3 ms·

Seems questionable. Those nomadic tribes of yore may have found the next ecosystem over was already inhabited. Aggression and territorialism has also been aroun

• mc32 5y ago
  And... population densities in pre-antiquity was very low in great areas allowing this free roaming, as you said, if there was already and established population and a new one tried squeezing in, it very likely would end up in confrontation, if they were unrelated. But people keep on romanticizing pastoralism and nomadic life.
  • cyber_kinetist 5y ago
    Many of the people who are fleeing to find a better life (whether it be prehistoric or modern) aren't doing it because of "romantic pastoralism", a lot of it is to flee from existing oppressive relationships and create new better ones (war, conflict, drought, abusive families). Don't you think that core tenet of freedom isn't worth pursuing? The book is definitely not romanticizing nomadic life, it says that the movement of persons have been one of the defining aspects of human life (given a plethora of anthropological records) that we have gradually lost due to the rise of modern states, the tracking of individual citizens and their movements, and strict management of borders.
    • mc32 5y ago
      People didn't move as individuals without group protection. Historically you typically moved with the group/tribe. Historically one did not leave the group to escape things that have modern definitions but did not historically. Historically there was outcasting, banishing, exiling etc., which was a punishment knowing those people would be in a precarious position to survive outside the tribe.