tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post2025763820152340553..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Genetic variation in Native Americans consistent with archaeologyDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73246019475310693382013-05-21T07:14:30.693+03:002013-05-21T07:14:30.693+03:00"Terry, you've been advocating the anthro..."Terry, you've been advocating the anthropogenic factor as the sole cause of Pleistocene extinctions. I believe that humans were a contributing factor, next to climate, geography, etc. The paper and the abstract support my balanced and data-driven position, not your extreme and biased one". <br /><br />Well. More evidence has been found: <br /><br />http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10884722<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />'Among late-surviving mastodons he has studied, Dan is finding examples of females losing calves (where one pregnancy is immediately followed by another, rather than by two years of lactation) and of males going into musth early (just as young bull elephants do in Africa, when mature males are poached out). Dan had also found examples of mammoths dying in the autumn, a time of year when they should have been in peak condition. Autumn deaths argued for an extrinsic cause of death. For Dan, all this could be pinned on one such cause: overhunting by humans". <br /><br />"Far from rampaging across the continent, killing every large mammal in sight, it seems ancient hunters may have had a more subtle, but no less terminal impact. Over thousands of years, the level of hunting was just enough to be unsustainable for these huge, slow-breeding behemoths of the ice age". terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30197841548550797242013-04-27T21:59:47.776+03:002013-04-27T21:59:47.776+03:00I am a person derived from both Indo-European and ...I am a person derived from both Indo-European and Amerind branches of humanity. Opinion will not stand against empirical evidence. I am y=R1b and mtDNA=H, from my dad & mom; but my dad is possible mtDNA=B, since my g-ma was 1/8th Amerind. Looks to me like an Asian origin has become clear, from DNA analysis, for Amerinds. I agree that the 'mass extinction' must be seen as taking rough 3000 years.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05973690723450838702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61613429757587717132011-03-24T13:27:58.870+02:002011-03-24T13:27:58.870+02:00""That's what we see in the African ...""That's what we see in the African and European archaeological record".<br /><br />And in Australia and America."<br /><br />Yes, to a certain extent, but if we believe the out of Africa story humans colonized the globe through a series of bottlenecks, whereby only a subset of the source population entered the new areas such as America and Australia. But that should mean that the pressure on the megafauna must have been greater in the source areas than in the colonized areas. But it's precisely in Africa that the megafauna survived the most. From my perspective, Australia was colonized by humans, America, Europe and Siberia experienced a population growth at the end of the Ice Age as new territories became available for occupation. But contrary to a common belief the pattern of Pleistocene extinctions is in stark contradiction with the serial bottleneck vision of human dispersals out of Africa. If they were well correlated, then we would've seen 1) massive extinctions in Africa between 200-50K and thereafter as populations of modern humans evolved and expanded throughout Africa from a single location; 2) a similar to Africa level of extinction in Europe after 50K; 3) restricted extinctions in Australia after 50K; 4) restricted extinctions in the New World after 12K.<br /><br />The pattern of extinctions is in contradiction with the out of Africa model. The nature of the hunting toolkit in Africa and Europe (well-developed, well-differentiated) vs. SEAsia, Australia and pre-Clovis America (underdeveloped) is in contradiction with the single anthropogenic factor explanation of extinctions.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83155743072934486792011-03-24T01:15:30.109+02:002011-03-24T01:15:30.109+02:00"the abstract says:
"Slow-breeding anim..."the abstract says:<br /><br />"Slow-breeding animals also were hard hit, regardless of size. This unusual extinction of large and slow-breeding animals provides some of the strongest support for a human contribution to their extinction and is consistent with various human hunting models, but it is difficult to explain by models relying solely on environmental change".<br /><br />Sounds to me as though they agree humans were responsible.."<br /><br />Terry, you've been advocating the anthropogenic factor as the sole cause of Pleistocene extinctions. I believe that humans were a contributing factor, next to climate, geography, etc. The paper and the abstract support my balanced and data-driven position, not your extreme and biased one. Also, although the authors claim that there's a pattern pointing to humans as a cause whereby only large and slow-reproducing animals went extinct, it's misleading. Human foragers are large and slow-reproducing animals themselves and they didn't need that much meat to maintain their numbers. Also, although size and reproduction rate do correlate, slow-reproducing animals died out regardless of size.<br /><br />"So you do accept that humans hunted mammoths."<br /><br />This is ridiculous, Terry. Humans hunted mammoths, Neanderthals hunted mammoths, wolves and saber-tooth cats hunted mammoths. Pygmies continue to hunt elephants. With no extinctions to follow. We should be talking about unsustainable hunting only.<br /><br />"But climatic change certainly does not coincide with the extinctions in Australia."<br /><br />I'm not 100% sure about that. In any case, while the climate explanation has its challenges in Australia, so does the anthropogenic one: early Australians didn't have the toolkit nor the dogs to execute the blitzkrieg. Plus archaeological evidence of the association between human hunting and megafauna is very sparse in Australia. We should exclude habitat alteration through fires, too, per recent research. One curious aspect of Australian Pleistocene fauna is the complete absence of predators prior to the arrival of humans. Maybe the megafauna was slowly deteriorating in the absence of a need for struggle for survival.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71688559517922578702011-03-24T01:01:59.480+02:002011-03-24T01:01:59.480+02:00"I can't access the whole paper"
Ho..."I can't access the whole paper"<br /><br />How about this one: www.langkau.my/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Louys-20072.pdf<br /><br />"Only because it allows you to believe what you want to believe."<br /><br />There was no climate change in Africa, and the megafauna survived there. There was a climate change in Southeast Asia (sea level, etc.) and the megafauna went extinct there. The toolkit of the first Australians or SEAsians wasn't more advanced than that of Neanderthals. Neanderthals co-existed with the megafauna for hundreds of thousands of years. Human populations were quite large in Africa and Europe - the two regions the least affected by the extinctions. Human populations in America and Australia were very sparse - and continued to be in the historical period - but the megafauna went extinct there. Technologically, bows and arrows and Solutrean/Clovis-type projectile points appear first in the African Middle Stone Age, but these advanced technologies didn't yield any extinctions. Clovis projectile points are of Middle Paleolithic type flake-biface, not attested in Siberia, how could they represent a migration of Siberian hunters into the New World bringing extinction to the megafauna?<br /><br />These are all stubborn facts not my beliefs.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60459566906562405612011-03-23T06:26:21.395+02:002011-03-23T06:26:21.395+02:00"Coincidence is perfectly fine with me"...."Coincidence is perfectly fine with me". <br /><br />Only because it allows you to believe what you want to believe. <br /><br />"another good paper to read is this one: Late Quaternary Extinctions" <br /><br />I can't access the whole paper but the abstract says: <br /><br />"Slow-breeding animals also were hard hit, regardless of size. This unusual extinction of large and slow-breeding animals provides some of the strongest support for a human contribution to their extinction and is consistent with various human hunting models, but it is difficult to explain by models relying solely on environmental change". <br /><br />Sounds to me as though they agree humans were responsible. And they certainly do not agree with you when you say: <br /><br />"You are asking medieval questions, Terry". <br /><br />Climate change cannot have been responsible for megafauna extinction. They do concede that: <br /><br />"the timing and geography of extinction might have been different and the worldwide magnitude less, had not climatic change coincided with human impacts in many places". <br /><br />But climatic change certainly does not coincide with the extinctions in Australia. <br /><br />"There's no 'generally accepted date' for human arrival in Australia". <br /><br />I disagree. Around 50,000 years is fairly generally accepted by most scientists in Australia. A very few claim older dates, but these are considered unlikely by most. <br /><br />"That's what we see in the African and European archaeological record". <br /><br />And in Australia and America. <br /><br />"This would be the case for Amerindians and Australian aborigines". <br /><br />No it wouldn't. The population expansion shows they were not subject to any such level of predation. <br /><br />"show me the correlation curve between the number of overkill sites and the decreasing population of mammoths" <br /><br />There certainly seems to be a 'correlation curve' between the number of humans and the decreasing population of mammoths. <br /><br />"how could primitive foragers kill of over a hundred of genera of megafauna?" <br /><br />Easily. <br /><br />"Humans are hunters and they hunted mammoths". <br /><br />But just a minute ago you wrote: <br /><br />"Terry you still don't understand how science works: you have to provide evidence (cut marks, embedded projectile points, etc., plus a quantitative analysis of species population in proportion with the number of sites attesting to human hunting, etc.)" <br /><br />So you do accept that humans hunted mammoths. <br /><br />"YOU have to provide the positive evidence that human hunting made megafauna go extinct". <br /><br />And that is absolutely impossible to find. You would have to be able to prove that the last mammoth had been killed by humans. That is why you are able to claim the 'benefit of the doubt'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47930546610670913662011-03-22T03:41:38.850+02:002011-03-22T03:41:38.850+02:00Terry, another good paper to read is this one: Lat...Terry, another good paper to read is this one: Late Quaternary Extinctions: State of the Debate, by<br />Paul L. Koch and Anthony D. Barnosky // Annual Review of Ecological and Evolutionary Systems 2006. 37:215–50. It gives an overview of all possible angles on the problem, without advocating for a conspiracy theory. Look for it online or go to the library.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60662245397522027442011-03-22T00:10:49.761+02:002011-03-22T00:10:49.761+02:00"There is absolutely no evidence that megafau..."There is absolutely no evidence that megafauna numbers were diminishing in Australia at all before they suddenly died out at the generally accepted time of human arrival."<br /><br />There's no "generally accepted date" for human arrival in Australia. If megafauna is Australia went extinct at 45,000, humans may not have got to Australia for another 5,000 years. Or they may have arrived there by 60,000 years.<br /><br />"Coincidence? I don't thinlk that is likely."<br /><br />Unlikely is not impossible, plus how can you measure likelihood here? Coincidence is perfectly fine with me. Terry you still don't understand how science works: you have to provide evidence (cut marks, embedded projectile points, etc., plus a quantitative analysis of species population in proportion with the number of sites attesting to human hunting, etc.), not an abstract "likelihood." <br /><br />"And you would benefit from reading the recent book "Australia's Mammal Extinctions" by Chris Johnson."<br /><br />I read it. <br /><br />"I was not aare of any species extinction in SE Asia during the Pleistocene. What species is the author refering to?"<br /><br />I referenced the paper. Now go online and locate it. Then read it.<br /><br />"If there were extinctions in the Pleistocene on what grounds can the author then claim that humans were not responsible for them?"<br /><br />That's not how it works, Terry. YOU have to provide the positive evidence that human hunting made megafauna go extinct. If there was evidence for that in the archaeological record, then the author would've reported it. But there's none.<br /><br />"The implication of lack of extinction before then may just indicate the human population was very sparsely distributed until then."<br /><br />Finally, Terry, you are learning from the data, not from your own biases.<br /><br />"The sequence went like this..."<br /><br />I'm not going to address your continuing attempt to convert coincidence into causality. Show me the overkill sites in Estonia, show me the correlation curve between the number of overkill sites and the decreasing population of mammoths, and we'll talk. For now, "humans almost certainly had a hand in that extinction" is nonsense. Humans are hunters and they hunted mammoths. Unsustainable hunting is a whole another issue. This needs to be proven.<br /><br />"How could climate change and niche competition lead to hyena extinction when they had survived both many times before?"<br /><br />You are asking medieval questions, Terry. To this I'll answer with another question: how could primitive foragers kill of over a hundred of genera of megafauna?<br /><br />"They ar not 'slow-reproducing' animals. The females breed at two years and produce one offspring a year."<br /><br />More than 30 genera of megafauna went extinct in North America. That's way more offspring per year than caribou and bison can deliver. Foragers are "slow-reproducing," too, hence they didn't need that much food.<br /><br />"And if humans behaved like most other species their numbers would increase exponentially once they entered a previously uninhabited region."<br /><br />That's what we see in the African and European archaeological record.<br /><br />"Neanderthal population may have been kept in check by predators, or genetic diseases resulting from inbreeding."<br /><br />This would be the case for Amerindians and Australian aborigines.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-49925494255882508352011-03-21T03:24:20.732+02:002011-03-21T03:24:20.732+02:00Apologies to Dienekes but I missed some of German&...Apologies to Dienekes but I missed some of German's comments. <br /><br />"it's a combination of various factors, including climate change, human hunting, niche competition with other species" <br /><br />How could climate change and niche competition lead to hyena extinction when they had survived both many times before? <br /><br />"Lower Pleistocene in Africa also witnessed megafauna extinction, which again suggests, if hominid hunting was responsible for it, that a trans-continental hominid migration is not a necessary condition". <br /><br />Quite. It actually shows that Africans have been quite capable of leading other species to extinction for quite some time. But I'm not blaming them. The arrival of any new species upsets any 'balance' that may exist. <br /><br />"Chris Johnson at least acknowledges that the lack of advanced hunting tools in the earliest Australian archaeological record constitutes a problem for the overkill hypothesis". <br /><br />But he then sets about explaining exactly how it was possible, even extremely likely. <br /><br />"Neither the caribou, nor the buffalo went extinct, though, as a result of the indigenous effort". <br /><br />Of course not. They ar not 'slow-reproducing' animals. The females breed at two years and produce one offspring a year. <br /><br />"So, only after human technology and population numbers cross a certain threshold that they can exert a systematic negative impact on ecology and approximate climate change in its wide-ranging and lasting consequences". <br /><br />But for slow-reproducing animals that threshold of human population numbers is much lower. And if humans behaved like most other species their numbers would increase exponentially once they entered a previously uninhabited region. Neanderthal population may have been kept in check by predators, or genetic diseases resulting from inbreeding.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10681555698216120152011-03-21T03:12:54.224+02:002011-03-21T03:12:54.224+02:00And another thing. You and Maju are very much ali...And another thing. You and Maju are very much alike. I've pointed out to him that the pandas' range contracted as the humans' range expanded. Pandas survive only in regions humans have just recently entered, and are heading rapidly to extinction in those regions. He argues I have no dates for either the panda range contraction or the human range expansion. But I'd bet any amount of money that dates for the two events can be ascertained they will coincide. <br /><br />Some time back you claimed: <br /><br />"It's one of your favorite circular argument". <br /><br />The sequence went like this: <br /><br />1) Humans may have had a hand in mammoth extinction. <br />2) Mammoths in Estonia survived until 8,000 BC. <br />3) That may have been because humans hadn't reached Estonia by then. <br />4) Humans arrived in Estonia sometime between 8,500-11,000 BC. <br />5) Conclusion: Humans almost certainly had a hand in that extinction. <br /><br />That is hardly a circular argument. But try this: <br /><br />1) Humans cannot possibly have caused mammoth extinction in Estonia or ground sloth extinction in America. <br />2) Something must ahve caused the extinctions. <br />3) Mammoths became extinct when the climate changed, ground sloths became extinct soon after their diet changed. <br />4) Climate change caused mammoth extinction in Estonia, vegetation change caused ground sloth extinction in America. <br />5) Humans cannot possibly have caused mammoth extinction in Estonia or ground sloth extinction in America. <br /><br />Now that's a circular argument.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24651852413339948352011-03-21T02:54:28.846+02:002011-03-21T02:54:28.846+02:00"If Y-DNA E comes from a back-migration to Af..."If Y-DNA E comes from a back-migration to Africa and corresponds to the development of microlithic industries, population growth (for which there's archaeological evidence) and increased big game hunting, then Y-DNA hgs A and B (assuming they were present in Africa prior to the migration of hg E and didn't come to Africa as a parallel coastal migration) represent a human population with a different system of adaptation, which didn't exert much pressure on the environment. Perhaps, the original carriers of Y-DNA hgs A and B scavenged and fished rather than hunted". <br /><br />That is my guess. <br /><br />"the Pleistocene Southeast Asian toolkit appears to have been unsuited to the hunting of large game". <br /><br />That may be relevant. <br /><br />"It's possible that humans were just the last drop in the long process of megafauna deterioration in Australia caused by increasing aridity". <br /><br />There is absolutely no evidence that megafauna numbers were diminishing in Australia at all before they suddenly died out at the generally accepted time of human arrival. <br /><br />"The temporal association between last megafauna and first humans in Australia is, therefore, likely a coincidence". <br /><br />Coincidence? I don't thinlk that is likely. <br /><br />"By extension, this likely means that humans who colonized Australia (ultimately, from SEA) couldn't have been responsible for megafauna extinction there". <br /><br />It is surely becoming more and more likely that the megafauna extinction in Australia was caused purely and simply by humans. <br /><br />"You may benefit from reading Binford's Faunal remains from Klasies River Mouth (1984)". <br /><br />And you would benefit from reading the recent book "Australia's Mammal Extinctions" by Chris Johnson. Concerning SE Asia: <br /><br />"It is clear that the dramatic environmental changes occurring throughout the Pleistocene detrimentally affected the abundance and distribution of megafauna in the region". <br /><br />I was not aare of any species extinction in SE Asia during the Pleistocene. What species is the author refering to? <br /><br />"Conversely, there is very little evidence to suggest that Pleistocene Southeast Asians negatively affected the megafauna until the Holocene". <br /><br />If there were extinctions in the Pleistocene on what grounds can the author then claim that humans were not responsible for them? And surely the extinctions in the Holocene coincide completely with the arrival of Neolithic Humans. The implication of lack of extinction before then may just indicate the human population was very sparsely distributed until then. In fact I suspect the mountains were probably uninhabited until the Neolithic.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60598911266091214832011-03-20T04:08:51.228+02:002011-03-20T04:08:51.228+02:00Southeast Asia also furnishes ample support for my...Southeast Asia also furnishes ample support for my position. <br /><br />"It is clear that the dramatic environmental changes occurring throughout the Pleistocene detrimentally affected the abundance and distribution of megafauna in the region. Conversely, there is very little evidence to suggest that Pleistocene Southeast Asians negatively affected the megafauna until the Holocene. Direct, unequivocal evidence of human hunting of megafauna in Southeast Asia is non-existent for either Homo erectus or archaic Homo sapiens, and it appears that hunting of megafauna by modern Homo sapiens did not become unsustainable until the past 2000-3000 years (Corlett, 2007). Furthermore, the Pleistocene Southeast Asian toolkit appears to have been unsuited to the hunting of large game. Pleistocene stone tools from Southeast Asia consisted largely of choppers, and did not achieve the sophistication of the European toolkit until the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene (Reynolds, 1990; Corvinus, 2004). Habitat alteration by humans also appears to have been negligible until the Holocene, and human-induced firing of the landscape appears to have become important only in the past 1400 years (Anshari et al., 2001). The negative ecological effects of humans in region have, however, escalated since the beginning of the Holocene." (Louys, "Quaternary extinctions of Southeast Asia’s megafauna," 2007).<br /><br />By extension, this likely means that humans who colonized Australia (ultimately, from SEA) couldn't have been responsible for megafauna extinction there. The temporal association between last megafauna and first humans in Australia is, therefore, likely a coincidence. It's possible that humans were just the last drop in the long process of megafauna deterioration in Australia caused by increasing aridity.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26364803137509480142011-03-19T18:35:37.634+02:002011-03-19T18:35:37.634+02:00"True. But is appears as though effective big..."True. But is appears as though effective big animal hunting did not develop until something like 50,000 years ago, presumably through the development of new technolgy or tecniques. And that is evidence for a back-movement into Africa at some time. Perhaps Y-hap E fits."<br /><br />One more thought on that. If Y-DNA E comes from a back-migration to Africa and corresponds to the development of microlithic industries, population growth (for which there's archaeological evidence) and increased big game hunting, then Y-DNA hgs A and B (assuming they were present in Africa prior to the migration of hg E and didn't come to Africa as a parallel coastal migration) represent a human population with a different system of adaptation, which didn't exert much pressure on the environment. Perhaps, the original carriers of Y-DNA hgs A and B scavenged and fished rather than hunted. <br /><br />In any case, judging by the pattern of African extinctions, without a climate change, even the microlith-equipped, expanding E people couldn't do much damage to the megafauna.<br /><br />You may benefit from reading Binford's Faunal remains from Klasies River Mouth (1984). In it, Binford aims at evaluating the relative roles of scavenging versus hunting in the subsistence tactics of ancient hominids, in this case the populations of the Tzitzikama Coast of South Africa in the Late Pleistocene. He questioned and contradicted the conclusions of Richard Klein and other believers in the "man the hunter" and "Pleistocene overkill" myths and considers these people of the South African Middle Stone Age not efficient hunters of large game but in a transitional stage between a virtual reliance on scavenging and the development of elementary hunting techniques that at least allowed them to take small antelopes.<br /><br />All of this means that modern humans are capable of two adaptation strategies: invasive and non-invasive. Hence, from the timing of Pleistocene extinctions, you absolutely can NOT divine the physical presence of ancient humans, but only the presence of a particular type of adaptation. Going back to the New World, there must have been a human population that significantly pre-dated the population of big game hunters that participated (with climate change) in bringing Pleistocene extinctions on the local megafauna.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14281718023796746802011-03-19T14:12:33.282+02:002011-03-19T14:12:33.282+02:00"required tecniques."
In North America,..."required tecniques."<br /><br />In North America, indigenous hunter-gatherers practiced collective caribou (in Subarctic) and buffalo (on the Great Plains and in the Great Basin) hunting for millennia. In the 18th century indigenous buffalo hunters even acquired horses to optimize their hunting technique. Neither the caribou, nor the buffalo went extinct, though, as a result of the indigenous effort. Only European leisure hunting, using firearms, led to the extinction of the bison in the Great Basin (by 1840) and placed the bison on the verge of extinction on the Great Plains. So, only after human technology and population numbers cross a certain threshold that they can exert a systematic negative impact on ecology and approximate climate change in its wide-ranging and lasting consequences.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38860184000720173882011-03-19T14:02:34.541+02:002011-03-19T14:02:34.541+02:00"So when you pose the question, 'Were the..."So when you pose the question, 'Were the Late Pleistocene climatic changes responsible for the disappearance of the European spotted hyena populations?' the answer is a resounding: NO."<br /><br />I've been always saying, Terry, it's a combination of various factors, including climate change, human hunting, niche competition with other species, and who knows what else that caused extinction and dwarfing of the megafauna. But it's climate change that provided the first and continuing impetus. This made humans compete with other carnivores for niches, and the latter in turn drove herbivores to extinction. So, the large herbivores suffered from the compounded impact of changing climate, human and animal carnivore hunting.<br /><br />"True. But is appears as though effective big animal hunting did not develop until something like 50,000 years ago, presumably through the development of new technolgy or tecniques. And that is evidence for a back-movement into Africa at some time. Perhaps Y-hap E fits."<br /><br />This is an interesting idea, Terry. Finally, you're shifting gears from advocacy to analysis. Although apparently bows and arrows and Clovis/Solutrean-looking projectile points appear during the Middle Stone Age in Africa. Lower Pleistocene in Africa also witnessed megafauna extinction, which again suggests, if hominid hunting was responsible for it, that a trans-continental hominid migration is not a necessary condition.<br /><br />"Presumably because they hadn't developed the required tecniques."<br /><br />Australian aborigines at 50-40,000 years didn't have an Upper Paleolithic hunting toolkit either. If, according to you, they caused megafauna extinctions in Australia, then Neanderthals should've caused it in Europe. Chris Johnson at least acknowledges that the lack of advanced hunting tools in the earliest Australian archaeological record constitutes a problem for the overkill hypothesis.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6086021759140105622011-03-19T03:47:39.556+02:002011-03-19T03:47:39.556+02:00"Everything - simple logic, archaeological fa..."Everything - simple logic, archaeological facts and sophisticated paleoecological analyses - revolts against Terry's pet theory". <br /><br />I think you're reading the wrong papers.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81543568173395024032011-03-19T03:46:49.564+02:002011-03-19T03:46:49.564+02:00German, thanks for the link. But even in the abst...German, thanks for the link. But even in the abstract I read: <br /><br />"Climatic conditions in Southern Europe during the Late Pleistocene remained within the spotted hyena climatic tolerance. Hence, climate changes could have directly affected the Northern distribution of the species during the last glaciations. However, climate change alone is not sufficient to have caused the disappearance of the spotted hyena populations in Southern Europe. That is, other factors, such as prey abundance or human ecological impacts, in addition to climatic change, are needed to completely account for extinction of the European spotted hyena". <br /><br /><br />So when you pose the question, 'Were the Late Pleistocene climatic changes responsible for the disappearance of the European spotted hyena populations?' the answer is a resounding: NO. <br /><br />"Climate change explains both the migration of humans to Estonia and the disappearance of mammoths. Humans did hunt them not doubt, but you haven't provided any evidence that human hunting caused their extinction. Past climate changes had a different affect on the megafauna". <br /><br />Why would that be so? To quote you,'you haven't provided any evidence'. Human presence is the only different factor. <br /><br />"Africa and Europe were occupied by humans and hominids the longest" <br /><br />True. But is appears as though effective big animal hunting did not develop until something like 50,000 years ago, presumably through the development of new technolgy or tecniques. And that is evidence for a back-movement into Africa at some time. Perhaps Y-hap E fits. <br /><br />"Then Neanderthals and African archaics would have killed off the slow reproducing megafauna before modern humans. But, again, they didn't". <br /><br />Presumably because they hadn't developed the required tecniques.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-4247643221279716482011-03-18T15:25:12.652+02:002011-03-18T15:25:12.652+02:00Terry,
Here's a recent article on hyenas in E...Terry,<br /><br />Here's a recent article on hyenas in Europe. Climate change was the major factor in their extinction.<br /><br />Were the Late Pleistocene climatic changes responsible for the disappearance of the European spotted hyena populations? Hindcasting a species geographic distribution across time, by Sara Varela et al. 2010.<br /><br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-504CNMB-2&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f469f973392fcc512b16193032d6962e&searchtype=a<br /><br />@Strat<br /><br />"Terry, German is opposed to accepting anything that is in contradiction with his pet theory."<br /><br />Quite the opposite. Everything - simple logic, archaeological facts and sophisticated paleoecological analyses - revolts against Terry's pet theory.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78708535771600876832011-03-17T23:53:14.438+02:002011-03-17T23:53:14.438+02:00"Surprise, surprise. Especially considering t..."Surprise, surprise. Especially considering that mammoths had survive innumerable similar changes of climate before that time."<br /><br />Climate change explains both the migration of humans to Estonia and the disappearance of mammoths. Humans did hunt them not doubt, but you haven't provided any evidence that human hunting caused their extinction. Past climate changes had a different affect on the megafauna.<br /><br />"The study of ecology is actually the study of the inter-action of species."<br /><br />Sure. The individual species paradigm explores the interaction between an individual species and its environment over the period of its existence. Humans are part of it, no doubt, so are other species.<br /><br />"The 'single anthropogenic factor' of human arrival is the one factor they all have in common."<br /><br />Only in your mind's eye, Terry. Africa and Europe were occupied by humans and hominids the longest and hominid numbers were there the greatest, but these are precisely the areas where megafauna ended up relatively spared. This simple fact kills the anthropogenic factor theory.<br /><br />"And you seem to believe that God was looking after the megafauna and making sure that human hunting did not interupt their existence in any way."<br /><br />Not at all. Sometimes and in some places humans contributed to their extinctions, in other places they apparently spared them. But humans are not the sole, straightforward factor.<br /><br />"I have tied top point out to you many times that hunting pressure of slow-reproducing species does not have to be extreme to lead inevitably to extinction."<br /><br />Then Neanderthals and African archaics would have killed off the slow reproducing megafauna before modern humans. But, again, they didn't.<br /><br />"And that sums up in one sentence why you are so opposed to accepting humans were responsible for megafauna extinction. It contradicts any 'out of America' scenario."<br /><br />The current theories of the peopling of the Americas can't withstand a close scrutiny because they are steeped in myths like "Pleistocene overkill." In any case, even the overkill theory can't hurt out of America because the "single anthropogenic factor" idea has to admit that humans and megafauna can co-exist peacefully, as the African record demonstrates. Pygmies continue to hunt elephants without the latter going extinct. So, this could've happened in the New World in pre-Clovis times. Then the big projectile points were invented, populations grew and megafauna became as easier prey and a roadblock to better niches.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65450728653961660262011-03-17T19:06:00.693+02:002011-03-17T19:06:00.693+02:00"And that sums up in one sentence why you are..."And that sums up in one sentence why you are so opposed to accepting humans were responsible for megafauna extinction. It contradicts any 'out of America' scenario."<br /><br />Terry, German is opposed to accepting anything that is in contradiction with his pet theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43536066842221928472011-03-17T03:44:32.602+02:002011-03-17T03:44:32.602+02:00"Question: When did humans arrive in Estonia?..."Question: When did humans arrive in Estonia? Answer: Sometime between 8,500-11,000 BC. When the climate changed". <br /><br />Next question: When did mammoths become extinct in Estonia? Answer (quoting you): the mammoths in Estonia survived until 8,000 BC" <br /><br />Surprise, surprise. Especially considering that mammoths had survive innumerable similar changes of climate before that time. Are you in the pay of those advocating carbon tax? <br /><br />"The idea is that every species has it's own history of emergence, survival and extinction". <br /><br />Yes, but that 'history of emergence, survival and extinction' does not take place in a vacuum. The study of ecology is actually the study of the inter-action of species. So to examine each species separately seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to obscure the fact that many different species became extinct at the same time. You can concoct a theory that doesn't include humans to account for a single species' dissappearance, but it is much more difficult to do so if you consider the extinctions together. <br /><br />"One single anthropogenic factor is just too simplistic, especially when we still know very little about those extinct species". <br /><br />We know a great deal about when each of them became extinct. The 'single anthropogenic factor' of human arrival is the one factor they all have in common. <br /><br />"because none of the remains of ground sloth recovered to date are associated with human hunting (butchering sites, projectile points embedded in bones, cut marks, etc)". <br /><br />That is completely irelevant. I have tied top point out to you many times that hunting pressure of slow-reproducing species does not have to be extreme to lead inevitably to extinction. Make some small effort to find some papers on the subject, please. <br /><br />"You attribute to foragers the destructive powers of biblical God". <br /><br />And you seem to believe that God was looking after the megafauna and making sure that human hunting did not interupt their existence in any way. <br /><br />"But there's no evidence that hunter-gatherers hunt the source of their livelihood to extinction". <br /><br />There is plenty of evidence that humans have done so in historic times. And even during recent pre-history. <br /><br />"it stands to reason that ground sloth didn't need human intervention to go extinct". <br /><br />Sounds suspiciously as though they did need human intervention to go extinct. They'd survived quite well for a very long time before humans arrived. And survived massive climate change. <br /><br />"But then the dung analysis suggested that diet may have been the reason". <br /><br />That change in diet was presumably a result of change of vegetation. But the change in vegetation was itself almost certainly the result of decrease in the megafauna numbers, rather than being simply associated with climate change. <br /><br />"And there's no evidence that the Late Pleistocene hunters in the New World came from Asia, rather than increased in size in-situ and developed more powerful hunting tools". <br /><br />And that sums up in one sentence why you are so opposed to accepting humans were responsible for megafauna extinction. It contradicts any 'out of America' scenario.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30953957353148941762011-03-16T17:04:38.299+02:002011-03-16T17:04:38.299+02:00"No it isn't. It's becoming clearer t..."No it isn't. It's becoming clearer to me by the day."<br /><br />No doubt about it, it's called "illusion." <br /><br />"Are you sure they didn't develop it simply to avoid facing the obvious?"<br /><br />If something that happened 12,000 years ago is "obvious" to my contemporary, then I will have to say that my contemporary is most likely wrong. The idea is that every species has it's own history of emergence, survival and extinction. One single anthropogenic factor is just too simplistic, especially when we still know very little about those extinct species.<br /><br />"Yes. because the extinction of the megafauna changed the ecology."<br /><br />You attribute to foragers the destructive powers of biblical God. Do you know that the bison actually split into 2 distinct species as a result of the actions of your "angry red man"? <br /><br />"But there is just one common factor in all the extinctions."<br /><br />There's no "one common factor in this extinctions." Hunter-gatherers hunt. It's a fact. They hunt big and small animals. That's why they are called "hunter-gatherers." But there's no evidence that hunter-gatherers hunt the source of their livelihood to extinction. And there's no evidence that the Late Pleistocene hunters in the New World came from Asia, rather than increased in size in-situ and developed more powerful hunting tools. <br /><br />"How does that tell us that humans didn't hunt them?"<br /><br />I thought you knew "how": because none of the remains of ground sloth recovered to date are associated with human hunting (butchering sites, projectile points embedded in bones, cut marks, etc). Unless you believe humans strangled them, it stands to reason that ground sloth didn't need human intervention to go extinct. But then the dung analysis suggested that diet may have been the reason.<br /><br />"When did humans arrive in Estonia?"<br /><br />Sometime between 8,500-11,000 BC. When the climate changed.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83721053631719409962011-03-16T03:55:27.866+02:002011-03-16T03:55:27.866+02:00"The more we correspond, Terry, the fuzzier t..."The more we correspond, Terry, the fuzzier the 'pattern'"<br /><br />No it isn't. It's becoming clearer to me by the day. <br /><br />"He analyzed coprolites and argued that ground sloth went extinct because its diet changed from herbivore-friendly to herbivore-deadly. They did coprolite analysis". <br /><br />How does that tell us that humans didn't hunt them? <br /><br />"BTW, in the New World, a number of small animals went extinct, too". <br /><br />Yes. because the extinction of the megafauna changed the ecology. There are numerous papers on the subject. <br /><br />"Humans do hunt, so do other predators, climate does change, mammoths did go extinct, they could go extinct through a variety of ways" <br /><br />But there is just one common factor in all the extinctions. <br /><br />"The best way to approach Pleistocene extinctions is through the so-called 'individual species' paradigm developed by American ecologists". <br /><br />An 'individual species paradigm' is a pretty strange thing for an 'ecologist' to develop. Are you sure they didn't develop it simply to avoid facing the obvious? <br /><br />"It's one of your favorite circular argument" <br /><br />OK. Tell me. When did humans arrive in Estonia?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55142962203653088912011-03-15T17:14:07.624+02:002011-03-15T17:14:07.624+02:00"But the time of mammoth extinction on those ..."But the time of mammoth extinction on those islands coincides remarkably with the mammoth extinction on the nearby mainland. So in what way are those islands 'a special case'?"<br /><br />Humans do hunt, so do other predators, climate does change, mammoths did go extinct, they could go extinct through a variety of ways, on islands the human factor may have played a larger role than on mainland. It's very simple. The best way to approach Pleistocene extinctions is through the so-called "individual species" paradigm developed by American ecologists. See the works by Elin Whitney Smith, among others. The only reason why you believe humans are responsible for extinctions is because you take a very abstract, decontextualized view of the matter. And then you fit in all exceptions, as they come in, using a circular argument. <br /><br />"Presumably becasuse they hadn't reached Estonia."<br /><br />It's one of your favorite circular argument.<br /><br />"How do you know that?"<br /><br />I read about it. See, e.g., Hansen, R. M. 1978. Shasta ground sloth food habits, Rampart Cave, Arizona. Paleobiology vol. 4 p. 302-319. He analyzed coprolites and argued that ground sloth went extinct because its diet changed from herbivore-friendly to herbivore-deadly. They did coprolite analysis.<br /><br />"Mammoth, mastodon, rhinoceros, giant deer, hyena, sabre-tooth cat (and other lage cats), cave bear. All large slow-reproducing mammals. fits the pattern."<br /><br />The more we correspond, Terry, the fuzzier the "pattern." BTW, in the New World, a number of small animals went extinct, too.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28081648183393392432011-03-15T11:04:01.056+02:002011-03-15T11:04:01.056+02:00"Island geography is a special case".
..."Island geography is a special case". <br /><br />Perhaps. But the time of mammoth extinction on those islands coincides remarkably with the mammoth extinction on the nearby mainland. So in what way are those islands 'a special case'? <br /><br />"Plus mind you nobody has reported direct archaeological association between the remains of megafauna on these islands and human hunting". <br /><br />So it's a complete coincidence that mammoths died out very soon after humans arrived there? Besides which I pointed out that just a very small increase in predation of slow-reproducing animals is enough to cause extinction. <br /><br />"In the New World, the giant sloth went extinct, although it was never hunted". <br /><br />How do you know that? <br /><br />"And the mammoths in Estonia survived until 8,000 BC, long after humans had re-colonized northern Europe". <br /><br />Presumably becasuse they hadn't reached Estonia. <br /><br />"very few species of big game disappeared: 7 of 23 in Europe" <br /><br />Let's see: Mammoth, mastodon, rhinoceros, giant deer, hyena, sabre-tooth cat (and other lage cats), cave bear. All large slow-reproducing mammals. fits the pattern.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com