Impressive work. Although in reality, humans likely followed specific routes rather than spreading uniformly like in the simulation. Their trails are thought to resemble the shape of a bushy tree, consolidating and strengthening known routes (probably along rivers), while branching off new capillary paths. I guess the video is meant to illustrate the likelihood of humans being in certain regions at specific times? Anyway, this is impressive and I'm looking forward to see more.
Exactly. I think it's a probability distribution map. Humans, like other migratory animals and non stantial species, would have moved following specific paths, determined by geographic morphology. You need to account for valleys, rivers, natural barriers like mountains, glaciers, areas with scarce food availability. Maybe a method to reconstruct the precise paths followed would be to check for the distribution remains of permanent settlements and try to guess, based on the geography, where they headed "next". But it's a complicated task
The detail of this simulation could be used as part of building main hyptheses in scientific research in the archaeological field. An example what in tarnation I mean with these hypothatoes is that a group of scientists who are bored at their office, when is advised by their doctors to not consume 543 cups of coffee everyday and rather should do something else, can do something like throwing a dart at the european map and decide they will go there the afformentioned point the dart striked the innocent map. There they will go to check if their hypotheses are shit (confirmation biased-led hypotheses for own gain), or if their hypotheses are purified (non biased hypotheses). If the last one is the case, the scientists are good scientists and can in peace without getting pissed that their observations, using their hypotheses, were falsified or confirmed. They shall the get happy whatever the outcome is. Let's say the scientists throw the dart on the map at second attempt, because they hitted the dart at their colleague Bill's forehead at the first attempt. The place they hit is in the middle of Doggerland. They will now go there, with scuba gears, test their hypotheses (WHERE THIS VIDEO COULD BE PART OF ONE OF THEIR HYPOTHESES) and get confirmed or falsified that there was humans there for, lets say, 38.000 years ago. That would be cool!
A few years ago I created a total conversion mod for the medieval dynasty sim Crusader Kings II, whihc I called Dawn of Civilization. In it I completely redesigned the political map to be populated by single province hunter gatherers with the all Europe and west Africa populated by Neanderthals, all of east and south Asia populated by Denisovans and a small contingent of EMH (Early Modern humans) in the Ethiopian highlands. I had a script running that created EMH warbands within two spaces of another EMH province, with "time" artificially sped up so that every 10,000 "years" tied to a major event, eg EMH out of Africa, EMh make it to Europe etc. One thing that amazed me 9and I created the thing !) was how important rivers and coasts were for the transmission of EMH culture. Most importantly how important the Black Sea was - as soon as EMh got there they quickly found numerous ways to spread out, including the Danube, the Dnieper, the Don and the Aegean. In almost every one of my trial runs Neanderthals died out in western Europe, usually somewhere on the Iberian peninsula ! Great work in the video btw !
@@pgbrytbackup8646 Not at the moment but it may be soon. I created edited map files and one of the last big DLCs replaced or added about 200 new provinces. If I simply remove the map files then a lot of the flavour will be lost, I have been talking to another modder to work together to fix it andplaytest it. FYI the mod was supposed to go from 72,000 BCE to the dawn of empires but when I last left it I had only just got to the Neolithic so a lot of modding still left to go. Still, it is really neat watching those EMHs race along the coasts and race up the rivers.
@@rags417 Are you saying you plan to have civilizations like Sumer and Egypt be playable. A game like CK2 that spans such a time frame would be fascinating.
I read that already 44 000 thousand years ago (GS12 Grönland stadial) the ice sheet grew to southern parts of the baltic sea and to the middle parts of modern day Finland. Granted that dynamic maps are hard to make. What a brilliant effort!!
According all authors I read, the situation describe corresponds to GS14 and HS5 x) The ice sheet extent decreased until 35,000 BP before growing again
WoW soundtrack, trance outro, plus some awesome raster-map calculation. I love this side of TH-cam. Reminds me of my days doing image segmentation with machine learning models in grad school.
What the model shows us is that it's irrelevant how difficult and challenging expansion is - we as species will do it eventually. Difficulty is only reduces the speed with which we expand. That puts in perspective the future space exploration.
The extent of the continental icesheet was far greater 40,000 years ago. All of Scandinavia, Scotland, Northern Germany and large swathes of Poland were covered in ice. The melting that lead to the end of the Ice Age started to occur just 15,000 years ago.
05:39 why isn't doggerland and the exposed adriatic not coloured red? They would also be flat swamplands. Only the flat lands that are CURRENTLY above water have been coloured red it seems
Because the map is based on modern bathymetry. After 15,000 years of sedimentation, continental shelf is almost entirely flat, which was not the case then. I did not query flat areas because it would distort the resulted cost map
@@Kaldisti understood. I would assume, though, that the continental shelf that is offshore of these red areas, could have been assumed to be red as well. It doesn't make sense that for example the Netherlands are considered a flat swampland, right up to the modern shoreline. It would make sense that the nature of the ground would continue to stay the same further down, into doggerland
Excellent video. I do have one comment on the frozen season parameter. Having spent my life where it does freeze in the winter, I can attest, travel is much better over frozen ground than muddy or unfrozen ground. Granted there are only windows where this holds true. After too much snow, things grind to a halt. But the flat areas you mentioned with rivers or swamps become very passable once things are frozen. Shoot, frozen waterways are more like highways. I am not bashing your work here, just throwing out an observation.
I wonder what that "Settlement" might be. In Lost World #4 where Haplogroup CF settled. Those settlers were there for a very long time before C and F split and moved on. I think since leaving Africa the sea level were very low throughout most of our history. The Persian Gulf was too low for a Fertile Crescent and the Beringia Land bridge was open.
There are trees in the green and olive green areas, so there are forest in most of Europe, but forest share space with more and more grasslands eastward In addition, with 180 ppm CO2, forests were far less extent
so the pioneering groups in green and then purple were mostly entirely supplanted by the red group 35000 years ago. are their cultures these sort of correspond to or i guess this is way before then? cool vid!
Those were the three models being tested against one another. The green shows the average cost model, which is the least restrictive of the three and so shows faster migration. The purple and red are the other two models, which show migration as being harder and taking more time
What would be awesome is that, if every oldest remain of Homo Sapien scattered through europe correspond at the early presence of said Homo Sapien, maybe we can put that data into your Cost Simulation ? Would be awesome if you can mix also other haplogroup to see how each wave of migration started along with the disapearance of Dogerland.
And how it could be easier for the Spaniards exploring the Americas? It was uncharted lands for them (like the humans in the simulation) and while using smart cost it took more than 1,000 years exploring all of Europe, the Spaniards only took 308 years (1492 AD to 1800 AD) for exploring most of the Americas. Also don't forget that all the territories in the Americas ever invaded, occupied and explored by the Spaniards sum MORE area than the area of ALL of Europe COMBINED. In the Americas you have the Andes (they're taller than the European Mountain Ranges), almost impassable rainforests in Central America, the Amazon Basin and in South Brazil/NE Argentina/Paraguay, very dry deserts such as Californian Desert, Sonora Desert and the Atacama Desert; lots of swamps and floodplains in the Pampas Region, Florida and Louisiana, etc. Even the Spaniards explored places much faster, reaching migration and movement speeds up to 30 kilometers per year in some areas, in an UNKNOWN place for the Spaniards in that time.
They had horses, ships with compass, sextants, had a writing system to take notes and draw maps, and also, they found various civilizations who built roads. Don't forget they were guided by natives. hunter-gatherers moved to Europe or crossed Beringia because they followed wild animals for hunting. They did not have an objective of conquest of a territory, unlike Spaniards. It tooks 4,000 years for Neolithic farmers and the very same time for indo-european to colonize all Europe, for the same reason
Solid work! 👍 I'd comment that the expansion into Europe does not imply the continent was devoid of homo genus in general. Therefore some areas would have been "easier" to move into, say at the cost of either a predatory conquest or a "friendly" merger. Also in regards to the traversing high cost environments - homo sapiens would have been highly opportunistic players as most omnivore mammalian hunters are today. In fact, to this day, in tribal cultures, hunting excursions last several days and take environmental conditions into account. So while it may seem impossible to cross a vast expanse of water in any particular day, seasonal changes offer varying opportunities including frozen solid surfaces in winter, which would have been perfectly viable for crossing and fishing while still on ice. And as any mountain/wilderness tramper can attest inevitably one comes across beaten tracks which are not of human orgin. This makes traversing terrain not only easier but often comes with the benefit of water or food opportunities at the end. P.S. IMO the voiceover you've selected undermines the quality of work of your presentation (so does Travolta's insert - I understand the humour but it was unecessary distraction). Just my opinion.
The cost maps were made by Gwillerm by compiling other data as shown off in the methodology section. They're not a ready made things you can find elsewhere
6:10 how many places above 5300 meters did you find in europe xD. I don't think this oxygen layer is relevant, the highest usefull crossing in the alps is at something like 2500 meters
I'm not so sure about flatlands being impossible to cross or at least exploit. There could be plenty of food as fish and waterfowl. Mosquitoes make a summer passage risky, but not a winter passage. In spring or autumn, passage by boat would be very easy. Flatlands such as the Pannonian and Wallachian plains just above the waterways and out of the swamps would be easy to cross.
It does seem harsh. Same goes for the 99 difficulty for travelling by sea. All three models suggest humans moved northwards into Romania and Poland before moving out in all directions equally as fast. Some tweaking is probably in order, but it was still interesting
I think simulation gone wrong. If all Baltics and Finland was polar - cold, snowy place, then there is no chance, that those areas was colonized faster, than Italy, Spain with mild and warm climate. So in simulation climate was ignored! Also there is no chance, that peoples scossed Carpathian mountains so fast, even faster, than nearby flat places with mild climate and rich vegetation. So also by terrain this simulation failed.
@@toTSX Italy and Spain were full of forest, while steppes and tundra dominated north eastern Europe. It was much easier to move across these biomes while across forest required much more effort
@@Kaldisti but why to go to tundra with limited food, if you can choose rich forests with a lot of animals, wood, rivers full of fish, and warm climat? 7:24 map is wery important. Humans would choose Csb, Cfb, Cfa, Dfb territories as best for living. Later maybe Dfa, Dfc, but almost never ET, or EM, EF territories.
@toTSX well, tundra and steppes were the realm of mammoths, reindeers, bull, aurochs and horses, so there was a loot a food in these areas, while in forest it was more complicated to settle
@@Kaldisti Animal density varies greatly. Animals have to be searched far in the steppe. A large area of land must be acquired in order to have enough game for one family. That is why there are usually nomadic peoples in the steppe who make their homes light and transportable - yurts. The steppe has never had a high density of people, because there is always a problem with enough game. Very bad climate. Very cold in winter. It is very difficult for people to live in the steppe and it is very difficult to reproduce in large numbers. A modern example of a steppe is Mongolia, where there is a huge country, but the density of people is minimal. In the polar regions it is even more difficult. However, the forest is full of birds, hares, beavers, deer, right here near the house. High density of animals, birds berries and fish. Humans have enough food, reproduce rapidly and spread rapidly. Fishing has also always been important to people, as well as the vegetation growing on the banks of the rivers and the many animals. So I think people would spread the fastest along rivers. Along the Danube, the Po, and others.
@@toTSX the painted caves show which animals mattered for early europeans. All of them were part of tundra/steppic wildflife. None from the forest. I prefer to trust those who lived in these conditions. If they prefered the colder biomes to hunt in, it's probably because it was better for them. between a horse and a bird, the first one provides more food ^^ hunting birds requires much more skills than hunting herds of big terrestrial beasts
Impressive work. Although in reality, humans likely followed specific routes rather than spreading uniformly like in the simulation. Their trails are thought to resemble the shape of a bushy tree, consolidating and strengthening known routes (probably along rivers), while branching off new capillary paths. I guess the video is meant to illustrate the likelihood of humans being in certain regions at specific times? Anyway, this is impressive and I'm looking forward to see more.
Exactly. I think it's a probability distribution map. Humans, like other migratory animals and non stantial species, would have moved following specific paths, determined by geographic morphology. You need to account for valleys, rivers, natural barriers like mountains, glaciers, areas with scarce food availability. Maybe a method to reconstruct the precise paths followed would be to check for the distribution remains of permanent settlements and try to guess, based on the geography, where they headed "next". But it's a complicated task
The detail of this simulation could be used as part of building main hyptheses in scientific research in the archaeological field. An example what in tarnation I mean with these hypothatoes is that a group of scientists who are bored at their office, when is advised by their doctors to not consume 543 cups of coffee everyday and rather should do something else, can do something like throwing a dart at the european map and decide they will go there the afformentioned point the dart striked the innocent map. There they will go to check if their hypotheses are shit (confirmation biased-led hypotheses for own gain), or if their hypotheses are purified (non biased hypotheses). If the last one is the case, the scientists are good scientists and can in peace without getting pissed that their observations, using their hypotheses, were falsified or confirmed. They shall the get happy whatever the outcome is.
Let's say the scientists throw the dart on the map at second attempt, because they hitted the dart at their colleague Bill's forehead at the first attempt. The place they hit is in the middle of Doggerland. They will now go there, with scuba gears, test their hypotheses (WHERE THIS VIDEO COULD BE PART OF ONE OF THEIR HYPOTHESES) and get confirmed or falsified that there was humans there for, lets say, 38.000 years ago.
That would be cool!
rivers change shape, especially since the ice age changed how rivers flow etc
A few years ago I created a total conversion mod for the medieval dynasty sim Crusader Kings II, whihc I called Dawn of Civilization. In it I completely redesigned the political map to be populated by single province hunter gatherers with the all Europe and west Africa populated by Neanderthals, all of east and south Asia populated by Denisovans and a small contingent of EMH (Early Modern humans) in the Ethiopian highlands.
I had a script running that created EMH warbands within two spaces of another EMH province, with "time" artificially sped up so that every 10,000 "years" tied to a major event, eg EMH out of Africa, EMh make it to Europe etc. One thing that amazed me 9and I created the thing !) was how important rivers and coasts were for the transmission of EMH culture. Most importantly how important the Black Sea was - as soon as EMh got there they quickly found numerous ways to spread out, including the Danube, the Dnieper, the Don and the Aegean.
In almost every one of my trial runs Neanderthals died out in western Europe, usually somewhere on the Iberian peninsula !
Great work in the video btw !
Is this mod still operable
@@pgbrytbackup8646 Not at the moment but it may be soon. I created edited map files and one of the last big DLCs replaced or added about 200 new provinces. If I simply remove the map files then a lot of the flavour will be lost, I have been talking to another modder to work together to fix it andplaytest it. FYI the mod was supposed to go from 72,000 BCE to the dawn of empires but when I last left it I had only just got to the Neolithic so a lot of modding still left to go. Still, it is really neat watching those EMHs race along the coasts and race up the rivers.
@@rags417 Are you saying you plan to have civilizations like Sumer and Egypt be playable. A game like CK2 that spans such a time frame would be fascinating.
@@pgbrytbackup8646 That was the plan yeah.
The AIs voice sounds like AI voice from no man sky
This is so academically sound and impressive! If you haven't, you should totally publish a paper about this.
This is a very underrated channel I must say. Thank you for the great content!
I loved listening to the methodology part - made me theorize about the best methods myself. Big up!
The AIs voice sounds like AI voice from no man sky
I read that already 44 000 thousand years ago (GS12 Grönland stadial) the ice sheet grew to southern parts of the baltic
sea and to the middle parts of modern day Finland. Granted that dynamic maps are hard to make. What a brilliant effort!!
According all authors I read, the situation describe corresponds to GS14 and HS5 x) The ice sheet extent decreased until 35,000 BP before growing again
@@Kaldisti I believe the short cold period was called Hasselo stadial or something.
WoW soundtrack, trance outro, plus some awesome raster-map calculation. I love this side of TH-cam. Reminds me of my days doing image segmentation with machine learning models in grad school.
Now this is a good documentary with a good prologue
You legit have one of the coolest channels on YT. Keep up the awesome vids!
Outstanding! The documentaries just keep getting better!!
Ayyy geographic information systems. I remember making a cost map for one of my undergrad projects!
What the model shows us is that it's irrelevant how difficult and challenging expansion is - we as species will do it eventually. Difficulty is only reduces the speed with which we expand. That puts in perspective the future space exploration.
Very cool simulation! So much thought goes into something like this!
The thumbnail looks like the Byzantine Empire of the late 9th century and the 1st Bulgarian Empire of the same time period were combined
Amen to that
The extent of the continental icesheet was far greater 40,000 years ago. All of Scandinavia, Scotland, Northern Germany and large swathes of Poland were covered in ice. The melting that lead to the end of the Ice Age started to occur just 15,000 years ago.
nope.
You refer to the last Glacial maximum, which happened 20,000 years later
Wow Azuremyst Isle soundtrack😍
05:39 why isn't doggerland and the exposed adriatic not coloured red? They would also be flat swamplands. Only the flat lands that are CURRENTLY above water have been coloured red it seems
Because the map is based on modern bathymetry. After 15,000 years of sedimentation, continental shelf is almost entirely flat, which was not the case then. I did not query flat areas because it would distort the resulted cost map
@@Kaldisti understood. I would assume, though, that the continental shelf that is offshore of these red areas, could have been assumed to be red as well. It doesn't make sense that for example the Netherlands are considered a flat swampland, right up to the modern shoreline. It would make sense that the nature of the ground would continue to stay the same further down, into doggerland
Something about this voice is mesmerizing
Insane amount of work, thank you
Excellent video. I do have one comment on the frozen season parameter. Having spent my life where it does freeze in the winter, I can attest, travel is much better over frozen ground than muddy or unfrozen ground. Granted there are only windows where this holds true. After too much snow, things grind to a halt. But the flat areas you mentioned with rivers or swamps become very passable once things are frozen. Shoot, frozen waterways are more like highways. I am not bashing your work here, just throwing out an observation.
I did not think about that, you are right indeed.
What about the human skulls foundation in cave petralona in halkidiki Greece measuring 700.000+ years old?
not Homo sapiens, must be Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis
I wonder what that "Settlement" might be. In Lost World #4 where Haplogroup CF settled. Those settlers were there for a very long time before C and F split and moved on. I think since leaving Africa the sea level were very low throughout most of our history. The Persian Gulf was too low for a Fertile Crescent and the Beringia Land bridge was open.
Is the Scandinavian ice sheet ignored 🤔
@@supersim81 nope, small extent at that time
4:10
11:00 that a lot less forests than I expected from Europe. Why is it like that though?
There are trees in the green and olive green areas, so there are forest in most of Europe, but forest share space with more and more grasslands eastward
In addition, with 180 ppm CO2, forests were far less extent
The presence of megafauna probably contributed to that.
so the pioneering groups in green and then purple were mostly entirely supplanted by the red group 35000 years ago. are their cultures these sort of correspond to or i guess this is way before then? cool vid!
Those were the three models being tested against one another. The green shows the average cost model, which is the least restrictive of the three and so shows faster migration. The purple and red are the other two models, which show migration as being harder and taking more time
What would be awesome is that, if every oldest remain of Homo Sapien scattered through europe correspond at the early presence of said Homo Sapien, maybe we can put that data into your Cost Simulation ? Would be awesome if you can mix also other haplogroup to see how each wave of migration started along with the disapearance of Dogerland.
And how it could be easier for the Spaniards exploring the Americas? It was uncharted lands for them (like the humans in the simulation) and while using smart cost it took more than 1,000 years exploring all of Europe, the Spaniards only took 308 years (1492 AD to 1800 AD) for exploring most of the Americas. Also don't forget that all the territories in the Americas ever invaded, occupied and explored by the Spaniards sum MORE area than the area of ALL of Europe COMBINED. In the Americas you have the Andes (they're taller than the European Mountain Ranges), almost impassable rainforests in Central America, the Amazon Basin and in South Brazil/NE Argentina/Paraguay, very dry deserts such as Californian Desert, Sonora Desert and the Atacama Desert; lots of swamps and floodplains in the Pampas Region, Florida and Louisiana, etc.
Even the Spaniards explored places much faster, reaching migration and movement speeds up to 30 kilometers per year in some areas, in an UNKNOWN place for the Spaniards in that time.
They had horses, ships with compass, sextants, had a writing system to take notes and draw maps, and also, they found various civilizations who built roads. Don't forget they were guided by natives.
hunter-gatherers moved to Europe or crossed Beringia because they followed wild animals for hunting. They did not have an objective of conquest of a territory, unlike Spaniards.
It tooks 4,000 years for Neolithic farmers and the very same time for indo-european to colonize all Europe, for the same reason
@@Kaldisti Which "same reason"? I don't understand what you refere with
@@germanromero9341 Neolithics and indo-european did not conquest Europe, they just moved progressively
Solid work! 👍
I'd comment that the expansion into Europe does not imply the continent was devoid of homo genus in general. Therefore some areas would have been "easier" to move into, say at the cost of either a predatory conquest or a "friendly" merger.
Also in regards to the traversing high cost environments - homo sapiens would have been highly opportunistic players as most omnivore mammalian hunters are today. In fact, to this day, in tribal cultures, hunting excursions last several days and take environmental conditions into account. So while it may seem impossible to cross a vast expanse of water in any particular day, seasonal changes offer varying opportunities including frozen solid surfaces in winter, which would have been perfectly viable for crossing and fishing while still on ice. And as any mountain/wilderness tramper can attest inevitably one comes across beaten tracks which are not of human orgin. This makes traversing terrain not only easier but often comes with the benefit of water or food opportunities at the end.
P.S.
IMO the voiceover you've selected undermines the quality of work of your presentation (so does Travolta's insert - I understand the humour but it was unecessary distraction). Just my opinion.
Where can I get the information about the most livable region (overall cost map) itself? Are there available for the whole world?
The cost maps were made by Gwillerm by compiling other data as shown off in the methodology section. They're not a ready made things you can find elsewhere
Wait the uk was not an island at the time?
nope
This channel has a lot of cool videos, including ones that show how different coastlines have changed over time. You should check them out
@ oh alr thank you
6:10 how many places above 5300 meters did you find in europe xD. I don't think this oxygen layer is relevant, the highest usefull crossing in the alps is at something like 2500 meters
there are some mountains between 3000 and 5300 m x) Also, I build models in anticipation of the same project in other places
you deserve way more subs
incredible
Great job. Greetings from Argentina.
I'm not so sure about flatlands being impossible to cross or at least exploit. There could be plenty of food as fish and waterfowl. Mosquitoes make a summer passage risky, but not a winter passage. In spring or autumn, passage by boat would be very easy. Flatlands such as the Pannonian and Wallachian plains just above the waterways and out of the swamps would be easy to cross.
It does seem harsh. Same goes for the 99 difficulty for travelling by sea. All three models suggest humans moved northwards into Romania and Poland before moving out in all directions equally as fast. Some tweaking is probably in order, but it was still interesting
I don't like the AI voice.
that is your average text to speech, not really AI just saying.
same
@@georgebradley6521 my voice is worse
for me it gives it that futuristic cinematic look of most of his videos
@@Kaldisti human voice is ALWAYS better.
Why does Homo sapiens start in Istanbul?, when it would have been out of Africa and into the Levant then into Anatolia then outward from there.
read again the title x)
The AIs voice sounds like AI voice from no man sky
How the british islands not are the midle of this how many tend too belive
I am a Neanderthal and I love these simulations even though I hate home sapiens
I like homeless sapiens
18:44 mega byzantine empire🗿
nooooooo not the ai voice D:
Balkans: Yay!! I don't care about all of you😂😂😂😂
Rest: Bruh
I think simulation gone wrong.
If all Baltics and Finland was polar - cold, snowy place, then there is no chance, that those areas was colonized faster, than Italy, Spain with mild and warm climate. So in simulation climate was ignored!
Also there is no chance, that peoples scossed Carpathian mountains so fast, even faster, than nearby flat places with mild climate and rich vegetation. So also by terrain this simulation failed.
@@toTSX Italy and Spain were full of forest, while steppes and tundra dominated north eastern Europe. It was much easier to move across these biomes while across forest required much more effort
@@Kaldisti but why to go to tundra with limited food, if you can choose rich forests with a lot of animals, wood, rivers full of fish, and warm climat?
7:24 map is wery important. Humans would choose Csb, Cfb, Cfa, Dfb territories as best for living. Later maybe Dfa, Dfc, but almost never ET, or EM, EF territories.
@toTSX well, tundra and steppes were the realm of mammoths, reindeers, bull, aurochs and horses, so there was a loot a food in these areas, while in forest it was more complicated to settle
@@Kaldisti Animal density varies greatly.
Animals have to be searched far in the steppe. A large area of land must be acquired in order to have enough game for one family. That is why there are usually nomadic peoples in the steppe who make their homes light and transportable - yurts. The steppe has never had a high density of people, because there is always a problem with enough game. Very bad climate. Very cold in winter. It is very difficult for people to live in the steppe and it is very difficult to reproduce in large numbers. A modern example of a steppe is Mongolia, where there is a huge country, but the density of people is minimal.
In the polar regions it is even more difficult.
However, the forest is full of birds, hares, beavers, deer, right here near the house. High density of animals, birds berries and fish. Humans have enough food, reproduce rapidly and spread rapidly.
Fishing has also always been important to people, as well as the vegetation growing on the banks of the rivers and the many animals. So I think people would spread the fastest along rivers. Along the Danube, the Po, and others.
@@toTSX the painted caves show which animals mattered for early europeans. All of them were part of tundra/steppic wildflife. None from the forest. I prefer to trust those who lived in these conditions. If they prefered the colder biomes to hunt in, it's probably because it was better for them.
between a horse and a bird, the first one provides more food ^^ hunting birds requires much more skills than hunting herds of big terrestrial beasts
Ice Sheet movement is missing. Movie is showing nothing. stupid computer animiation.
@@ariearie3543 your mother did not move either
or women
The result does not look reasonable.