Children of the Ice Age(aeon.co)
aeon.co
Children of the Ice Age
https://aeon.co/essays/what-was-it-like-to-grow-up-in-the-last-ice-age
13 comments
I always wonder, when people were spreading across the Americas/world for the first time, did they move huge distances in a single generation? Or travel a bit, settle down, then the next generation traveled a bit further and settled down, repeating for hundreds of generations?
It takes a ton of work and time to be able to survive in a new environment. It's hard to imagine someone crossing and mastering several new ecosystems in a single lifetime, figuring out which plants are edible and which animals will kill you and so on.
It takes a ton of work and time to be able to survive in a new environment. It's hard to imagine someone crossing and mastering several new ecosystems in a single lifetime, figuring out which plants are edible and which animals will kill you and so on.
It's hard to respond to these questions without thousands of words, but I'll try some scattered responses to various points above.
From what we understand, all of your scenarios were true at various points. There are times when humans expanded at a lightning pace and times when we seem to have been at a standstill. We don't really know to what degree these are accurate reflections of the reality vs illusions caused by an imperfect material record.
One well-known obstacle to human expansion was the Arctic itself, which seemingly resisted human inhabitation (even by archaic humans) until relatively recently.
As for how fast we could have expanded, modern humans are incredibly specialized to rapid, optimized adaptations. Our language capabilities, high order thinking, sociality and other rapidly adaptive traits evolved at least partially in response to periods where climates could shift by tens of degrees in mere decades during the pleistocene. On top of this, the kinds of nomadic foragers that would have been these early pioneers live a lifestyle that's not only adaptive to variable environments, it's designed to exploit that variability. If the winter is going to be too cold in this valley, you move over to the next one. If there are dangerous animals too close, you pick up camp and go. You're using the resources from multiple environments as those resources are accessible, which allows you to exploit landscapes that any other lifestyle would find completely inhospitable.
Happy to talk more about any of the above in a more focused way.
From what we understand, all of your scenarios were true at various points. There are times when humans expanded at a lightning pace and times when we seem to have been at a standstill. We don't really know to what degree these are accurate reflections of the reality vs illusions caused by an imperfect material record.
One well-known obstacle to human expansion was the Arctic itself, which seemingly resisted human inhabitation (even by archaic humans) until relatively recently.
As for how fast we could have expanded, modern humans are incredibly specialized to rapid, optimized adaptations. Our language capabilities, high order thinking, sociality and other rapidly adaptive traits evolved at least partially in response to periods where climates could shift by tens of degrees in mere decades during the pleistocene. On top of this, the kinds of nomadic foragers that would have been these early pioneers live a lifestyle that's not only adaptive to variable environments, it's designed to exploit that variability. If the winter is going to be too cold in this valley, you move over to the next one. If there are dangerous animals too close, you pick up camp and go. You're using the resources from multiple environments as those resources are accessible, which allows you to exploit landscapes that any other lifestyle would find completely inhospitable.
Happy to talk more about any of the above in a more focused way.
Oh. I’d like to hear that, too. What would be a good format for you?
This one is fine, just ask smaller questions.
Big questions and questions we don't have a clear answer to are difficult to answer well without spending a lot of time to organize everything into a digestible narrative. Writing Askhistorians answers usually takes me a few hours each, for example.
If I don't do that and write extemporaneously, you get the garbage above.
Big questions and questions we don't have a clear answer to are difficult to answer well without spending a lot of time to organize everything into a digestible narrative. Writing Askhistorians answers usually takes me a few hours each, for example.
If I don't do that and write extemporaneously, you get the garbage above.
Gotcha. So could you first point me to the one or two AskHistorians answers that you are either most proud of personally or that you think people should read? I think I’d like to read those!
Sure, [0] has held up the best of my answers over time in that I don't think rewriting it would substantially improve the content. [1] has the problem that it's answering a "big question" and is thus inherently incomplete, but I'm happy with the discussions it's generated and other people continue to find it useful based on the backlinks I see.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/29eiah/if_i_...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/mf1uhi/remem...
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/29eiah/if_i_...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/mf1uhi/remem...
At large timescales, the migrations most likely occurred in a way that followed Fick's diffusion patterns [1]. Some human groups inevitably even migrated backwards into Russia at times. And the partial pressure of humans in the Americas probably slowed further diffusion of humans into that area to a small degree as unfamiliar tribes collided together and repelled each other, either back to where they came or into a retreat further into unknown territory for respite.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fick%27s_laws_of_diffusion
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fick%27s_laws_of_diffusion
The other thing not present in this, is that this idea of adolescence is completely arbitrary by western current culture.
Even as soon as 75 years ago, people were marrying as young as 13y in the USA. There's an old, but crass, adage: "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed".
But to say, "Where are the children"? The children are only a small segment. They 'grew up' to adults by no later than puberty.
Even as soon as 75 years ago, people were marrying as young as 13y in the USA. There's an old, but crass, adage: "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed".
But to say, "Where are the children"? The children are only a small segment. They 'grew up' to adults by no later than puberty.
It's common for puberty to be only one of multiple criteria for 'adulthood' in modern forager societies. Take an example from many Australian aboriginals, where men in many groups were sometimes limited from full marriage rights until their 30s.
That's not the point of this article though. There were children and they were doing things. This article is about how our modern worldviews influence what we can see in the archeological record.
That's not the point of this article though. There were children and they were doing things. This article is about how our modern worldviews influence what we can see in the archeological record.
Everything we have learned since 1950 about Humans is more and more precisely showing that:
1. Humans from 200,000 BC and 2023 are Anatomically and Behaviorally (read =/= culturally) identical
2. Life prior to the Quaternary Megafauna extinction (~12-10,000BC) was mostly peaceful and harmonious with a lot of play, community and health in contrast to what "history" has told us
Part of the challenge to explaining this stuff IMO is how loose writing like this plays with time periods. The author discusses an engrossing story about a near-neolithic transitioning from Paleolithic family (14,000BC) and slams immediately to tell about an early proto-human dig (1.8-2M), and then slamming all the way back to 10,000 BC.
I don't know how that could do anything but make readers confused about the extreme Time (1,800,000 BC vs 10,000 BC) and Biological differences between these periods and just reinforces peoples completely wrong and destructive assumption that anything prior to the year 0 was a "cave man" wandering around with a club.
1. Humans from 200,000 BC and 2023 are Anatomically and Behaviorally (read =/= culturally) identical
2. Life prior to the Quaternary Megafauna extinction (~12-10,000BC) was mostly peaceful and harmonious with a lot of play, community and health in contrast to what "history" has told us
Part of the challenge to explaining this stuff IMO is how loose writing like this plays with time periods. The author discusses an engrossing story about a near-neolithic transitioning from Paleolithic family (14,000BC) and slams immediately to tell about an early proto-human dig (1.8-2M), and then slamming all the way back to 10,000 BC.
I don't know how that could do anything but make readers confused about the extreme Time (1,800,000 BC vs 10,000 BC) and Biological differences between these periods and just reinforces peoples completely wrong and destructive assumption that anything prior to the year 0 was a "cave man" wandering around with a club.
Um, this article has the same plot as the movie Sphere from the 90s.
Sphere featured a underwater spaceship, named Basura investigated by a guy named Norman which included unkownable and exciting information. The ship had a giant golden sphere which allowed the crew's scariest wishes to come true. Lots of study sequences with the same tone and pacing.
Same overall structure here, with grieving over children over the past replacing the fear of wishes.
I feel like I shouldn't be typing this out... even the dates are similar...
Sphere featured a underwater spaceship, named Basura investigated by a guy named Norman which included unkownable and exciting information. The ship had a giant golden sphere which allowed the crew's scariest wishes to come true. Lots of study sequences with the same tone and pacing.
Same overall structure here, with grieving over children over the past replacing the fear of wishes.
I feel like I shouldn't be typing this out... even the dates are similar...
A series holding to what "Quest For Fire" tried to do (an underrated, unique and, sadly, seemingly forgotten film).