Archaeologica.org

oldarchystudent wrote:There is a lot of discussion around Neanderthal / h. Sapiens contact and wether it was violent, peacful, co-operative or if there was even inter species mating.

We're not talking about a huge population at that point, and they are spreading out over vast tracts of land. I find it interesting though that going from Oldowan through to Mousterian tool assemblages, the points get smaller, indicating smaller game. Perhaps they out-hunted the land's ability to keep up and had to move on.

or- alternative theory -

the de glaciation created enough climate change to wipe out the mega fauna. in which case it would be a natural progression to smaller game, smaller points.

as the de glaciation was a way far larger phenomenon than small bands of hunting/gathering humans, i would put my money on climate change rather than hunting pressure as the cause of the megafaunal extinction.

they (humans) simply didn't have the numbers, or the firepower, to accomplish this.

j

At the close of the Ice Age, there was drastic climate change, with rainfall dropping from perhaps 40 inches per year down to 10 per year in the now Desert Southwest.

Same in Bolivia and southern Mexico, things really changed up circa 1500 B.C., mass migrations in the "Old World," the Middle East and North Africa dried out as in the Western Hemisphere, and city-states went underwater when the Ice Age icepacks melted.

The Phoenicians may have brought some blue eyes up the Mississippi after the Ice Age, when they began to mine the Lake Superior region.

There is a lot of discussion around Neanderthal / h. Sapiens contact

Oh, wait..OAS...I'm not even talking about HSS/HNS conflict. I'm talking about disparate groups of HSS following the same migratory route. I can't see that happening without warfare over the water holes if nothing else.

Great point, and I’m really not sure…..

On one hand, this isn’t an early hominid dash across Europe, they would perhaps follow herds, but hunter gatherers generally rotate around a number of seasonal sites. Following that pattern it would take centuries to move across a landscape. Current research also says that the Neanderthals were turning out to be pretty proficient hunters. The last element here for me is that megafauna generally require a large territorial range to support the eating habits of just a few animals. Large herd animals such as bison range much farther.

So, putting that all together I get this:

The extinctions were certainly influenced by weather, but also by slow-migrating proficient hunters who were able to depopulate a given megafaunal herd’s range fairly quickly. It doesn’t allow for the blitzkrieg model of Colvis-first in North America, and it does handle the gradual change of toolkit in Europe, the movement in seemingly illogical directions, etc.

I’m way open to debate on this. Thoughts?

Jim

AOS
This may seem idiotic on the surface , but we all seem to forget the human factor . Man doesnt always have a logical reason for doing a particular thing . The migration could have been an almagamation of many factors , from herd migration , climate , ostrisised tribes turning nomad , theres always elements of humanity that just want to see whats on the other side of the hill or go walkabout . I would think there would be more than one factor that caused it and its a question that will never be answered.

Probably true as the archaeological record is scanty. All we can go on is what evidence we have and explain it in those terms, but without written records a lot of these human factors that probably did play a part can never be known. Makes for interesting speculation though.

Man doesnt always have a logical reason for doing a particular thing .

Uprooting an entire group and moving though is rarely something that is undertaken lightly. There is usually a compelling reason like "RUN the HUNS are coming!!!"

But there can be spiritual imperatives that make no logical sense whatsoever, but were important enough to primative people to do strange things. We still see that today.....

Yes, oas, like people who believe that goo morphed into you.

Odd - you go along OK for a while, discussing reasonably, and then you fall back on things like this recurring goo sentence which seems to amuse you greatly. At this point I kick in the don't feed the troll strategy.

See your snide remark to which I was referring, what's wrong oas, can't take it, but only dish it out?

By the way, oas, Darwinites do believe that goo evolved into you, why do you believe such absurdity? You are being bamboozled.

I will debate reasonably with anyone. I only see that in spurts where you are concerned - you were the one that brought up the goo thing, not me. Too bad - the discussion on the ramp at Giza is interesting.

Genesis Veracity wrote:By the way, oas, Darwinites do believe that goo evolved into you, why do you believe such absurdity? You are being bamboozled.

Back to the creationist trolling we go. Don't feed.......