fiber,
a cone gnawn by Sciurus vulgaris, fragments of bone of Cervus
However, NORDMANN pointed out that the pelvic of Elephas
primigenius and Elephas an#quus are very alike, and in addition
show strong individual variations. It is therefore impossible to
determine the discovered fragments with certainty. According to
NoRDMANN, however, the pelvic from Ejstrup most resembles the
mammoth-pelvics from Bukovar and Borna, which he studied in
Germany. This is the reason for NoRDMANN concluding the de­
scription with the statement that <<in the last Interglacial time there
was an elephant living in Denmark, and this elephant probably was
a mammoth}> (p. 17, translated). GEIJER (1945), however, remarks
that the temperate flora and fauna discovered together with elephant­
fragments, make it more probable that we here have Elephas antiquus
and not Elephas primigenius, especially if we take into consideration
the fact that teeth of E. antiquus were later found in Denmark (NoRD­
MANN 1930). I am of the same opinion, and I find it reasonable,
to believe that the fragments from Ejstrup do not belong to Mamm o n ­
teus (Elephas) primigenius.
The other 77 mammoth-fragments were all found in a secondary
position. All, except 5, were found in glacial deposits inside the
limit of the last glaciation (NoRDMANN 1921, p. 7) (Fig. 2). This
indicates that they belong to animals, living befare the last glacial
period. But NoRDMANN meant that we cannot say when and where
the animals have lived, except for the not very much enlightening
fact that they lived inside the region from which the advancing last
glaciation could remove them.
However, if we look at the map of Denmark and S. Sweden (Fig.2)
we can clearly see, that the mammoth-finds are distinctly accu­
mulated in the region of the end-moraine from the last glaciation.
These have already been mentioned by NATHORST (1894) and AAGAARD
(1896). Mammoth-fragments may therefore have been transported
from many different localities at varying distances from Denmark
and S. Sweden - probably from Norway, N. Sweden, Balticum etc.
As to the single finds from Denmark and S. Sweden, we must
mention, that some of them are more or less strongly damaged, frac­
tured, rolled and show distinct stripes - indications that they must
have been transported varying distances by the ice. However,
some finds are unusually well preserved, and do not show any kind
of damage. I can here mention the grinding-teeth from Højballe­
gaard, Sæbberup, Friedsted, Kollindsund, Hesselager, Glænø and Mog­
enstrup (AAGAARD 1896, NORDMANN 1921, 42) , and especially the tooth
from Snoghøj (DREYER JøRGENSEN 1940). In some cases bone and
tooth-fragments, probably belonging to the same individual were
found near to each other (Børup Sand, Kallerup, Nymølle( ?) NoRD­
MANN 1921, 42) . In yet other cases comparatively fragile bones were
more or less well preserved when they were found (fragments of
vertebrates, Langaa and Børup Sand, NoRDMANN 1921, 42). All these
facts make it probable that they have not been exposed to a long
transport, as already mentioned by DREYER JøRGENSEN (1940).
In any case it seems reasonable to presume that some of the mam­
moth-finds from S. Sweden and Denmark belong to animals, that
have lived in the neighbourhood of the localities where the fragments
have been found.
Fig. 2.
Finds of mammoth-remains in Xorway, Sweden and Denmark.
No r w e g i a n
f i n d s:
1- Skarvangen
4- Vågå, 5- Ula, 6- Fåvang, 7- Jessheim.
S w e d i s h
2- Otta, 3- Dovre,
f i n ds
8- Frason,
9- Pilgrimstad, 10- Sattna, 11- Dosebacka, 12- Bårslo,-, 13-16- Lockarop, Arrie,
and Skump. 17 - Ramsele, 18 - Sollefteå - D a n i s h f i n d s
numbered (compare Xordmann 1942). The limit of the last glaciation marked
with •· After
e, the
1950 and
Elephas antiquus
It is more difficult to answer the question of when the mammoth
lived in these districts. The mammoth is a typical arctic animal.
It lived in the tundras and on the steppes and normally not in the
forests (SoERGEL 1941, OsBORN 1942). During the Riss-Glaciation
Denmark was completely covered with ice, and no animals could live
there. The climate was definitely no colder during the last interglacial
than it is now. Denmark and S. Sweden were covered by temperate,
mostly deciduous forests (fossil plants from Ejstrup, NoRDMANN
1921). This fact makes it very improbable that the mammoth really
belongs to the fauna of Denmark at that time, especially if we re­
member that Elephas antiquus and probably E. trogontherium lived
in Denmark in the last interglacial (fossil from Ejstrup( ?), Uglebjerg
and Steinsigmose Strand. NoRDMANK 1942).
It therefore seems most reasonable to presume, that the mammoth
lived in Denmark for only a comparatively short period. This should
then be at the beginning of the last interglacial (Riss-Wurm), when
the climate was still arctic, and the animals followed the retreating
glaciers towards the north, and in the beginning of the last glaciation,
when the climate became arctic, and the animals migrated southwards
in front of the advancing glacier. We can probably regard the most
weathered and damaged fragments from Denmark as belonging to
the beginning of the last interglacial, and the best preserved as
belonging to the beginning of the last glacial.
As mentioned above, 5 of the finds from Denmark, have been made
outside the endmoraine of the last glaciation (in Vestjylland: Fjaltring
Kirke, Bøvling Enge, Bjerghuse, Sædding and Sønder Omme).
NoRDMANN (1942) means that this should indicate that they cannot
be younger than from the second interglacial (Mindel-Riss), as Den­
mark was completely covered by ice during the Riss-glaciation. As
far as I can see, however, none of these 5 finds have been made in
the deposits from the second interglacial or the third glacial (NORD­
MANN 1904, 21, 42; AAGAARD 1896), although deposits of both these
periods have been discovered in Vestjylland. The five teeth in quest­
tion are no more weathered or damaged than many others that have
been found in the eastern part of Denmark. I therefore find it very
reasonable to believe that these teeth also belonged to animals that
lived in the last interglacial, and not in the preceding one. The fact
Fig. 3.
Map showing the district of Central Korway, where the grinding-teeth
of mammoth
been found.
200 m.
The localities are marked with
The part above 1000 m is dotted.
No railroads,
roads or settlements are marked on the map.
that they were found outside the limit of the moraine from the last
glaciation, must not be regarded as a proof against this supposition.
Thousands of mammoth-teeth found in Poland, Germany, Russia
etc. outside the end moraine of the last glaciation have undoubtedly
belonged to animals that have lived partly in the last interglacial,
partly in the last glacial periods.
If we now turn to the teeth from Norway, we see that the 5 grin­
ding-teeth which have been found, have all been discovered in the
same district in central Norway, that is Vågå-Otta-Dovre (Fig. 3).
This district lies between the three greatest mountain-ranges in
S. Norway: Jotunheimen (to the SW), Rondane (to the E) and Dovre
(to the N). The teeth were found in, or by, streams and brooks.
Thanks to a scholarship from the Nansen Foundation, I had
Fig. 4. General view to the north of Skarvangen seter-grend. Skarvangen seter
-the house furthest to the left in the background. The River Skjerva
runs in a deep
valley behind the house furthest to the right in the
Photo A. Heintz.
during the summer of 1952 the opportunity of visiting all the locali­
ties where the grinding-teeth have been found. In the whole district
the glacial and fluvioglacial deposits are strongly developed. In many
places the moraines and terraces caused by ice-dammed lakes are
especially large.
The first tooth discovered in 1886, was found near Skarvangen
seter (Fig. 4). It lay among boulders in a brook, which CoLLETT
(1911-12), ØYEN (1916), BERGERSEN (1932) and others called the
<<Milthaug>>-brook. However, this name, cannot be found on newer
maps. People living in Skarvangen seter (=chalet) do not know it
either, but point out, that the tooth was found by Storbekk (=
Large brook) which is between Skarvangen and Milthaugseter, and
flows out into the river Skjerva. Skjerva-river is a tributary to the
river Finna, which runs into the Vågå-lake. The Skarvangenseter lies
about 926 m a. s. l. in a typical glacial landscape (Fig. 6). A marked
terrace, caused by an ice-dammed lake, can be seen on both sides of
Skjerva (Fig. 7). Typical <<dead-ice>> pits are also preserved here
(Fig. 5). The landscape is comparatively open, except for the deep
------- ------
and narrow valley, where the river flows. The mountains around are
not very high (about 1200-1500 m). The Skarvangen-tooth is very
well preserved - the best preserved tooth which has been found in
Norway. It is only slightly rolled, and the cement is practically not
weathered at all. It is therefore very probable that it has not been ex­
posed to a violent or long transportation, and that the animal it came
from, died in the vicinity of the district where the tooth was
The second tooth from the Vågå-district (p. 74, Fig. 3, Pl. I) was
found near the place where the river Finna flows into the Vågå­
lake. It consequently belongs to the same river-system as the first
Vågå-tooth, but was found about 12 km from Sk;arvangen and ca.
550 m lower down. It is comparatively well preserved, although
it is strongly rolled. The cement is erroded from the sides and the
back of the tooth is broken off. This clearly shows that it has been
transported for a considerable distance.
The third tooth, belonging to the same river-system, is the first
tooth from Otta (BERGERSEN 1932). It was found near the railway­
station at Otta on an island in the river Otta, which comes from the
Vågå-lake. This locality lies about 40 km from Skarvangen and about
610 m lower down. The tooth is very damaged and weathered indeed
and represents only a few lamellae of a large tooth. From this we can
tell that it has been carried a long way by the river, and that it has
been subject to very rough transportation.
The two last Norwegian mammoth grinding-teeth were discovered
.in two other river-systems (Fig. 3). The second tooth from Otta (p. 77)
was found in the lower part of the river Ula, which comes from the
Rondane-mountains district. As mentioned above, it was a strongly
rolled fragment of a tooth, which indicates a long transportation
and strong wear (Pl. Il, A, B). Not far from the place where the
tooth was discovered, one can on the side of the river bed see a wea­
thered white moraine, forming remarkable earth pillars, called <<Kvit­
skriuprestinm> (= the white screw priests). In a paper published in
1943 (a) K. STRØM draws the conclusion, that this moraine <<is older
than the last glaciation, and thus has had a long enough time for
sufficient consolidation during interglacial time and the last glaciatiom.
STRØM mentioned as one trait, which seems to confirm his theory <<that
A. HEii-nz
------- ------ · --------
Fig. 5.
The dead-ice pond in the typical glacial landscape between Skar­
vangen seter (in the background) and Storbekken-brook.
towards the south.
Picture taken
Photo A. Heintz.
the Ottadal and Gudbrandsdal yield all the existing six finds of
interglacial mammoth. These valleys have thus not been scoured
dean of loose deposits, and there is every reason to believe that at
least abundant material of moraines from tlie glaciation preceding the
last is preserved>> (1943, a). In another paper STRØM (1943, b) in
addition mentioned that <<during the last glaciation . . . . the movement
of the glacier was moderately near the iceshed and in the deep valleys
parts of the loose deposits with mammoth-teeth have avoided the
transportation by the glaciers>> (translated).
When STRØM published these papers, the tooth from Ula had not
yet been discovered. This find can therefore be regarded as a corro-
Fig. 6.
The glacial deposits north of Skarvangen seter, cut through by Stor­
bekken, which runs along the gravel and sand ridge, behind the houses
in the middle of the picture.
Photo A. Heintz.
boration of his theory, One must, however, remember, that it is
very improbable, that the mammoth-tooth was preserved in the
<cKvitskriuprestinm-moraine if this moraine really is from the Riss­
glaciation, as STRØM presumed. As a matter of fact this would indi­
cate, that the mammoth has lived in Norway in Mindel-Riss inter­
glacial, and that the tooth has <coutlived)> two glaciations!
The last grinding-tooth was found not far from Dovre railway­
station (BERGERSEN 1932) on an island in Lågen - the river which
runs through Gudbrandsdalen. It was comparatively well preserved
and not rolled, but slightly weathered. The points of the roots and
a small part of the back are missing. It seems to be the best preserved
tooth, apart from the tooth from Skarvangen. It was found about
475 m a.s.l. We may presume that the transportation has not ''een
especially long or rough. Near Dovre station, there is a ravine with
a brook which on one side is enclosed by a steep slope formed of a
compact, light moraine. This slope is weathered just like the Kvit­
skriuprestinn-moraine in Ula-valley, and also the material in the
moraine shows a resemblance. However, there are no distinct pyramid
Fig. 7.
The terraces along the east (in the background) and the west (to the
left in the foreground) sides of the Skjerva-river valley.
north of Skarvangen seter.
Just to the
The picture is taken near Storbekken in
direction north.
Photo A. Heintz.
earth-pillars, but very deep vertical cracks dividing the moraine­
slope into narrow, high columns, which do not decrease very much
towards the top. Unfortunately, I did not have much time to study
the deposits in detail. If my impression is correct and the mentioned
moraine-deposits near Dovre station correspond to those in the Ula­
valley, it will prove that moraines of this kind have a greater exten­
sion. If they really are from the Riss-glaciation, it confirms STRØM's
theory that the districts in the inner part of Gudbrandsdalen were
comparatively undisturbed during the last glaciation.
We may thus conclude that the grinding mammoth-teeth discover­
ed in Norway belong to three different river-systems, from three
mountain-ranges: l) The teeth from Skarvang, Vågå and Otta
belong to the river-system Otta-Vågå-Skjerva - and thus to the
Jotunheimen-region. 2) The tooth from Ula-valley belongs to the
Rondane-region. 3) The tooth from Dovre belongs to the Dovre­
As for the two tusk-fragments (from Fåvang, HEINTZ 1945, and
Jessheim, BERGERSEN 1932) it is obvious, that they have been
transported for some distance, and this makes it difficult to ascertain
from which district they have come. We only know that they belong
to the Gudbrandsdalen river-system.
The problem is, if we can give a more positive answer to the ques­
tion: when and where did the mammoth live in Norway?
As we have heard, SoERGEL stated that <<Das Mammot erschien
in Mittel-europa mit dem Aufkommen eiszeitlichen KlimaverhaJt­
nisse, es erreicht mit dem Hochstand der Vereisungen seine grosste
Verbreitung. In den Zwischen-eiszeiten ist es bei uns verschwunden.. .
Es war den warmeren Klima und den weitgreifenden Bewaldung aus­
gewichen nach N und NO>> (1941, p. 33). We must therefore presume,
that the mammoth, following the retreating ice of the Riss glaciation,
migrated through Denmark and S. Sweden into the mountain-district
of central Scandinavia. In fact the find in Pilgrimstad confirms that
the mammoth lived in central Sweden in the beginning of the last
interglacial. As mentioned it is probable that some of the finds from
Denmark also belong to the period when the mammoth migrated to
the north. During most part of the last interglacial the climatic con­
dition in Scandinavia and Denmark was probably the same as it is
now, or slightly warmer. As the mammoth did not live in the forests,
we have every reason to presume that it belonged to the fauna of the
high mountains- in central Norway the districts round Jotunheimen,
Rondane and Dovre.
The carcasses of mammoth which have been discovered in the
frozen earth in Siberia have given us an opportunity to study the
vegetation on which they lived. TOLMACHOFF (1933) gives a list of
plants found in the stomach and between the teeth of the Berosovka­
mammoth. I have asked Head-curator J. LID of the Botanical Mu­
seum, Oslo, to study the list and let me know which of the mentioned
plants also can be found in Norway. Head-curator LID kindly gave
me the following account: <<Hypnum flutitans ( =Drepanocladus flu­
titans) and Aulacomnium turgid�tm are two mosses which are very
common in the mountains of Norway, and they are also very common
in the Arctic . . . . D. flutitans is found on wet marshes, . . . A. turgidttm
on dryer marsh or firm earth. Mosses are regarded as very poor food
and animals do not usually eat them.. . ... . But both these mosses are
so plentiful in our mountains, that the mammoths probably have eaten
them for want of better food, especially the leafy and juicy Hypnum
Alopecurus alpinus Sm. is a widely spread grass in the
Arctic. It is not known from Scandinavia, but from Greenland, Sval­
bard and Scotland. It thrives best on wet places e.g. grass-marshes.
Beckmannia eruciformis (L) - a grass, which grows right up to the
shore of the Polar-Sea in Siberia. A closely related species B. syzt:­
gachne is known from Norway.
Hordeum violace�tm Boiss, et Huet, a grass which is known from
the Caucasian, Iran and Iraq, but not from Scandinavia.
Agropyrum cristatum (L), a grass which is widely spread in Siberia,
Mongolia and China. It is only found occasionally in Scandinavia.
Carex langopina ( = C. Lachenallii) and Ranunculus acris (L) are
common in the high mountains of Norway on hills and near the
shore. Oxytropis sordida (Willd.) ( =Oxytropis campestris (L) subsp.
scordida (Willd.) Hartm.) can be found on the hills and moors of
According to this list of plants, I think there is reason to believe
that the vegetation in the high mountains of Norway would be quite
adequate for the mammoth even to day>>. (Lm, letter to the author,
From other carcases of mammoth and rhinoceros, discovered in
Siberia (ToLMACHOFF 1933, PFIZENMAYER 1926) one could determine
traces of the following plants: undeterminable grasses, ericacea
(probably Vaccinium Vitis Idea) remains of Betula and Salix and
wood and needles of conifera as Picea, Abies, Larix and Ephedra.
Four of these plants are common in Norway today, partly in the high
mountains, and partly lower down in the valleys.
As a result of this comparison we can state, that the flora which
we have in the high mountains today, and probably also had during
the last interglacial period, seems to be suitable for the mammoth.
Like the reindeer of today, the mammoth probably migrated lower
down into the valleys in the winter, and its winter diet probably
consisted mainly of branches of coniferas, betula and other trees,
mosses and lichens. If the climatic condition during the last inter­
glacial was almost similar to that of today, the mammoths have lived
in the high mountain plains about 1000-1200 m a.s.l. If the climate
was warmer, they could have found suitable places to live in still higher
parts of the mountains, which now are covered by ice and snow. In
the previously mentioned paper (1943, b), S TRØM pointed out that the
mammoth has lived in Norway <<in arctic climate towards the end of
the last interglacial period>> (p. 18, translated). In my opinion there
is no reason to believe that the mammoth only lived in Norway at the
beginning and towards the end of the last interglacial, as was the case
e.g. in Denmark. On the contrary I presume that the mammoths had
their haunts in the Norwegian and partly in the Swedish high moun­
tains, and probably also in the northern districts of Scandinavia
(Lappland, Finmark), and that they lived here in great numbers
throughout the last interglacial. During the last glaciation they re­
turned from these places and from NE Russia to Central Europe. In
this connection it is interesting to note, that, according to ToLMA­
CHOFF (1933) <<east of the White Sea . . in the basin of the Pechora
Riven> mammoth-fragments <<are just as numerous as in corresponding
parts of western Siberia>>. It will be remembered, that the part of
NE Russia referred to here, was not covered by the last glaciation,
and therefore, in the same way as in Siberia, the fossil remains of
mammoth were not removed or destroyed by ice. In the districts west
of the White Sea, which were covered by the last glaciation, the <<re­
mains of mammoth are rare>> (TOLMACHOFF 1933) exactly as in
The mammoth is not the only representative of the fauna charac­
teristic of th e arctic districts in the glacial and in te rgla cia l period in
Europe and Asia. Among the larger mammals the horse is mentioned
as one of the most habitual companions of the mammoth. The woolly
rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis Bl.) is also very common, besides
reindeer (Rangifer tarandtts) and bison (Bison priscus). The musk-ox
(Ovibos moschatus) on the other hand is much rarer ( O BERMAIER,
1924, P AVLOVA, 1906, P FITZDfMAYER, 1926, SOERGEL, 1941, TOL­
MACHOFF 1939).
Of all these animals only musk-ox and reindeer fragments have
been found in the interglacial deposits in Scandinavia.
In Denmark a fragment of the cranium of a m�tsk-ox has been
found in Bannebjerg near Hilderød (N oRDMANN 1905) in moraine
deposits. In Sweden two rather uncertain fragments of foot-bones
of musk-ox have been described one from Døsebacka, Bohuslan
(J.ALIN & SANDEGREN 1947,MUNTHE 1904),and the other from Fri:isi:in,
Jamtland (0. RuLLING 1945); in both places fragments of mammoth
were discovered in the same localities. In Norway hvo well preserved
vertebrae of musk-ox were found in 1913 near Indset in the northern
part of the Dovre mountain-district ca. 425 m a.s.l., ca. 110 km north
of Otta (BJØRLYKKE 1913, HoLTEDAHL 1953, REuscH 1913, 0YEK
1913, 1916). The vertebrae were found ca. 8-9 m below the surface
- in a railway-cut. They lay in a stratified gravel-layer approxi­
mately 1-2 m thick near the limit of the sand-layer underneath. On
top of the gravel-layer there was a 2-3 m thick sand-layer with some
stripes of fine gravel. This sand-deposit was in turn covered by 3-4 m
of moraine. Both BJØRLYKKE and REUSCH, who had visited the
section the same summer as the discovery was made, pointed out,
that the sand and gravel-deposits beneath the moraine must probably
belong to the interglacial deposits. In any case the vertebrae of the
musk-ox are so well preserved, that it is out of the question that they
had been transported for a long distance. Any way the rather fragile
bones could not have stood being carried away by the ice. These
facts indicate, that the deposits where the bones were discovered,
really are of interglacial origin, and consequently supports STRØM's
(1943 a, b) assumption that some districts of central Norway were
comparatively untouched during the last glaciation.
Reindeer-fragments from interglacial time have only been found
at Pilgrimstad in Sweden. A piece of a reindeer-antler was discovered
here together with mammoth-bones. (KuLLIKG 1945). The reindeer­
fragments, which are quite often found in Denmark, are all from
post-glacial time. NoRDMANN, however, points out that some of
these finds may have been from interglacial deposits. He especially
mentioned one fragment of an antler discovered dose to the farm
Holbæk, near Christiansfeld (Slesvig), as possibly belonging to depo­
sits (<<Rullestens-Dannelse)>) older than the last glaciation (NoRDMANK
1905, p. 37).
In Norway fragments of reindeer-bones are only known from
interglacial deposits in Blomvåg, NW of Bergen. (HOLTEDAHL 1953
UNDÅS 1942). But as there still are reindeer living in Norway, finds
of reindeer-fragments are quite common, and people do not pay
special attention to them. Therefore it is not impossible that some
of the fragments found in Norway really may belong to <<interglaciah
animals. However, this cannot be proved as long as the circumstances
of the finds are not known in detail. Even then it might be difficult
to determine the age of the finds. Let us for instance take all the
finds of mammoth grindingteeth in Norway: they do not give any
direct evidence that the animals lived during the interglacial period.
And if they had not been mammoth-teeth, but reindeer-antlers, no
one would have regarded them as belonging to the interglacial.
This also applies to the teeth of horses, which there are plenty
of in Scandinavia. NoRDi\IA�=" writes that the oldest horse-fragments
found in Denmark, are from the Bronze-Age, and therefore believes
that there were no wild horses in Denmark in late or postglacial time.
Fragments of horses from the early Stone Age have been found in
Sweden and Norway.
However, teeth of horses have been found in various parts of
�orway and in different deposits. In most cases they are certain
fragments of more or less recent animals, but it is often very difficult
to tell their age.
It is quite probable that the wild horse and also the reindeer and
musk-ox, followed the mammoth on its retreat from Central Europe
to the Scandinavian Mountains at the beginning of the last inter­
glacial period. If we remember that both in Central Europe and in
Siberia there were more remains of wild horses (also Equus cabalus
jossilis) found together with the mammoth than that of any other
animal ( SoERGEL, 1941, PAVLOVA, 1906), it would be very strange
if the horse had not followed the mammoth into the high mountains
of Scandinavia, too. A more dose investigation of the finds of horse­
teeth, will perhaps show, that also the wild horse belongs to our
interglacial fauna.
Additional Remarks.
After having received the first proof of this paper, I have read
the paper of B. A. TICHOMIROV and L. A. KcPRIJANOVA: «lssledo­
vanie pylzy is rastitelnych ostatkov picshhi Beresovskago mamonta•>
(«lnvestigation of pollen in the vegetable food-remains from the
Beresovka-mammoth>>. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, Vol. XCV,
No. 6, 1954). In this paper the authors describe the results of a pol­
lenanalysis of the stomach-contents of the Beresovka-mammoth.
About 3 gr. were studied and about 8220 pollen-grains were isolated.
The greater part of the pollen belongs to grasses (7966 or 97,09 %),
only 13 (0,17 %) to different trees (A b i es, A l n u s, Bet u l a
and S a l i x) and the rest to half-grasses and various meadow plants.
In the conclusion, the authors state that the mammoths lived in a
more temperate climate than that which is found in the Beresovka­
district today, and that the Beresovka-mammoth in fact at the
moment of its death, lived in the forest zone. This conclusion, how­
ever, contradicts the investigations on the distribution of mammoths
made in Europe and America (SoERGEL 1941, OsBORN" 1942).
I have asked Professor K. FÆGRI, Bergen to look through the
analysis-results, and in a letter to me he says that it is difficult to
give a definite conclusion based on the published list (52 different
plants). According to FÆGRI it is, however, most probable that the
Beresovka-mammoth have lived during sub-arctic conditions,
corresponding to the birch zone in the Norwegian mountains, per­
haps somewhat higher up.
C. E. 1896. Rester af utdøde Elefanter i nordiske glaciale Aflej­
ringer. Med. Dansk geol. For. Ed. l. Nr. 3.
ABEL, O. 1919. Die Stamme der Wirbeltiere. Berlin & Leipzig.
ARCHANGELSKIJ A. D. 1932. Geologicheskoe Stroenie SSSR (Geological struc­
ture of USSR). �KTP. Leningrad, Moskva.
AuN J. t och SANDEGREN R. 1947. Dosebackaplatån. Geologisk beskrivning
av fyndorten for mammut och myskoxe vid Dosebacka, Romelanda
socken, Bohuslan. Sv. geol. und. Ser. C. Xo. 482.
BERGERSEN B. 1932. Die Mammutfunde in Norwegen. N. geol. Tids. Ed. 11.
*BLAINVILLE H. M. D. DE 1839-64. Osteographie ou Description Iconographi­
que comparee du Squelette et du systeme Dentaire des Mammiferes. III.
BJORLYKKE K. O. 1913. Fundet av en halshvirvel av moskusokse ved Aust­
berg i Indset. <Naturen>>. Ed. 37.
- 1941. Geologi. Fjerde utgave. Oslo.
La Grotta Ossifera di Cardamone in Terra D'Otranto. Bull.
Soc. geo!. Ital. VI. 9.
BRøGGER, W. C. 1914. Norges geologi. Norge 1814-1914. Ed. 2. Krist.
CoLLETT R. 1911-12. Norges pattedyr. Aschehoug.
*DE KAY ] . E. 1842. �atural History ofNew York. Part I. Zoology: Zoology
of New York or the New York Fauna. New York, Boston & Albany.
*DEPERET CH. & MAYET L. 1923. Les Elephants Pliocenes. Ann. Vniv. Lyon.
Nv. Sr. I - Sciences, Medicine.
*DIETRICH \V. 1912. Elephas primigenius Fraasi, eine schwabische Mammut­
rasse. Jahresh. Ver. Naturk. Wiirtenb. VI. 68.
DREYER JøRGENSEN K. 1940. To nye Fund af Tænder af Elephas primi­
genius Blum. i Danmark. Med. Dansk geo!. For. Ed. 9, H 5.
*FRICH CH. 1933. New Remains of Trilophodont-Tetrabelodont Mastodons.
Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 59, Art. 9.
FRODIN G. 1916. Ett par nyare svenska mammutfynd. Geo!. For. Forh. Ed.
38. H. l. Stockholm.
GAVELIN A. 1935. Ett nytt mammutfynd. Geo!. For. Forh. Ed. 57.
HEINTZ A. 1945. Et nytt mammutfunn fraNorge. N. geo!. tids. Ed. 25.
1951. Et nytt mammutfunn fra Norge. <Naturen» nr. 17.
HoLTEDAHL O. 1940. Geologi. Aschehoug. Oslo.
1942. Vår forunderlige klode. Aschehoug. Oslo.
1951. Hvordan landet vårt blev til. Cappelen.
1953. �orges Geologi. )J. geo!. und. 164. Oslo.
KAYSER E. 1924. Lehrbuch der Geologie. Ed. IV. Geologische Formations­
kunde Il. Ferdinand Enke. Stuttgart.
KuLLING OsKAR 1945. Om fynd av mammut vid Pilgrimstad i Jamtland. Sv.
geo!. und. Ser. C. No. 473.
MAGNUSSON, GRANLUND, LuNDQVIST, 1949. Sveriges Geologi. Stockholm.
NoRDMANN V. 1905. Danmarks Pattedyr i Fortiden. Danm. geo!. Und. III
Række Xr. 5.
*BoTn, U. 1891.
Nyere Fund af Elefant-Levninger i Danmark.
Med. Dansk geol.
nr. 4.
, MADSEN V. 1928. Oversikt over Danmarks Geologi. Danm. geo!. Unj.
V Række, Nr. 4. 1928.
1942. Tillæg I til <Kyere Fnnd af Elefant-Levninger i Danmark,>. Med.
Dansk geo!. For. Ed. 10, H. 2.
OBERMAIER H. 1924. Fossil Man in Spain. Yale Univ. Press.
OsBORN, H. F. 1924. Parelephas in Relation to Phyla and Genera of the Family
Elephantidæ. Am. Mus. Kovit. No. 152.
Proboscidea. Vol. I. Mæritherioidea, Deinotherioidea,
Mastodontoidea. New York 1936. Vol. Il. Stegodontoidea, Elephant­
oidea. New York 1942.
Bd. 6,
M. 1906. Deacription of the fossil mammals collected on Russian
Arctic Expeditions in 1900-1903 (Russian). Mem. l'Acad. Imp. Sden.
St. Petersbourg. VIII Ser. Cl. Phys.-Mat. Vol. 21, Nr. 1.
1910. Les Elephants Fossiles de la Russie. Kov. Mem. Soc. Imp. des
1:\at. de Moscou. Tm. 17. Liv. 2. Moscou.
PFIZENMAYER E. \V. 1926. Mammutleichen und Urwaldmenschen in Kordost­
Sibirien. F. A. Brockhaus. Leipzig.
*PoHLIG H. 1S88. Dentition und Kraniologie des Elephas antiquus Falc. mit
Beitragen iiber Elephas primigenius Blum. und Elephas meridionalis
Xesti. 1:\ova Acta Leop. Carol. 53. Halle.
RAMSAY, 1931. Geologiens grunder. Ed. 2. Stockholm.
RE US C H, H. 1910. Korges Geologi. N. geol. und. Bd. 50. Kristiania.
1903. Findestedet for moskusokse-hvirvelen. <<�aturen» Bd. 37.
RoMER, A. S. 1945. Vertebrate Paleontology. Chicago.
SA)! DEG REX, E. 1950: Mammutfynden från Ramsele och Sollefteå. Geo!.
For. Forh. Bd. 72, H. 2.
SrMPSO)I, G. G. 1945. The Principles of Classification and a Classification of
Mammals. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Vol. 85. New York.
SoERGEL, \V. 1912. Elephas trogontherii Phol und Elephas antiquus Falc.
Palaeontographica Ed. 10.
1941. Der Klimacharakter des Mammuts. Paleont. Zeit. Ed. 22.
STRØM K. Mi.i NSTE R 1943 a. The Uldal earth pillars. N. geogr. tids. Ed. IX,
h. 5.
1943 b. Geologiske bilder fra Rondane. N. Turistf. årbok.
ToLMACHOFF I. P. 1933. The Carcasses of the Mammoth and Rhinoceros
found in the frozen Ground of Siberia. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. N. Ser.
Vol. 23.
UNDÅS I. 1943 Fossil funnet i Blomvåg. <Naturen» Ed. 66.
ZALENSKY, \V. 1903. Recherches osteol. et odontograph. sur le mammouth
(E. primigenius Blum.) et les elephants (E. indicus et E. africanus Blum.)
(en russe). L'Acad. Imp. de Seien. St. Petersbourg.
ZrTTEL, K. 1923. Grundztige der Palaontologie. Il Abt. Vertebrata. Munchen
& Berlin.
ØYEN, P. A. 1913. Mammut og moskusokse i Korge. <Naturen>> Ed. 37.
1916. Mammut og moskusokse i vort land. Festskrift til prof. Amund
The papers which have not been available to the author are marked with a. *
Manuscript received February
23, 1954.
Plate I.
The tooth from Yågtt seen from the ldt
right (D)
grinding surface (C).
and c"- cement, d, and d"- dentin, e, e', e" ande'"- enemal,
x-fragment of a enamel ridge.
Photo D. 1\Iauritz.
S- the bottom of the Sth enamel-fold.
Plate l l.
\ and B
the tooth from l 'la seen from the leJt
l l,
and lY
ant l from t Iie
l'hoto B. :\Iauritz.
C- Grinding surface of the touth from Skarvangen (Vågå). a-- the tri­
angular shaped spot, indicating a cumpletely worn enamel fold. b
the bottom of the enamel fold between the enamel-riclge 2 and 3. x-x
-the <<single enamel-stripe•> according to CoLLETT.
ber of the singel enamel-ridges.
l to 12 -the num­
Photo B. :\Iauritz.
Report inappropriate content