What if none of the tribes who migrated to America during the ice ages made it? What would happen when Columbus arrived?
No Pre-Columbian Americans
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- Start date
The biggest change, IMO, would occur earlier, when the Vikings arrived in 1000. Rather than facing a land populated by semi-hostile Skraelings, the Vikings would face a land of milk and honey, just waiting to be settled. For some ideas, see: http://www.althist.com/EA01.htm
Even though its pretty much ASB, that timeline is cool. Giant wolves, wolly mammoths, massive beavers and armadillos... awesome. I`ve always thought it would be cool to see those species survive. Picture it, English colonists landing in Virginia to meet Native Americans riding around on seven foot tall giant elk instead of horses.
How is it ASB? Those species might've survived to the time, if humans hadn't arrived there.tetsu-katana said:
DominusNovus said:
Some few of them might have survived, but not many. I tend to think that we, in our arrogance, overestimate the impact of our own species on these extinctions. The evidence strongly suggests that all of these megafauna were in serious decline before the arrival of humans to the Americas due to climatic changes coming out of end of the Ice Age. Large areas that were wet and lush with vegetation were drying out, temperatures were increasing, and the food supply for megafauna herbivores was disappearing. Did humans have an impact? Probably some. Were they the decisive factor? Probably not. Some species may have gone extinct sooner than they would have otherwise because of human hunting, but in all likelihood, they would have gone extinct anyway if no humans had been there to hunt them.
Read "A Different Flesh" by Turtledove. A fascinating TL with no modern humans in new world when Europeans show up. Even though he has homo erectus populations here, many of the effects on European colonization he posits ring true.
Regarding megafauna, it is true that many populations were in decline at about 10,000 years ago. However, most archaeologists believe that human exploitation may have made the difference between small relic populations surviving to the modern era and complete extinction.
Regarding megafauna, it is true that many populations were in decline at about 10,000 years ago. However, most archaeologists believe that human exploitation may have made the difference between small relic populations surviving to the modern era and complete extinction.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
robertp6165 said:
"Regarding megafauna, it is true that many populations were in decline at about 10,000 years ago. However, most archaeologists believe that human exploitation may have made the difference between small relic populations surviving to the modern era and complete extinction."
"Small relic populations" surviving to now would probably be neither small nor relics, but they might be very different from their ancestors
If the megafauna had survived into the ice age they should survive out, species generally adapt rather than die, unless they have additional pressure put on at a crucial transition time. Also, megafauna are proof of the evolutionary principle that, all other things being equal, a bigger animal survives better. It just seems too much of a coincidence to me that most all the animals going extinct are the big dangerous ones or the ones we like to eat.
The Holocene "end of the Ice Age" was just the start of another interglacial, just like a score before. Why should megafauna die out in Australia first, then the Americas, then finally Madagascar, always just after humans arrive? Why should they survive some in Asia (where hominids with paleolithic technology entered hundreds of millennia ago) and better in Africa (where they evolved with eolithic technology thousands of millennia ago)...the very places where megafauna had some chance to evolve avoidance of humans with low technology (at least until the technology became high)?
Diamond
Banned
With no prior human presence in the Americas, it might actually be MORE DIFFICULT (at least at first) for the European settlers, whoever they may be. In OTL, hundreds of indian villages were depopulated by euro plagues, leaving nicely leveled, treeless land, fields ready for planting, etc. etc. Not to mention that the natives knew where all the 'good stuff' resource-wise was, and could point the europeans right to it.
Diamond said:
THis is a point made by Turtledove in "Flesh". Without indigenous humans there were no native cultigens (corn, squashes, beans) adapted to north american conditions and the colonies remained much more dependent on Europe for subsistence goods until appropriate strains of old world crops were developed. In his world you get the impression that european populations in the New world remained somewhat smaller and that for at least some of the period it was much more economically impoverished. Apparently no equivalent to the American Revolution and a fully independent USA.
tom said:
Good points Tom. And don't forget New Zealand as well with the large flightless birds being killed off within a few hundred years after Maori colonization. Pleistocene megafauna survived in Africa and Asia because they had evolved together with paleolithic humans and had developed a whole host of appropriate "fight or flight" responses when faced with funny upright bipeds armed with flint-tipped spears. There may also be certain other cultural or technological thresholds which suddenly make humans much more deadly to megafauna - possibly certain organized hunting techniques.
Walter, some interesting ideas and some good writing there! Any additions coming soon?
Grimm Reaper said:
huh? Are you talking about the link I posted?? If so, I didn't write that. I read it a couple of days ago and just posted the link.
Oops, sorry, Walter. I saw the link and assumed it was your creation. Very humiliating for me 
. I simply wished to praise your eye for such links and your kindness in sharing with the board, but I was in error and will therefore retract the praise. Sorry to have bothered.
. I simply wished to praise your eye for such links and your kindness in sharing with the board, but I was in error and will therefore retract the praise. Sorry to have bothered. Grimm Reaper said:Oops, sorry, Walter. I saw the link and assumed it was your creation. Very humiliating for me
LoL, it's all right. You don't need to be so humilitiated.
Discovery channel had a documentary series about the age of mammals, and they discussed the megafauna disappearance. Apparently, the current thinking is that the megafauna went through long cycles of decline and increase, tied to the glacial movements. The humans happened to appear at the end of one of them, when the megafauna was on a natural decline, and the hunting pressure pushed them into extinction... without humans, at least some of the megafauna was likely to survive....
If mammoths could survive on an Island in the artic ocean by dwarfing by size, I think that Mammoths and other megefauna could have survived.
Posible uses of mammoths:-
(1) Domesticating them for work, as in another thread in this forum. But those enormous tusks might be suitable as snow-ploughs but not as forklift forks for picking up logs as with Indian male elephants.
(2) In spring, collecting their shed winter coat hairs.
(3) Collecting ivory from natural casualties.
(1) Domesticating them for work, as in another thread in this forum. But those enormous tusks might be suitable as snow-ploughs but not as forklift forks for picking up logs as with Indian male elephants.
(2) In spring, collecting their shed winter coat hairs.
(3) Collecting ivory from natural casualties.
If you domesticate them, there's no reason to limit yourself to natural casualities for ivory. After all, nobody's concerned about the leather industry wiping out cattle. With domesticated mammoths (or any other ivory-bearing animal), the same situation (albeit, on a smaller scale, due to the size difference, there wouldn't be too many small time mammoth ranchers) would be the rule.Anthony Appleyard said: