Actual the critique is mostly my own and I've never published on it. My
zooarchy colleague here, Don Grayson, published a critical note in
Science in 1977, Vol 195, pp 691-693, entitled "Pleistocene Avifaunas and
the Overkill Hypothesis" in which he shows that comparable extinction
rates hold for large birds as for large mammals, despite the fact that
the majority of the birds involved (including super-Condors with 20 foot
wingspans) would have been neither likely prey nor obligate associates
(as predators or scavengers) of the mammals.

A summary of the debates co-edited by Martin and Richard Klein, an
archaeologist, appeared in 1984 (but I haven't looked at it in a long
time): _Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution_, Univ. of
Arizona Press. The Martin line is frequently and uncritically repeated
by many scholars: cf. Jared Diamond, Nature 324:19-20 (1986). As far as
I know Martin still holds to it.

I believe the Australian case also doesn't fit the Overkill Hypothesis,
though it should be a good test case as human settlement of that
continent dates to 40,000 or 50,000 BP, before the end of the Pleistocene.

Gene.

On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, M. Smith wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Eugene Hunn wrote:
> > However, Paul S. Martin's "Pleistocene Overkill" theory is considered
> > entirely without merit by myself and my archaeological colleagues.
>
> Gene, could you provide a few key references? I'd like to read some of
> this stuff, sounds like good (that is references refuting Martin) and
> enlightening stuff.
>
> -------------
> Michael R. Smith
> Univ. of Washington, Seattle
> whimbrel at u.washington.edu
> http://salmo.cqs.washington.edu/~wagap/mike.html
>
>