Anthropocentrism, big impact on climate

[Andre]

Donald K. Grayson, and David J. Meltzer (2003) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH8-47TX02J-2&_user=10&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AU-MsSAYVW-UUW-U-AAVVCAAZWU-AAVWUEWVWU-DABAEACDD-AU-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=7&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236844%232003%23999699994%23405950!&_cdi=6844&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e7881d8463fcc9ad8f1213813e1b138a
Journal of Archaeological Science Volume 30, Issue 5 , May 2003, Pages 585-593

Abstract
The argument that human hunters were responsible for the extinction of a wide variety of large Pleistocene mammals emerged in western Europe during the 1860s, alongside the recognition that people had coexisted with those mammals. Today, the overkill position is rejected for western Europe but lives on in Australia and North America. The survival of this hypothesis is due almost entirely to Paul Martin, the architect of the first detailed version of it. In North America, archaeologists and paleontologists whose work focuses on the late Pleistocene routinely reject Martin's position for two prime reasons: there is virtually no evidence that supports it, and there is a remarkably broad set of evidence that strongly suggests that it is wrong. In response, Martin asserts that the overkill model predicts a lack of supporting evidence, thus turning the absence of empirical support into support for his beliefs. We suggest that this feature of the overkill position removes the hypothesis from the realm of science and places it squarely in the realm of faith. One may or may not believe in the overkill position, but one should not confuse it with a scientific hypothesis about the nature of the North American past.

And this is the conclusion of a library of studies. Dick Mol has taken hours to explain us that men did not do it. Several mass graves that where thought to be the results of slaughter turned out to be accumulations of remains in several thousands years. There were no humans in along the North to North East coast of Siberia but yet an abundance of mammoths that persished in some 400 years after the onset of the Preboreal Holocene at 11,653 +/-26 years ago because there was nowhere to migrate to. The whole of Siberia was changed into Boreal forest, marshes and swamps and shallow lakes. No more grass steppes, the only habitat they had known.

Those dwarf mammoths of Wrangel Island turned out to be normal sized mammoths that did survive until 7-4000 years ago. The error was made due to an early mistake in the determination of a molar. After that, several normal sized remains were found. It appeared that the steppe vegetation had managed to resist all those changes on the mainland unlike other islands like the Zemlya Severnaya island (October Revolution islands) with a large mammoth population without people. The Mammoth went extinct there as well due to the loss of habitat.

However like Anthropogenic Global Warming, Anthropogenic extinction of the mammoth tales will probably never disappear regardless of the evidence against it.

 

[quantumcarl]

And this is the conclusion of a library of studies. Dick Mol has taken hours to explain us that men did not do it. Several mass graves that where thought to be the results of slaughter turned out to be accumulations of remains in several thousands years. There were no humans in along the North to North East coast of Siberia but yet an abundance of mammoths that persished in some 400 years after the onset of the Preboreal Holocene at 11,653 +/-26 years ago because there was nowhere to migrate to. The whole of Siberia was changed into Boreal forest, marshes and swamps and shallow lakes. No more grass steppes, the only habitat they had known.

Those dwarf mammoths of Wrangel Island turned out to be normal sized mammoths that did survive until 7-4000 years ago. The error was made due to an early mistake in the determination of a molar. After that, several normal sized remains were found. It appeared that the steppe vegetation had managed to resist all those changes on the mainland unlike other islands like the Zemlya Severnaya island (October Revolution islands) with a large mammoth population without people. The Mammoth went extinct there as well due to the loss of habitat.

However like Anthropogenic Global Warming, Anthropogenic extinction of the mammoth tales will probably never disappear regardless of the evidence against it.

With what you have presented I can believe that, for the most part, the Mammoths and their kindred species were most probably brought to extinction due to the loss of a habitat which was brought about by the warming of the area. What may have happened with all the physical evidence of mammoth ivory tools, huts and decorations is that people found these remains, since they collected over a span of many millenia, and used what they'd found.

I can also see why humans wouldn't have made contact with many of the surviving mammoths etc... with a swamp/boreal forest separating the areas inhabited by the two species (human and mega-fauna).

So, the "myth" as you say can be explained by infrequent encounters with large herds, perhaps. And, at times, there may have been a kill that resulted in the evidence sited above.

When it said (above) that the mammoths were the base of a thriving economy out of today's Ukraine area this may have been an economy based on remains such as tusk and bone and even furs (since they were well preserved in permafrost)

Once again, thank you for your in-depth and non-anthropocentric view on the matter!

 

[Mk]

When it said (above) that the mammoths were the base of a thriving economy out of today's Ukraine area this may have been an economy based on remains such as tusk and bone and even furs (since they were well preserved in permafrost)

That sounds either made up or a not exaggerated. Mammoths were around when we were cavemen. Cavemen do not have "thriving economies."