Trick question. They didn't. Britain didn't exist until 1707.
Britain or Britannia has been used as the name of the place since at least the 1st century.
“‘oo are the bwitons?!”
How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
21–30 of 95 posts
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#22On foot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
I was going to post exactly the same.
More to the point, Britain wasn't an island a mere 10k years ago. Why would we ever assume that Britain was difficult to reach 1M years ago?
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#23On foot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
Yup, "they walked" was my answer too. Thought that was pretty common knowledge that the North Sea as it is now was formed as the ice from the last ice age melted, cutting off the British Isles into what they are now.
Trawlers still occasionally pull up tree stumps etc in their nets from the Doggerland area
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#24As far as I understand, Ian Morris's books are not taken very seriously in the academic world. I've read the first part of /Why the West rules/ and must admit that it reads a bit like trying to push a narrative: spinning up facts the right way to make them support his ideas and asserting universal truths without much backing… but I think I'm biased by the reviews I checked before reading the (first part of the) book.
Genuine question: I've heard this criticism for literally every pop-history book I've read (Guns, Germs, and Steel; Sapiens; The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, etc). Are there any history books that are taken seriously in the academic world that are actually fun to read? If so, any recommendations? If not, is the issue basically that if you want some history book to be fun, you've got…
See also Bill Bryson. I think it's a bit unfair to criticise these types of books for not being 100% academically rigorous (having citations etc). They're generally ok as entertaining introductions to new subject matter for the reader. After that the reader can then go looking for more authoritative writings of the topics being explored that tickle their fancy.
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#25Am I the only one remembering Stewart Lee's sketch about UKIP?
I clicked this thread just to check if it was posted by Mr Lee.
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#26As far as I understand, Ian Morris's books are not taken very seriously in the academic world. I've read the first part of /Why the West rules/ and must admit that it reads a bit like trying to push a narrative: spinning up facts the right way to make them support his ideas and asserting universal truths without much backing… but I think I'm biased by the reviews I checked before reading the (first part of the) book.
Genuine question: I've heard this criticism for literally every pop-history book I've read (Guns, Germs, and Steel; Sapiens; The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, etc). Are there any history books that are taken seriously in the academic world that are actually fun to read? If so, any recommendations? If not, is the issue basically that if you want some history book to be fun, you've got…
It's a question I share, so I'm happy to see answers popping up.
As for my personal experience, I've read parts of "Philosophy before the Greeks. The Pursuit of Truth in Ancient Babylonia" and "A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000 - 323 B.C" by Marc van de Mieroop and have quite enjoyed both. They both seem to have favourable reviews.
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#27Trick question. They didn't. Britain didn't exist until 1707.
you're thinking of the Kingdom of Great Britain
Britain is an island
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#28> Ice in the Channel and water in the Channel both cut Britain off.
Britain has never been cut off. As the cliche goes: "Storms in English Channel; continent cut off".
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#29As far as I understand, Ian Morris's books are not taken very seriously in the academic world. I've read the first part of /Why the West rules/ and must admit that it reads a bit like trying to push a narrative: spinning up facts the right way to make them support his ideas and asserting universal truths without much backing… but I think I'm biased by the reviews I checked before reading the (first part of the) book.
Why the West Rules for Now seemed to make a good case (by my reading) for geographical determinism (i.e. Jared Diamond's thesis) being part of the story but not all of it given the ups and downs of the western and eastern cores over the millennia. I'm not sure he really answered the question at the end of the day--beyond Europe was in the right place at the right time for the Industrial Revolution to happen--but maybe that's pretty much the reality.
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question: I've heard this criticism for literally every pop-history book I've read (Guns, Germs, and Steel; Sapiens; The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, etc). Are there any history books that are taken seriously in the academic world that are actually fun to read? If so, any recommendations? If not, is the issue basically that if you want some history book to be fun, you've got…
See also Bill Bryson. I think it's a bit unfair to criticise these types of books for not being 100% academically rigorous (having citations etc). They're generally ok as entertaining introductions to new subject matter for the reader. After that the reader can then go looking for more authoritative writings of the topics being explored that tickle their fancy.
I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, but I believe/hope it should be possible to be accessible and entertaining while still being academically "acceptable" in terms of references (which doesn't need to be of the form 1 claim, 1 reference) and without taking misleading shortcuts or trying to sell your new universal theory of history, but sticking to consensual understandings and/or prefacing your novel ideas adequately.
I guess it sells better if you can make your audience believe that your theory explains "everything". Having read the book, it's a better feeling to think that you now understand the gears of history through this new lens, rather than it being just a complex jumble of interconnected stories/phenomena.