Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
What I see in eastern North America is hunters who would drive big game into marshes.Digit wrote:But to return to my point about groups leap frogging each other.
Ethnologists claim that HG groups would have spread in Africa at about 15miles/generation.
Now when you consider how fast homo moved towards Oz the maths don't add up if each time ony the leading group advanced and the others settled.
Roy.
While the "Great Turtle" plays a central role in Algonquin traditions for some reason (one mentioned in "Man and Impact in the Americas", a great book, or so I've been told by some people), we do have to face up to the fact that theory is always limited by recoveries. We all have to remember that China was in nearly constant turmoil during the period of the development of modern anthropology.)Digit wrote:Yeah! I saw it as well.
The speed at which people spread down the west coast of S America and along the Asiatic coast is astonishing and the fact that they seem not to have penetrated far inland at first infers to me that they had a maritine culture.
Not if they were following migrating big game, such as elephantidae (sp?). Then the spread is about 300-500 miles per year. As the spread of clovis appears to demonstrate, it is damn fast.Digit wrote:It seems also that in some instances they preferred the risks of island hopping to moving inland till they ran out of coast line.
Had HE moved across Asia on a broad front they would still be travelling!
Roy.
That hardly leaves time to eat!is about 300-500 miles per year
That evidence has to be dealt with.Keller and a growing number of colleagues around the world are turning up evidence that, rather than a single event, an intensive period of volcanic eruptions as well as a series of asteroid impacts are likely to have stressed the world ecosystem to the breaking point. Although an asteroid or comet probably struck Earth at the time of the dinosaur extinction, it most likely was, as Keller says, "the straw that broke the camel's back" and not the sole cause.
Perhaps more controversially, Keller and colleagues contend that the "straw" -- that final impact -- is probably not what most scientists believe it is. For more than a decade, the prevailing theory has centered on a massive impact crater in Mexico. In 1990, scientists proposed that the Chicxulub crater, as it became known, was the remnant of the fateful dinosaur-killing event and that theory has since become dogma.
Keller has accumulated evidence, including results released this year, suggesting that the Chicxulub crater probably did not coincide with the K/T boundary. Instead, the impact that caused the Chicxulub crater was likely smaller than originally believed and probably occurred 300,000 years before the mass extinction. The final dinosaur-killer probably struck Earth somewhere else and remains undiscovered, said Keller.
Unless they were chased by other HE, or unless they had exhausted the food supply on their side, there was no hurry at all. They could afford to ponder the problem for generations until the dime dropped. Nobody was waiting for them on the other side. They didn't have a train or plane to catch.Minimalist wrote: Depends on a lot of things...not the least of which is how fast did they have to get across that damn river!
Unless 'groups tagging along behind' did so years later, well after the 'picked over' area had been vacated by the first group. The area would have regenerated to the extent that the new group wouldn't even know it had been occupied by other HE before them.Minimalist wrote: For that matter, groups tagging along behind would be moving into an area which had been picked over.
They wouldn't know it had been 'picked over' because it had been vacated for years and regenerated.Digit wrote:So where did the first group go if the land in front of them had been picked over as well?
Absolutely. And living along the coastline gathering seafood is also a 'maritime life style'.And surely a maritime life style would have difficulty exhausting a food supply that was being constantly refreshed from the sea?
You've completely misunderstood me.They wouldn't know it had been 'picked over' because it had been vacated for years and regenerated.
I doubt overpopulation was a problem. Quite the contrary. Average age was something around 25/35. If they were lucky. 4 out of 5 kids died before they were 2 years old. Underpopulation was a problem. Not overpopulation.Digit wrote:they must keep their numbers to a level that their territory can sustain or they are in trouble.
Make war and steal land/food from the neighbours, or marry them...Digit wrote:What can they do?
Which wouldn't relieve pressure on their resourses. So now you accept that warfare is one of the options.or marry them...
There you go again: I never said it wasn't!Digit wrote:So now you accept that warfare is one of the options.or marry them...