Comments on: Declines in upper paleolithic European human populations due to less food http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/ Beyond bones & stones Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:33:20 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: brian boru http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-14808 brian boru Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:21:54 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-14808 There is widespread evidence that Paleolithic megafauna in Eurasia and North America became extinct very rapidly - much too rapidly for the cause to have been over hunting or gradual climate change. There is also strong evidence for an impact event about 13,000 years ago which brought about the extinction of the Clovis culture and the megafauna in North America about that time. Although it does not find popular favour within the scientific community catastrophism does seem to explain much of what brought about the end of the Ice Age. There is widespread evidence that Paleolithic megafauna in Eurasia and North America became extinct very rapidly – much too rapidly for the cause to have been over hunting or gradual climate change. There is also strong evidence for an impact event about 13,000 years ago which brought about the extinction of the Clovis culture and the megafauna in North America about that time. Although it does not find popular favour within the scientific community catastrophism does seem to explain much of what brought about the end of the Ice Age.

]]> By: TerryT http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-9057 TerryT Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:03:48 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-9057 He seems to be dealing with changing climate "40,000 to 35,000 years ago". But megafauna were still present, or present again, long after that, as you say, "about 10, 000 years ago". I also believe the statement, "megafauna extinction happened simultaneously in Eurasia with the replacement of the periglacial tundra by forest" is an oversimplification. If we move beyond just Eurasia we find that megafauna extinctions happen in different regions at different times. And even close examination of the pattern within Eurasia shows it was progressive. More, even though forest replaced tundra "Glacial species, such as mammoths and woolly rhinoceros" could still have moved north where tundra was still present. Their extinction has nothing to do with the expansion of forest. He seems to be dealing with changing climate “40,000 to 35,000 years ago”. But megafauna were still present, or present again, long after that, as you say, “about 10, 000 years ago”. I also believe the statement, “megafauna extinction happened simultaneously in Eurasia with the replacement of the periglacial tundra by forest” is an oversimplification. If we move beyond just Eurasia we find that megafauna extinctions happen in different regions at different times. And even close examination of the pattern within Eurasia shows it was progressive. More, even though forest replaced tundra “Glacial species, such as mammoths and woolly rhinoceros” could still have moved north where tundra was still present. Their extinction has nothing to do with the expansion of forest.

]]> By: Kambiz Kamrani http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-9004 Kambiz Kamrani Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:30:30 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-9004 Terry, I'm a bit confused with your last paragraph. Stan Florek of the Australian Museum, writes that megafauna extinction happened simultaneously in Eurasia with the replacement of the periglacial tundra by forest. Glacial species, such as mammoths and woolly rhinoceros, were replaced by animals better adapted to forests, such as elk, deer and pigs. And the reindeer retreated north, while horses moved south to the central Asian steppe. This all happened about 10, 000 years ago. But this was during a stage when temperatures were warming up. What Morin is concluding came about as temperatures were becoming colder. Terry, I’m a bit confused with your last paragraph. Stan Florek of the Australian Museum, writes that megafauna extinction happened simultaneously in Eurasia with the replacement of the periglacial tundra by forest. Glacial species, such as mammoths and woolly rhinoceros, were replaced by animals better adapted to forests, such as elk, deer and pigs. And the reindeer retreated north, while horses moved south to the central Asian steppe. This all happened about 10, 000 years ago. But this was during a stage when temperatures were warming up. What Morin is concluding came about as temperatures were becoming colder.

]]> By: TerryT http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-8879 TerryT Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:44:25 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-8879 As Archaeozoo says , "The two statements would seem to be quite different to me". The article does suggest modern humans evolved solely from Neanderthals but my guess is that modern humans in Europe developed from some level of hybridism with incoming so-called "modern" humans. But regarding the main thrust of the article I would say that the less food resulted from the expansion of humans into the northerly regions they had previously been unable to survive in. Their hunting pressure exterminated the large mammals and those following had to come to terms with less food. The article: "Neandertal populations reduced as Europe’s environment became harsher, with some groups going extinct by 40,000 to 35,000 years ago". That may be true of humans in Europe but I understand the megafauna became extinct more recently. As Archaeozoo says , “The two statements would seem to be quite different to me”. The article does suggest modern humans evolved solely from Neanderthals but my guess is that modern humans in Europe developed from some level of hybridism with incoming so-called “modern” humans.

But regarding the main thrust of the article I would say that the less food resulted from the expansion of humans into the northerly regions they had previously been unable to survive in. Their hunting pressure exterminated the large mammals and those following had to come to terms with less food.

The article: “Neandertal populations reduced as Europe’s environment became harsher, with some groups going extinct by 40,000 to 35,000 years ago”. That may be true of humans in Europe but I understand the megafauna became extinct more recently.

]]> By: Kambiz Kamrani http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-8841 Kambiz Kamrani Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:05:27 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-8841 archaeozoo, he's saying Neandertals developed into modern humans or at least some of them did. archaeozoo, he’s saying Neandertals developed into modern humans or at least some of them did.

]]> By: archaeozoo http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-8830 archaeozoo Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:28:43 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-8830 Is he saying they developed into modern humans, or is he saying they were replaced by modern humans? The two statements would seem to be quite different to me. The first suggests that Neanderthals are our direct ancestors, the second doesn't. The second would still also permit a period of co-existence because replacement doesn't have to happen over night. Is he saying they developed into modern humans, or is he saying they were replaced by modern humans? The two statements would seem to be quite different to me. The first suggests that Neanderthals are our direct ancestors, the second doesn’t. The second would still also permit a period of co-existence because replacement doesn’t have to happen over night.

]]> By: Josephine http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-8811 Josephine Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:11:26 +0000 http://anthropology.net/2008/01/04/declines-in-upper-paleolithic-european-human-populations-due-to-less-food/#comment-8811 "So he’s suggesting that climate change influenced the rise of the first modern humans in Europe from Neandertals." Is there not evidence contradicting this conclusion? Such evidence as that modern humans and Neanderthals existed alongside each other over a period of years? If climate change affected the Neanderthals in such a way that they developed into modern humans, then this evidence is not evidence at all and should logically not exist? “So he’s suggesting that climate change influenced the rise of the first modern humans in Europe from Neandertals.”

Is there not evidence contradicting this conclusion? Such evidence as that modern humans and Neanderthals existed alongside each other over a period of years? If climate change affected the Neanderthals in such a way that they developed into modern humans, then this evidence is not evidence at all and should logically not exist?

]]>