For Those Interested in Archaeology

Can't say I'd ever considered that one. Always thought of hunter-gatherers being mobile anyway, following rivers and finding some way of carrying food supplies to keep them going until the wildlife showed their heads.

 

And encountering snow launches a new era in humanity…living ‘above the snow line’ requires a different approach…The developments were profound.

 

Good points. So much for the "hunter-gatherers worked Banker's hours" idea.

 

Would make perfect sense.

 

I love a good mystery.
"British history may have been rewritten, following the discovery of a coin stamped with the name of a forgotten Iron Age ruler.
The coin was found by a metal detectorist in a field in Hampshire and is stamped with the name 'Esunertos'.
Experts suggest Esunertos may have ruled as King from Danebury Fort, and have called the find 'one of the outstanding discoveries of recent decades'.
Initially, the gold coin was expected to fetch around £4,000 at auction.
However, it set a new world record after being sold for a staggering £20,400 this week...
...The coin was struck sometime between 50 and 30 BC, shortly after Julius Caesar's first Roman raid of Britain in 55 BC."
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12644285/A-new-British-King-Gold-coin-discovered-Hampshire-stamped-Esunertos-previously-unrecorded-Iron-Age-ruler.html

 

One of the joys of the earliest days of mankind is that our knowledge of it changes with almost every new discovery. My mother likes to highlight this by by saying things like "we currently believe that humanity began in Africa"

My answer to 'why did it take so long to leave Africa' is 'because they didn't need to'.
Any group living off the land is going to prefer sticking to territory they know, especially if it normally meets their needs. You know where the water is, you know where the animals tend to be, you know the other human groups around you etc etc. Why jeopardise the survival of your group by moving into the unknown?
The only spur for movement, throughout history, is necessity. Overpopulation or scarcity of resources being favourite. Presumably there is much effort being expanded to find a series of harsh winters, or similar

 

While I agree in general with your last posting I take a bit of issue with this:

Curiosity has played a roll IMO as has the desire to increase wealth or more generally the access to resources. Columbus didn't have to try to find a new route to China. The same is true of many and arguably most of the explorers in historical times. Once they found new areas to move to it was often the lure of a better place rather that necessity that encouraged the mass movements of people.

 

I'd still say there is a difference between exploration, even colonization and migration.

Taking your example of Columbus, he was part of an age of exploration which was partly about exploration but a lot about seeking out better access to resources that were scarce in Europe.
While over time Europeans did settle throughout the Americas, whole people groups did not up and move there. It was initially colonization, typically government-sponsored settlemens aimed at grabbing territory and thus access to resources. The later movement of people was relatively random, individuals from across Europe, typically moving due to pressures at home (so there are some parallels!) and relatively small numbers

 

Yes we still suffer from "the grass is greener on the other side" thinking...
New land can also be taken to prevent others from taking it...
New land can also be taken to create a back-up from attack or environmental destruction...
As a cultural imperative - The newly wed son takes his bride to new pastures and takes his own land...
Different races can have different "habits" - Europeans are known for their curiosity of "Whats over that mountain?" - Mentality (living in cold climates can lead to a resource insecurity) - Something we see in the many voyages around the Earth, from the Vikings, Dutch, Portugeuese, Spanish, French and British...Partly due to resource insecurity, partly curiosity.
And partly greed.

 

Amazed they found anything at all; Victorian antiquarians weren't renowned for their deftness.
"Archaeologists say they have uncovered the ruins of an "incredibly rare" 5,000-year-old tomb in Orkney.
The Neolithic site at Holm, East Mainland, was largely destroyed by Victorian antiquarians 127 years ago.
Experts from National Museums Scotland (NMS) and Cardiff University rediscovered the tomb after a search for its precise location.
Despite the damage, the archaeologists have found 14 skeletons of men, women and children.
Individual pieces of human bone were also found.Local volunteers working with University of Central Lancashire made other finds, including pottery, stone tools and a pin carved from bone.
The three-week excavation led by Dr Hugo Anderson-Whymark, of NMS, and Cardiff's Prof Vicki Cummings has revealed traces of a stone cairn 15m (49ft) in diameter, which had contained a 7m-long (23ft) passage.
The archaeologists said a stone chamber lay at the centre of the cairn, and this was surrounded by six smaller cells."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-67195563

 

If any of them start wandering about, remember to aim for the head...