9 ms·

Food. Colder climates often produce an abundance of food, relative to warmer climes, and less competition. Mammoths, specifically, are terrific targets. Bringi

by beat 11y ago

Food. Colder climates often produce an abundance of food, relative to warmer climes, and less competition. Mammoths, specifically, are terrific targets. Bringing down just one could feed a tribe for weeks, and they had almost no other predators. And besides food, the carcass had an abundance of skin and fur, powerful tendons for "rope", ivory that could be carved into more subtle shapes than stone - all sorts of uses, relative to small game. A rabbit might feed a family one day, and you're competing with all sorts of dogs, cats, and predatory rodents for them. The human survival advantage is primarily intelligence. Intelligence is what made it possible for a coordinated, armed group of human hunters to bring down mammoths, when even sabertooth tigers and wolf packs couldn't do it. No competition for the biggest food source on legs? That's a huge win from a survival perspective.

beat 11y ago
I should add that the tribes who lived in the frozen lands eventually went out to sea and became whale hunters - an even larger food source, with even less competition.
contingencies 11y ago
In addition to being easier to work, ivory is lighter than stone and wears differently / lasts longer than wood: important if you are surviving by nomadic hunting practices in an extremely hostile environment. Skin boats, which were eventually perfected by arctic peoples, used bones or ivory for structure.
cgh 11y ago
Speaking as a hunter, your assertion that northern climates (I live in the north) produce more game is false. Deer populations, to use one example, thrive in warm temps. Also, compare the African savannah and its abundance of game animals to, say, northern Canada. The real reasons are probably topography and game habits. The north is generally pretty flat and the ground is often frozen, making travel easy. And in cold temperatures, game often clusters together for warmth and follows predictable movement patterns because there are only so many places to find food. And finally, snow makes it easy to track game of any size. These are all important in modern hunting too. Not much has really changed in that regard.
- beat 11y ago
  Good point. I could well be wrong on this. Part of it, too, is that I'm drawing an analogy in my head to cold-water fisheries, which tend to be richer than warm water.
- has2k1 11y ago
  Northern climates, offer(ed) predictability for a very long time. In ancient times, you will probably not get human population explosions, but they will thrive in the North. It was easier for populations to blow up in southern climates but then there were resets(generational disasters) -- specifically famine.
brbsix 11y ago
The fat is important. You aren't going to survive on rabbits, no matter the quantity. Regarding abundant game in colder climates, see http://www.adn.com/article/20131020/fuzzy-math-alaska-subsistence-too-many-people-not-enough-fish-game http://www.adn.com/article/20131020/fuzzy-math-alaska-subsis.... Winters are long, summers short. The result is a relatively unproductive ecosystem. There are an estimated 175,000 to 200,000 moose in all of Alaska. There are an estimated 76,000 in Maine, a state about 5 percent the size of Alaska. If far-north Alaska could grow moose as efficiently as mid-continent Maine, there would be about 3.8 million of the big ungulates here. Many Alaskans wish it was so. They'd like a moose behind every spruce, but it will never happen. Alaska is not a rich land; it is a harsh land. Before the white invasion, only about 75,000 people survived here on what the land would yield. Today, the Alaska population is approaching 10 times that number. The Native population alone is double what it was before white contact. The idea people are going to go back to living off the land come an apocalyptic collapse of the U.S. economy is a myth.

by beat 11y ago

beat 11y ago

I should add that the tribes who lived in the frozen lands eventually went out to sea and became whale hunters - an even larger food source, with even less competition.

contingencies 11y ago

In addition to being easier to work, ivory is lighter than stone and wears differently / lasts longer than wood: important if you are surviving by nomadic hunting practices in an extremely hostile environment. Skin boats, which were eventually perfected by arctic peoples, used bones or ivory for structure.

cgh 11y ago

Speaking as a hunter, your assertion that northern climates (I live in the north) produce more game is false. Deer populations, to use one example, thrive in warm temps. Also, compare the African savannah and its abundance of game animals to, say, northern Canada. The real reasons are probably topography and game habits. The north is generally pretty flat and the ground is often frozen, making travel easy. And in cold temperatures, game often clusters together for warmth and follows predictable movement patterns because there are only so many places to find food. And finally, snow makes it easy to track game of any size. These are all important in modern hunting too. Not much has really changed in that regard.

beat 11y ago
Good point. I could well be wrong on this. Part of it, too, is that I'm drawing an analogy in my head to cold-water fisheries, which tend to be richer than warm water.
has2k1 11y ago
Northern climates, offer(ed) predictability for a very long time. In ancient times, you will probably not get human population explosions, but they will thrive in the North. It was easier for populations to blow up in southern climates but then there were resets(generational disasters) -- specifically famine.

brbsix 11y ago

The fat is important. You aren't going to survive on rabbits, no matter the quantity. Regarding abundant game in colder climates, see http://www.adn.com/article/20131020/fuzzy-math-alaska-subsistence-too-many-people-not-enough-fish-game http://www.adn.com/article/20131020/fuzzy-math-alaska-subsis.... Winters are long, summers short. The result is a relatively unproductive ecosystem. There are an estimated 175,000 to 200,000 moose in all of Alaska. There are an estimated 76,000 in Maine, a state about 5 percent the size of Alaska. If far-north Alaska could grow moose as efficiently as mid-continent Maine, there would be about 3.8 million of the big ungulates here. Many Alaskans wish it was so. They'd like a moose behind every spruce, but it will never happen. Alaska is not a rich land; it is a harsh land. Before the white invasion, only about 75,000 people survived here on what the land would yield. Today, the Alaska population is approaching 10 times that number. The Native population alone is double what it was before white contact. The idea people are going to go back to living off the land come an apocalyptic collapse of the U.S. economy is a myth.