Archaeology & Anthropology: Mobility of early humans

Print Page | Close Window

Mobility of early humans

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Archaeology & Anthropology
Forum Discription: Topics on archaeology and anthropology
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27360
Printed Date: 21-May-2024 at 23:59
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Mobility of early humans

Posted By: fantasus
Subject: Mobility of early humans
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 20:17

In the Americas section some of us discuss wether the "double continent" were settled "fast" or "slowly". Why not discuss early human mobility in general? Were our very early ancestors generally rather less mobile, lived isolated, and had to use very long time to spread around the planet (even when "natural barriers" fell and it became habitable), or were they fundamentally as mobile as we are(of course unmotorisied), if not perhaps even perhaps a bit over contemporary average from the time they were really humans, if not long before? My own opinion is that humans always were able to migrate and adapt rather quick compared to our existense "momentarily", to socialise and exchange ideas and items. - only "strong physical barrers" (large oceans, uninhabitable areas) in a few cases created some isolation. An example: there are signs of exchange of items from notherm to southern europe about 5000 years ago (the age of earliest writing and the "iceman"). Perhaps nothing new from earliest humans on?

Replies:

Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 21:44

This is indeed a very interesting topic.

Another subject that I'm rather interested in is how isolated did pe-historic human populations live from each other. I suppose that each hunter-gatherer tribe only consisted of a few dozen or few hundred people; if they married always within themselves, genetic diseases might arise within a few generations.

However, if human numbers were small and every tribe occupied a very large territory, what were the chances were that they would come into contact with other populations? Did most humans only ever get to meet human beings from their tribe and never any others?

According to genetic studies, population encounters and trans-continental migrations did occur; yet only a very long period of time.

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 22:22

Originally posted by calvo

This is indeed a very interesting topic.

According to genetic studies, population encounters and trans-continental migrations did occur; yet only a very long period of time.

But it is hard to see this idea of "slowness" is necessary true! I see for instance, early humans as able to walk as any soldier in any great march, be it military campaign or peacefull travel known from history. There is known some "great marches" from history, most of them done by the two legs. I see no reason at all prehistoric legs were less capable. Neither do I see why they should live in isolation, since there may have been a population whereever people could live. There must be very great uncertainty about early populations too, and difficult to find what may have been some of the most populated places. Especially if they are know hard to reach for scientists, like sites now covered by water.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 23:11

Most of those great marches didn't happen until very well late into Human history.

-------------

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 06:45

Originally posted by es_bih

Most of those great marches didn't happen until very well late into Human history.

Of course not! But the reason may rather be we do not know that much about earlier travels. But basically early humans may supposed to be as "fit" for long distance walking as later days "marchers" - if not a bit more, since it seems a reasonable hypothesis that people that hunt for a living may be "well trained" from childhood, while agriculturalists and those living in cities may be so, but not necessary as much!

And yes the most known long walks (perhaps there is many more than I know about)probably were made by soldiers, adults. On the other hand a soldier may cary with him much equipment and fight and even loot some of the time, reorganise etcetera.

Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 08:41

hunter-gatherer populations were normally nomadic, who moved about following their game. Most of the great-distance migrations began with the trailing of animal footprints.
I suppose that most tribes would not have voluntarily migrated over long distances if it wasn't out of necessity.
What type of necessity could arise? For example, if the food resources in an area had run out due to climate change or over-hunting. What could also be a reason could be human multiplication. If numbers of a tribe reached a certain level, some members would have to move on to a different area to seek for more food resources. Under normal circumstances they would not normally move a large distance away from the mother tribe, most probably just far enough to find a new territory that they could live off.

I could imagine that if you apply a model: that with every generation, the children move to an area 50km from the parents, in 2000 years (80 generations), they would have dispersed over a distance of 4000 km!

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 11:24

IIRC Lévi Strauss's doctoral thesis ncluded studying the process with which Amazonian tribes established new settlements. It takes a very specific effort to leave an established locale and settle in the wild even in similar habitats, unless some kind of trauma occurs to make it necessary. It therefore doesn't happen very often, and it happens far less often if the move is from one type of habitat to another, with the consequent necessity of learning new survival techniques.

This is also specially true of preliterate cultures where knowledge and experience can be quickly lost in a few generations after migration has made them irrelevant.

None of this really has anything at all to do with the physical mobility of humans (any more than speed of social/cultural development has anything to do with different human capabilities, as Strauss and Diamond among others point out.

I don't doubt that humans have always been able to walk easily at around four miles per hour, yet cultures spread at speeds more like a fraction of a mile per year, even in favourable circumstances - i.e. when they are spreading across similar environments.

-------------

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 15:44

Originally posted by gcle2003

IIRC Lévi Strauss's doctoral thesis ncluded studying the process with which Amazonian tribes established new settlements. It takes a very specific effort to leave an established locale and settle in the wild even in similar habitats, unless some kind of trauma occurs to make it necessary. It therefore doesn't happen very often, and it happens far less often if the move is from one type of habitat to another, with the consequent necessity of learning new survival techniques.

This is also specially true of preliterate cultures where knowledge and experience can be quickly lost in a few generations after migration has made them irrelevant.

This leaves some questions:

1. How much does anthropological research in the field tell us about early humans?

An idea contemporary "indigenous" people are rather different in many ways from our ancestors could be worth considering. I could at least imagine some reasons for such possible differences.

2: An example of mobility may be inuits, thats seems both to have travelled long distances (sometimes), and migrated (there may be other examples as well that I do not know about. and of course if we may doubt amazonian indians are "representative" we may have the same doubts about inuits).

3:If trauma could be reason to migrations then why not the opposite? Perhaps some groups migrated if they found far better places for hunting elsewhere?

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 18:59

Originally posted by fantasus

This leaves some questions:

Indeed.

1. How much does anthropological research in the field tell us about early humans?

An idea contemporary "indigenous" people are rather different in many ways from our ancestors could be worth considering. I could at least imagine some reasons for such possible differences.

It's easily the best evidence we have. Of course it gets harder and harder to find cultures that are not affected by contact with modern humans.

To some extent I guess we can also use observations of primate behaviour in the wild. Almost anything is better than just speculating. One thing though is that we should assume that primitive humans were just as capable we we are with regard to basic intellectzual and physical abilities (and no more so).

Inuits would of course be evidential. However, Inuit migration has been strictly into similar environments. I justdon't know of Inuit studies like those of Lévi Strauss's in Brazil, which I only know about through researching into the manifestations of 'leadership' qualities (insofar as there are any).

Generally speaking the creation of a new settlement needs the emergence of a 'leader'.

3:If trauma could be reason to migrations then why not the opposite?

Because if you're content with what you have, and you don't know anything else exists, there's no point in moving. The grass is only always greener in the other man's yard if you know there is another man's yard.

The early migrants into Alaska for instance had no idea whatsoever there might be better living conditions anywhere else. They hadn't even taken Geography 101.

Perhaps some groups migrated if they found far better places for hunting elsewhere?

How would they find them? You're teetering on a circular argument - they'd go looking for a better place because they had come across a better place when they were looking for a better place (even though they were happy where they were).

Incidentally, a human nowadays takes about a month to walk from Lands End to John O'Groats on roads, two-three months off road. I've no doubt a prehistoric human could have done much the same. But how long do you think it took for human settlement to go from the south coast of Britain to the north when they returned after the ice ages?

-------------

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2009 at 21:22

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by fantasus

This leaves some questions:

Indeed.

1. How much does anthropological research in the field tell us about early humans?

An idea contemporary "indigenous" people are rather different in many ways from our ancestors could be worth considering. I could at least imagine some reasons for such possible differences.

It's easily the best evidence we have. Of course it gets harder and harder to find cultures that are not affected by contact with modern humans.

To some extent I guess we can also use observations of primate behaviour in the wild. Almost anything is better than just speculating.

Some "speculations" could perhaps help (they may seem self evident, but worth remembering):

1:All cultures have experienced specialisation of some kinds (the present specialisation were not from "beginning" of humankind).

2:Anthropologists and other field researchers never had acces to a planet of palaeolithic" peoples, but to those living in areas farmers and pastoralists had not ýet taken (or alternatively made the hunterers farmers). It may not be a wildly controversial statement that what was left to them(the hunterers) in recent times were what the farmers ound of little value, or hardly to reach because difficulties for transportation etcetera. so there was no attractive places to go and hunting people of course tried to not loose what was left rather than to migrate to even less attractive places. How then can we say anything(from experience) about a situation were they there may have been attractive places to go?

Originally posted by gcle2003

One thing though is that we should assume that primitive humans were just as capable we we are with regard to basic intellectzual and physical abilities (and no more so).

Inuits would of course be evidential. However, Inuit migration has been strictly into similar environments. I just don't know of Inuit studies like those of Lévi Strauss's in Brazil, which I only know about through researching into the manifestations of 'leadership' qualities (insofar as there are any).

I thought about all inuits as having nearly the same lifestyle untill I read about an inland "tribe" in Alaska(Nunamiut). There is allso different variations in parts of Scandinavia.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Generally speaking the creation of a new settlement needs the emergence of a 'leader'.

At least someone have to start, take initiative.

Why could there not allways have been someone that did?

Originally posted by gcle2003

3:If trauma could be reason to migrations then why not the opposite?

Some people may have looked, some were perhaps curious. We assume they had the same capabilities as "us" - some even perhaps as the brightest, the nobel laureates etcetera. Since it was hard to get to university someone perhaps used those brains for other purposes. Perhaps some were more restless, or more adventurous, or would impress others.

Originally posted by gcle2003

The early migrants into Alaska for instance had no idea whatsoever there might be better living conditions anywhere else. They hadn't even taken Geography 101.

It may be reasonable to say hunting (or fishing or similar) must have been a very large part of their lives from infancy. It is hard to believe that there were not some really, really good ones!How could a good hunter or fisher not have some capabilities regarding "geography" in the sense of orientation in landscapes?

Originally posted by gcle2003

Perhaps some groups migrated if they found far better places for hunting elsewhere?

You absolutely have a point! Perhaps I have one too: Imagine someone from a group of hunters one day find a new place, very full of favourite game. perhaps the initial succes give teh same individual or others in the group an idea of investigating further, observe if there may be even more such new good places.

Originally posted by gcle2003

It depends completely on the geography at that time! If all ice disappeared at once, and there was the right conditions they could have done it in rather short time I think. They probably followed their favourite game, and perhaps in the meantime even found some new).

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 11:47

Originally posted by fantasus

Originally posted by gcle2003

[It's easily the best evidence we have. Of course it gets harder and harder to find cultures that are not affected by contact with modern humans.

To some extent I guess we can also use observations of primate behaviour in the wild. Almost anything is better than just speculating.

Some "speculations" could perhaps help (they may seem self evident, but worth remembering):

1:All cultures have experienced specialisation of some kinds (the present specialisation were not from "beginning" of humankind).

What we can safely say is that they didn't KNOW there were more attractive places to go. You wouldn't know that unless you had been there, or someone had come from there: in either case you need motivation for the move.

I thought about all inuits as having nearly the same lifestyle untill I read about an inland "tribe" in Alaska(Nunamiut). There is allso different variations in parts of Scandinavia.

I said 'similar' not 'identical'. For instance daylight lengths are (at least roughly) the same in all Inuit territories. Moreover the Inuit don't live in Alaska or Scandinavia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo#Nomenclature - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo#Nomenclature

Originally posted by gcle2003

Generally speaking the creation of a new settlement needs the emergence of a 'leader'.

At least someone have to start, take initiative.

Why could there not allways have been someone that did?

There were. I'm not claimiing no-one ever migrated. But people who are willing to go off on their own into the wilderness and start their own settlement are pretty rare at any time. The frequency with which they do that is a much more important factor than how fast they can walk. So is the direction in which they go: new settlements are set up one after another in a straight line.

Originally posted by gcle2003

3:If trauma could be reason to migrations then why not the opposite?

Their brains were pretty fully occupied with the tasks of staying alive, as for instance with predicting and understanding animal behaviours and searching for and protecting crop stands. (Gatherers didn't go around picking up any food they chanced to find. They learned at the very least the signs pointing to useful areas, and the techniques for keeping rivals for the food - including animals - away.) Less practically - though it had a role in transmitting useful knowledge - intellects appear to have been always active in creating, remembering and telling folk tales and religious myths.

Or painting magical spells on the walls of caves....

And of course some would be more restless than others but you are still assuming early humans knew that what they knew wasn't all there was to know. I doubt that 'restless' is really the appropriate characteristic. Something like 'egocentric' might be more to the point: would be chiefs for instance who couldn't become chiefs. At an earlier stage the similar phenomenon of young males unable to achieve mates in their kinship group.

Originally posted by gcle2003

The early migrants into Alaska for instance had no idea whatsoever there might be better living conditions anywhere else. They hadn't even taken Geography 101.

What I meant was that they had no idea conditions were any different in other parts of the planet. Why would they? Where would that knowledge come from? No matter how intelligent people are, they are limited by the knowledge available to their community.

To move they would have had to have a reason to move other than that georgahical conditions might be better somewhere else.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Perhaps some groups migrated if they found far better places for hunting elsewhere?

That undoubtedly would happen. However again that has nothing at all to do with the speed with which people walk. Moreover it's quite likely to lead to circular movement or seasinal migration back and forth rather than to continued migration in a particular direction.

Originally posted by gcle2003

It's me that is claiming it depends on the geography, not on the speed with which people can walk. Of course it depends on how fast the ice receded - that's my point. However, even if all the ice vanished at once it would still take more than a couple of months for vegetale and animal life, not just human, to recover the whole island.

-------------

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 12:24

The speed of spreading and migrations probably varied a lot because of different geographic circumstances and different modes of subsistance.

In Scandinavia the first people seem to have followed the reindeer northwards. The reindeer in it´s turn seem to have followed the receeding ice. At the same time the reindeer followed a seasonal cyle with movements norhtwards and also uphills in the summer and southwards and downhills in the winter. People probably followed that pattern too.

As the ice continued to receed northward the whole complex of southwards – northwards wanderings followed. As the ice went away gradually new plants and animals arrived. At the same time climate changed. Some people adapted to the new circumsances and created new forms of subsistence. These new groups in their turn spread to new areas where they continued to adapt to local circumstances. Some others seem to have continued northward following the reindeer. All this spreading and adapting gave way to new cultural patterns in different areas. As we can see the patterns after a while could be rather complicated and the migrations could also bee rather complicated.

So the speed of migration could probably vary a lot because of local circumstances and differences in environment and subsistence, geography and material and behavioural culture.

Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 13:34

In the current issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics there is an interesting article detailing current work at the University of Leeds, which is also available direct from the UL:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/press_releases/current09/migration.htm - http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/press_releases/current09/migration.htm

"Hard" evidence is also in the news in terms of the Americas, where University of Michigan archaeologists have revealed a Paleo-Amerindian site beneath Lake Huron dating from before the final formation of the Great Lakes.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/uom-aeo060809.php - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/uom-aeo060809.php

Nevertheless, if by "geography one means the ability of an eco-system to provide the necessities of life then a stable environment would hardly be conducive to "mass migration" save in the presence of population pressures taxing that environment.

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 15:00

Very interesting results in both of these studies indeed.

"The Paleo-Indians were nomadic and pursued big game, O'Shea said. With the Archaic period, communities were more settled, with larger populations, a broad spectrum economy, and new long distance trade and ceremonial connections."

( http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/uom-aeo060809.php - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/uom-aeo060809.php )

This shift from big game hunting to a more broad spectrum economy is also visible here in Scandinavia in the transition between the late paleolithic and the mesolitic periods. Because of the elongated form of the Scandinavian peninsula this shift occurs at different times in different places.

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 16:18

Originally posted by gcle2003

Well, one stand on a high point with a good view and get an impression what is around in a distance. One can look at the animals, where they go. Perhaps it even happened that early humans lost their way(because of weather, being inexperienced) and unvoluntarely ended op a "new" place. I admit it is hard for me to see it as a very big problem for them.

[QUOTE=gcle2003]

[QUOTE]

It depends very much upon what we call "roughly similar". Green land from North to South(60N - 83N) about as much as from Northafrica to Greenland (or Shetland Islands- Oslo, Helsinki, Skt.Petersburg) Some month without sunset in Northern part, not so at the other end.

[QUOTE=gcle2003]

[QUOTE] Farmers may see uncultivated regions as "wilderness", but do hunters and gatherers see it the same way? In a similar way one may ask if they necessecarily had any "settlements" in the sense of rather permanent or semi-permanent places of rest.

[QUOTE=gcle2003]

Volcanic islands has been covered with plants and full of animal life in surprisingly short spans of time (years). If, hypothetically an island the size of Britain did the same in some decades, and people followed, it is still not much compared to about 10000 years.

Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 17:57

This leads to another thought: did humans actually migrate, or did they simply expand?
Did the number of human beings grow steadily over the generations as they left Africa and spread across the world?

Migration and expansion has a different meaning in that migration means the abandonment of the old habitat to seek a new one; while expansion means an offshoot of the old settlement seeking a new settlement, while the "old community" remains.

My gut feeling tells me that ancient humans populated the world more via expansion than migration. It could simply be caused by overpopulation of an existing tribe, so that certain members had to go off and find a new hunting ground, so they set off in any direction where they could find food; yet the old tribe remained where it was.

Considering that human beings had learned to deal with natural predators like wolves, lions, the tigers; and that epidemics were rare in the paleolthic age, the only factors that could keep the numbers in check was the climate; so that without natural catastrophes such as the Ice Age, human settlements would simply grow and grow and spread to newer territories.

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 19:15

As I mentioned above I think spreading and migration can have looked different and had different causes depending on what place and what time they occured in. For example as the case of Scandinavia suggests there could be migration to follow wild game (reindeer and similar). There could also be migration because of lack of resources or expanding because overpopulation. One could also suggest more political, religious and cultural reasons for different kinds of movements.

And movement probably didn´t follow a steady rate but took place in waves with both faster and slower progression.

People didn´t always follow straight lines either, instead they moved around natural obstacles and also moved towards resources like game, fish, edibel plants and similar.

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 19:17

Originally posted by calvo

There may well have been some periods of population growth as well as the opposite. If there was what we may call "long term continuous growth" of any significance is harder to imagine. Even a steady, continuous doubling rate in, say 500 years would in a small fraction of our existence have resulted in absurdly high numbers!

Originally posted by calvo

Considering that human beings had learned to deal with natural predators like wolves, lions, the tigers; and that epidemics were rare in the paleolthic age, the only factors that could keep the numbers in check was the climate; so that without natural catastrophes such as the Ice Age, human settlements would simply grow and grow and spread to newer territories.

And I could add: Since Africa is not known as the continent lacking dangerous animals (for humans), rather the opposite, there is no reason humans should find the other continennts beasts more scary than those they knew "from home". Even african diseases may not be more bening.

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 19:36

The rate in which the population increases is also dependant on different factors as access of a steady supply of food and other necessities and also a development of a technology to utilize these resources. As an example we can see that here in Scandinavia there was an increase in population in certain coastal areas because a rather rich supply of marine foodstuff and the contemporary development of technology and strategies to obtain it. In this particular case it didn´t always lead to migration but also the adoption of agriculture who had been around just a little bit to the south for about 1000 years (maybe it´s not fully so simple, the adoption of agriculture can also have had sociopolitical causes since it increased the amount of goods that could be traded with, could be used for creating power structures and also could be used for cultural and cultic events).

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 20:10

Originally posted by fantasus

Volcanic islands has been covered with plants and full of animal life in surprisingly short spans of time (years). If, hypothetically an island the size of Britain did the same in some decades, and people followed, it is still not much compared to about 10000 years.

What volcanic islands are you talking about?

Anyway, when small volcanic islands are created, the change happens very fast, surrounding climates remain the same and of course it doesn't take long for life to take hold, since any life round about is already adapted to the conditions - temperature, light patterns, seasonal rhythms - on the island. The situation has nothing in common with that of Britain during the retreat of the ice cover.

Moreover, what you're saying now still has nothing to do with the physical mobility of humans at the time. Mortality and proneness to debilitating disease and famine would be more important factors than walking speed.

PS: I agree with the point about migration vs expansion, and I accept I've been using the term 'migration' rather loosely.

Human beings have populated the world more by expansion than migration (indeed be definition 'migration' doesn't fill up any space that wasn't filled before) so mostly I've been talking about expansion.

(Of course in an expansion situation what happens is that some of the population migrates and the rest stay put, so both phenomena can co-exist.)

-------------

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 20:57

Originally posted by gcle2003

What volcanic islands are you talking about?

Surtsey, and those others observed in recent time by biologists (from memory).

Originally posted by gcle2003

So You agree anyway about the fast changes. And yes, the situation with retreating glaciers were of course very different - the problem is to find anything comparable to the later from recent times (We have not yet seen so much the results of ongoing melting, so it may be premature to say anything about it yet).

Originally posted by gcle2003

Except if organisms flourished in short time after retreat of ice, then the bigger animals perhaps did too and after them their human "predators" and hunters.

Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 22:17

This thread has passed from the inquisitive to the argumentative. Keep in mind that while pasturing animals "migrate", carnivores usually adhere to fixed territories, while omnivores will take opportunity wherever found. OK, this "classification" is simply an underscoring that speculative musings do not sound historical analyses make. Yes we can wax prolific in the debates of paleoanthropology as caught by the following web site:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html - http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

However, in terms of the material historical record, population shifts and territorial movement (migratory waves if you would have it) are something entirely different, be they the maritime movements of the "Sea People" in the Eastern Mediterranean of 19th dynasty Egypt or the impact of the Jaga on the Ba Kongo "kingdom" in the 16th century.

Besides at the risk of throwing the proverbial wrench into the works, what is one to make of Mungo Man or has everyone forgotten this little piece of the puzzle quite apt to the contents of the thread:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030220082107.htm - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030220082107.htm

Not that others don't keep the frittering up to tempo:

http://www.archaeology.org/0305/newsbriefs/mungo.html - http://www.archaeology.org/0305/newsbriefs/mungo.html

Suffice it to say that as historians we have not said much about the available evidence on distinct and formative migrations to ramble on about the last glaciation and oceanographic vulcanism. How about speculation on the parallels in bog burials between Eire and Danmark?

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects97/dentep/dentep.html - http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects97/dentep/dentep.html

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2009 at 23:36

The influx of people in Scandinavia after the last glaciation and the adaptations of people to a more broad spectrum economy (and it´s social, demographic and cultural implications) in the mesolithic, and of cource the processes of neolithization are still rather hot topics in Scandinavian stone age archaeology. New sites generate new data that is published in papers and books. New methods in genetic research, isotope research and similar are seing the light of the day. One such example is Karl Göran Sjögren, Douglas Price and Torbjörn Ahlströms studies of mobility seen through analyzes of Strontium isotopes in human remains from middle neolithic passage tombs in the province of Västergötland in the southwestern part of Sweden.

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 11:09

Originally posted by fantasus

Originally posted by gcle2003

What volcanic islands are you talking about?

Surtsey, and those others observed in recent time by biologists (from memory).

Surtsey is less than 2 square kilometres. Britain is over 200,000. If it took a year to colonise Surtsey then how about 100,000- plus years for Britain?

Moreover life came to Surtsey either via the sea or by air. The fish, sea mammals and birds could hardly be said to be migrating, just filling in where they had always existed in conditions just like they were used to. Same goes for the other life brought over by birds.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Except if organisms flourished in short time after retreat of ice, then the bigger animals perhaps did too and after them their human "predators" and hunters.

They gradually moved in as the ice gradually retreated, a process that probably took tens of thousands of years.

Once again, the spread of the human population had nothing to do with how fast they could walk. Generally speaking humans walk somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 times faster than cultures spread, even in inter-glacial periods.

-------------

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 11:42

Someone has tried to count the speed with which agriculture spread from an original startpoint in the fertile crescent and came up with a speed of aproximately one kilometer a year. But such spreading can of course hardly be called a migration (even if it can have encompassed such elements too) but rather a diffusion of ideas, technique and knowledge and a spreading of crops and animals.

Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 14:31

Originally posted by Carcharodon

Someone has tried to count the speed with which agriculture spread from an original startpoint in the fertile crescent and came up with a speed of aproximately one kilometer a year. But such spreading can of course hardly be called a migration (even if it can have encompassed such elements too) but rather a diffusion of ideas, technique and knowledge and a spreading of crops and animals.

Then there is the work of paleobiologists on maize. Here is a good summary of current directions:

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2008/06/27/early_origins_of_maize_in_mexico.html - http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2008/06/27/early_origins_of_maize_in_mexico.html

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Early_Origins_Of_Maize_In_Mexico_999.html - http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Early_Origins_Of_Maize_In_Mexico_999.html

However, plant domestication can hardly be ascribed to a single original nexus and this debate is decades old as seen in this article from the 90s:

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/lifeways/hg_ag/quiet_revolution.html - http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/lifeways/hg_ag/quiet_revolution.html

What is interesting within this debate is the dating parallels for the advent of domestication on a global scale with projected dates indicative of wild plants from 10 to 7000 BC becoming human adjuncts between 5000 and 4000 BC. Consequently, the claim that "agriculture" originated in the Near East and then spread outward is but a chauvinistic take on origins. Human resourcefulness in the past is always ready to put a dent onto the theoretical armour of present-day interpretations.

OK now let us hear from the doomsday ecologists that assign the rise of agriculture to human decimation of paleolithic fauna!

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 16:49

This response is without specific quotes.

The last postglacial age is perhaps a little more than 10000 years, and back to previous interglæacial age is some ten thousands of years. So of course lifeforms came much much quicker(gcle)!And the remark about chauvinism (agriculture originated in Meiddle East) made me very curious, since I was not aware this forum is filled up with middle eastern chauvinists (Jordanian? Israelis or Saudis?). Could be interesting discussion between Middle
Easterncentricism (they of course would label it not "Middle East" but something like "Head of the world. They should not since that is preciely where I live!), Eurocenmtricism or whatever - perhaps extraterrestrial chauvinists?

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 16:59

And some adds: something that has made me think about the possibillity that humans were rather mobile from early ages is an exhibition I visited this spring about the "Iceman", found at present day Italian border to Austria. I was told he had been trying to escape enemies for 3 days through mountain regions before being killed, and taht his birthplace had been determined to be further south. In addition visitors were informed about exchange of "goods" at that time (about 5000 years ago), stones from the alps found in and around baltic region. There is also later evidence of bronze age "trade" between the meditteranean and baltic regions, especially amber, from the region approximately eastern prussia/lithuania to among other places mycenae.(of course that is very much later than the paleolithics but still thought provoking.

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 17:00

Originally posted by drgonzaga

. Consequently, the claim that "agriculture" originated in the Near East and then spread outward is but a chauvinistic take on origins. Human resourcefulness in the past is always ready to put a dent onto the theoretical armour of present-day interpretations.

As for Europe it is believed that agriculture spread from the Near East. Concerning other parts of the world there is of course evidence for separate origins of agriculture and plant and animal domestications.

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 18:32

Originally posted by fantasus

And some adds: something that has made me think about the possibillity that humans were rather mobile from early ages is an exhibition I visited this spring about the "Iceman", found at present day Italian border to Austria. I was told he had been trying to escape enemies for 3 days through mountain regions before being killed, and taht his birthplace had been determined to be further south. In addition visitors were informed about exchange of "goods" at that time (about 5000 years ago), stones from the alps found in and around baltic region. There is also later evidence of bronze age "trade" between the meditteranean and baltic regions, especially amber, from the region approximately eastern prussia/lithuania to among other places mycenae.(of course that is very much later than the paleolithics but still thought provoking.

It's difficult to keep up with the way you switch to different situations.

At one time we'te talking about how long it might take humans to migrate/expand from Alaska down to Chile; then it becomes a question of trade between already settled cultures; then you're talking about how far an individual hunter might roam.

I've no doubt whatsoever that hunter-gatherers had quite wide areas within which the hunted and gathered: they might easily take days or more to cover. The point is they didn't keep going in the same direction. Lions have quite wide hunting territories: so have elephants: but they haven't spread very far geographically.

And I really don't know what trade around 3,000 BC has to do with the subject. Finding Baltic amber in Crete doesn't mean that anyone actually travelled from the Baltic to Crete: it could easily have changed hands a dozen or more times during its travels.

There was plenty of silk in ancient (pre-Byzantine) Rome and Greece, but very few Chinese (if any), and some of the Romans and Greeks of the time had very curious ideas about where it came from.

-------------

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 19:20

Originally posted by gcle2003

It's difficult to keep up with the way you switch to different situations.

There was plenty of silk in ancient (pre-Byzantine) Rome and Greece, but very few Chinese (if any), and some of the Romans and Greeks of the time had very curious ideas about where it came from.

First: The discussion about american settlement where more of a topic of the Jared Diamond and north south axis thread, not so much this mobility of early humans discussion. That is a wide topic, and I don´t see "mobility" is exclusively a matter of expansion. and since You mention Lions and Elephants I have to say they were far more widespread in the fast, as many other wild beasts, even in Europe (at least the lion). They are not so much an example of non expanding species, as of some with "shrinking" habitats (can perhaps be compared to late stone age people, since they also lost more and more territories, until final disappearance for a lot).

And I agree that spread of items, like amber, does not prove any direct contact between the peoples at both end. But it is hard to imagine the "receiving" party did not know it came from somewhere, that there was rumours or legends and some curiosity, imaginations about what was "behind the next hilltop".

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 20:53

Originally posted by fantasus

First: The discussion about american settlement where more of a topic of the Jared Diamond and north south axis thread, not so much this mobility of early humans discussion. That is a wide topic, and I don´t see "mobility" is exclusively a matter of expansion.

What exactly do you mean by mobility? If you simply mean the physical ability to move around - walk at 4-5 miles per hour, run up to a maximum of around 20 mph, run long distances averaging a mile every six minutes - then I imagine primitive man was probably slightly inferior to us due mostly to inferior diet but there probably wasn't much in it. He also would have lacked our knowledge and techniques for coping with varied climates and environments (in the extreme, no submarines for instance, not even scuba equipment).

None of that would have played much part in migration or expansion, since all the evidence is that such movements took place at far fewer speeds than that.

and since You mention Lions and Elephants I have to say they were far more widespread in the fast, as many other wild beasts, even in Europe (at least the lion). They are not so much an example of non expanding species, as of some with "shrinking" habitats (can perhaps be compared to late stone age people, since they also lost more and more territories, until final disappearance for a lot).

The point is that that has nothing to do with the lion's or the elephant's 'mobility' but with their ability or inability to adapt. You were suggesting that the fact that the 'iceman' might have travelled several days from his base might have somehow affected his people's migratory/expansionary patterns. Lions and elephants had wide ranges: it doesn't increase their expansion any.

By as late as 3,000 BC yes of course. In fact obviously much earlier since we're talking now about historic time. But when I was writing about people not having much motivation to move because they were unaware there was anywhere else to move to it was in the context of far earlier periods when the Americas in particular (but anywhere else for that matter) were first being settled.

-------------

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 21:16

I am not so sure at least part of contemporary peoples diet are "superior" - go past some Burger King! Or what about our training, can we really believe the man or wonman in an office, or lecturing in University is physically more fit for long distance walking, running swimming(relative to average palaeolithic men through the ages - perhaps except under extreme conditions of starvation or epidemics)? I very much doubt so!

Should our ability to determine our own location (with the assistance solely of our senses)

be better I find simply unbelievable!

Last You mention again prehistoric man in early periods could be "unaware" there was anywhere to move. Yes probably if they wathced the ocean to the horizon. But if were on part of a continuous land mass, could they be unaware there was more of it? Yhey could at any time see they were not on some "edge of the world", so I simply can not understand how it is possible to be unaware of that (is this a misunderstanding? Do You mean when they saw the edge of the great glaciers they could not know there were more hospitable areas behind?)!

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 21:27

Originally posted by gcle2003

Primitive is of course a relative term, but one thing that has strucken many visitors of so called primitive peoples in recent and historical time is their very high endurance and their ability to walk long stretches without being fatigued.

Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2009 at 21:42

Where to start with rebuttal as regard to the disparate items now put forth? Placing aside the root of the current evil, at the beginning as with all serpentes migrating through Eden, one must admit befuddlement with all the misapplied terminology, to wit:

"The last postglacial age is perhaps a little more than 10000 years, and back to previous interglæacial age is some ten thousands of years. So of course lifeforms came much much quicker(gcle)!And the remark about chauvinism (agriculture originated in Meiddle East) made me very curious, since I was not aware this forum is filled up with middle eastern chauvinists (Jordanian? Israelis or Saudis?). Could be interesting discussion between Middle Easterncentricism (they of course would label it not "Middle East" but something like "Head of the world. They should not since that is preciely where I live!), Eurocenmtricism or whatever - perhaps extraterrestrial chauvinists?"

Hey folks, please respect terminology and grasp what is meant by Glacial Age, glaciation, and Interglacial periods. The last major glaciation in the climatic history of the Earth came to a close some 10,000 years ago; however, polar ice sheets (or continental glaciers) are something enirely different from mountain glaciers, hence one is hard put to discover the claimed relationship between the Alpine "iceman" and all of this borrowed lingo--i.e. "lifeforms"--from a tired Trekkie convention! The trespasser in the Alpine reaches of 3000 BC had little connenction to the residents of the Cantabrian caves of 33,000 BC. Or did this ill-lucked "dude" discover a wormhole?

Next a lesson on 19th century scientism. Now the phrase "the craddle of Civilization" was not the mystic musing of some egg-head fedayeen or meditating mullah. In a certain way it was the product of European secular "origin" stories married to the mad scramble to prove or disprove the Bible. In a perverse way, this theme on mobility is but a corollary on this closing of the mind. Even today, despite more than a century of firm archaeological evidence, there are some who deny the Amerindian had knowledge of the wheel! This cultural chauvinsm was a peculiar trait of European academics well into the 1940s and remained a controversy between and within "faculties" into the 1960s. The Internet is replete with the detritus of these encounters.

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 13:18

Originally posted by fantasus

I am not so sure at least part of contemporary peoples diet are "superior" - go past some Burger King! Or what about our training, can we really believe the man or wonman in an office, or lecturing in University is physically more fit for long distance walking, running swimming(relative to average palaeolithic men through the ages - perhaps except under extreme conditions of starvation or epidemics)? I very much doubt so!

Yes there are many obese people around. But athletic records are continually being broken and people get bigger and stronger from generation to generation. The very fact that we do have more obese people around proves that available diet is superior: only rarely can prehistoric man have had the luxury of over-eating.

Should our ability to determine our own location (with the assistance solely of our senses)

be better I find simply unbelievable!

I don't quite see what that has to do with anything. We recognise our location from our surroundings. I know when I'm home. I know when I'm in the supermarket, and which one. Similarly prehistoric man must have known where he was is he was in familiar terriroty and wouldn't f he wasn't.. Neither of us could tell you from our own senses that we were at say 50 degrees North and 2 degrees West, but I bet I'd have a better chance of estimating correctly than any prehistoric man.

Yes. How in fact could they know whether there was or not? Even Columbus was unaware there was no continuous landmass connecting him to China.

More importantly, why would they think that whatever might be there would be more welcoming or fertile than where they were - unless as I already pointed out, some traumatic event had affected their current location, making it less habitable or more crowded.

Yhey could at any time see they were not on some "edge of the world", so I simply can not understand how it is possible to be unaware of that (is this a misunderstanding?

They quite conceivably thought the world ended fairly near by. Not that they would have meant by 'world' what you and I do.

Did you ever see the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy, which explores this theme (and is hilarious to boot).

Do You mean when they saw the edge of the great glaciers they could not know there were more hospitable areas behind?)!

No I meant more like if you live in the middle of the Kalahari, and everyone you have ever heard of has always lived in the middle of the Kalahari, you are liable to think that the Kalahari is all there is. Even though you could easily walk out of it in a matter of months.

Originally posted by Carcharodon

Because of course they do it habitually and in many cases because they have developed at high altitudes. However, East African runners nowadays run faster and further than their predecessors, thanks to superior diet and more effective training.

But essentially we are talking about very marginal differences. Almost everyone reasonably fit should be able to tun a mile in 5 minutes (standard for British Army recurits in my day) and very few people can run one in 4. In prehistoric times I doubt it was very different.

-------------

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 13:42

Originally posted by gcle2003

I don't quite see what that has to do with anything. We recognise our location from our surroundings. I know when I'm home. I know when I'm in the supermarket, and which one. Similarly prehistoric man must have known where he was is he was in familiar terriroty and wouldn't f he wasn't.. Neither of us could tell you from our own senses that we were at say 50 degrees North and 2 degrees West, but I bet I'd have a better chance of estimating correctly than any prehistoric man.

Many modern people can have difficulties in finding their way as soon they come out in terrain, like forest and similar. So called "primitive" people seldom got lost in such surroundings according to many ethnographic reports. Often they could read signs and tracks in the nature that enabled them to find their way. And even if they reached unknown territory they could easily backtrack and find their way home.

Originally posted by gcle2003

Because of course they do it habitually and in many cases because they have developed at high altitudes. However, East African runners nowadays run faster and further than their predecessors, thanks to superior diet and more effective training.

These runners are just exceptions. Most ordinary peole in our society cannot put up with many of these so called primitive peoles in endurance. and it doesn´t only apply for high altitudes. Several people who have visited for example Native americans in the Amazon have whitnessed about the same endurance and strenght. Also some people who has visited pygmys in Central Africa has been astounded how fast and how long these people could walk in difficult terrain, often leaving the visitors exhausted after just a short stretch.

Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 14:06

According to DNA analysis, human beings did spread over a large distance over a few thousands years.

Let's say that human beings left Africa 65,000 years ago, and 50,000 years ago they were in Australia.

How many kilometres are there between the Horn of Africa and Australia if they travelled along beach? If you divide that between 15,000 years (with a margin of errror), we could more or less calcalute the standard migration rate.

I'm still more inclined to believe that the migration was more likely caused by expansion. The individuals who left Africa were about 200 strong; let's say 50 moved on along the South Asian coast to Australia. When their numbers grew, new communities were formed to the east of the original clan.... and so on, so on, therefore leaving a chain of human settlements along the Asian coast all the way to Australia.

I'd really like to direct this question to Spencer Wells or to any scientist working on the Genographic Project, regarding the expansion patterns.

There are theories that the Neolithic/agricultural revolution took place because human expansion had reached the extent of occupying all the areas in the world that could provide natural food sources; therefore they'd have to find a more efficient way to poduce food sources.

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 14:37

Originally posted by calvo

Some researchers propose that (at least in some areas) the adoption of agriculture not always were driven by overpopulation or lack of recourses. There can also be ideological and political motivations as the wish to participate in networks of exchange, enter political networks, increse status by having agricultural products and livestocks as symbols of power and status and for reciprocasy.

There are also thoughts about having cereals as a base of making fermented breweries used for social and cultic reasons. When once agriculture was introduced there would be greater outputs of food per acre than in hunting and gathering (at least in some mileus) which lead to increase in population. After a while it was difficult to go back to the old system and agriculture became more or less permanet (at least in some areas). Agriculture gives more food per acre but it also demands more input of labour. That and several other factors lead to changes in culture, social relations, political and economical construction of society.

It seems that some people though were able to stay away from the agricultural way of life and some others were in special regions (like estuaries and other affluent coastal areas) able to go back to a life as hunter gatherers (at least partly). In Scandinavia we have a special neolithic culture called the pitted ware culture who were such cost living hunter gatherers (with som pigs and other livestocks as a complement and maybe also for trade and exhange).

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 14:48

Originally posted by Carcharodon

I can do that in my habitat. They can do it in theirs. It depends on where you grow up and what you learn. So?

I quoted the East African runners to show how natural endowments can be improved with modern diet and training. Quite obviously different racial groups have different physical capabilities. It's no accident that pretty well all major sprint races are won by people of West African descent, while pretty well all distance runners of quality are of East African descent. But you don't find many East African shot putters and hammer throwers, the way you will find Slav and Germanic ones.

What would I think be blatantly wrong would be to assume that primitive peoples in general were necessarily either better or worse at certain physical feats than modern humans (ignoring diet and training). You'd expect them of course to evolve characteristics suitable for their environment but that would only happen if they stayed around for a long time in the same surroundings.

-------------

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 14:57

Originally posted by calvo

According to DNA analysis, human beings did spread over a large distance over a few thousands years.

Let's say that human beings left Africa 65,000 years ago, and 50,000 years ago they were in Australia.

Taking a kind of smooth semi-circular route across the gulf states to Pakistan then east and then south-east it's about 10,000 miles. Which would make about 2/3 of a mile a year, which is fairly typical. An average human can walk several thousand miles in a year.

How long do you think it would take for a settlement of 50 people to get to be 200 strong and therefore feel the need to move on again?

-------------

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 15:07

Originally posted by gcle2003

I can do that in my habitat. They can do it in theirs. It depends on where you grow up and what you learn. So?

Many of those people could backtrack even if leaving their habitat, that is something not so many of modern people can without technical backup.

Originally posted by gcle2003

I can agree that it depends on training and diet. If you take a little child from, let us say, New York and and let him be raised by a so called "primitive" people he will of course obtain the same knowlege, stamina and endurance as they have. What I mean is that people who are raised in a nature environment and who live as hunters and gathers or as seminomads or even as garden farmers have developed skills (by training and way of life) that few people in modern urban society have. And similar skills would also have been required long ago. That is a factor one has to take into consideration when discussing prehistoric mobility.

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 15:20

Why this belief in the number 200? I cannot see another reason than exaggerated pretentions on the part of scientists that "they know". Probably they think there is "genetical evidence" of the numbers, and I admit my very limited knowledge about prehistoric genetics. The same can be said about this "average(or "standard") expansion rate" for how scarce is the evidence? For me such "standard" seems more like fiction.

And of course we cannot set a (true) "standard growth rate" for populations at that time either (in fact we even cannot for contemporary populations). But if we did it anyway, let say assumed an average doubling time each millenium, the initial 50 individuals would grow to more than 500000 in 15000 years, and to astronomical size by now.

Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 15:49

In reading through the thread, I was struck by the near Biblical tenor of assumptions and posits and the desire to instill a coherent "origins theory". Back in 1982 I attended a rather interesting symposium that led to the publication of a heady tome titled: Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture (Orlando: Academic Press, 1984). The editors of the publication, Mark Cohen and George Armelagos, compiled an excellent and succint summation of what the bones and artifacts tell us:

____During the upper Paleolithic stage, subsistence seems focused on relatively easily available foods of high nutritional value, such as large herd animals and migratory fish. Some plant foods seem to have been eaten, but they appear not to have been quantitatively important in the diet. Storage of foods appears early in many sequences, even during the Paleolithic, apparently to save seasonal surpluses for consumption during seasons of low productivity.
____As hunting and gathering economies evolve during the Mesolithic [period of transition between hunting/gathering and agriculture], subsistence is expanded by exploitation of increasing numbers of species and by increasingly heavy exploitation of the more abundant and productive plant species. The inclusion of significant amounts of plant food in prehistoric diets seems to correlate with increased use of food processing tools, apparently to improve their taste and digestibility. As [Dr. Mark Nathan] Cohen suggests, there is an increasing focus through time on a few starchy plants of high productivity and storability. This process of subsistence intensification occurs even in regions where native agriculture never developed. In California, for example, as hunting-gathering populations grew, subsistence changed from an early pattern of reliance on game and varied plant resources to to one with increasing emphasis on collection of a few species of starchy seeds and nuts.
____...As [Dr. Cohen] predicts, evolutionary change in prehistoric subsistence has moved in the direction of higher carrying capacity foods, not toward foods of higher-quality nutrition or greater reliability. Early nonagricultural diets appear to have been high in minerals, protein, vitamins, and trace nutrients, but relatively low in starch. In the development toward agriculture there is a growing emphasis on starchy, highly caloric food of high productivity and storability, changes that are not favorable to nutritional quality but that would have acted to increase carrying capacity, as Cohen's theory suggests.

Paleopathology, pp. 565-568.

The book is chock-full of startling observations not least of which is the association of agriculture with the decline of quality-of-life:

Most [studies] conclude that infection was a more common and more serious problem for farmers than for their hunting and gathering forebears; and most suggest that this resulted from some combination of increasing sedentism, larger population aggregates, and the well-established synergism between infection and malnutrition.

"Taken as a whole, these indicators fairly clearly suggest an overall decline in the quality-- and probably in the length-- of human life associated with the adoption of agriculture" (Ibid., p. 568) . Paleolithic Man, the bones tell us, did not face chronic cycles of abundance and shortages in the food supply so characteristic of sedentary societies at the closing of the Neolithic and the rise of sedentarism.

Could the development of agriculture be more an imposition from ecological marginality than any presupposed expansion of populations? Fertile soils abounded on the planet's surface, yet the sedentarism necessary for the rise of "urbanism" (and what we choose to call "civilization") takes place in riverine or tropical forest environments under ecological assault.

Of particular interest in the cited publication is Lawrence J. Angel. "Health as a Crucial Factor in the Changes from Hunting to Developed Farming in the easter Mediterranean". p. 51-73.

Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 16:02

Originally posted by fantasus

How about this chart as summarized from the above cited Paleopathology: "Health as a Crucial Factor..."

HEALTH & LONGEVITY OF ANCIENT PEOPLES	Pelvic Inlet Depth Index % (higher is better)	Average Adult Stature		Median Lifespan (yrs)
Historical Time Period	Pelvic Inlet Depth Index % (higher is better)	Male cm (ft/in)	Female cm (ft/in)	Male	Fem.
30,000 to 9,000 B.C. ("Late Paleolithic" times, i.e., roughly 50/50 plant/animal diet--according to latest figures available elsewhere.)	97.7	177.1 (5'9.7)	166.5 (5'5.6)	35.4	30.0
9,000 to 7,000 B.C. ("Mesolithic" transition period from Paleolithic to some agricultural products.)	86.3	172.5 (5'7.9)	159.7 (5'2.9)	33.5	31.3
7,000 to 5,000 B.C. ("Early Neolithic," i.e., agriculture first spreads widely: As diet becomes more agricultural, it also becomes more vegetarian in character--relatively much less meat at roughly 10% of the diet, and much more plant food, much of which was grain-based.)	76.6	169.6 (5'6.8)	155.5 (5'1.2)	33.6	29.8
5,000 to 3,000 B.C. ("Late Neolithic," i.e., the transition is mostly complete.)	75.6(?)	161.3 (5'3.5)	154.3 (5'0.7)	33.1	29.2
3,000 to 2,000 B.C. ("Early Bronze" period)	85	166.3 (5'5.4)	152.9 (5'0.2)	33.6	29.4
2,000 B.C. and following ("Middle People")	78.8	166.1 (5'5.4)	153.5 (5'0.4)	36.5	31.4
Circa 1,450 B.C. ("Bronze Kings")	82.6(?)	172.5 (5'7.9)	160.1 (5'3.0)	35.9	36.1
1,450 to 1,150 B.C. ("Late Bronze")	79.5	166.8 (5'5.7)	154.5 (5'0.8)	39.6	32.6
1,150 to 650 B.C. ("Early Iron")	80.6	166.7 (5'5.6)	155.1 (5'1.1)	39.0	30.9
650 to 300 B.C. ("Classic")	83.5	170.5 (5'7.1)	156.2 (5'1.5)	44.1	36.8
300 B.C. to 120 A.D. ("Hellenistic")	86.6	171.9 (5'7.7)	156.4 (5'1.6)	41.9	38.0
120 to 600 A.D. ("Imperial Roman")	84.6	169.2 (5'6.6)	158.0 (5'2.2)	38.8	34.2
Medieval Greece	85.9	169.3 (5'6.7)	157.0 (5'1.8)	37.7	31.1
Byzantine Constantinople	87.9	169.8 (5'6.9)	154.9 (5'1.0)	46.2	37.3
1400 to 1800 A.D. ("Baroque")	84.0	172.2 (5'7.8)	158.0 (5'2.2)	33.9	28.5
1800 to 1920 A.D. ("Romantic")	82.9	170.1 (5'7.0)	157.6 (5'2.0)	40.0	38.4
"Modern U.S. White" (1980-ish presumably)	92.1	174.2 (5'8.6)	163.4 (5'4.3)	71.0	78.5

Expanding population pressures are modern phenomena in terms of overall numbers given the constricting qualities of infant mortality and disease.

Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 16:23

the number 200 comes from the genes.

That the amount of genetic diversity among non-Africans today could be trace back to 150-200 people 70,000 years ago.

No one has any idea of the world population by the dawn of the Neolithic age (10,000 years ago); but considering that there are human settlements all over the world: Europe, Middle East, Central Asia India, East Asia, Africa, North and South America; the total numbers would be in the tens or hundreds of thousands, if not approaching a million.

Therefore, over 60,000 years human numbers outside of Africa had indeed expanded from a few hundred to a number hundreds of times greater.

I do agree that the expansion was not linear, there were probably population bottlenecks caused by natural disasters etc; yet an overgrowth of an existinting population would probably mean that certain members would have to break off and form a new colony. Considering that hunter-gatherers required a vast extension of land, the new colony would have to be located at least a tens of kilometres from the old one to avoid "stepping on each other's territories".

Regarding the table of life expectancy. What is the source? How did they do the calculations? Was infant-mortality taken into account?

I ask these questions because a survey of life expectancy made in Spain in the year 1900 yielded a number of 32: the average age at which people died. Not that nobody reached the age of 40, but rather that so many people died in childhood that the average was dragged down.

This number, however, does not seem to fit so well with the table.

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 18:43

Is there any reason to suppose that the variance in such statistics was any less in earlier periods than it is now? Especially in those periods where no geographical range is given.

In general though the figures are pretty much what one would expect.

-------------

Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 18:55

The time span in the above shown tabel that is labeled early bronze age are roughly equivalent to the middle neolithic period in Scandinavia (aorund 3200 - 2300 BC). In this period we can in the southern parts see three distinct archaeological cultures. We have the funnel beaker culture, a megalith grave culture, followed by the so called battleaxe culture. Both of these depended on agriculture and pastoralism (especially the later seems to depend heavily on pastoralism). And then we have at the same time the semi hunter gatherers along the coasts called the pitted ware culture. Norhtwards in Scandinavia we had also inland hunters and gatherers with another material culture. These peoples relations and eventual kinship to each other and their subsistence and mobilty are subject to several interesting research projects.

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 19:59

Those numbers, with precice decimals and without any uncerntainties are nothing but absurd!

Of course no scientist of today have that knowledge. Historians of very much more recent days would not take such data seriously, if they read about them (let us say from first modern statistics, even from 18.th century). And tell me if I am wrong, but how many data do we have for the "expansion" from Africa (65000years ago?) to Australia (50000years ago). Could it be we have not very much more than for two places?

to calvo: If we "for fun" accept a doubling rate each 1000 years from 65000 years, the resulting number would be mvery much more than You seem to realise(?) a number with twenty something zeros i think.

Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 22:21

Originally posted by fantasus

Those numbers, with precice decimals and without any uncerntainties are nothing but absurd!

How about reviewing the cited source before venturing out on the limb of the Poo Poo tree? If anything, archaeological discoveries since 1984 and refined forensic science have strengthened the conclusions for the Paleolithic. Even introductory courses on the topic certainly are more illustrative of "historians" today than your superficial dismissal of long and careful study: e.g.

http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/ia/ia03_mod_11.html - http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/ia/ia03_mod_11.html

Perhaps a refresher on what the bones "say" can calm all the negativity:

Abstract

Analysis of skeletal remains from humans living in the past forms an important complement to observational and experimental studies of living humans and animal models. Including earlier humans in such analyses increases the range of variation in both behavior and body size and shape that are represented, and can provide insights into the adaptive potential of the modern human skeleton. I review here a variety of studies of archaeological and paleontological remains that have investigated differences in skeletal structure from a mechanical perspective, focusing in particular on diaphyseal strength of the limb bones. Several conclusions can be drawn from these studies: 1) there has been a decline in overall skeletal strength relative to body size over the course of human evolution that has become progressively steeper in recent millennia, probably due to increased sedentism and technological advancement; 2) differences in pelvic structure and hip mechanical loadings affect femoral shape; 3) activity patterns affect overall strength and shape of both the lower and upper limb bones; and 4) responsiveness to changes in mechanical loading varies between skeletal features (e.g., articulations versus diaphyses) and by age.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/CBR2005JMNI.pdf - http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/CBR2005JMNI.pdf

As you can see the data is taken very seriously. And an answer to your own question on "sites" is as close as your labtop with abundant data from myriads of sites dating from 100,000 to 20,000 BC.

Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 22:58

Calvo wrote:

"Regarding the table of life expectancy. What is the source? How did they do the calculations? Was infant-mortality taken into account?

Placing aside the different patterns of population aging within countries, a factor that did affect life expectancy in Spain for the year 1900, one must always keep in mind morbidity rates. After all, it is not until the last few generations that pregnancy does not constitute a significant risk to life expectancy or that today ageing males are rapidly increasing and addressing the imbalance between sexes after age 65 generated by lower risks in child bearing. As for the issue of the table and high infant mortality, one might assume that factor as stable throughout the periods summarized given the role of Science since the 1920s. Infant and preadolescence mortality prior to 1900 was astronomical, but rather than embark upon detailed exposition, here is a good intro:

Prior to 1900, infant mortality rates of two and three hundred obtained throughout the world. The infant mortality rate would fluctute sharply according to the weather, the harvest, war, and epidemic disease. In severe times, a majority of infants would die within one year. In good times, perhaps two hundred per thousand would die. So great was the pre-modern loss of children's lives that anthropologists claim to have found groups that do not name children until they have survived a year.

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm - http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm

Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 22:58

Originally posted by fantasus

Those numbers, with precice decimals and without any uncerntainties are nothing but absurd!

I suggest that you check out this website:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html - https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

It belongs to an ongoing project into investigating the genetic origins of human beings today, and many academics from universities of all over the world participate in this project.

This website is very informative and explains with colloquial language the methods of genetic analysis of human beings.

I suggest that you read all the articles on this website before challenging my statements.

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 10:46

What would be extra interesting would be some information on how far these variations are simply due to adaptation and lifestyle - i.e. are 'acquired characteristics' and how many represent genuine genetic evolution - i.e. are transmissible characteristics.

-------------

Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 15:46

You can all bet I dismiss those numbers regarding palaeolithic age as long as I have seen no evidence at all there is enough material to conclude anything with such accuracy. And of course 20.th century statistics are an entirely different matter, though I suspect there may even be some uncertainty aboub contemporary demographic data in a lot of cases.