Mixing
Do hunter-gatherers move or stay put in the winter?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
A hunter-gatherer society exists in lands similar to that of Northern Europe (think Germany). There is plentiful game in the forests and glades, and there are many rivers with edible aquatic life. Smaller rivers can freeze periodically in the winter. Food preservation by smoking and salting are known. Gathered wild grains and acorns are gathered food items that might survive a winter.
The advantage of staying put is that a well built shelter from the cold could be maintained and stored foods could be kept all winter long. On the other hand, food storage is minimal for hunter gatherers; moving food via sled is relatively easy in the winter; and cold protection is primarily skins and blankets, and not dependent on well built huts (which don't really exist). The advantage to moving in the winter is that food supplies are much more limited. Moving more frequently puts less pressure on the surrounding environment.
Is it a better strategy for survival for a hunter-gatherer community in a cold winter environment to move a few times each winter, or stay put in one location?
society environment prehistoric-times
asked 1 hour ago
kingledion
65.8k22210371
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
A hunter-gatherer society exists in lands similar to that of Northern Europe (think Germany). There is plentiful game in the forests and glades, and there are many rivers with edible aquatic life. Smaller rivers can freeze periodically in the winter. Food preservation by smoking and salting are known. Gathered wild grains and acorns are gathered food items that might survive a winter.
The advantage of staying put is that a well built shelter from the cold could be maintained and stored foods could be kept all winter long. On the other hand, food storage is minimal for hunter gatherers; moving food via sled is relatively easy in the winter; and cold protection is primarily skins and blankets, and not dependent on well built huts (which don't really exist). The advantage to moving in the winter is that food supplies are much more limited. Moving more frequently puts less pressure on the surrounding environment.
Is it a better strategy for survival for a hunter-gatherer community in a cold winter environment to move a few times each winter, or stay put in one location?
society environment prehistoric-times
asked 1 hour ago
kingledion
65.8k22210371
Huts can be rather better built than you seem to expect...
– Tim B♦
1 hour ago
1
Don't the Sami people (formerly knows as Lapps) fulfil all the requirements? They were hunter-gatherers (at least up to about the 15th or 16th century), they lived in the actual northern Europe (note that Germany is generally considered to be in central Europe), they knew winter very well...
– AlexP
51 mins ago
@AlexP Did they move or did they not? How did they survive the winter? Also, don't the Sami herd reindeer; this group has no domesticates.
– kingledion
45 mins ago
@kingledion: The Sami started herding reindeer in the 15th/16th century, when they became subjects of kings and became acquainted with the notion of paying taxes. Before that they were hunter-gatherers, or, more specifically, fishers-trappers-hunters. They were nomadic, following their prey. But then I am nowhere knowledgeable enough to offer more than a comment :( And really no domestic animals? Not even dogs? Who doesn't have dogs?
– AlexP
39 mins ago
@AlexP Ok, yes, dogs
– kingledion
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
A hunter-gatherer society exists in lands similar to that of Northern Europe (think Germany). There is plentiful game in the forests and glades, and there are many rivers with edible aquatic life. Smaller rivers can freeze periodically in the winter. Food preservation by smoking and salting are known. Gathered wild grains and acorns are gathered food items that might survive a winter.
The advantage of staying put is that a well built shelter from the cold could be maintained and stored foods could be kept all winter long. On the other hand, food storage is minimal for hunter gatherers; moving food via sled is relatively easy in the winter; and cold protection is primarily skins and blankets, and not dependent on well built huts (which don't really exist). The advantage to moving in the winter is that food supplies are much more limited. Moving more frequently puts less pressure on the surrounding environment.
Is it a better strategy for survival for a hunter-gatherer community in a cold winter environment to move a few times each winter, or stay put in one location?
society environment prehistoric-times
asked 1 hour ago
kingledion
65.8k22210371
A hunter-gatherer society exists in lands similar to that of Northern Europe (think Germany). There is plentiful game in the forests and glades, and there are many rivers with edible aquatic life. Smaller rivers can freeze periodically in the winter. Food preservation by smoking and salting are known. Gathered wild grains and acorns are gathered food items that might survive a winter.
The advantage of staying put is that a well built shelter from the cold could be maintained and stored foods could be kept all winter long. On the other hand, food storage is minimal for hunter gatherers; moving food via sled is relatively easy in the winter; and cold protection is primarily skins and blankets, and not dependent on well built huts (which don't really exist). The advantage to moving in the winter is that food supplies are much more limited. Moving more frequently puts less pressure on the surrounding environment.
Is it a better strategy for survival for a hunter-gatherer community in a cold winter environment to move a few times each winter, or stay put in one location?
society environment prehistoric-times
society environment prehistoric-times
asked 1 hour ago
kingledion
65.8k22210371
asked 1 hour ago
kingledion
65.8k22210371
asked 1 hour ago
kingledion
65.8k22210371
asked 1 hour ago
kingledion
65.8k22210371
asked 1 hour ago
kingledion
65.8k22210371
65.8k22210371
Huts can be rather better built than you seem to expect...
– Tim B♦
1 hour ago
1
Don't the Sami people (formerly knows as Lapps) fulfil all the requirements? They were hunter-gatherers (at least up to about the 15th or 16th century), they lived in the actual northern Europe (note that Germany is generally considered to be in central Europe), they knew winter very well...
– AlexP
51 mins ago
@AlexP Did they move or did they not? How did they survive the winter? Also, don't the Sami herd reindeer; this group has no domesticates.
– kingledion
45 mins ago
@kingledion: The Sami started herding reindeer in the 15th/16th century, when they became subjects of kings and became acquainted with the notion of paying taxes. Before that they were hunter-gatherers, or, more specifically, fishers-trappers-hunters. They were nomadic, following their prey. But then I am nowhere knowledgeable enough to offer more than a comment :( And really no domestic animals? Not even dogs? Who doesn't have dogs?
– AlexP
39 mins ago
@AlexP Ok, yes, dogs
– kingledion
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Huts can be rather better built than you seem to expect...
– Tim B♦
1 hour ago
1
Don't the Sami people (formerly knows as Lapps) fulfil all the requirements? They were hunter-gatherers (at least up to about the 15th or 16th century), they lived in the actual northern Europe (note that Germany is generally considered to be in central Europe), they knew winter very well...
– AlexP
51 mins ago
@AlexP Did they move or did they not? How did they survive the winter? Also, don't the Sami herd reindeer; this group has no domesticates.
– kingledion
45 mins ago
@kingledion: The Sami started herding reindeer in the 15th/16th century, when they became subjects of kings and became acquainted with the notion of paying taxes. Before that they were hunter-gatherers, or, more specifically, fishers-trappers-hunters. They were nomadic, following their prey. But then I am nowhere knowledgeable enough to offer more than a comment :( And really no domestic animals? Not even dogs? Who doesn't have dogs?
– AlexP
39 mins ago
@AlexP Ok, yes, dogs
– kingledion
30 mins ago
Huts can be rather better built than you seem to expect...
– Tim B♦
1 hour ago
Huts can be rather better built than you seem to expect...
– Tim B♦
1 hour ago
1
1
Don't the Sami people (formerly knows as Lapps) fulfil all the requirements? They were hunter-gatherers (at least up to about the 15th or 16th century), they lived in the actual northern Europe (note that Germany is generally considered to be in central Europe), they knew winter very well...
– AlexP
51 mins ago
Don't the Sami people (formerly knows as Lapps) fulfil all the requirements? They were hunter-gatherers (at least up to about the 15th or 16th century), they lived in the actual northern Europe (note that Germany is generally considered to be in central Europe), they knew winter very well...
– AlexP
51 mins ago
@AlexP Did they move or did they not? How did they survive the winter? Also, don't the Sami herd reindeer; this group has no domesticates.
– kingledion
45 mins ago
@AlexP Did they move or did they not? How did they survive the winter? Also, don't the Sami herd reindeer; this group has no domesticates.
– kingledion
45 mins ago
@kingledion: The Sami started herding reindeer in the 15th/16th century, when they became subjects of kings and became acquainted with the notion of paying taxes. Before that they were hunter-gatherers, or, more specifically, fishers-trappers-hunters. They were nomadic, following their prey. But then I am nowhere knowledgeable enough to offer more than a comment :( And really no domestic animals? Not even dogs? Who doesn't have dogs?
– AlexP
39 mins ago
@kingledion: The Sami started herding reindeer in the 15th/16th century, when they became subjects of kings and became acquainted with the notion of paying taxes. Before that they were hunter-gatherers, or, more specifically, fishers-trappers-hunters. They were nomadic, following their prey. But then I am nowhere knowledgeable enough to offer more than a comment :( And really no domestic animals? Not even dogs? Who doesn't have dogs?
– AlexP
39 mins ago
@AlexP Ok, yes, dogs
– kingledion
30 mins ago
@AlexP Ok, yes, dogs
– kingledion
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
If I check what the experts do, I would say: move before winter.
And the experts in question are animals used to deal with winter.
When they migrate, they do it before winter, so that they don't have to move during harsh condition.
When they don't migrate, they still reach more livable conditions (think boars or wolves moving to valley instead of staying on the mountains).
Consider that moving in winter in an high effort and high risk. Therefore you do it only if it is the lesser evil.
Summarizing:
- Move before winter
- If the situation is getting out of control (severe lack of resources) then consider moving to a more favorable location, else stay put.
answered 1 hour ago
L.Dutch♦
63.1k18149297
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Hunter gatherers are tied to food sources, so it would depend largely on what is available in the locale.
If you live next to the sea you would develop the skills to exploit the sea in winter and could live off nothing but meat for the duration like eskimos if need be quite comfortably.
Scottish Isles the hunter gatherers gathered and stored large amounts of resources and then overwintered in a locale.
It's actually rare even in more temperate climes for hunter gatherers to always be moving unless the is population pressure or external pressure. I can't think of any except Aboriginal Australians and even for them it was individuals who would roam off for extended periods, not the whole group.
Normally they will have several locations with semi permanent camps which they stay for periods in while they exploit and store resources. Eg, nuts in one area, deer in another for antler and skins and whatever, shellfish in another.
The winter camp would be just one of these. The only reason I can think of to normally change locales during winter is if a particular resource becomes available elsewhere partway through such as an animal migration or massing of fish or something similar.
Straying out of your area could also be dangerous, eventually you will impinge on another group and there will be conflict over resources.
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
11.2k12055
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Simple answer to your "either-or" question is: Yes
As others have stated, hunter gatherers were tied to food sources. Germany's prehistoric climate would have been vastly different than it is today, but suffice it to say that hunter-gatherers thrived in this region.
As you stated, for most of the hunter-gatherer period, most of mankind lived in caves or other natural shelters. What this implies (and supported by science) is that "societies" of hunter-gatherers would be made up of small, dispersed groups. These groups are often thought to always be at odds with others, but quite a bit of evidence points that there was a lot of intermixing. Also, trade was actually a factor even during this time, meaning our hunter-gatherer ancestors had it in their best interests to be friendly when possible. (don't forget, they were every bit as intelligent as we are today)
To answer your question, the best evidence I can provide is in the above link concerning a similar climate to prehistoric Germany. The Lake Baikal region has a lot of scientific literature available from this time period, but suffice it to say, there was intermixing (on a society basis at least) as various family-groups moved around between areas. The evidence points towards some groups moving and some staying.
Why this is can be complicated to answer definitively, but it can also be answered simply, at least generally: Those who stayed saw benefit in staying, those who moved saw benefit in moving. Some would have been right, some would have been wrong. But if an area can't support a large group, some are going to have to move or fight for the limited food/shelter resources. It seems most humans chose to voluntarily break off and move to find greener pastures while some would stay and keep working the existing known locations.
So basically, small family groups formed the very loose 'society' and would move around as necessary, not necessarily on a seasonal basis. Moving means burning energy, burning energy means having to find more food. As technology caught up (fire, shelter-building, better tools, eventually agriculture), their dietary budgets became such where taking risks could be allowed and true society started flourishing.
answered 27 mins ago
ColonelPanic
1,43919
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
well built huts (which don't really exist)
Why not? because this is the crux of the question. Winter shelters are not that hard to make, wattled walls and thatched roofs can keep keep the cold out quite effectively and have done so for thousands of years. This was the preferred method for borth early Europeans and pacific-northwest native Americans. and if you indeed have a bountiful area there is little reason to trek around so the winter huts become the summer basecamp/storehouses.
answered 1 hour ago
Borgh
994212
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
If I check what the experts do, I would say: move before winter.
And the experts in question are animals used to deal with winter.
When they migrate, they do it before winter, so that they don't have to move during harsh condition.
When they don't migrate, they still reach more livable conditions (think boars or wolves moving to valley instead of staying on the mountains).
Consider that moving in winter in an high effort and high risk. Therefore you do it only if it is the lesser evil.
Summarizing:
- Move before winter
- If the situation is getting out of control (severe lack of resources) then consider moving to a more favorable location, else stay put.
answered 1 hour ago
L.Dutch♦
63.1k18149297
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
If I check what the experts do, I would say: move before winter.
And the experts in question are animals used to deal with winter.
When they migrate, they do it before winter, so that they don't have to move during harsh condition.
When they don't migrate, they still reach more livable conditions (think boars or wolves moving to valley instead of staying on the mountains).
Consider that moving in winter in an high effort and high risk. Therefore you do it only if it is the lesser evil.
Summarizing:
- Move before winter
- If the situation is getting out of control (severe lack of resources) then consider moving to a more favorable location, else stay put.
answered 1 hour ago
L.Dutch♦
63.1k18149297
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
If I check what the experts do, I would say: move before winter.
And the experts in question are animals used to deal with winter.
When they migrate, they do it before winter, so that they don't have to move during harsh condition.
When they don't migrate, they still reach more livable conditions (think boars or wolves moving to valley instead of staying on the mountains).
Consider that moving in winter in an high effort and high risk. Therefore you do it only if it is the lesser evil.
Summarizing:
- Move before winter
- If the situation is getting out of control (severe lack of resources) then consider moving to a more favorable location, else stay put.
answered 1 hour ago
L.Dutch♦
63.1k18149297
If I check what the experts do, I would say: move before winter.
And the experts in question are animals used to deal with winter.
When they migrate, they do it before winter, so that they don't have to move during harsh condition.
When they don't migrate, they still reach more livable conditions (think boars or wolves moving to valley instead of staying on the mountains).
Consider that moving in winter in an high effort and high risk. Therefore you do it only if it is the lesser evil.
Summarizing:
- Move before winter
- If the situation is getting out of control (severe lack of resources) then consider moving to a more favorable location, else stay put.
answered 1 hour ago
L.Dutch♦
63.1k18149297
answered 1 hour ago
L.Dutch♦
63.1k18149297
answered 1 hour ago
L.Dutch♦
63.1k18149297
answered 1 hour ago
L.Dutch♦
63.1k18149297
63.1k18149297
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Hunter gatherers are tied to food sources, so it would depend largely on what is available in the locale.
If you live next to the sea you would develop the skills to exploit the sea in winter and could live off nothing but meat for the duration like eskimos if need be quite comfortably.
Scottish Isles the hunter gatherers gathered and stored large amounts of resources and then overwintered in a locale.
It's actually rare even in more temperate climes for hunter gatherers to always be moving unless the is population pressure or external pressure. I can't think of any except Aboriginal Australians and even for them it was individuals who would roam off for extended periods, not the whole group.
Normally they will have several locations with semi permanent camps which they stay for periods in while they exploit and store resources. Eg, nuts in one area, deer in another for antler and skins and whatever, shellfish in another.
The winter camp would be just one of these. The only reason I can think of to normally change locales during winter is if a particular resource becomes available elsewhere partway through such as an animal migration or massing of fish or something similar.
Straying out of your area could also be dangerous, eventually you will impinge on another group and there will be conflict over resources.
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
11.2k12055
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Hunter gatherers are tied to food sources, so it would depend largely on what is available in the locale.
If you live next to the sea you would develop the skills to exploit the sea in winter and could live off nothing but meat for the duration like eskimos if need be quite comfortably.
Scottish Isles the hunter gatherers gathered and stored large amounts of resources and then overwintered in a locale.
It's actually rare even in more temperate climes for hunter gatherers to always be moving unless the is population pressure or external pressure. I can't think of any except Aboriginal Australians and even for them it was individuals who would roam off for extended periods, not the whole group.
Normally they will have several locations with semi permanent camps which they stay for periods in while they exploit and store resources. Eg, nuts in one area, deer in another for antler and skins and whatever, shellfish in another.
The winter camp would be just one of these. The only reason I can think of to normally change locales during winter is if a particular resource becomes available elsewhere partway through such as an animal migration or massing of fish or something similar.
Straying out of your area could also be dangerous, eventually you will impinge on another group and there will be conflict over resources.
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
11.2k12055
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Hunter gatherers are tied to food sources, so it would depend largely on what is available in the locale.
If you live next to the sea you would develop the skills to exploit the sea in winter and could live off nothing but meat for the duration like eskimos if need be quite comfortably.
Scottish Isles the hunter gatherers gathered and stored large amounts of resources and then overwintered in a locale.
It's actually rare even in more temperate climes for hunter gatherers to always be moving unless the is population pressure or external pressure. I can't think of any except Aboriginal Australians and even for them it was individuals who would roam off for extended periods, not the whole group.
Normally they will have several locations with semi permanent camps which they stay for periods in while they exploit and store resources. Eg, nuts in one area, deer in another for antler and skins and whatever, shellfish in another.
The winter camp would be just one of these. The only reason I can think of to normally change locales during winter is if a particular resource becomes available elsewhere partway through such as an animal migration or massing of fish or something similar.
Straying out of your area could also be dangerous, eventually you will impinge on another group and there will be conflict over resources.
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
11.2k12055
Hunter gatherers are tied to food sources, so it would depend largely on what is available in the locale.
If you live next to the sea you would develop the skills to exploit the sea in winter and could live off nothing but meat for the duration like eskimos if need be quite comfortably.
Scottish Isles the hunter gatherers gathered and stored large amounts of resources and then overwintered in a locale.
It's actually rare even in more temperate climes for hunter gatherers to always be moving unless the is population pressure or external pressure. I can't think of any except Aboriginal Australians and even for them it was individuals who would roam off for extended periods, not the whole group.
Normally they will have several locations with semi permanent camps which they stay for periods in while they exploit and store resources. Eg, nuts in one area, deer in another for antler and skins and whatever, shellfish in another.
The winter camp would be just one of these. The only reason I can think of to normally change locales during winter is if a particular resource becomes available elsewhere partway through such as an animal migration or massing of fish or something similar.
Straying out of your area could also be dangerous, eventually you will impinge on another group and there will be conflict over resources.
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
11.2k12055
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
11.2k12055
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
11.2k12055
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
11.2k12055
11.2k12055
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Simple answer to your "either-or" question is: Yes
As others have stated, hunter gatherers were tied to food sources. Germany's prehistoric climate would have been vastly different than it is today, but suffice it to say that hunter-gatherers thrived in this region.
As you stated, for most of the hunter-gatherer period, most of mankind lived in caves or other natural shelters. What this implies (and supported by science) is that "societies" of hunter-gatherers would be made up of small, dispersed groups. These groups are often thought to always be at odds with others, but quite a bit of evidence points that there was a lot of intermixing. Also, trade was actually a factor even during this time, meaning our hunter-gatherer ancestors had it in their best interests to be friendly when possible. (don't forget, they were every bit as intelligent as we are today)
To answer your question, the best evidence I can provide is in the above link concerning a similar climate to prehistoric Germany. The Lake Baikal region has a lot of scientific literature available from this time period, but suffice it to say, there was intermixing (on a society basis at least) as various family-groups moved around between areas. The evidence points towards some groups moving and some staying.
Why this is can be complicated to answer definitively, but it can also be answered simply, at least generally: Those who stayed saw benefit in staying, those who moved saw benefit in moving. Some would have been right, some would have been wrong. But if an area can't support a large group, some are going to have to move or fight for the limited food/shelter resources. It seems most humans chose to voluntarily break off and move to find greener pastures while some would stay and keep working the existing known locations.
So basically, small family groups formed the very loose 'society' and would move around as necessary, not necessarily on a seasonal basis. Moving means burning energy, burning energy means having to find more food. As technology caught up (fire, shelter-building, better tools, eventually agriculture), their dietary budgets became such where taking risks could be allowed and true society started flourishing.
answered 27 mins ago
ColonelPanic
1,43919
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Simple answer to your "either-or" question is: Yes
As others have stated, hunter gatherers were tied to food sources. Germany's prehistoric climate would have been vastly different than it is today, but suffice it to say that hunter-gatherers thrived in this region.
As you stated, for most of the hunter-gatherer period, most of mankind lived in caves or other natural shelters. What this implies (and supported by science) is that "societies" of hunter-gatherers would be made up of small, dispersed groups. These groups are often thought to always be at odds with others, but quite a bit of evidence points that there was a lot of intermixing. Also, trade was actually a factor even during this time, meaning our hunter-gatherer ancestors had it in their best interests to be friendly when possible. (don't forget, they were every bit as intelligent as we are today)
To answer your question, the best evidence I can provide is in the above link concerning a similar climate to prehistoric Germany. The Lake Baikal region has a lot of scientific literature available from this time period, but suffice it to say, there was intermixing (on a society basis at least) as various family-groups moved around between areas. The evidence points towards some groups moving and some staying.
Why this is can be complicated to answer definitively, but it can also be answered simply, at least generally: Those who stayed saw benefit in staying, those who moved saw benefit in moving. Some would have been right, some would have been wrong. But if an area can't support a large group, some are going to have to move or fight for the limited food/shelter resources. It seems most humans chose to voluntarily break off and move to find greener pastures while some would stay and keep working the existing known locations.
So basically, small family groups formed the very loose 'society' and would move around as necessary, not necessarily on a seasonal basis. Moving means burning energy, burning energy means having to find more food. As technology caught up (fire, shelter-building, better tools, eventually agriculture), their dietary budgets became such where taking risks could be allowed and true society started flourishing.
answered 27 mins ago
ColonelPanic
1,43919
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Simple answer to your "either-or" question is: Yes
As others have stated, hunter gatherers were tied to food sources. Germany's prehistoric climate would have been vastly different than it is today, but suffice it to say that hunter-gatherers thrived in this region.
As you stated, for most of the hunter-gatherer period, most of mankind lived in caves or other natural shelters. What this implies (and supported by science) is that "societies" of hunter-gatherers would be made up of small, dispersed groups. These groups are often thought to always be at odds with others, but quite a bit of evidence points that there was a lot of intermixing. Also, trade was actually a factor even during this time, meaning our hunter-gatherer ancestors had it in their best interests to be friendly when possible. (don't forget, they were every bit as intelligent as we are today)
To answer your question, the best evidence I can provide is in the above link concerning a similar climate to prehistoric Germany. The Lake Baikal region has a lot of scientific literature available from this time period, but suffice it to say, there was intermixing (on a society basis at least) as various family-groups moved around between areas. The evidence points towards some groups moving and some staying.
Why this is can be complicated to answer definitively, but it can also be answered simply, at least generally: Those who stayed saw benefit in staying, those who moved saw benefit in moving. Some would have been right, some would have been wrong. But if an area can't support a large group, some are going to have to move or fight for the limited food/shelter resources. It seems most humans chose to voluntarily break off and move to find greener pastures while some would stay and keep working the existing known locations.
So basically, small family groups formed the very loose 'society' and would move around as necessary, not necessarily on a seasonal basis. Moving means burning energy, burning energy means having to find more food. As technology caught up (fire, shelter-building, better tools, eventually agriculture), their dietary budgets became such where taking risks could be allowed and true society started flourishing.
answered 27 mins ago
ColonelPanic
1,43919
Simple answer to your "either-or" question is: Yes
As others have stated, hunter gatherers were tied to food sources. Germany's prehistoric climate would have been vastly different than it is today, but suffice it to say that hunter-gatherers thrived in this region.
As you stated, for most of the hunter-gatherer period, most of mankind lived in caves or other natural shelters. What this implies (and supported by science) is that "societies" of hunter-gatherers would be made up of small, dispersed groups. These groups are often thought to always be at odds with others, but quite a bit of evidence points that there was a lot of intermixing. Also, trade was actually a factor even during this time, meaning our hunter-gatherer ancestors had it in their best interests to be friendly when possible. (don't forget, they were every bit as intelligent as we are today)
To answer your question, the best evidence I can provide is in the above link concerning a similar climate to prehistoric Germany. The Lake Baikal region has a lot of scientific literature available from this time period, but suffice it to say, there was intermixing (on a society basis at least) as various family-groups moved around between areas. The evidence points towards some groups moving and some staying.
Why this is can be complicated to answer definitively, but it can also be answered simply, at least generally: Those who stayed saw benefit in staying, those who moved saw benefit in moving. Some would have been right, some would have been wrong. But if an area can't support a large group, some are going to have to move or fight for the limited food/shelter resources. It seems most humans chose to voluntarily break off and move to find greener pastures while some would stay and keep working the existing known locations.
So basically, small family groups formed the very loose 'society' and would move around as necessary, not necessarily on a seasonal basis. Moving means burning energy, burning energy means having to find more food. As technology caught up (fire, shelter-building, better tools, eventually agriculture), their dietary budgets became such where taking risks could be allowed and true society started flourishing.
answered 27 mins ago
ColonelPanic
1,43919
answered 27 mins ago
ColonelPanic
1,43919
answered 27 mins ago
ColonelPanic
1,43919
answered 27 mins ago
ColonelPanic
1,43919
1,43919
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
well built huts (which don't really exist)
Why not? because this is the crux of the question. Winter shelters are not that hard to make, wattled walls and thatched roofs can keep keep the cold out quite effectively and have done so for thousands of years. This was the preferred method for borth early Europeans and pacific-northwest native Americans. and if you indeed have a bountiful area there is little reason to trek around so the winter huts become the summer basecamp/storehouses.
answered 1 hour ago
Borgh
994212
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
well built huts (which don't really exist)
Why not? because this is the crux of the question. Winter shelters are not that hard to make, wattled walls and thatched roofs can keep keep the cold out quite effectively and have done so for thousands of years. This was the preferred method for borth early Europeans and pacific-northwest native Americans. and if you indeed have a bountiful area there is little reason to trek around so the winter huts become the summer basecamp/storehouses.
answered 1 hour ago
Borgh
994212
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
well built huts (which don't really exist)
Why not? because this is the crux of the question. Winter shelters are not that hard to make, wattled walls and thatched roofs can keep keep the cold out quite effectively and have done so for thousands of years. This was the preferred method for borth early Europeans and pacific-northwest native Americans. and if you indeed have a bountiful area there is little reason to trek around so the winter huts become the summer basecamp/storehouses.
answered 1 hour ago
Borgh
994212
well built huts (which don't really exist)
Why not? because this is the crux of the question. Winter shelters are not that hard to make, wattled walls and thatched roofs can keep keep the cold out quite effectively and have done so for thousands of years. This was the preferred method for borth early Europeans and pacific-northwest native Americans. and if you indeed have a bountiful area there is little reason to trek around so the winter huts become the summer basecamp/storehouses.
answered 1 hour ago
Borgh
994212
answered 1 hour ago
Borgh
994212
answered 1 hour ago
Borgh
994212
answered 1 hour ago
Borgh
994212
994212
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125388%2fdo-hunter-gatherers-move-or-stay-put-in-the-winter%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Huts can be rather better built than you seem to expect...
– Tim B♦
1 hour ago
1
Don't the Sami people (formerly knows as Lapps) fulfil all the requirements? They were hunter-gatherers (at least up to about the 15th or 16th century), they lived in the actual northern Europe (note that Germany is generally considered to be in central Europe), they knew winter very well...
– AlexP
51 mins ago
@AlexP Did they move or did they not? How did they survive the winter? Also, don't the Sami herd reindeer; this group has no domesticates.
– kingledion
45 mins ago
@kingledion: The Sami started herding reindeer in the 15th/16th century, when they became subjects of kings and became acquainted with the notion of paying taxes. Before that they were hunter-gatherers, or, more specifically, fishers-trappers-hunters. They were nomadic, following their prey. But then I am nowhere knowledgeable enough to offer more than a comment :( And really no domestic animals? Not even dogs? Who doesn't have dogs?
– AlexP
39 mins ago
@AlexP Ok, yes, dogs
– kingledion
30 mins ago