Is there any scientific evidence whatsoever that our human ancesters preyed upon the great woolly mammoth?
I find it implausible that the projectiles of the era could penetrate the thick woolly hide of these mammoths. A small nomadic tribe could not possibly reduce the entire carcass into manageable parts before the meat spoiled.
Are our prehistoric achievements overstated?
Other urls found in this thread:
dailymail.co.uk
earthmagazine.org
blogs.scientificamerican.com
latepleistoceneextinctionsaustralia.blogspot.com.au
twitter.com
Meat might have been salted or cured into jerky or even eaten after it'd gone bad (they didn't know about bacteria and horrible taste is still better than hunger pangs). There was still probably a lot wasted, gone to dogs and scavengers.
I knew dogs could eat rotting meat without dying. Our party trick is being able to consume rotting fruit without dying. We're actually very, very fond of rotten fruit juices. It's called alcohol.
>
People were way tougher back then
> If u wanna live u Havel to kil the mamoothas
This chart conveniently ignores humans and mega fauna cohabiting Eurasia for 70,000 years, e.g, the majority of the time we spent alongside megafauna. Ignoring insular incidences, (Australia, Madagascar, New Zealand) the extinction of the megafauna was an effect of a rapidly changing climate.
I like how all pictures of early humans hunting mammoths to extinction contain whites despite the fact wooly mammoths were exclusive to the Americas. I know its to make white people into demons but if liberals go with that approach then the counter is "well then, white people were the original humans in the americas and not the asians who crossed the sea bridge?"
Australia was literally because of humans or whatever species you want to call abos. Their hunting technique was insanely inefficient for long term survival. Basically they just burned down forests to get 1 prey animal. Hell, Australian outbacks could be a thing because abos were fire happy. Without them Oz could have been like South America with lush jungles. Abos didn't even invent a spear if I recall.
Gee its almost like you didnt read the rest of my post. Insular ecologies are smaller scale and alot more fragile to change. The "mega fauna" of Australia were almost all significantly smaller than continental megafauna, and therefore far more within the hunting capabilities of humans.
When we look at European paleolithic man butchery sites, we find that the majority of anaimals taken were those still alive today (reindeer, horses etc.)
Youre thinking of Colombian mammoths which were endemic to North America. The range of the Wooly mammoth was almost the entire northern hemisphere.
> (You)
>small
No, it's literally because artists back then didnt even imagine people with other skin clolours. Why would they draw americans in european literature?
>Basically they just burned down forests to get 1 prey animal.
Nah mate. The ancient abbos lifestyle consisted of sitting on hilltops where there was a breeze watching the sky.
When the thunderheads showed on the horizon they would light several patches of bush. The rain would put out the fires, the ash would fertilize the soil and the extra light encouraged lush green growth.
See australian native pastures survived by evolving to make themselves unpalatable to herbivores. Except the fresh growth.
They would then have several open green spaces which would lure kangaroos and other wildlife for weeks to come... Not to meantion it was easier to hunt in than dense bladegrass and speargrasses...
Every fucking carnivore eats rotting meat, this is not special.
Aged steak is best steak but done at a cold enough temperature
>wooly mammoths were exclusive to the Americas.
Go back to huffing petrol, cleaning your uncle's casino or whatever the fuck it is you relics do these days, Sleeping Worm
You know that on certain islands around the world it is a custom to catch birds in nets by the hundreds and pile stones on top of them and let them ferment for months before eating?
There is lots of ways to preserve an excess of meat that doesn't require technology at all!
>Is there any scientific evidence
No, the archaeologists merely had too much to drink at a conference one night
and decided to concoct a story about archaic humans and the mammoth.
>I find it implausible
... therefore it couldn't possibly be supported by evidence, right?
That is significantly smaller than a mammoth rhino or bison.
What you are seeing is an increase in hunting technology & methods, better & increased social communication, and higher human populations.
Is that a map of GoT?
That all coincide around 11,000 years ago? Exactly when the last ice age ended? And at a time when the vast majority of paleolithic hunting sites show remains of extant animals?
Something like that. I'm sure it wasn't specifically just one event, but climate warming up is also a bonus for humans in the same manner. Technically, you could say the climate change is the sole trigger, so long as a foot note shows that humans took advantage of that as part of their trigger to get gud.
I'm sure being hunted by humans didnt help, but if you get shot in the chest and then die from an infection, you dont say that you were killed by a disease. You say you were killed because you got shot.
>died from lead poinsoning
>Is there any scientific evidence whatsoever that our human ancesters preyed upon the great woolly mammoth?
There's tons of it what are you even talking about?
Wrong. Humans were hunting European megafauna in the Eemian (130kya) and there is an extinction event of megafauna from that time period.
Post a source, every time I google "Eemian extinction" it corrects to Permian extinction. I dont recall any significant large extinctions from Eurasian animals pre-11k except the cave bears. The eemian was also an interglacial period so the same factors of climate change still apply. Doubly so considering humans hadnt even left the near East yet and I highly doubt Neanderthals had the technology to make such an impact.
It's not a named extinction "event" so far as I'm aware. The Eemian is still part of the Late Pleistocene and is part of the same (currently ongoing) extinction event humans are causing. Just look for evidence of hunting in Europe during the Eemian.
Give me a single taxa that went extinct during the Eemian that humans were responsible for. And even then it wouldn't even be H. sapiens
That's a shit argument. Most modern paleontologists claim that there isn't a single Pleistocene megafaunal species outside of Australasia that humans exterminated. It doesn't make them right.
What? Rephrase that because it sounds like you're agreeing with me.
I'm not. But most paleontologists are. That's why we can't have nice things in biology, whether it be protecting the biosphere or accurately reporting the fossil record.
Let me clarify. ALL paleontologists are FORCED to admit, due to the presence of evidence, that humans for a fact have been hunting megafauna, often in very large numbers for most of the Late Pleistocene. They just make a thousand excuses for why this magically never resulted in a mass extinction event (which also by total coincidence just happened to occur during this period).
Because the majority of paleolithic butcher sites show animals that are still alive today. If stone age man was hunting the extinct animals in such high numbers, why didnt the animals that actually composed the back bone of their diet go extinct too?
Why does extinction correlate the strongest with climate change?
Look, I dont know whats got you so triggered about this but I'm assuming youre some hippie ecoactivist. Go spread your sensational personal theory bullshit somewhere else.
>Because the majority of paleolithic butcher sites show animals that are still alive today. If stone age man was hunting the extinct animals in such high numbers, why didnt the animals that actually composed the back bone of their diet go extinct too?
The answer isn't obvious? Those animals which survived were typically the more fecund species. All the largest and most slowly reproducing species are gone outside of Africa and Asia. Asia's megafauna mostly survived simply due to the continent's size, I suspect and Africa, being where humans originate has had the most time for humans to find balance with its biota. The vast majority of species on multiple continents are all gone except for smaller individuals. And some, like the Ancient Bison shrunk in size until they were the American Bison. Most modern forms are smaller than Late Pleistocene ones which are otherwise identical, like the Jaguar or multiple unresolved Odocoileus species. We see the same phenomenon in most species that experience human overhunting. What you see when you look at the world is nothing resembling how it is supposed to look. FAR more species are missing than you realize.
>Why does extinction correlate the strongest with climate change?
It doesn't AT ALL. This is an absolute fabrication. There was no major climate change in most South American ecosystems and basically none in Australia, yet the megafauna fell all the same. In North American and northern Eurasia the actual change in climate wasn't actually that dramatic as is trying to be played up and if humans hadn't been present the overwhelming majority of species could simply have migrated a few hundred miles over a few generations to identical ecosystems. There are a great many entirely false claims about the Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions that keep getting endlessly repeated which are simply not true at all.
(cont)
There are also details like the fact that the exact same species which were completely exterminated survived in multiple instances on islands where humans didn't know they still existed for thousands of years after mainland populations were eradicated. This is simply not explainable by invoking "climate change".
>There was no major climate change in most South American ecosystems
I need to caveat this. There was no major climate change in most South American ecosystems which would have wiped out the megafauna there.
It wasnt climate change but it was environmental.
earthmagazine.org
blogs.scientificamerican.com
But I'm sure this is just a conspiracy to cover up that humans are responsible for world wide ecological disaster.
It literally, unironically is. When you take all the continental extinctions in aggregate, they have absolutely nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with when humans arrive on the continent, including the fact that Africa was mostly spared and Europe's extincions occur pretty early. Australia's have already been admitted to be caused by humans and occurred between about 30k and 50k years ago, which is when humans arrived, but basically no major climate change was occurring. North America and mostly northern Eurasia are in fact the only areas that have a connection to climate, which may be almost entirely coincidental or simply provides opportunity for a new wave of human colonizations. South America's occurred earlier and don't match ANY climate change because they occurred during the Last Glacial Maximum.
You can't use climate change to explain things that occurred when the climate was stable.
This is particularly bad because the consensus is ALREADY that in Australia humans absolutely caused the megafaunal extinctions. Nobody even doubts it.
Honestly, it doesn't matter what I say though. Humans will always believe what is most convenient to make themselves look good.
>When you decide to ruin a thread with your hippie bullshit
I'm a paleo major. This fucking field is infested with lefties who wish they could blame everything on humans. Youre delusional. Go find some other thread to shit up on /x/ or /pol/ or something.
You wouldn't say anything because you'd be dead lol, fucking brainlets these days.
What country are you in? Is there room for a redpilled someone who refuses to drink the social justice Kool-Aid in your university? Also if not then how would they go about weeding out the wrongthink?
Asking as an interested, early twenties user who wants to spend most of his life studying vertebrate paleontology.
Pic is an Arctodus reconstruction
RAWR! xD
:3
If you go in with the mindset that every single one of the hundreds of professionals are all covering up a conspiracy, you arent only going to not only find any susceptible ear for your bullshit without hard evidence, but your self righteous stubborn delusions will earn you zero friends in a field where networking is essential.
If you want to study Pleistocene, west coast is your best bet.
Have fun.
I like that pic enough to save. Thanks
Cheers man, I'm not a poltard and don't have any strong opinions without equally strong evidence, I was just wondering if the universities have reached a point of social justice McCarthyism where I could get ostracized for politely explaining my take on certain political bullshit. For example I'm glad gay people can get married but disagree with giving hormone blockers to 5 year olds whose parent claims is transgender and I'm not outraged by seeing cultural appropriation every time i meet a white hippy wearing dreadlocks. I just got that impression from the way you said "This fucking field is infested with lefties" I thought you meant it was like the culty identity politics shit I've heard a lot about in universities.
The mammoth pic was me too so I'll include something else from my folder.