I am extremely fast walker and I once walked 28 miles in very large circuit course that encompassed most of Boston and many surrounding towns. That was with no load and I was dead beat at the end. I was surprised how sore I could get from just walking but it happened.
However, that includes a definite start and end goal that I knew would end with a bed, food and water.
Nomadic tribes may have had no idea what obstacles were over the next bend let alone understanding what they were aiming for. It gets a lot harder to walk long distances when you are never coming back to the place you started from.
The common sense assumption for people looking at others in very difficult environments like the Inuit (Eskimos) is to wonder why they didn’t just start walking South until they reached a habitable climate. A lot of them did generally as a very slow process (single digit miles over a lifetime) but most of them didn’t realize that any other climates existed and they would have been ill-quipped to survive in another one even if they were instantly transported there.
Basic survival is difficult when there is no supporting infrastructure in place. I am not sure what type of migrations the OP is interested in. Walking or taking a wagon from the East Coast to California was once life-threatening but lots of people accomplished it. Even Native Americans had long distance trade routes but that doesn’t mean that most people ever traveled very far from home.
For most of human history, the vast majority of people just moved a few miles at most from the area that they grew up in. The average person would have been considered worldly if they ever went beyond about a 20 mile radius of their birthplace. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be done. Lewis and Clark became famous by taking a cross-country trip with loads of help in the early 1800’ but that is noteworthy only because it was the equivalent of the Space program of the day.
In the Australian context, Aboriginal people would travel hundreds of kilometres for trade and to participate in various religious festivals. Before the journey there was always lots of time spent preparing preserved foods, and informing groups along the route that you were coming. That would at least provide them with the consent of passing through, and perhaps taking game or other food. Any journey over a few days was problematic because you would run out of food, and needed to take someone else’s. That not only meant stopping but also being treated like an invader, not a guest. So factor in a lot of time to cover the food issue, one way or another.
Looking at history, a 20 to 25 mile march has been considered normal ever since the days of the Romans. That is including time necessary to eat, make camp, rest, perform maintenance, etc.
I would think that people in ancient cultures did a whole lot more walking than people do today, and that includes recreational backpackers these days. So I would think that gives a big edge to the ancients.
The other factors you raise might apply in specific circumstances, though even there, I imagine they were better equipped to deal with such things than we would be today, since this was more a part of their lives than it is today.
That’s about what I would have guessed. 3 mph is a generally doable walking speed (talking nomadic people), just walking 8 hours would give a 24 mile theoretical distance. Knock off for 10 minutes rest every hour and you’re still right at 20 miles with hours to set up camp and still get hours of sleep.
Weren’t ancient migrations more on the order of tens of miles per generation? In other words, every so often a group decides to leave the tribe and settle the other side of a hill or river. Even nomadic groups that might travel a lot more seasonally (tens or hundreds of miles?) would stick to particular locations in each season.
I used to go on periodic hikes. Not often enough to be in shape but I was in reasonable shape just from working hard. The 8 mile hikes I would call pleaseantly taxing with mild soreness following. The 12 mile hikes would kick my ass and the next day I would be lucky to do 1/2 that.
In my twenties I hunted quail in the steep hills of California, twice a week for about 3 months. By the end of the 3 months I could easily walk 20 miles on semi flat terrain.
I would guess that up to about 25 miles per day could be adjusted to not more than 5 days per week.
No, it’s really not. You have no off-trail backcountry hiking experience if you think that somebody can move at 3mph cross country for long distances. On a sidewalk or a good trail, yes.
Go to the backpackinglight.com forum and ask them if you want a cite. There’s even a speed hiking and fastpacking section. I promise not to reply.
I have tons of non-trail hiking experience. I hike 5-10 miles every day. If you do not know what you are talking about, please refrain from commenting on the posts of others.
I have logged several hundred miles backpacking and I agree that a sustained 3mph is not realistic for off-trail hiking (aka bushwhacking).
On a well-marked and maintained trail a 3mph average is probably a little high unless it’s a day where you’re not looking around and just cranking out the miles.
I hiked a 255 mile trail two years ago with a GPS on top of my pack and I remember seeing 2.8mph as my average daily speed a few times.
When I’m planning a long hike, I use 15 miles per day as a reasonable guess. 30 mile days are long, but not that big of a deal, depending on terrain. I did 27 miles one day on a hike earlier this year and my feet were crying at the end of the day because it was all up-and-downs on exposed bedrock. I still knocked out 18 miles the next day.
They have done both the PCT and AT @ 40 miles a day. So, yeah, you can do 3MPH. Yes, those are trails- in some spots are very trail like in others, you’re going cross country between blazes.
So, you are demonstrably and proven wrong. It can be done as it has been done.
By “off-trail” I did not mean cutting my way with a machete (although I do that sometimes), I meant not on a groomed trail. I have probably logged over 20,000 miles hiking on fallow land with my dogs over the last ten years or so. A net 3 mph pace is absolutely no problem.
If you think the PCT and AT are not trails (the clue is in the name) then you don’t understand the difference between on-trail and cross country hiking.
To do 40 miles per day on the PCT and AT is certainly possible, but you have to be extremely fit - not just a reasonably fit average hiker. The record for these trails is around 40 miles per day.
The first paragraph assumes that a full camp is built and food is cooked every day. You can bake bread once a week (or, depending on the local weather conditions, even further apart) and between bread, cheese, milk from the animals you travel with, dried meats, nuts… not have to cook again for another week. And cheese and dried meats can be prepared when you get the materials but carried while they finish maturing.
“Fallow land” is not what migrating ancestral populations were likely to encounter. And in modern terms, cross-country hiking generally means travelling across wilderness (the places most people generally now go on-trail backcountry hiking; and the way everywhere was before roads & agriculture) but traveling off-trail. There’s certainly a wide variation in ease of travel - from tundra to thick brush - but in general you will move at about half the speed off-trail as you can move on-trail.
Even across “fallow land” 3mph means you’re moving very quickly, and you would have to be extremely fit to maintain it for 12 hours a day.
How many times have you hiked 30 miles in a day across fallow land?