I just want to point out that evidence of some groups of people travelling long distances, even on a regular basis, does not necessarily contradict the idea that the majority of people did not and do not travel much.
Even now, with automobiles and airplanes, many people die within 25 miles of their place of birth. For example, from the 2000 U.S. Census inter-state migration information (here) indicates less than 10% of the population moved between states from 1995 to 2000. The Annual Geographical Mobility Rates, By Type of Movement: 1947-2003 report (here) indcates the percentage of persons not residing in the same house as the previous year has dropped from roughly 20% to 14.5% in that 50 year period, and more than half of those moving stay in the same county.
All I am saying is while some people move, most people do not. I believe most people only move when they must. Of course, there is also historic evidence of nomadic peoples. Even in these cases, I would propose their nomadic tendencies were not chosen, but required.
I do not have nice charts to back me up, but I believe it is nearly certainly true that traveling long distances for pleasure is a modern trend; a product of the steam/combustion engine. In the past, traveling long distances was only undertaken by necessity.
Also, I want to point out that most modern countries are conglomerations of many diverse peoples, like the city states of Greece, the many provinces of China, or the Celtic clans, Pictish clans, Nordic clans, Angles, Saxons, Romans, Gauls, various Kings, Chiefs, Thanes, etc., etc. of the UK. Although these peoples may have regularly traded, shared borders, been geographicly very close to one another, and even interbred, they would not have called themselves one people until they were united under a High King or Emperor, or against a common foe, and when the chips were down those separate peoples fall back to protect their own.
The point of all that is you can have many culturally diverse "countries" in a small area. Take Manhattan island as an example, most people will still say Chinatown and Little Italy are different "countries", with different "laws", etc., although that is becoming less true over time (I blame television).
Anyway, that is my 2 cents on the subject. By the way, I think it is neat how the thread has diverged from cartography to anthropology.
Even now, with automobiles and airplanes, many people die within 25 miles of their place of birth. For example, from the 2000 U.S. Census inter-state migration information (here) indicates less than 10% of the population moved between states from 1995 to 2000. The Annual Geographical Mobility Rates, By Type of Movement: 1947-2003 report (here) indcates the percentage of persons not residing in the same house as the previous year has dropped from roughly 20% to 14.5% in that 50 year period, and more than half of those moving stay in the same county.
All I am saying is while some people move, most people do not. I believe most people only move when they must. Of course, there is also historic evidence of nomadic peoples. Even in these cases, I would propose their nomadic tendencies were not chosen, but required.
I do not have nice charts to back me up, but I believe it is nearly certainly true that traveling long distances for pleasure is a modern trend; a product of the steam/combustion engine. In the past, traveling long distances was only undertaken by necessity.
Also, I want to point out that most modern countries are conglomerations of many diverse peoples, like the city states of Greece, the many provinces of China, or the Celtic clans, Pictish clans, Nordic clans, Angles, Saxons, Romans, Gauls, various Kings, Chiefs, Thanes, etc., etc. of the UK. Although these peoples may have regularly traded, shared borders, been geographicly very close to one another, and even interbred, they would not have called themselves one people until they were united under a High King or Emperor, or against a common foe, and when the chips were down those separate peoples fall back to protect their own.
The point of all that is you can have many culturally diverse "countries" in a small area. Take Manhattan island as an example, most people will still say Chinatown and Little Italy are different "countries", with different "laws", etc., although that is becoming less true over time (I blame television).
Anyway, that is my 2 cents on the subject. By the way, I think it is neat how the thread has diverged from cartography to anthropology.
