Re: Odp: proto-Indo-European geography.

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 79
Date: 1999-10-14

 
----- Original Message -----
From: sunnet@...
To: cybalist@eGroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 7:39 AM
Subject: [cybalist] Re: Odp: proto-Indo-European geography.

>   The forests were rather dense, and if not literally impenetrable,
they were at least difficult to traverse or to clear with the
technologies then available. 

As far as I remember from my childhood experiences Eastern European
mixed forests and even taiga are not at all difficult to traverse _IN
SUMMER_ (and I've seen plenty of untouched virgin forests there, esp.
around the Urals and further east). Sure, there are some dense parts
but for the most part the trees are far enough apart to allow the elks,
cows (they often graze in the forests) or even humans on horseback to
move more or less freely. The undergrowth is usually just thick enough
to make geting lost easier, but not enough to seriously impede movement.

It's a completely different story in fall/winter/spring, when there is
mud or a substantial cover of snow on the ground. However in winter
frozen rivers present excellent routes of transportation. And even in
summer, if one's traveling in an unknown wooded area he is most likely
to keep to the river banks so as not to get lost.

Gene Kalutsky
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
I completely agree. What is difficult (if you have no maps and don't quite know what may be lurking ahead of you) is long-distance, goal-oriented travel, simply because you're almost sure to get lost sooner or later. But travel from village to known village has always been easy, which accounts for the existence of thriving trading networks in mesolithic and early neolithic Europe.
 
Piotr Casiorowski