Climate change. The humans were there in part because of environmental change in the first place. Large deposits of dead animals all killed at the same time with no evidence of hunting or butchery makes mass die offs likely. Humans may have participated, but were likely only one among other factors.
and yet you've linked to an article that goes into detail about work that
may be close to a deathblow for the hypothesis.
"the hypothesis" being
First proposed in 1966 by paleontologist Paul Martin, this “overkill hypothesis” stated that the arrival of modern humans in each new part of the world brought with it the extinction of all those huge animals, whether through hunting them or outcompeting them.
So, we're back to correlation but not at all certain causation. By your link at the very least.
The Smithsonian Magazine here is being wishy washy and doing the "good points on both sides" thing .. it at least admits that the world has moved on from accepting Martins 1966 hypothesis at face value and that new work is continuing to reveal new insights.
Comments
Climate change. The humans were there in part because of environmental change in the first place. Large deposits of dead animals all killed at the same time with no evidence of hunting or butchery makes mass die offs likely. Humans may have participated, but were likely only one among other factors.
These megafauna survived dozens of ice ages but not the one that had humans
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-happened-...
True enough.
and yet you've linked to an article that goes into detail about work that
"the hypothesis" being So, we're back to correlation but not at all certain causation. By your link at the very least.The Smithsonian Magazine here is being wishy washy and doing the "good points on both sides" thing .. it at least admits that the world has moved on from accepting Martins 1966 hypothesis at face value and that new work is continuing to reveal new insights.