Posted on 08/12/2008 4:53:23 AM PDT by decimon
And the BBQ of that animal also explains the large numbers of prehistoric beer cans found at the site also.
Abstract: More than 85 percent of Australian terrestrial genera with a body mass exceeding 44 kilograms became extinct in the Late Pleistocene. Although most were marsupials, the list includes the large, flightless mihirung Genyornis newtoni. More than 700 dates on Genyornis eggshells from three different climate regions document the continuous presence of Genyornis from more than 100,000 years ago until their sudden disappearance 50,000 years ago, about the same time that humans arrived in Australia. Simultaneous extinction of Genyornis at all sites during an interval of modest climate change implies that human impact, not climate, was responsible. [1/8/99 Pleistocene Extinction of Genyornis newtoni: Human Impact on Australian Megafauna (Gifford H. Miller, John W. Magee, Beverly J. Johnson, Marilyn L. Fogel, Nigel A. Spooner, Malcolm T. McCulloch, Linda K. Ayliffe, Science, Volume 283, Number 5399 Issue of 8 Jan 1999, pp. 205 - 208 )]In Horus, a journal published by the late David Griffard, vol II no 1 (1985), Barry Fell was interviewed. Alas, DG went down in a private plane after the seventh issue. Among other things:
In the middle of Australia there is a group of three or four meteorite craters called the Henley craters. They're like the Arizona meteorite crater -- not so big, but there are several of them -- and, like in Arizona, the land was scattered with pieces of iron meteorite. I think the [inaudible] dating very slow growing desert plants. They believe that the date is about 5000 years ago -- the formation of the craters. The Aboriginal name for this area is the "Place Where The Sun Walked on the Earth" -- they must have seen it!
(not strictly related)
The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes:
Flood, Fire, and Famine
in the History of Civilization
by Richard Firestone,
Allen West, and
Simon Warwick-Smith
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks decimon. |
||
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
*sheesh*
Now what will I tell my grandson? *sigh*
And God blesed them andd God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply...and have dominion...over every living thing that moveth upon the face of the earth...to you it shall be for meat BECAUSE IT TASTES LIKE CHICKEN.
Climate change was not a significant factor 50,000 or 41,000 years ago.
Other large mega-fauna died out about 14,000 to 10,000 years ago as the ice age ended and vegetation patterns changed.
It is, however, interesting that whenever humans showed up somewhere (except Africa) all the mega-fauna disappeared soon after.
Anthropogenic Global Hunting
Reminds me of a quote I heard with respect to whether humans were alive at the time of the dinosaurs -
“Of course, haven’t you ever heard of the Flintstones?”
And as someone once noted, Nimrod probably didn't get that title by hunting bunny rabbits...
(unless he happened to have the same P.R. crew that works for Obama...)
a rhinoceros-sized wombat and marsupial 'lions' which resembled leopards.I have to change my screen resolution, or get new glasses. I thought that said.
a rhinoceros-sized Moonbat and marsupial 'lions' which resembled Lepers.Maybe I should check DU to see if they have a thread on this :-)
a rhinoceros-sized Moonbat and marsupial 'lions' which resembled Lepers.
That was the title. Someone must have changed it.
You might extend the anomalous area to include some parts of Asia where elephants and tigers still thrive -- and where humans have been around a very long time.
How do you explain the Asian and African exceptions? Are Asians and Africans just lousy hunters/PETA members, or might there be some other explanation? Maybe the absence of dangerous megafauna made it possible for humans to exploit those regions? Why did creatures around 200 pounds and below manage to survive while the megafauna didn't? I don't have the answers but I find those questions just as intriguing as yours.
I don't really have an explanation for it.
I don't think there were enough humans around in the new areas to kill off so many animals and so many species.
The humans who did move to brand new areas probably ate really good for a long time and prospered but I think the main reason for the loss of the mega-fauna is "grass". The majority of them were grass-eaters or were predators of the grass-eaters.
During the ice ages, when CO2 levels fell to below 200 ppm, many species of plants do not grow well including most trees and bushes. Grasses, however, do quite well and would have out-competed the trees except in tropical rainforest conditions (Africa and Asia?). When CO2 levels starting rising about 18,000 years ago, the trees returned and mega-fauna numbers started falling. Mega-fauna also have slow reproductive cycles so with fewer numbers and new deseases emerging as the climate changed and with the final kick - human spear-points and new deseases brought by the humans - they almost all went extinct.
I'm intrigued by cultures like those in Siberia and at the Monte Verde site in Chile who used mammoth ribs and other large, well-shaped bones to build strong domestic structures. It's always made a lot more sense to me that those bones were "found objects," not the result of hunts. They were adapted to the the people's needs.
I agree that human populations were probably too small to account for the environmental devastation. IMO some other factor or combination of factors is needed to explain the disappearance of megafauna. Your theory about grass is as good as any other I've found.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.