Did humans migrate a lot in prehistoric times?

[sevensages]

I've read three books about the history of humanity in prehistoric times: Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade and A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History also by Nicholas Wade and Who We Are and How We Got Here by David Reich.

In Before the Dawn and A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade implies that humans did not migrate much in prehistoric times. Wade asserts that the reasons that humans migrated in prehistoric times is something like this: In prehistoric times, hunter-gatherer tribes would number around 50-150 people. The average hunter-gatherer tribe would need about 25 square miles to survive, which is an enormous amount of land for such a small number of people. So the impetus for people to leave Africa in prehistoric times and spread all over the world was to get new unoccupied land to hunt and gather on. This impetus caused humans to spread all over the world in prehistoric times (except to Antarctica).

By definition, there are no records of the behavior of people in prehistoric times. So the only way people today can judge the behavior of hunter-gatherers in prehistoric times is to look at the behavior of hunter-gatherers today. Judging by the behavior of hunter-gatherers today, hunter-gatherer tribes in prehistoric times were extremely territorial and would kill any human that came onto their territory. So once humans spread all over the world in prehistoric times, humans would stay put for millenia because if they traveled off their approximately 25 square mile territory, the would get killed by people from another hunter-gatherer tribe. In A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade wrote "The Rosenberg-Feldman study confirmed the remarkable extent to which people in prehistoric times lived and died in the place where they were born."

In his book, Who We Are and How We Got Here, author David Reich emphasizes the opposite of what Wade writes about this. Reich emphasizes how frequently people migrated in prehistoric times.

The OP is asking about how much humans migrated after humans left Africa 50,000 years ago.

I don't know if Reich is right and Wade is wrong, or if Riech is wrong and Wade is right, or I don't know if this is just a matter of just being relative. Everything is relative. I know a guy who is 5'10", and I have heard tall people assert that this 5'10" guy is short, and I have heard short people describe this same 5'10" guy as tall.

Before anyone accuses me of writing misinformation, let me say this: THESE ARE EXTREMELY ROUGH BALLPARK ESTIMATES. Nobody knows exactly how many people lived in prehistoric times after 50,000 years ago. I estimate that there were approximately 220 million homo sapiens alive between when humans left Africa 50,000 years ago and the end of prehistoric times in circa 4,000 B.C. Here is my reasoning for 220 million: 48,000 BC to 4,000 BC is 44,000 years. 44,000 years is 2,200 generations with a generation lasting 20 years in prehistoric times. 2,220 generations times 100,000 homo sapiens alive at any one time is 220 million. There might have been less than 200 million homo sapiens who lived in prehistoric times from 48,000 BC to 4,000 BC, or there might have been over 300 million homo sapiens who lived from 48,000 BC to 4,000 BC.

Perhaps Wade and Reich might both agree that approximately 200 million people lived and died within 50 miles of the place that they were born in prehistoric times after 50,000 years ago, and perhaps Wade and Reich might also agree that 20 million homo sapiens also migrated more than 50 miles from where they were born in prehistoric times after 50,000 years ago, but maybe Wade looks at 90% of people living and dying where they were born and says "It is remarkable how much people lived and died in the place where they were born in prehistoric times" and Reich looks at the same data and because 20 million people migrated more than 50 miles from where they were born in prehistoric times after 50,000 years ago, and Reich says "It is remarkable how much people migrated away from the place that they were born in prehistoric times after 50,000 years ago." Everything is relative.

Did modern humans (homo sapiens) migrate a lot in prehistoric times from 48,000 BC to 4,000 BC?

Do you agree with Wade or Reich?

@Andrew Mason I know that you've read both books. Do you tend to agree with Wade or with Reich on this? What are your thoughts on this?

 

[pinball1970]

I've read three books about the history of humanity in prehistoric times: Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade and A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History also by Nicholas Wade and Who We Are and How We Got Here by David Reich.

In Before the Dawn and A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade implies that humans did not migrate much in prehistoric times. Wade asserts that the reasons that humans migrated in prehistoric times is something like this: In prehistoric times, hunter-gatherer tribes would number around 50-150 people. The average hunter-gatherer tribe would need about 25 square miles to survive, which is an enormous amount of land for such a small number of people. So the impetus for people to leave Africa in prehistoric times and spread all over the world was to get new unoccupied land to hunt and gather on. This impetus caused humans to spread all over the world in prehistoric times (except to Antarctica).

By definition, there are no records of the behavior of people in prehistoric times. So the only way people today can judge the behavior of hunter-gatherers in prehistoric times is to look at the behavior of hunter-gatherers today. Judging by the behavior of hunter-gatherers today, hunter-gatherer tribes in prehistoric times were extremely territorial and would kill any human that came onto their territory. So once humans spread all over the world in prehistoric times, humans would stay put for millenia because if they traveled off their approximately 25 square mile territory, the would get killed by people from another hunter-gatherer tribe. In A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade wrote "The Rosenberg-Feldman study confirmed the remarkable extent to which people in prehistoric times lived and died in the place where they were born."

In his book, Who We Are and How We Got Here, author David Reich emphasizes the opposite of what Wade writes about this. Reich emphasizes how frequently people migrated in prehistoric times.

The OP is asking about how much humans migrated after humans left Africa 50,000 years ago.

I don't know if Reich is right and Wade is wrong, or if Riech is wrong and Wade is right, or I don't know if this is just a matter of just being relative. Everything is relative. I know a guy who is 5'10", and I have heard tall people assert that this 5'10" guy is short, and I have heard short people describe this same 5'10" guy as tall.

Before anyone accuses me of writing misinformation, let me say this: THESE ARE EXTREMELY ROUGH BALLPARK ESTIMATES. Nobody knows exactly how many people lived in prehistoric times after 50,000 years ago. I estimate that there were approximately 220 million homo sapiens alive between when humans left Africa 50,000 years ago and the end of prehistoric times in circa 4,000 B.C. Here is my reasoning for 220 million: 48,000 BC to 4,000 BC is 44,000 years. 44,000 years is 2,200 generations with a generation lasting 20 years in prehistoric times. 2,220 generations times 100,000 homo sapiens alive at any one time is 220 million. There might have been less than 200 million homo sapiens who lived in prehistoric times from 48,000 BC to 4,000 BC, or there might have been over 300 million homo sapiens who lived from 48,000 BC to 4,000 BC.

Perhaps Wade and Reich might both agree that approximately 200 million people lived and died within 50 miles of the place that they were born in prehistoric times after 50,000 years ago, and perhaps Wade and Reich might also agree that 20 million homo sapiens also migrated more than 50 miles from where they were born in prehistoric times after 50,000 years ago, but maybe Wade looks at 90% of people living and dying where they were born and says "It is remarkable how much people lived and died in the place where they were born in prehistoric times" and Reich looks at the same data and because 20 million people migrated more than 50 miles from where they were born in prehistoric times after 50,000 years ago, and Reich says "It is remarkable how much people migrated away from the place that they were born in prehistoric times after 50,000 years ago." Everything is relative.

Did modern humans (homo sapiens) migrate a lot in prehistoric times from 48,000 BC to 4,000 BC?

Do you agree with Wade or Reich?

@Andrew Mason I know that you've read both books. Do you tend to agree with Wade or with Reich on this? What are your thoughts on this?

There will be plenty of genomic, archeological and paleoanthropological publications on this.

Here is one.

https://bcas.edpsciences.org/articles/bcas/full_html/2024/01/bcas2024011/bcas2024011.html

 

[pinball1970]

Article here that has links to papers.

https://www.science.org/content/article/ten-thousand-years-ago-human-evolution-went-overdrive

 

[pinball1970]

Since this is prehistory not history, I think it is justified putting this in the Biology SF.

 

[sevensages]

Since this is prehistory not history, I think it is justified putting this in the Biology SF.

That's not up to me. I am not a moderator

 

[BWV]

what is 'much'? it can be both true that a) the vast majority of people never travelled more than 10 miles or whatever and b) over thousands of years there were occasional large migrations that displaced indigenous populations. What we know of native Americans shows large migrations - the Aztecs originated in Northern Mexico / SW US, the Comanche originated in Wyoming, etc. Southern Africa was settled by Bantus from West Africa around 1000 AD - and greater genetic differences exist between the Bantus and the indigenous Khoisan population than between any groups of non-African humans

 

[sevensages]

what is 'much'? it can be both true that a) the vast majority of people never travelled more than 10 miles or whatever and b) over thousands of years there were occasional large migrations that displaced indigenous populations.

Yes. I said something to this effect in the OP. I pointed out that everything is relative.

My opinion is that Wade's take on this is more accurate than Reich's .

 

[Ken Fabian]

I see big differences between migration to areas unoccupied by other humans - those earliest of migrations - and migrations later, into regions where humans were already present. And differences again where humans were present and there were large relative technology differences and where there were not.

Large proportions of a population choosing to migrate probably takes dire conditions - prolonged drought for example or the seawater inundations of their homelands that created the roaming "German Hordes" (that didn't originate in Germany) that were problematic to the Romans. I don't know to what extent the last glacial maximum prompted migrations; large area became uninhabitable so it seems likely. Some areas opened up from sea level fall (Doggerland?). And were lost again with The Holocene.

The European colonial period seems a case of technological (notably weapons and cavalry) superiority which made them unstoppable, with other factors at play including the spread of diseases - which the previous lack of contact made more deadly compared to nearer, shorter distance migrations. Disease rather than war did most of the killing of indigenous peoples in the Americas and elsewhere, sometimes deliberately spread - they do seem to have gotten the worst of it but diseases passed the other way too. Syphilis was one that originated in the Americas apparently.