It is possible for a well-trained human to swim the distance. In fact, it is possible to just see there is something across the north sea, if you are standing in the right place with the right weather. I see no reason why someone can't end up in Brittain just by accidentally falling in the north sea and maybe clinging to whatever floats around. You'd have to be lucky, but there is a lot of time to be lucky in (seen f…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_dispersal It does happen a lot on evolutionary timescales; it's how lemurs got to Madagascar, for instance. But one would think humans have the situational awareness not to get stuck on a raft of vegetation drifting out to sea.
How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
71–80 of 95 posts
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it true, though, that academic works don't spin a narrative? That's a large part of what historians do: attempt to reconstruct a consistent version of events, what caused them to occur as they did, and what their effects were — in short, construct a coherent narrative. There might be a difference in emphasis on the average, with pop history focusing more on the narrative and less on facts that might be inconvenien…
I think the academic tone is closer to: "Event A happened. Event B happened. Event C happened. In that order. Perhaps that means X" The pop-history tone is closer to: "Historical character M had plans to N, inspired by O. This is supported by the evidence we have for events A, B and C."
There's no firm line between scholarly and pop history other than the reputation and credibility of the work, which often isn't obvious to lay readers.
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You'd have to be lucky, but there is a lot of time to be lucky in (seen from the point of humanity of course, not from the individual dropping in the sea). I’m no biologist, but I think you’d need at least two people to have a chance at sustainability.
I can't remember where I read this but I think you need at least 16 people to have a genomically sustainable population
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Apparently nobody here has actually read or even skimmed the article. The author obviously knows that Britain has been connected by land to the continent several times in the past million years.
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#75It is possible for a well-trained human to swim the distance. In fact, it is possible to just see there is something across the north sea, if you are standing in the right place with the right weather. I see no reason why someone can't end up in Brittain just by accidentally falling in the north sea and maybe clinging to whatever floats around. You'd have to be lucky, but there is a lot of time to be lucky in (seen f…
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#76> 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".
I've never heard this phrase and I spent half my life living in England where I could see France out of my window :)
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently nobody here has actually read or even skimmed the article. The author obviously knows that Britain has been connected by land to the continent several times in the past million years.
Bit redundant reading the article that's asking a question that's got a clear answer, really. Just because it's posted here doesn't make it worth reading.
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#78As 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…
------------------------------------------ The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is a massive tome written by an American reporter who lived through the eponymous era. It has a great deal of detail which I had never heard of before, and shaped my understanding of WW2. It is also quite moralising, maintaining that Nazi Germany was inevitable because of a servile German character, that the depravity of the SS was in part due to their homosexual deviancy, and a little too focused on the personalities of individuals. Admittedly, the last part is quite interesting. Why do I still recommend it? Because I think there is enough depth there, and enough of a distinction in the text between the author's theories and the facts, that you can learn a great deal from it.
For instance, the sheer stupid chance that led to him waging such terrible war. How so many men could have prevented his rise to power. He might have died a soldier in the first world war, or the French or English could have crushed his open violations of the peace treaties, or how his takeover of multiple nations was facilitated by the petty racism of British diplomats. There's also detail concering the poltical, economic and social factors that allowed this chance to exist in the first place. Like the disconnect between the German military and the Weimar Republic who they were sworn to protect, or the war-weariness of Western Europe which was partially responsible for their leaders to continually cede ground to a madman who publically outlined his plans to genocide entire peoples. ------------------------------------------ The 10,000 Year Explosion is not widely accepted by academics, but is not widely panned either. And whilst it does seem to over-play its thesis, the core idea is quite sound: evolution still applies to modern humans, and the rapid growth of the species over the past 10k years has allowed for a great deal more variation and selection to occur, and as such we should see far more changes in human biology now than throughout the average 10k period of history. The exact mutations described and the hypothesis for why they occured are, of course, more conentious. I don't have much of a general opinion, as the authors go through a wide variety of population differences like lactose intolerance, diease immunity, hearing adaptations due to language use and, yes, IQ. The depth and quality of research on these varies, so the reliability of conclusions in the book does too. ------------------------------------------ "The Dawn of Everything" covers some interesting anthropological data, but the reviews I've read paint a poor picture of the author's interpretation of what the data means. Whilst it points to an important idea, that the human transition to agriculture was not nearly as sharp or uniform as is popularly believed, I think you'd be better served by reading this page on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity and reading some of the cited papers and authors' works.
Re: How did people get to Britain 950k years ago?
#79The real trick is how monkeys got from Africa to South America about 40 million years ago.