Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
Pre agriculture you need a lot of land to support a small amount of humans.
It's not like someone walked from Africa to Norway. A group would expand a little North, settle, then another group would move a little further north.
It was a slow gradual migration. So people slowly got used to the changes.
But like you said, the further North the less food, so they had to spread further and further each time.
I wonder if the Sahara turning into a desert could coincide with a mass migration. It used to be lush once upon a time we believe. But I can't remember the timings of the two, so I'm purely speculating
This article indicates the opposite, actually.
New research indicates that Homo erectus likely capitalized on a “greener” corridor through the Sahara Desert in northeastern Africa, which was wetter and more vegetated than it is today, during their migration out of Africa. Climate cycles aligned to create this green passage, facilitating their journey.
Apparently the desertification of the Sahara is cyclic.
Approximately every 20,000 years, the Sahara transforms into a savannah covered with lush grasses due to the angle of the Earth’s axis changing. This axis change causes the position of the North African monsoon to shift, a monsoon that could revive the Saharan region. (source)
Here's a graphic on the timings of early human migration. They list two migrations northeast, one occurring 120k years ago and another 100-90k years ago.
Neat! Thanks
Same reasons we use today.
Well that just kicks the can down the road, and is also probably not accurate. People move today for better jobs, to escape warzones, because they like a country's laws, and more reasons. Most of those reasons didn't apply to hunter gatherers living thousands of years ago.
Really? What if the better hunting grounds were taken? What if a rival tribe kept harassing another and people just didn't want to fight? What if the ambitious youth didn't agree with the tribal leaders, so they moved to make their own fortune?
At our core, we really haven't changed all that much from our ancestors.
Could really be the same reasons for them too.
People moved for better hunting/grazing areas. To escape areas of warfare. They didn't like the tribes rules, and more reasons.