Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Would it necessarily have been seen as "migrating", do you think? During the last ice age, there was a land bridge between present-day Siberia and Alaska. To nomadic peoples such as occupied the region, wouldn't it all have seemed to be just one area? That's how it seems to me, anyway.
|
My use of the word migration was referring to the movement of a people. Not a movement to anyplace in particular.
Whatever the height and width of it, it was "land" that bridged the two continents, as opposed to an icy covering of the sea. So you are quite right Harry.
But I still have to wonder, Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Why do the Eskimos live in the Arctic? I'd guess that these primitive people did so for much the same reason - they hunted seals, whales, etc.
|
That's pretty much my point. Even living in a hostile environment that you know can seem better than moving into an area that may (or may not, of course) be worse.
The movement of these peoples was from a warmer area with, one would presume, a greater abundance of plant and animal life. Seal chasing
may be plausible. But I have a hard time believing that this would go on for hundreds of generations. Remember these were very short lived people. And even the Inuit of old did very little traveling (aside from hunting) in the middle of the long northern winters.
One comment about that time period. As best as I can recall, the ocean levels were considerably lower then. If they followed what was the coast at that time, then most of their remains are covered by water. Evidence of that happening has already been discovered in Europe.