It is one theory that the introduction of humans approx. 14,000 years ago to North America may have led to the “Late Pleistocene Extinction” which included; saber-toothed cats, mammoths, mastodons, the short-faced skunk and the giant beaver.
This is probably a reference to the extinction of the megafauna at the end of the Pleistocene, which coincided with human arrival in the Americas.
Yes, indeed, one popular Hypothesis (not a Theory), is that the introduction of Humans may well have been a/the significant factor. And hunting is listed as one factor, perhaps the most important part. But no legit scientist actually comes out and says that “Humans hunted this particular Pleistocene species to extinction”. That’s simply bad science.
Humans were a factor, hunting was part of that factor. How much, we’ll never know.
In Europe, the number of “kill sites” for mammoth number in the thousands- with some sites huge piles of hundreds or even thousands of Mammoth bones all sorted. In North American, iirc, you wouldn’t have to take off your shoes to count the number of sites, and most have only one or a few “kills”.
Exapno Mapcase- that’s an excellent cite, thank you.
It is true that many large American animals became extinct shortly after humans first came to the New World and, while the cause is hotly disputed, some experts believe that the extinctions were the result of human activities. However, I fail to see the relevance of this to the environmentalism, or lack thereof, of Native Americans ten millennia later.
I have heard that Native Americans were excellent environmentalists. Is this not true?
I’m not interested in any non-environmental shortcomings that they may have had.
Cite? This is the first I’ve ever heard of any mammoth remains at all being found in Europe.
Well, some tribes religion/faith/philosophy did seem to be along the lines of “care for the environment”. But others didn’t seem to care. The same could be said of just about anyone today. Amerinds are just people.
Camels, ground sloths, giant antelopes, mammoths, mastodons, tapirs (in North America), and horses.
Now, it might be just a hell of a coincidence that these animals all went extinct at exactly the time humans showed up. Personally, I doubt it.
Next:
Remains of fossil elephants in Poland
H. Kubiak
Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow,
Poland - kubiak@isez.pan.krakow.pl
SUMMARY: "Beside of some mastodont remains known since the beginning of the 19th century from the present
territory of Poland, more than 400 localities of finds of Elephantidae are known so far. The remains have
been collected during the 19th and 20th centuries. Most of the sites occur along the main rivers of Poland
Vistula and Odra, as well as around the scientific centres like Gdańsk,Warszawa, Kraków, Poznaƒ, Wrocław.
Skulls, partially preserved skeletons and mainly single teeth and bones belong to three species of fossil elephants:
Palaeoloxodon antiquus, Mammuthus trogontherii and Mammuthus primigenius."…2.3 Mammuthus primigenius (Blumenbach, 1799)
The woolly mammoth is one of the most
common species of Pleistocene mammals in
Poland. Hundreds of localities are known.
Next:The Upper Palaeolithic mammoth site at Halich (Ukraine)
P. Wojtal1, K. Cyrek2
1Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences
Slawkowska Kraków, Poland - wojtal@isez.pan.krakow.pl
2Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Mikolaj Kopernik University
Podmurna Toruń¡, Poland
SUMMARY: The Halich site was discovered in 1988 and the first excavation was made in 2000. During this
excavation 151 mammoth bones and 105 flint tools were found at the site. The age of this site is about 24 ka
to 14 ka and could be connected with the Epigravettian culture. This is probably a mammoth butchering
or killing site
And then we have Siberia, which is Asia:Man and Mammoth in Pleistocene Siberia
S.A. Vasil’ev
Institute for the Material Culture History, St.Petersburg, Russia - anna@neuro.pri.pu.ru
SUMMARY: Mammoth bones have been identified from many Paleolithic sites in Siberia, from the
Mousterian to the Late Upper Paleolithic The paper summarizes the available data from 8 Middle and 75
Upper Paleolithic faunal assemblages. Different types of the man-mammoth associations could be deduced.
These include butchering sites used for the processing of hunted animals or frozen carcasses (Tomskaia,
Shikaevka II), mammoth deathsites exploited by prehistoric groups searching for bones and tusks (Volch’ia
Griva, Berelekh, Shestakovo), and occasional bones, which could be procured by prehistoric man elsewhere.
Use of mammoth bones and ivory for the manufacture of tools and ornaments is discussed. According to
relevant evidence from the final Pleistocene occurrences, the mammoth extinction took place in different
portions of Siberia in different times.
http://bruceowen.com/worldprehist/3250s06.htm
"Dolni Vestonice
Eastern Europeans: woolly mammoth hunters
large area with dwellings, mammoth bones, artifacts
…
dated around 25,000 BP (middle of the Upper Paleolithic)
environment: tundra, i.e. few trees
herds of mammoth, horses, deer
…bones of at least 100 mammoths piled up in one big area outside the camp
tools and broken bones indicate a butchery and hide preparation area
sorted piles of bones in the camp area
for construction?
fuel ???
some piles had fires built on top…?
structures
of mammoth bone, wood, rocks, dirt "
Perhaps it was because oneness with the land was part of their faith, if they in large numbers actually practiced it may be another issue, much like the Europeans came in the name of Jesus as their faith, but their practice was not Love but conquest.
One mistake and they won’t let it go 
Not *exactly. * In fact, rarely in pre-history do we know exactly when any species went extinct, barring a catastrophe. Nor are we sure exactly when humans showed up in NA. The two dates could well be a couple thousand years apart.
And of course the climatological changes which allowed Humans to come over may well have been the cause of the extinctions.
From Exapno Mapcase cite:
*Voorhies: The role that humans played in the extinction of mammoths is a hotly debated topic, and no one can claim that the mystery has been solved yet. Many facts are clear: Mammoths (along with all mastodons, ground sloths, native American camels and horses, sabercats, dire wolves, giant short-faced bears… the list goes on and includes more than 40 species of large mammals) disappeared from the American fossil record within a period of less than a thousand years beginning about 11,000 years ago according to radiocarbon dates.
We also know for sure that people were present in North America at least by 12,000 years ago and perhaps a few thousand years before then. Humans were definitely not present in America during most of the time (more than a million years in most cases) that mammoths and other now-extinct “megafauna” lived in North America. One theory, the “Overkill” Model, relates these facts and blames people for wiping out the big beasts. …
But wait! There’s another theory with many supporters—the Climate Change Model, which blames extinction on ecological change. Abundant evidence exists that climate was changing—glaciers were retreating rapidly and vegetation was changing on a large scale exactly at the same time mammoths were wiped out. Perhaps their food plants disappeared and they died of starvation? Those who support the Climate Model have a hard time swallowing the proposition that small(?) bands of roving hunters could exterminate vast herds of big game animals.
My own personal guess is that neither cause by itself would be sufficient but that both together could do the job. I agree with the “Climate” people that healthy herds could not be decimated by people with stone tools. …"*
He was as real an Indian as Chief Jay Strongbow;)
The Noble Savage wasn’t exactly portrayed as a tree hugger. More of European philosphy projected onto the ‘uncivilizied’. And there were no qualms about slaughtering the noble.
As **Exapno **noted, the image of Indians began to change in US culture during the 50s. Probably due to the collective guilt of people who weren’t raised to hate Indians. The crying Indian took that a step further by associating the destruction of the environment as a loss to the Indians who cared about the land.
The early 20th century attitude towards Indians is still seen in conservative circles, the Indians lost a war that happened because they would not embrace the ideal of land exploitation that made this country great. As the Indians disappeared from the landscape, their loss was sometimes regretted, but of course, it was their own fault. After a generation of people who got their history lessons in school instead of from pulp novels and movies, the realization dawned that the Indians had been slaughtered outright, and their lands stolen. But reality doesn’t fit well into American Exceptionalism philosophy, so its not surprising to see Indians lumped in with other commies and anti-American types like Hippies.
:dubious:
What does that mean? That they could be excellent environmentalist despite the fact that they deliberately poisoned rivers? Despite the fact that they were responsible for utterly destroying the ecosystems that they lived in? Despite the fact that they exterminated thousands of species? Despite the fact that they engaged in extremely wasteful and destructive practices? Despite the fact that they had almost no knowledge of the ecology and functioning of the land in which they lived and this lack of knowledge caused great harm? Despite the fact that they overharvested species such as bison in order to make a profit, and so exterminated them from most of North America?
By that standard every people in the history of the world were and are excellent environmentalists. If we can ignore any non-environmental shortcomings that they may have, can you name any people who aren’t excellent environmentalists? How do we know who is and isn’t an excellent environmentalist except by looking at their shortcomings WRT the environment?
Indians were neither better nor worse environmentalists than anybody else. Certainly no better than western Europeans or East Asians to pick a couple of random examples. One of their biggest problems was that the lack of writing. This meant that they had no capacity to build any meaningful ecological knowledge base, and harm inevitably resulted from that ignorance.
They weren’t as technologically as advanced as the Europeans, and thus not as affective at wrecking enviromental havoc.
By 1964 there was the character ‘Mingo’ on Daniel Boone. From Wiki:
That’s debatable at best.
And I think you mean “wreaking”.
This just isn’t true. The Europeans who arrived in the 16th century weren’t that much more technologically advanced. While they had iron and guns and writing, which along with smallpox was enough to beat the locals, the Europe of the time was not anywhere near industrialization, and couldn’t really wreck the ecosystem any more than the Indians did. This was not by any stretch of the imagination an industrialized society; in many respects people still lived in conditions more primitive than had the classical Romans.
Amerindians burned down huge swaths of forest just to give buffalo more grazing room. In 1492, burning down forests was about as damaging to the ecosystem as people got.
The difference between the Europeans of the time of Christopher Columbus and Europe in, say 1840 is mind boggling. In terms of the capacity to wreck stuff and create a mess they weren’t in the same zip code.
According to many half-to-three-quarters serious commentators, The Howdy Doody Show.
Seriously, or is my whoosh-o-meter broken?
But the ad itself was a fake, and a wonderfully successful bit of misdirection.
The ad was created by Keep America Beautiful, considered one of the first ‘greenwashing’ front groups. It was created in response to an effort to outlaw or require deposits for disposable beverage containers, and was largely funded by the makers of those containers.
It was broadcast heavily by the Ad Council, a group of the largest corporations in America (including some of the biggest polluters in the country). And this ad leaves the impression that the major component of pollution is littering by individual people – no mention of the much more serious industrial pollution by reckless corporations.
It also implies that the litter problem is caused by consumers, and that changing their behavior is the solution. Not mentioning that this problem could be addressed more effectively at the source, by outlawing or requiring deposits for beverage containers. Even the tagline on the ad “People Start Pollution. People can stop it.” puts the blame on individuals, ignoring the role of corporations that make money from this pollution.
Any cites for the claims that Native Americans deliberately poisoned rivers, destroyed ecosystems, engaged in wasteful and destructive practices, had no knowledge of ecology, and overharvested bison?
As for the claim that Native Americans exterminated thousands of species (surely an exaggeration), it can only refer to the initial period after the Clovis people first came to the Americas, more than ten thousand years ago. I’d say that’s long enough for a fresh start.
Generally, hunter-gatherer peoples are forced to be good ecologists in order to have a sustainable lifestyle. Agricultural and industrial peoples, in contrast, tend to take over more and more of the landscape for those purposes. The grand exception is when a hunter-gatherer people enters a large new area (such as the Americas), when they can slaughter the wildlife at will, seemingly without consequences.