It is a stupid theory.
Humans had almost zero impact on the buffalo until the arrival of two things:
The horse and the gun.
To think that stone-age humans could have decimated the mammoth population is ridiculous. An individual mammoth is just too large and powerful, human hunter time could have been way more effective against smaller prey.
****human hunter time could have been way more effective against smaller prey.****
I understand baby mammoth is both tender and tasty! And they are easy to kill!
Thank you ... a response that makes more sense then this ridiculous theory.
human hunter time could have been way more effective against smaller prey.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Teach man to fish and he could maybe feed his family for a day.
Teach man to hunt down, sautee, tenderize and deep fry a Wolly Mammoth and he can feed his village for a month.
/bingo
A few thoughts.
First, humans have been very effective at wiping out large, dangerous animals in many other circumstances. Everywhere we show up, whether it is Northern Europe, the Americas, or Australia, most of the large, dangerous animals die off shortly thereafter. I doubt that is a coincidence. The example of the buffalo is flawed because they were not very dangerous to humans, and because the sheer size of the buffalo population was massive compared to the amount of mammoths that could be supported in a similar sized region. I’d guess we’re talking on the order of thousands to one.
Your argument about the effectiveness of hunting large vs small prey is based on false assumptions. Small prey is faster and more elusive than large prey. It takes more time to hunt them, better technology and skill to effectively kill them, and they provide only a small amount of protein for the effort. Humans weigh the calculus of all this, and usually take down the biggest prey they can manage, to get the greatest return on investment. For example, Eskimos subsist on whale meat, not on seals or fish, even though they would seem to be the easier targets. Same thing with your example of the buffalo. Hunting rabbits or deer might seem easier than going after buffalo with spears or bow and arrow, yet we had whole societies of humans who decided to get most of their meat from following the buffalo herds.
Also, look at the example of other top tier predators like lions. They’ll kill anything they can to satisfy their massive need for protein, but their hunting behavior is quite different for large and small prey. They’ll stalk a herd of gazelles or antelope they come across, to get a quick meal, but they are lucky to grab one of them, and that meat will satisfy the needs of the pride for only a very short time. When they encounter a giraffe, on the other hand, they will herd the beast to a battleground where they can gain the upper hand, and then spend hours in mortal combat with it, taking much greater risks, in order to secure a much larger meal that can provide them food for days.