Already proud of my country!
To Tristan.
21 JulI miss you buddy, more than I let you know.
We just clicked. It just happened instantly. You’re such a great guy and you’ve been through so much, and you’ve taught me so much about the world and about myself.
I always sit cross-legged when I’m on a chair. I can never let my feet down. I eat politely. So many other things that I can’t think about right now.
You opened up to me almost instantly. It’s not every day that you open up to a stranger and tell them that you’re trans. It’s not every day that you open up to a stranger and tell them that you’ve had an eating disorder for the past 7 years. But that’s how it was between us and those are the kinds of things we were comfortable sharing with each other.
There’s something special to that, you know.
Remember that one time where I couldn’t go to lecture because I had a massive anxiety attack? I looked for you. I only wanted you. I knew you could help.
If it wasn’t for you, I would have died out there.
There is just one thing that I would change, and that is your feelings towards me. I’m sorry that you have those feelings. I hope they fade away. I’m sorry that I hurt you. I’m sorry that I don’t reciprocate them.
I think I realized quite quickly, by the way you always looked at me that you thought I was something special. I remember the exact moment where you looked at me and said: “You know, you’re beautiful”. It melted my heart and meant so much.
You always said that you look for beauty and intelligence – and that’s what you saw in me. I got you the moment I started nerding out about lithics and the Peopling of the Americas theories.
Even though that was a significant setback in our friendship, it was still able to grow into something special.
I wish that we didn’t live so far away from each other, but we do and we just have to deal with it, I guess.
I can’t wait until you come to Oktoberfest in October! It’s going to be a blast and I hope to see you happy and content with how your life is turning out.
Love you and see you next year in the old desert land!
Warning: This is not a story.
15 JulExtinction
Warning: not a story.
Introduction
Envision a world full of icy landscapes, large freshwater lakes, streams meandering through the countryside, land covered by thousands of powerful beasts and vast open spaces, rich with the evidence of flourishing flora. This portrayal was characteristic of the North American landscape nearing and during the end of the Pleistocene era. However, as time continued to push forward, these beasts started to vanish one by one. What makes this situation interesting, and not quite like any major extinction event of any previous time, is that around the time of these mass disappearances, Homo Sapiens sapiens have been widely known to be beginning to flood into North America across the Beringia from the vast lands of Eastern Asia. At the same time, however, the climate of North America was also viciously changing – so much that completely new ecosystems were being created where seemingly opposite ones once existed. Seeing as this was in fact the case, there has been a long history in the Anthropological, Archaeological and Palaeontological fields of on-going debate as to exactly why the megafauna of the North American Pleistocene became extinct with such vigour after the retreat of the glaciers approximately 10,000 years ago. Beginning in the late 1700s, one may suspect that the debate has been progressing so far as to find a final answer or a compromise. However, it can be said that even within our modern times with our vast knowledge and modern technology, we may actually be drifting farther and farther away from the truth (Grayson 2007: 185). Viewpoints within this debate can range from 100 percent support of the “overkill hypothesis”, ignoring the evidence for climate change, to acknowledging the climate change as the only appropriate explanation, whilst brushing off any possibility that there was substantial impact of human hunting. The majority of opinions actually meet somewhere in the middle, acknowledging the human aspect as well as recognizing that climate change had an impact as well. However, for the purpose of creating an interesting research paper, each point of view will be discussed and analyzed separately, and a conclusion will be reached about which theory is the most applicable to the reality of what happened to cause the Megafaunal extinction at the end of the Pleistocene in North America.
Background History
In order to grasp the true scale of the extinction event, some brief background information on the amount of mammal species that was lost is necessary. In North America, the number of species that was lost during the termination of the Pleistocene is immense. There are an estimated number of about 35 genera (emphasis on genera – not species) of mammals that went extinct within North America during this time period, some being colossal in size. 29 of these genera became extinct globally. It was not only the mammals who suffered however, with an additional 19 genera of birds becoming extinct as well, ranging from large predator birds, to small seed-eaters (Grayson 2007: 186). In addition to extinctions, many species of animals that lived within North America at this time and survived underwent major distributional changes. These animals ranged form the caribou, to the musk oxen, to different species of the tiny vole (Grayson 2007: 186). In order to construct a neat, compact time frame for the purposes of this research, it will be assumed that these extinction events occurred somewhere between 12,000 and 10,000 years ago. What has been briefly mentioned in the introduction is that during this precise time period, climate and vegetation change was underway, as well as human migration onto the continent (Grayson 2007: 188) from Asia, through the Beringia Land Bridge. These two hypotheses each have the burden of proof upon each of them (as they are both attempting to prove themselves), and it is with much debate that one of them stands out as the more probable main factor.
The Overkill Hypothesis
It is applicable to begin this discussion with the more vigorous of the two opposing theories: the “overkill hypothesis”. There has been many-a paper written on the overkill hypothesis, but the concept of it remains quite simple and constant throughout. It is generally recognized to be a hypothesis that emphasizes and exaggerates the role that human beings had on the destruction of Pleistocene megafauna, and generally acknowledges human hunting to be the main reason for the extinctions themselves (Brook and Bowman 2002: 14624). In an article written by John D. Buffington called “Predation, Competition, and Pleistocene Megafauna Extinction”, Buffington starts off with a very interesting observation made by Holger Kantz, stating that while in general, carnivores usually target the weak, young or old members of a herbivore population, humans have the ability to seek out members from all age groups and health levels. He is not only reliant on the fact that they had the ability to; it is the fact that this is how they actually hunted – and still do in tribal populations around the world. He also states that two potential, but likely scenarios could come of this: the population of the preyed upon species grows, due to increased survival rate of the young, enabling them to achieve adulthood and breeding. This would in turn deplete other herbivorous populations based on the fact that there would be more competition for food resources – which in turn would result in the extinction of the carnivore species that rely on these populations (Buffington 1971: 167). To put faces to names, Kantz sums up his views with an example showcasing the sabre-toothed tiger cause for extinction in a few precise sentences:
“…the saber-toothed cats became extinct because they could not compete with man. Since man preyed less heavily on bison young than had the saber-tooths, the bison population increased. As a result of increased competition from this species, a large number of other herbivores including the horse, extinct pronghorn, camel, and possibly the mammoth became extinct. With the loss of these other prey species the jaguar became extinct in the area.”
Buffington then dives into the depths of mathematical reasoning in order to test this hypothesis, and however helpful that type of analysis is to the hypothesis, it is not appropriate topic to discuss within this particular report. What should be taken from this example is that it logically makes sense, is completely possible, and is a very strong evidentiary point for the avocation of the overkill hypothesis. When analyzing any theory within archaeology or palaeontology, animal remain data (bone, antler and other materials) are oftentimes the most important place to look for evidence for the research questions. With regards to the variability of mammal and other animal megafauna that humans hunted in the past – the material data presents itself as showing that humans were capable of hunting multiple megafauna species. Not only are the bones proof that they were capable, there are actually bone assemblages that are interpreted to be established kill sites. Some species that turn up on kill sites are not only mammoth, but mastodon and giant tortoise as well, showing that man preyed, and maybe valued more than one megafauna species at a time, and hunted them at great lengths (Grayson and Alroy 2001: 1460). Another point that Alroy makes (this article is a debate between the two hypotheses) is that the overkill hypothesis can take account for otherwise inexplicable patterns and events, while the climate change hypothesis can not. He firstly asks two questions of space: why would these extinctions range so vastly, from Alaska to Patagonia (which is an extremely widespread area) and focus on larger species that are environmentally specialized, yet spare save all other mammals that were under the weight of 10 kilograms, and all species of plants? Why would megafauna go extinct when the glaciers were retreating, revealing more land, which is double the previous habitable area of the continent? These questions were followed by one of general inquiry: why would this extinction have no last affects on animal communities that survived during this time? These two last questions are critical ideas that support the overkill hypothesis: why would the extinction fail to present itself during the many previous deglaciations and climate change events? Why has this particular extinction event found itself more severe and selective by the standards of any previous extinction in the past 65 million years, where climate change showed no previous interaction with extinction? (Grayson and Alroy 2001: 1460). These are all extremely thought-provoking questions that the climate change opposition may not be able to rebut. Additionally with regards to the last two questions, Alroy wasn’t the only researcher that points out these observations. The same is pointed out in another article, entitled “Explaining the Pleistocene Megafaunal Extinctions: Models, Chronologies, and Assumptions” by Barry Brook and David Bowman. They state that all of the proponents of the overkill hypothesis point these patterns out: if megafauna had survived the glacial cycles previous to the last one when there was no human interference, why hadn’t they been able to survive through this one? (Brook and Bowman 2002: 14624). It is observations such as these that keep the merit of the overkill hypothesis in one piece – it is observations such as these, which are hard to shatter and which make the overkill hypothesis such a strong contender within the debate.
Evidence for Climate Change
On the other side of the fence sits the proponents of the climate change theory, which surprisingly has had much less data to offer than its alternate, the overkill hypothesis; which will result in a weaker argument, or maybe no concrete argument at all to be put forth in this paragraph. As was stated earlier in this analysis, between the time period of 12,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago, the climate began to adjust due to glacial retreat. No one is refuting the fact that climate did indeed change the environment during this time period, it is just a matter of the extent of the climate change and the extent of the effects that it would have on megafauna populations. With regards to climate change, the most important aspect that hinders the ability for megafauna and other herbivorous mammals to survive is not an issue of the inability for physical adaptation; it is an issue of the competition for resources. Therefore, the key to understanding why the megafauna died off at the end of the Pleistocene is to take a look at the vegetation of the areas that apply to the extinction event and how they had been altered. This period is characterized by severe climate oscillations, most important of which is called the “Younger Dryas” cold period, which occurred from 10,800 – 10,000 calibrated years before the present. This period was one of which that saw the climate change almost to the point of full glaciation again (Mayle and Cwynar 1995: 129). When climate change occurs, often time vegetation is very susceptible to changes over short periods of time. To illustrate this fact, it is seen that at the end of the Younger Dryas period came warming to a rapid degree, as forest-tundra and shrub-tundra was able to convert itself into woodland in only about one century (Mayle and Cwynar 1995: 153). Although not much of a conclusion can be drawn about the state of herbivorous mammals during this time period, diving into human subsistence patterns could help to refute some of the overkill hypothesis, and support the climate change hypothesis. Firstly, to extent of which humans were mass megafauna hunters is debatable. This is based on entertaining the possibility that humans during this time period relied quite heavily on flora, and the harvesting of it and as of late, there is more and more evidence that has pointed towards an increased use of plants in the diet of these North American pre-historic peoples. The underlying principle of use-wear analysis is to study the microscopic and less likely, but sometimes what are referred to as macroscopic “scars” that occur on a stone tool (or other types of tools that these people would have used) which are directly related to the type of work and materials they were exposed to (Odell 2004: 136). There are very specific patterns of these “scars” that are common when analyzing stone tools that have been used to prepare flora for human use. For example, in the book entitled “Humans at the End of the Ice Age: The Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition”, edited by Laurence Guy Straus et al., it is stated that there are stone tools that were used for grinding that have been found to be interpreted as plant grinding tools, probably through an observation of a glossy-like substance (sickle gloss) on the tools, which is known to be from the grinding of plant fibres. This has helped to diminish the idea of a complete protein diet at the end of the Pleistocene, and therefore has placed less merit on the overkill hypothesis (Straus et al. 1996: 333). It is by this fact that shows that climate change may have, although been detrimental to megafauna populations, could have in fact helped the nutrition of human populations, providing a wider range of vegetation to have access to. Lastly, it is important for this case to re-state that mammals and smaller animals who were not shown to be concentrated on (hunted) as much as some of the megafauna populations went extinct regardless of human predation. How can one make sense of the 19 genera of birds (of all sizes) that became extinct as well (Grayson 2007: 186), if not taking climate change into consideration? In other words, if climate change had no effect on the megafauna population as some proponents of the overkill hypothesis attempt to demonstrate, why are other populations that weren’t hunted becoming extinct as well? It is these arguments and this kind of proof that helps the climate change avoid complete humiliation from the overkill hypothesis point of view. This being said, although there is less direct evidence for climate change to have a profound affect on megafauna populations to the point of extinction, many still believe that this change in environment was still the central factor, and it is absolutely critical that one takes it into account when trying to decipher the mass extinction event at the end of the Pleistocene (Reed 1970: 284).
Most Probable Scenario
Although it is unreasonable to assume that either human over-hunting or climate change can stand alone when trying to determine the cause of the Pleistocene extinction, one of the two unquestionably stands with more merit. Although more evidence has been provided for the overkill hypothesis, it is interesting to note that most professional Archaeologists, Ecologists and Palaeontologists fall into the middle ground when discussing this topic. Judging solely on the fact that there is simply more direct evidence for the Pleistocene overkill hypothesis will do no good, as it has been pointed out that there are good claims that refute this hypothesis within and of itself. It is found that it is never a good idea to stand too far on one side of a debate, unless that side has 100 percent, completely irrefutable evidence and support of that particular argument. This being a debate that has evidence for both the overkill hypothesis as well as climate change, it would be silly to side with one hypothesis. As shown by the article that was previously mentioned in this research, (Grayson and Alroy 2001), it is quite easy, as an academic, to discredit the other side’s evidence and to support your side of the argument. However, as most academics state, it has been found that there was most likely a combination of these two hypotheses, that the demise of the Pleistocene megafauna had reached North America at the end of the Pleistocene. In the sole opinion of this paper, the most probable series of events is that human hunters had began to diminish populations upon their arrival into North America, and climate change did not assist with the matters of the megafauna. It is probable that within populations that had a diminished effect because of overzealous human hunters, they may have had become more susceptible to climate change based on their smaller population size. This would explain why other species of mammals and smaller animals had gone extinct as well. These animals may have been more sensitive to climate change than the megafaunal populations, leading to their extinction. It is hereby concluded that because there are strong arguments for both sides of the debate, the most probable case is the combined effect of the overkill hypothesis, complicated further by climate change.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, as it is known, all eras must come to an end some day. There is no longer a landscape full of beastly Pleistocene mammals, no longer vast ice sheets covering the majority of Canada and some parts of northern United States of America and no longer glacial lakes that once were so large, fresh and abundant. Ancient human hunters no longer patrol these vast lands, searching for their next meal and climate, although still changing, is relatively stable in this part of the world now. What is known as the most recent, most astronomical extinction event is now, under the guise of academics, one of the largest debate topics in the history of any Archaeological, Palaeontological, or Ecological debate. This is a tri-century long debate that seems to be never-ending and there is no end in sight. Occurring from 12,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago, there are academics that lean more toward one argument then the other. Some proponents of each theory are even extremely one-sided in their arguments, not even attempting to consider the merit of the other side. The overkill hypothesis proponents are extremely certain that the only probable explanation that exists within this debate is the hypothesis that human hunters hunted these large mammals to the extent of extinction. They believe that there are patterns to this extinction event that climate change simply cannot account for. On the other end of the spectrum, climate change is seen to be the only reasonable cause for the extinctions. On this side, it is seen that there is no possible way that human hunters could have had that profound of an impact on not only megafaunal species, but smaller mammal and animal species as well. It is also characterized by the fact that the human species may have been more reliant on plant-material for food consumption then once previously thought, leading to less stress on herbivorous populations as the sole food product of the Pleistocene. The side which the researcher of this paper was determined to take a stand on was neither: that there was most likely a combination of these two hypotheses in order for the extinction to have occurred. Until more concrete, irrefutable evidence comes forward for either of these hypotheses, it will be ultimately concluded that there was a combination of both human over hunting, as well as climate change that led to the demise of the beasts that once ruled North America.
Send me on my way
18 JunIf there was one song and one video that best describes me and my carefree attitude towards life, it is this one.
Thankyou.
Send me on my way..
Giving me a Chance P2
20 Apr
This is the song that goes with the lyrics in my previous post.
It’s amazing.
"A white blank page..." 