the Oligocene period;
the Pleistocene Epoch;
the Miocene Epoch.
I thought that I had first read of the Anthropocene in Anderson's Genesis but cannot find any reference to this epoch on the blog. (However, all that this proves is that I have not posted about it yet.) I will reread the chapters where it is most likely to have been mentioned.
I thought that the Anthropocene should date from the agricultural revolution because hunters and gatherers were not yet changing their environment but merely surviving within it like other animal species. However, some scientists date this epoch from the beginning of catastrophic human impact on the environment - very recently. The data are scientific but their interpretation is embedded in politics and ideology.
However, inspired by Poul Anderson, we tackle all the big issues here.
9 comments:
Humans have been apex predators for a very long time, and apex predators always shape their environment extensively. There's also strong evidence that human predation was the tipping factor in the megafaunal extinctions at the end of the late glacial.
Particularly in areas far from the hearth of human evolution -- and doubly so in areas like Australia and the New World where h. erectus didn't penetrate. Erectus was also a predator but not as effective a one as we are.
One of the human adaptations is analyzing the patterns of a local ecology so as to use seasonal peaks to tide over periods of dearth; other hominids seem to have had a more generalized foraging strategy, and hence a much lower population. Once we were through the last genetic bottleneck about 70K years ago, the human population increased steadily if slowly right down to the Neolithic.
And humans have always used fire to reshape landscapes, burning selectively to encourage the plants and animals they want.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
And this analysis is one I can hardly dispute, seeing as how it fits in both with what I read in history and personal knowledge of how human beings are changing the world.
I was amused by how, in some of your books, you had men sometimes feeling unexpectedly humbled as they had to contend with big, strong, aggressive animals like BEARS. They too are apex predators with little or no fear of mankind, esp. after the Change!
Sean
Things like lions and bears are dangerous if you don't have firearms, but humans can tackle them -- in fact, there's now evidence that human hunters systematically hunted -cave lions- for their skins, to use as rugs.
(There are very distinctive cut-marks which show that a big cat has been skinned in a way that leaves the claws attached to the hide, and they've found those.)
Cave lions were like our lions... but much bigger, averaging around 1000 pounds for an adult male and sometimes larger.
That means that the humans were tackling prides/packs of half-ton social carnivores just for rugs to keep the toes toasty, or possibly for bragging rights with the girls.
Mr Stirling,
Your knowledge of the curious habits of our ancestors is astounding.
Paul.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
I second Paul's comment. Very fascinating! Yes, I can easily young hunters and warriors hunting such massive carnivores for status and "bragging rights".
Sean
There was a tribe in the Congo where the standard gift for a young man to give c a girl he was courting was an elephant's tail... which he had to sneak up and cut off.
And the Masai had a ritual where a young man coming to warrior status had to kill a full-grown male lion with his spear to make a headdress -- I've seen the results. The hunt was done with spear, shield and sword, with the hunters surrounding the lion(s), throwing spears, and then the youngster receiving the charge on his shield and finishing off the lion with his spear or -simi- (shortsword; I've got one).
Mr Stirling,
What was the mortality rate among these Masai?
Paul.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Egads! I'm amazed at the dangers ambitious young warriors were willing to face! Both as regards elephants tails and hunting lions.
Sean
Post a Comment