A requiem for North American overkill
Donald K. Grayson, , , David J. Meltzer
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.
This does not say that humans were not mostly or partly responsible, mind you. Colibri has pointed out that human changes to the biomes, such as setting fires, may also be a large factor. I see his point, altho we still have points of disagreement. Fine. His opinion is likely better than mine here.
So- I am not going to argue whether it was MOSTLY human caused or MOSTLY climate caused here. Both sides have their supporters. No one supports “We ate them” anymore.
But as that fairly recent peer reviewed study done by two well respected scientists above pointed out- the Pleistocene Overkill position is completely discredited. Martin’s idea has no more scientifc merit than the Aquatic Ape idea does.
Dude, our Kentuckians burned most of Upper Canada between, um, London and Detroit. Get over losing the* verdammt *presidential palace (which we rebuilt even finer thanks to the Canucks burning it).
If we reintroduce glyptodon, Texans will need to invest in even bigger pickups in order to properly process them into gigantic roadkill. We’ll also require absolutely enormous bottles of Lone Star if we’re to make some of them into taxidermied novelties.
If any of these extinct animals can be cloned I think they should be. I doubt it is possible with our existing scientific methods. I doubt it will ever be possible. The DNA from these animals has probably broken down too much.
I have read that the “climate change” was no more dramatic than the many previous climate swings the megafauna had survived. Is that not believed to be the case?
Also, although I admit to being skeptical of the climate-change theory, the paper cited does not appear to argue that the consensus has changed, although it does argue against the older “overkill” theory itself. The consensus may well have changed, of course; I’m just saying that that parted quoted in the post (didn’t read the links) does not address that…it could be a novel hypothesis outside the mainstream, for all I know.
