reply to post by stirling
You're not right. The mound-builders existed in the 11th and 13th centuries.
Hunting tactics of paleolithic peoples were pretty messy; it's hard
to kill an animal with a rock on a stick, much easier to drive them into
traps. This results in a lot of waste, and if we're talking about creatures with low breeding rates (such as mammoths and probably giant sloths),
then populations are naturally going to nosedive. With htem go the big predators (which humans probably also killed as a matter of course)
Smaller, more prolific creatures in the Americas - such as the horse - were victims of environmental limitations paired with extensive hunting. North
America only has so much decent horse habitat, and most of it overlapped with some of hte areas of densest human population. As the lakes in the west
started drying up, this put a lot of pressure ion the population of these animals, and they collapsed.
Eurasia had a buffer - it's enormous
, and large expanses of it are very inhospitable to humans. So the horse that became extinct in the
Americas managed to hold on in the Eurasian steppes (though even there it went into decline) and the mammoths which were trapped in warm savannah
climes of North America were quickly wiped out, while their elephant counterparts in Asia and Africa managed to evolve more or less together with
humans and adapted to their presence.
the introduction of humans to the ecosystem resulted in mass extinctions. it happened in Australia, all the world's islands, and the
European peninsula as well (though most of Europe's fauna also existed in the rest of Eurasia as well, preventing total
extinction of things
like the horse, wisent, ibex, aurochs, saiga, mammoth, etc). it's what happens when you introduce a new predator anywhere.
My fellow indians getting butthurt over it are just silly, to be honest.