Hyperdiffusion Thread

[Digit]

Isn't it nice to know that freedom of thought is at least still, A allowed and B untaxed, as yet!

[Minimalist]

but also because the rejection of
independent invention inherent in hyperdiffusionism is racist.

Political correctness run wild but otherwise a clear example of Club thinking in which they seek to limit the debate to what they consider "real."

[Digit]

Min, you asked why we left Africa.
Hunter gatherer groups in modern Africa normally number about 30 adults, and that is probably how it was in the past.
As the numbers increase it would seem that a new group would form and have to move away from the parent group.
Distance would depend on the area needed to sustain that second group, in the present climate of the Rift 15 miles has been suggested.
This makes sense as the larger a group becomes the greater the distance that must be covered on H/G trips on a daily basis.
This seems to fit a sensible pattern of growth and sustainable resourses, but I think it kills the idea of people leaving Africa in the time scale normally suggested as they would not necessarily hold a vote on 'let's move north', Africa has a large area.
The arid eastern end of the Med would hardly seem to be very attractive to H/G groups. I would point out that the remains found in Israel etc do not preclude a migration across the Straits of Gibraltar, which in many ways would seem to be more attractive as both coasts were for many years very much more fertile than the crescent.
One of the reasons for agriculture arising, perhaps locally, in the crescent is that cereals need warm dry weather to ripen.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Isn't it nice to know that freedom of thought is at least still, A allowed and B untaxed, as yet!

That's only the case in 10% of countries, Digit (and shrinking fast!).

[Minimalist]

I get the theory, Dig and I will even stipulate to your maximum group population. It's not the theory that bugs me, it's the practical application.
Please forgive the crudity of the diagram below but visual aids are necessary.




For the sake of argument let's assume that this represents West Africa in what is today the Sahara. Each lettered region is a hunter gatherer group homeland. So your idea makes perfect sense for a splinter group forming in area P. Break off and head north-northeast.

But let's also assume that area's N and M are bounded on the other side by the Atlantic Ocean. When the groups living in those areas reach critical mass, where do they go?

First off, why would they go northeast? Why not south? How do they know that the land of 'milk and honey' is located in Palestine? Second what is the mechanism of this migration? Througout history migrations have usually been opposed by the people already living in the area. A group living in "M" would have to fight its way through G, C, A, E, etc.
They would not have refrigerated trucks to carry their own food so they would be hunting and foraging in the area already occupied by another clan/tribe/group (whatever you wish to call them) and that is a recipe for trouble.

Now, let's assume our hypothetical M-clan enters G-land and is defeated. Assuming they aren't killed outright the survivors can't be absorbed or they would put G over the population limit forcing that group to split. But what if M wins? Why would they keep migrating if they had just gained the new territory or would they settle down? Presumably the G survivors (if any) would withdraw but in a reduced state would they have a reasonble shot at then overcoming any of the areas they would have to move into?

Something would have had to happen which would make a lot of people, from all the groups suddenly decide to get out of Dodge. And I am having a hard time coming up with something that would do that and give them enough time to walk that far without killing them in the process.

[Digit]

I agree Min that a conscious decision to move in any specified direction is highly unlikely. Your sketch shows exactly the type of diffusion that has to be what happened, but I see no need for conflict.
What size would a group be before it split? I doubt that it would reach 60 because that group would also be ready to split up, so the number of people passing through a another clan's area would be quite small, and if you didn't want your granchildren massacred I guess some understood arrangement would have functioned to allow for the necessary movement in the same way that H/G groups seem to understand where bounderies exist between groups.
Without some form of understanding warfare would seem to have been continous.

[Minimalist]

Makes sense, Dig, but it seems that humans tend to fight over resources first and only cooperate when all else fails.

[Digit]

As I understand H/G groups they normally marry out of the Clan, so presumably neighbouring Clans, at least, must have procedures for peaceful meeting, and rules for passing through your neighbour's territory would have to arisen as essential.

[Minimalist]

You're giving them credit for a level of civility that many would argue we do not have today, Dig.

It's a nice thought but American Indian tribes warred among each other all the time in a low-intensity kind of way.

[Digit]

Not really Min. I called the groups Clans, and with groups like that they are likely to have a common set of values with a number of Clans contituting a tribe.
I'll hazard a guess, you'll know better than me, that NA Indian tribes were split into many subgroups, Clans, but considered themselves as the members of one tribe.
Am I correct?

[Minimalist]

Probably depends on the particular tribe in question. It was never a big area of interest for me.

[Rokcet Scientist]

As I understand H/G groups they normally marry out of the Clan, so presumably neighbouring Clans, at least, must have procedures for peaceful meeting, and rules for passing through your neighbour's territory would have to arisen as essential.

Observe the behavior of many mammal species.

Lions: adolescent males get kicked out of their pride, and have to survive on their own, in hostile territory, until they either conquer their own territory and form their own pride, or submit to another big male to be allowed in on the fringe of his pride. A shaky position. So, for the maintenance of social order it is imperative they wander.

Elephants: adolescent males get kicked out of the family, never to be allowed back in one again. They have no choice but to wander. A function of the maintenance of social order.

I submit Homo Sapiens Sapiens is no different.

In fact you Americans have immortalized that very mechanism in 4 words:

Go West, young man!

[Digit]

Amongst the Kung, when further expansion was impossible, in the past they practiced delayed weaning/extended nursing as a method of birth control, and others seem to have practiced abortion and infanticide and so stabilised their numbers to that which their environment could support.

[Minimalist]

That would work if it was the Stay In Africa theory. It doesn't work so well for Out Of Africa, though.

Later, boys....hockey night in NY.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Amongst the Kung, when further expansion was impossible, in the past they practiced delayed weaning/extended nursing as a method of birth control, and others seem to have practiced abortion and infanticide and so stabilised their numbers to that which their environment could support.

Like the chinese have been trying to with the one-child-policy. It's a choice. The alternative is 'Auswanderung' ([e]migration) as the Germans say. Literally: outwandering. Like the Oz' aboriginals' "walkabout". Or, of course, "Go West, young man".

So it's inevitable Homo Sapiens would at some point in time (probably many points!) leave, go 'out of Africa'. Probably Homo Erectus went (long) before him.
The likely main routes are across the strait from Eritrea to Yemen, across the Sinaï desert into the middle East and beyond, and across the Gibraltar land bridge, which collapsed at the beginning of the Holocene, the end of glaciation, the melting of the ice cap, and the consequently relatively fast rising of sea levels.