Inner Eurasia refers to the large continental area extending from Russia in the west to the Pacific Ocean, and to the north of Iran, India, and most of China. The first systematic colonization of parts of Inner Eurasia occurred about 80,000 to 90,000 years ago, which is relatively late in human history compared with Africa, Europe, and southern Asia. Why was it difficult to settle?

The long, cold, arid winters of this region’s steppes (grass covered plains) poised two distinctive problems for human settlers. The first was hot to keep warm. Humans may have used fire even a million years ago. Presumably their ability to scavenge animal carcasses meant that they could use skins or furs for warmth. However, there are no signs of hearths before about 200,000 years ago. This suggests that humans used fire opportunistically and had not yet domesticated it enough to survive the harsh winters of Ice Age Inner Eurasia.

The second, even trickier problem was getting food during the long winters. It was not that Inner Eurasia lacked sources of food. The problem was that the food was of the wrong kind, and it was not always available. Humans could not exploit the abundant grasses of the steppes, and most of the edible plants died off in winter. So, for long periods of each year, it was necessary to rely mainly on meat. However, hunting is a more difficult, dangerous, and unreliable way of life than gathering. Animals, unlike plants, can evade predators and may even fight back. Hunters must also cover more ground than gatherers.

Setting Inner Eurasia meant overcoming these difficulties. Systematic and reliable hunting methods meant more than the development of new technologies, they also demanded new social structures. According to the formulation of archaeologist Lewis Binford, in a typical hunter/collector food-gathering strategy parties of hunters leave camps with very specific goals in mind, based on intimate knowledge of their intended prey. They may by away for days or weeks at a time and will often store their kill at specific storage sites, from which they will bring food back to a base camp when needed. As a result, they move their base camps less often than in forager societies, but they range more widely, their movements are more carefully planned, and so are their methods of storage.

Thus, hunters have to plan in advance and in great detail. They need reliable information about the movements and habits of animal prey over large areas, which can be secured only by maintaining regular contacts with neighboring groups. Finally, they need reliable methods of storage because, where plant foods cannot provide a dietary safety net, planning has to be precise and detailed to ensure that there is enough to tide them over in periods of shortage. Such planning appears in the choice of hunting gear, in the selection of routes and prey, in the choice of companions and timing, in the maintenance of communications with neighbors, and in the methods of storage. Failure at any point can be fatal for the entire group.

Hunting strategies also imply greater social complexity. The regular exchange of information and sometimes of material goods is critical not only within groups, but also between groups scattered over large distances. This increases the importance of symbolic exchanges of both goods and information, and makes it necessary to clarify group identity. Internally, groups may split for long periods as hunting parties travel over great distances. All in all, each group has to exist and survive in several distinct configurations.

For these reasons, archaeologist Clive Gamble has argued that the difficulties of setting the Eurasian heartland arose less from the technological than from the social and organizational features of human communities before 120,000 years ago. There is little or no archaeological evidence that these communities engaged in such practices as detailed planning or widespread contacts. Nor is there any physical evidence for storage, raw materials all come from within a radius of 50 kilometers—and usually less than 5 kilometers—of the sites where they were used.

亚欧大陆腹地是指从俄罗斯向西延伸到太平洋的大陆地区，以及伊朗北部，印度和中国大部分地区。亚欧大陆腹地的部分地区的第一次系统地殖民化发生在大约8万年至9万年前，与非洲，欧洲和南亚的殖民化进程相比，该地区的殖民化进程在人类历史上是相对较晚的。为什么会这样呢？ 该地区草原（草地平原）拥有一个漫长，寒冷，干旱的冬季，这给人类在这里的定居带来了两个明显的问题。第一个是保暖问题。甚至一百万年前，人类就可能已经开始使用火了。据推测他们能够清除动物尸体，这意味着他们可以使用动物的皮肤或毛皮来取暖。然而，在大约20万年前，人类仍然没有使用炉灶的迹象。这表明，人类适时地学会使用了火，但是还不足以在冰河时代在亚欧大陆腹地的严冬中生存下来。 第二个问题是一个更棘手的问题，即在漫长的冬季获得食物。亚欧大陆腹地并不缺乏食物的来源。问题在于食物是错误的，并不是一直都有的。人类无法利用草原上丰富的草本植物，因为大部分的可食用植物都会在冬季死亡。所以，每年很长一段时间，都必须要主要依靠肉类为生。然而，狩猎是比采集植物更加困难和危险，这是一种不可靠的生活方式。与植物不同，动物可以躲避掠食者，甚至可以进行反击。猎人还必须比植物采集者涵盖更大的范围。 建立亚欧大陆腹地意味着要克服这些困难。系统和可靠的狩猎方法不仅意味着要发展新技术，还要求建立新的社会结构。根据美国考古学者路易斯·宾弗的设想，在典型的猎人/采集者所制定的采食战略中，各方猎人根据其对猎物目标的详细了解，设定非常具体的目标，然后离开营地。他们可能每次都会离开几天或几个星期，并且经常会将他们的猎物存放在一个特定的存储位置中，在需要时他们会将食物带回到大本营中。结果显示，虽然他们在营地的迁徙次数少于在觅食者社会中的迁徙次数，但其迁徙范围更广，其方式更加谨慎，他们的储藏方法也更为谨慎。 因此，猎人们必须提前，并且进行非常详细的计划。他们需要获得有关大量动物猎物的移动和习性的可靠信息，只有通过与邻近群体保持定期联系才能获得这些信息。最后，他们需要可靠的储存方法，因为在植物性食物不能提供膳食安全网的情况下，计划必须精确而详细，以确保在食物短缺期间有足够的食物来满足他们的需求。这样的规划出现在选择狩猎装备，选择路线和猎物，选择同伴和时间，维持与周围人的通信以及存储方法上。任何一点失败都可能对整个团队造成致命的影响。 狩猎策略也意味着更大的社会复杂性。信息的定期交换，有时是物质产品的交换不仅在群体内部，而且在远距离散布的群体之间也是至关重要的。这使得货物和信息的象征性交换变得更加重要，并且有必要澄清群体的身份。在内部，由于狩猎种群的长途跋涉，群体可能会长时间分裂。总而言之，每个群体都必须生存下来，并在多种不同的环境中生存下来。 考虑到这些原因，考古学家克莱夫·甘布尔认为，建立欧亚中心地带的困难不是源于技术问题，而是源于12万年前人类社会的社会和组织特征。很少或根本没有考古学证据可以表明这些群体参与了详细规划或广泛接触等做法。也没有任何实物证据可用于存储，原材料全部来自于半径50公里以内（通常小于5公里）的使用地点。