Replies

No, megafauna did NOT die off everywhere. It remains, even to this day, in Africa and South Asia. The elephant, rhinocerous, hippopotamus, etc. all still live. What's interesting to me is, that these locations are where man evolved, especially since homo erectus, the first true human predator, from about 1 million years ago. Now everywhere else, megafauna did die off, and the timelines are right there during initial human contacts. The African and South Asian megafauna had a long relationship with homonoid hunters, and developed a fear and wariness about them, aiding their survival to this day (or until the modern steel plow and rifle). Those in Australia, North Eurasia, the Americas, Madagasgar and New Zealand had no experience with homonoid hunters until it was too late.

"Those in Australia, North Eurasia, the Americas, Madagasgar and New Zealand had no experience with homonoid hunters until it was too late."

I've read this theory and it does sound plausible. Now, I've also read that the Aztecs, Incas, Moche, etc,etc, never invented the wheel because there were no beasts of burden to pull wagons, etc. Why weren't there large mammals in South America? (There was a wheeled child's toy found in one of the ruins.)

Protein was a problem in South America. This may have lead to the practice of human sacrifice. Some anthropologists are convinced that it was driven by the need for protein, they ate the victims.

No, megafauna did NOT die off everywhere. It remains, even to this day, in Africa and South Asia. The elephant, rhinocerous, hippopotamus, etc. all still live.

You are correct. Your question about their survival in areas where humans evolved is also very interesting. I disagree about Australia and possibly some other areas, though. There's strong evidence humans have been present in Australia for upwards of 60,000 years. That means they coexisted with the megafauna for at least 30,000 years. As for human presence in South Africa, mentioned in another post, this remains a very big and complicated ball of unwinding twine.

I still maintain there is absolutely no firm evidence for any of the three main theories: climate, human predation or disease. It's all just speculation.

I'm a little tired of humans being bashed as the cause of all worldly problems and disasters but I know we can be nasty customers, too. I think I view humans and human nature pretty realistically (I'm a conservative, after all). The American Indians used to hunt buffalo by driving huge numbers of them off cliffs. They used only a small amount of the meat and skins and left the rest to rot. Maybe the proto-Indians did the same with Mastadons and other large creatures. But evidence of the buffalo massacres exists. Does anyone know of similar evidence for megafauna? I'm not aware of it.

I located a couple of interesting sites that discuss the mystery pretty objectively:

http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/Biota/megafauna_extinctions.htm

and http://www.austmus.gov.au/factsheets/megafauna.htm

If I had to choose one of the theories only I'd go with climate change. Animals adapted to glacial conditions probably didn't do so well in a suddenly warming world. But there are some hole in that theory too. It's an interesting discussion.

Thank you for so cogently and succintly stating the case. I think anyone who studies the issue will come to the same conclusion. A freind of mine who is a research biologist with the Smithsonian said that amoung his peers there was general agreement of the human intervention causing the extinctions. The only question was that it was not politically correct.

He added an interesting twist: That the man - dog hunting team was unbeatable, especially for mega-fauna.