Re: weapons and Megafauna


"prd" <X_header@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:k6bwf.435611$zb5.117498@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In sci.archaeology message news:dpqjhb$5pq$2@xxxxxxxxx by "Uwe
> Müller" <uwemueller@xxxxxxxxxx> . . . :
>
> > Mammoth were animals of the cold steppe, groups of them might
> > have been passing through this terrain, but it was nowhere near
> > central to their style of living.
>
> They migrated into other regions, and the point was the only way they
> could get from point A to Point B is some areas would have been to
> travel down these riparian corridors. Since they have been found on
> the peripheral grasslands it probably means that they were traveling
> in some kind of seasonal modality down the corridors.
>

> snip >
> >
> >>During these period mammoths may have
> >> been able to roam out of the highlands into the valleys at
> >> will. So this is another explanation as to why some instances
> >> of megafauna could survive.
> >
> > What would mammoth want in the highlands? They are animals of
> > the cold steppe.
>
> Because the climate in more southern latitudes at higher elevations
> is comparable to the climate in higher latitutudes at lower
> elevations, so as these animals range to the south they would
> probably have favor climates of elevation, particularly in the summer
> time.

That's like saying the climate of further north is more like it was during
the glaciation. That's not quite correct. One central factor is humidity,
the cold steppe adjacent to the glaciers was 'very' dry. Some higher
elevations tend to be very wet.

Second thing is the growing season for the flora. It might be shortened by
lack of rain/water, summer temperatures, less hours of sunshine.

Both factors created a habitat for the mammoth, and it was perfectly adapted
to that habitat. Compared with the change of climate and flora the
introduction of a new predator would have been but a minor nuisance.

In the links provided was a thing about the excavation of a mammoth hunters
huntig camp, people that were specialised in mammoth. During 4000 years they
had got at least 86 animals. If you multiply that toll by a 100, for other
camps, groups etc. you arrive at 2.3 mammoths killed per year.

>
> > In Europe they are numerous too, called kjoekkenmoedinger.
>
> I am assuming that the european shell mounds of <30,000 years ago are
> not progenitors of the eastern shell mound cultures of >30,000 years
> ago.

Most of the coastal areas of Europe > 30.000 is submerged now, chance is, we
won't know till a lot later (next major glaciation). You couldn't rule out a
common ancestor nor a direct link.

> snip >

>
> No but it shows that humans could eliminate ranges, and if these
> extreme ranges were place mammoths migrated to when things got bad,
> it could mean that they would be cut off. If this style of hunting
> occurred in many places on the fringe then during times of intense
> climatic change a species could get pushed in essentially traps.

I'd rather guess that the spreading of forests was essentiell because it
destroyed the winter feeding grounds of the mammoth, permanently. Where it
did not occur, as on Wrangel Island (being too far north) mammoth did not go
extinct.

Humans have certainly played their part, no doubt about that, but wouldn't
they have been awfull busy just killing off these mammoths, not to mention
the rest of the old megafauna, than getting rid of the bones? And that
spelled out not only as herbivores, but cave bear and cave lion, big hyenas,
....

Incidentally, they were using cave bear skulls for magic, we know were some
of the bones went.

>
> > Sorry, I'am not convinced.
>
> But the reality is that I don't need to convince you that humans
> drove Mammoths extinct, all I need to do is provide evidence that
> that played a role that no other predator/competitor played during
> the LGM/early holocene period.

You would have to show, that only a predator could have worked this change,
and that no other predator was introduced in that time.

Given the occurrence of a major climate change in the period in question,
the first seems hard to show. With the second question, I would leave that
open, till we know more about the development of wolfs and dogs in that
time.

> The point is that in previous cycles
> mammoth may have approached extinction, and yet finally avoided it,
> but that their survival of the same circumstance in a repeated
> manner, although not assurred, was probable. All one needs to do is
> to throw in something the makes their survival through the process
> improbable, and that something then becomes the straw that breaks the
> camels back.

That's a difference of methods, I don't throw straw at camels. I look at
their bones, to show if they regularly carried burdens and what were the
effects. I look for signs of intentional killing, projectile marks, traces
of flint knives from cutting or tooth marks from other predators.And I look
at the surrounding habitat. If its frozen in a glazier, like Oetzi, some
straw may have killed it, but a loss of body temperatur would be hard to
disprove.

> Its a matter of perspective, imagine a stone age culture
> that survives with access to natural medicines that it uncovers and
> dietary shifts to deal with chronic problems, now imagine a new age
> civilization moves in and removes their natural medicines and changes
> their food culture, after a while they begin suffering from chronic
> disease, the culture is disrupted because old people fail to live,
> and the children abandon that culture and assimilate into the new
> culture. You can't blame the new culture for the extinction of the
> old culture, but if the new culture had not been added, the old
> culture would have continued to successfully dealt with episodic
> crisis.

You should try that on a younger palaeolithic society, they were probably
good at games of dominance. You'd end up with heaving to adapt to them or go
extinct :-)

In earnest, this is not how it worked, stone tool technologies, cultures,
existed side by side for 100s of years on a given site. More modern tools
might be used, and then you see people again revert to the old styles. And
then, they'd try it again, and revert again. Try again times would become
longer and more frequent, and revert times grow less. A slow process.


> I should note that shelters on the steppe were uncovered that were
> made of mammoth bones.

I have given the figures for one mammoth hunters camp above.

> And the wool of the woolly mammoth may have
> been extremely prized by stone age peoples of that region.

It could be collected in spring in great amounts as was done with sheep and
goat wool originally.

>These
> shelters place humans in a region of eurasia that corroborates with
> allelic diversity of HLA suggesting that this was an important place
> of North Eurasian, Native American evolution. I think it is rather
> obvious the humans of northern eurasia were complicit in the
> extinction of the mammoth.

You have two unconnected facts and no argument to connect them. I'am still
not convinced. This is a scenario that was generated as a model for regional
hunting behaviour. Using it for an explanation for mammoth extinction goes
far beyond the validity of the model.

have fun

Uwe Mueller




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: weapons and Megafauna
    ... > Mammoth were animals of the cold steppe, ... Since this culture is an inland hunting culture, ... > You seem to have missed out the mammoth, or the extinction of ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: faunal changes in Alaska
    ... The author thinks that the horse and mammoth are especially well ... Boreal animals as Reindeer and Musk Ox are in winter ... Steppe," extending across much of the subglacial northern hemisphere, ... IIRC, the climate also became wetter, at least for long ...
    (sci.archaeology)