Archaeologists have spent years wondering why the earliest human homes tend to be found in rough terrain, mountain valleys, or spots that are hard to get to. It raises the question of why these rough landscapes were the top choice for early humans when living on the flat, easy plains seems like the no-brainer option for a comfortable life.
A global team of researchers based in South Korea has finally provided a solid explanation for this long-standing mystery. Their study, which appeared in the journal Science Advances, looked at over 2,700 archaeological locations spanning the past three million years while also running computer simulations of the planet’s weather and plant life during that entire time. Their findings clarify exactly what kind of environments our ancestors looked for and provide a crucial new clue to understanding the complicated story of how humans evolved.
Humans chose Hardcore mode before videogames ever existed
The main takeaway from the research is straightforward: across thousands of years, early humans strongly favored living in hilly terrain. This wasn’t an accident. Having hills, rough ground, and changing elevations created a mix of different ecosystems packed tightly together. To put it simply, a single area might provide woods, grassy fields, brush, and water sources all within a day’s hike.
For people who moved around hunting and gathering, having so many resources in one spot was like living next to a fully loaded grocery store.
Having access to a healthy variety of flora and fauna to gather and hunt was essential. So much, in fact, that early humans preferred slightly more hostile landscapes as long as there was enough variety of vegetables and animals. Harder surroundings incentived new ideas, teamwork, and a development of long-term planning—i.e. preparing enough victuals to survive the long winter.
A manageable energy cost
Of course, there were downsides. Making a home in the mountains meant dealing with significant struggles, such as burning more calories to get around, navigating rough ground, facing harsher weather, and dealing with uncertainty. So, why did they keep staying in these kinds of places?
It seems the answer comes down to a simple trade-off between the effort and the reward. The sheer amount of available supplies—like food, water, and places to hide—made the physical difficulty of the land worth it. As time went on, various human groups didn’t just change physically to handle these rough landscapes; they adapted their social habits and technology too.
Getting used to these areas didn’t happen in a straight line. The study notes that between 2 and 1.1 million years ago, species like Homo habilis and Homo ergaster began steadily settling in steeper zones. However, around a million years ago, this trend came to a sudden halt. This event lines up with a critical period known as the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, a time of massive global climate shifts that likely caused a genetic bottleneck in human populations and forced them to reorganize where they lived.
It was only starting 800,000 years ago that a clear lean toward mountainous environments was seen again, this time led by species like Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and later, Homo sapiens. According to the researchers, this second wave was defined by a better ability to handle cold weather, the use of fire, and clear advances in culture.
Finding the sweet spot… not too high, not too low
Even if earliest traces of humankind as we define it are mostly found on mountain slopes, our ancestors didn’t exactly climb up to the Tibet. Ancient tribal communities tended to prefer areas with a 2% to 10% inclination, enough to support a heavy mix of flora and fauna with which sustain themselves, but also have the high ground —yes, Star Wars pun fully intended—so that they could not be assaulted by surprise by other enemy clans (or predators).
So no, choosing a place to call home didn’t involve looking for the most aesthetic landscape; it was a strategy to get the most out of the environment without taking unnecessary risks. Being close to clean water (but being out of the way from the flooding zone), sustainable foliage, enough game to hunt, etc. Slopes that weren’t too steep offered the perfect sweet spot between being easy to reach, full of resources, and safe.
The whole study was published in Science Advances.