In a message dated 11/14/1999 2:03:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
KATHRYN P ROSENTHAL writes:

> I think most anthropologists/archaeologists agree that the megafauna were
> hunted to extinction when early men began hunting with wolves, then dogs.

There are at least two other competing hypotheses regarding this topic.

1) Climate change:  there seems to have been a spread of aridity in some of
the "big game" environments that may have reduced the population.  However,
They had already survived such changes before by migrating so this theory has
some problems.  Still there was some kind of climate change that would have
affected the survivability of big game, especially if one adds the new stress
of hunting.

2) Related to climate it seems that there may have been greater variation in
temperatures seasonally  Large creatures have a more difficult time with this
sort of thing, especially for the extremely young. Again even if this was not
enough to kill them off, it certainly would provide a stress.

Also the hunting to extinction theory has some problems too.  In America,
many of the big game species actually disappear from the record before there
were big game hunters to hunt them.  Another problem is that, if the hunting
were so successful, we would expect to see an adaptation to it in surviving
species (this would be how they survived).  But, the Bison did not seem to
have any strategy to "defend" against the hunting.  (What finally killed them
really had nothing to with hunting strategies of Paleo-Indians.)  Thus we
might conclude that the stress on Bison from hunting was not that great.
Also, I think that there is evidence of extensive use of other subsistence
strategies for man during this time.  The idea here is that  if we were so
successful at hunting would we need to make such use of other methods?  Why
would we spend so much energy harvesting tine little seeds if we are so adept
at felling large nutrient rich game?

I am not sure how many scientists line up on the side of any of these
theories.  It may be true that most agree with the hunting hypothesis, but to
me it is still muddy water.  Certainly the new hunting technology acquired by
man (dogs, tools, strategies, etc.)  was a significant improvement and
represents a real stress to the megafauna populations.  But, I am not sure
that we were so strong a force as to accomplish the extinction of an entire
range of animals.  We have certainly adapted to a diet that makes use of
hunting and big game hunting too, but I don't see compelling evidence that
our subsistence pattern was radically changed by it.

Comments?

Nick Schultz
[log in to unmask]