Early Human spreading on earth

[Saber]

Did the  early  humans   that  spread all across the  earth   migrated  all over  the  lands........or  expanded   generation  by  generation ? 

I mean  each  generation  moved a little bit further ..

 

Thanx

[Genady]

What time and place do you have in mind? It was not one continuous process.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Saber said:

Did the  early  humans   that  spread all across the  earth   migrated  all over  the  lands........or  expanded   generation  by  generation ? 

Yes. All of those things, plus seasonal migration, plus shifting population due to climate and natural conditions, or because they were pushed out by a more powerful group, or they had overhunted a territory and had to move on. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/global-human-journey

[sethoflagos]

3 hours ago, Saber said:

Did the  early  humans   that  spread all across the  earth   migrated  all over  the  lands........or  expanded   generation  by  generation ? 

I mean  each  generation  moved a little bit further ..

 

Thanx

I don't think they migrated because they enjoyed travel.

More likely, as their population increased, limited resource availability forced them to expand into new territories.  

[Genady]

8 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

I don't think they migrated because they enjoyed travel.

Some of them were nomads. So, travel was their way of life.

[studiot]

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

What time and place do you have in mind? It was not one continuous process.

Yes dates and times are very important, as are locations since saber is thinking globally and there was not just one seat of all this.

In fact the two stone ages, the bronze and iron ages occurred at differnt times on different continents.

Also as others have mentioned the situation was very complex.

It is not known exactly when the peoples of the far north (Siberia) crossed to North America and settled there but it may have been 30,000 to 15,000 years ago so they were definitely stone age and the first peoples the spanish encountered in the 600 years were still using stone age tools.

In Eurasia there were early nomadic peoples (herding tribes) who did not have the technology to smelt and work metals so they traded with one seat of more advanced civilisdation in eastern China for metal goods.

The nomadic herders spread eastwards and westwards and southwards over several thousand years whenever a series of doroughts cause herd failures.
The populated in turn Ancient Greece, the Minoans, The Levant, and ancient Egypt (the Hyksos) but were repelled by the civilisations of ancient india and modern iran and iraq.

 

It is a huge subject.

[sethoflagos]

31 minutes ago, Genady said:

Some of them were nomads. So, travel was their way of life.

Hunter-gathering certainly does include a nomadic element but left to their own devices don't you think such groups would tend to stick to a familiar home range that they understood well rather than risk the uncertainties of moving to an unfamiliar territory.

This is long before the age of pastoral nomads or trader nomads, so I'm not sure the word is helpful without qualification.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

Hunter-gathering certainly does include a nomadic element but left to their own devices don't you think such groups would tend to stick to a familiar home range that they understood well rather than risk the uncertainties of moving to an unfamiliar territory.

This is long before the age of pastoral nomads or trader nomads, so I'm not sure the word is helpful without qualification.

I think that for some of them that understanding included the knowledge of necessity to move on.

You are right and as was said above, time and place reference are important.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Hunter-gathering certainly does include a nomadic element but left to their own devices don't you think such groups would tend to stick to a familiar home range that they understood well rather than risk the uncertainties of moving to an unfamiliar territory.

That home range can be quite large, if you follow prey to winter and summer grazing and the ripening season of fruit, also to avoid extreme weather. But they didn't necessarily have a choice: there could be a flood or drought, locust invasion, rockfall - all kinds of things happen to make a territory inhospitable.

[sethoflagos]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

winter and summer grazing

Curiously boreal concept for a venture that was mainly confined to the tropics/subtropics for 20-30,000 years.

Yes, of course, there can be all sorts of reasons to want to move on. And there does seem to be in increased prevalence of alleles associated with risk-taking among migrant groups, though which is cause and which effect is not clear to me. Perhaps some really did enjoy the adventure. Not sure I'd have offered them life insurance policies.

 

[Peterkin]

31 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Curiously boreal concept for a venture that was mainly confined to the tropics/subtropics for 20-30,000 years.

I thought we were talking about the spread of humans out of Africa to the rest of the world. However, in Africa, too, hunters follow the animals that follow the grass, which follows the rains, which are seasonal.

[sethoflagos]

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I thought we were talking about the spread of humans out of Africa to the rest of the world. However, in Africa, too, hunters follow the animals that follow the grass, which follows the rains, which are seasonal.

Are you asking me or telling me? 

[joigus]

As pointed out above, there are many factors, depending on time and place. People follow herds, rivers change their course, lakes dry out, advance of ice sheets force populations southwards, etc.

The dynamics of population change are, I think, as varied as can be. Some migrations take place in one generation --example: eastward migrations through the steppe--, others take many generations to advance significantly.

[Peterkin]

14 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Are you asking me or telling me? 

Answering you. But just the twice.

[sethoflagos]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Answering you. But just the twice.

Well at least that spares me having to point out that 'following the African rains' involves covering ~20 km/day every day. Tough on the kids and old folks.  

[Saber]

I  mainly  meant   when  there  where  no  civilization nor any  advance  in  human  tech.   like in 100K YA   when  the  humans  were barely  humans    or  like  when  the  neanderthals   spread in  eurasia or  when  the  sapiens  did  the  same whole  over  the globe

By  the  way  i  wanted to  thank all those  who   responded  but the site  says  you can only react to a  certain amount of post  each day ......

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Saber said:

the site  says  you can only react to a  certain amount of post  each day

Where does it say so? I don't know of such a limit.

11 minutes ago, Saber said:

when  the  sapiens  did  the  same whole  over  the globe

As the answers above indicate, it took a very long time and many different ways. Here is one scheme:

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Well at least that spares me having to point out that 'following the African rains' involves covering ~20 km/day every day. Tough on the kids and old folks.  

No, it doesn't and you have done your erroneous pointing-out. I didn't say 'following the African rains'.

They followed the animals, (which periodically stop to rest, drink, graze and regroup), that follow the grass (which takes 1-3 weeks from the onset of rain to regrow and keeps on growing after the rain has stopped) which follows the rains, which keep falling more or less regularly for 2 to 7 months, during and after which season, the animals keep grazing. They do not keep pace with the rain-clouds; they just keep up with the grass and the hunters keep tracking the herds. 

Besides which, Paleolithic people were tough; 20 km/day, which is a dawdle for modern hikers, would have been child's play for them.   

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Where does it say so? I don't know of such a limit.

Probably "reacting" via the reputation system, to upvote those responding. Those are limited to a certain amount per day.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Saber said:

the site  says  you can only react to a  certain amount of post  each day ......

That is only on day one of your membership here. It is to limit things like advertising bots and trolls. You can now post to your heart's content.

EDIT: Oh, or what Phi said...

Edited January 23, 2023 by zapatos

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Saber said:

I  mainly  meant   when  there  where  no  civilization nor any  advance  in  human  tech.   like in 100K YA   when  the  humans  were barely  humans    or  like  when  the  neanderthals   spread in  eurasia or  when  the  sapiens  did  the  same whole  over  the globe

By  the  way  i  wanted to  thank all those  who   responded  but the site  says  you can only react to a  certain amount of post  each day ......

Well why didn't you say so ?

Are you going to participate in your other threads ?

 

+1 to @Genady  for the map, I looked for something similar, but couldn't find anything suitable.

Not sure I agree with all of it but it shows what pattern is generally accepted.

Just now, zapatos said:

That is only on day one of your membership here. It is to limit things like advertising bots and trolls. You can now post to your heart's content.

saber was talking about the rep system, not his post count.

Edited January 23, 2023 by studiot

[mistermack]

Just going by my own memory of what I've read, I think that there was a major lifestyle difference between modern humans and Neanderthals, in that Neanderthals tended to be more sedentary and Modern Humans more mobile. 

Neanderthals would settle near favourable landscape resources, where they could concentrate prey, and be on the migration route. Modern humans were more adept at following migrations, and upping sticks when the resources got thin. This difference put the Neanderthals at a disadvantage when the ice came down from the North, and led to populations becoming tiny, so that when the ice retreated, they didn't have the numbers, and were easily replaced by more numerous modern humans following the new migration routes north. 

Another factor in the spread of humans was the coastlines. The coast has alway been a great place to find food, and a lot of spreading was done by people moving up the coasts to find places that had yet to be exploited.

[studiot]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

Just going by my own memory of what I've read, I think that there was a major lifestyle difference between modern humans and Neanderthals, in that Neanderthals tended to be more sedentary and Modern Humans more mobile. 

Neanderthals would settle near favourable landscape resources, where they could concentrate prey, and be on the migration route. Modern humans were more adept at following migrations, and upping sticks when the resources got thin. This difference put the Neanderthals at a disadvantage when the ice came down from the North, and led to populations becoming tiny, so that when the ice retreated, they didn't have the numbers, and were easily replaced by more numerous modern humans following the new migration routes north. 

Another factor in the spread of humans was the coastlines. The coast has alway been a great place to find food, and a lot of spreading was done by people moving up the coasts to find places that had yet to be exploited.

These are interesting ideas, I hadn't heard of the neadethalis v sapiens comments.

But the coastline theory doesn't stand up well to close examination.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

But the coastline theory doesn't stand up well to close examination.

Maybe they count riverbanks, too (?)

[mistermack]

Like I said, I'm just going from memory. But one theory of how humans got to America is by coastal people just inching further along the new emerging coastline, as the ice cap advanced.

Edit: Ice cap advanced, making new land as the sea levels dropped. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by mistermack