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 from the point of humanity of course, not from the individual dropping in the sea).
For the question: why would they want to do it, that's even more easy. Because they could. That has been plenty of reason for some adventurous people, always.
> 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 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
I would expect that even Paleolithic people could deliberately put together something better than that; e.g, a raft, kayak or coracle from wood bound with hide.
Once you have that skill, "some adventurous people" would of course try to achieve a landing on that island on the horizon.
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.
Article makes it clear that swimming was not necessary, right in the synopsis below the title: "Ian Morris on “Proto-Britain” Which Was Once Part of the European Continent (Literally) "
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
As 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 to make some interesting speculations along the way?
It's actually at the top of Reddit's r/AskHistorians recommended reading list[1]. And I in fact ended up choosing to read it instead of Guns, Germs and Steel after enough comments there suggested to me that it was more deeply based in academia.
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.
I can't speak to this author or any of the assertions therein, however, Israeli archeologists seem to have found evidence of controlled fire circa 1MM years ago in what is now Israel. So proto-humans have been out of Africa in waves since the beginning of our lineage.
The writing quality in this article would suggest he is indeed a pretty poor hack. I'd be embarrassed to call myself a professional author if this is how i wrote
> Like all scientific laws, Thatcher’s has exceptions. Britain has not really “always been” in Europe, because there has not always been a Europe to be in. Our planet has existed for 4.6 billion years, but shifting continental plates only began creating what we now call Europe about 200 million years ago.
- a "scientifc law" (nope!) you invented in the previous paragraph predicated on a blatantly incorrect interpretation of a statement someone made about something unrelated to whatever you are talking about
> Britain has not really “always been” in Europe, because there has not always been a Europe to be in. Our planet has existed for 4.6 billion years, but shifting continental plates only began creating what we now call Europe about 200 million years ago.
- North America was also in Pangea. So what? I can't tell if this is failed wit or failed attempts at engineering some kind of moral highground based on geography?
All that before you mention the pompous political shoehorning.
I should have kept the writing up if this meets a publisher's standards
While it seems clear that Great Britain has had a land connection with continental Europe numerous times, I'm not sure that I agree with the assumption that early humans couldn't have crossed the English Channel by boat.
> whatever their other skills, Roger and his kind could not cross 34 km of open sea.
We see similar arguments with respect to the Bering Sea land bridge, despite the fact that Siberians and Alaska Natives had seaworthy vessels that were crossing the Bering Strait (~80 km) on a regular basis long before European contact, and continue to do so to this day (there are still a few groups constructing traditional vessels for cultural reasons).
While I'm sure some of the indigenous people of the Americas did cross during "land bridge" periods, I'm equally sure that many arrived by boat.
The people that first crossed the Bering Strait were anatomically modern humans, and certainly had reasonable boating technology. Since the article is talking about 900kya, though, it's talking about Homo erectus (taxonomic splitters may use a different name). But nevertheless, in Southeast Asia, Homo erectus is known to have crossed the Lombok Strait by 800kya, as well as reaching Luzon by 700k; both of these would have required crossing substantial bodies of water.
I'm not sure the people who might've crossed over to Britain almost a million years ago were literally the same people who migrated over the Bering Strait land bridge (physically, that is). Were they even anatomically modern humans, with the same ability to make tools and think creatively?
A more pressing mystery is: how did Van Helsing hightail from London to Amsterdam and back every three days by land, when just a little while earlier in the nineteenth century literary personas dreaded the prospect of traveling fifteen miles by coach, and arrived all battered and exhausted.
That's part of the fun of reading the older classics. Some of it is wild. That struck me in Dracula too, how easily people and information traveled. Like their voyage to Transylvania, and how news travelled ahead of them by telegraph.
Is 100 miles on horseback on roads in fall that hard?
If I told an experienced marathoner to run 20 miles and it was critical, they'd be done in 3-4 hours and shrug it off.
If I told a rando from the street to do that, well they'd look at me like I was insane.
I would posit a scout/cavalryman with a good horse with route experience could do that.
I guess a horse can do a "trot" at 8-12 mph for 20 miles. That's interesting, it's not substantially better than a marathoner, I have read that humans have advantages over other animals in speed over long distances.
You're talking about the Kingdom of Great Britain, a political entity. The island itself has been called Great Britain for a very long time.
Great Britain: the island that contains the countries of England, Scotland, and Wales (throw in Cornwall as a separate country if you're of a mind, I'm fine with that).
Less Britain: an old name for Brittany in what is now France. The native language there is Breton, a Celtic language related to Welsh.
England: One country within Great Britain.
United Kingdom: The countries of Great Britain, plus Northern Ireland, plus some of the surrounding islands -- but not all! Ireland (excluding Northern Ireland) is obviously not part of the United Kingdom, nor are the Channel Islands (in some of which Queen Elizabeth is the Duke of Normandy, rather than the Queen per se), nor numerous others.
The British Isles: Great Britain, Ireland, and all of the surrounding islands. This is a geographic designation, not a political one, as there is no unitary government.
The title says Britain, not Great Britain. I was making a pithy remark based on that.
But seeing as everyone's in the mood for educating me, here's the logic behind it:
Britain was an invention of a King that wanted rule of the whole. Great Britain is the island (which didn't exist when you could walk to it). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island is the political entity. The Romans called it Brittania. After the Romans left, it stopped being called Britain (as it was separate countries and principalities) until the act of Union in 1707 removed Scottish parliament and the King proclaimed that it came under a single rule for the first time.
[+] [-] hyperman1|3 years ago|reply
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 from the point of humanity of course, not from the individual dropping in the sea).
For the question: why would they want to do it, that's even more easy. Because they could. That has been plenty of reason for some adventurous people, always.
[+] [-] koolba|3 years ago|reply
I’m no biologist, but I think you’d need at least two people to have a chance at sustainability.
[+] [-] SideburnsOfDoom|3 years ago|reply
I would expect that even Paleolithic people could deliberately put together something better than that; e.g, a raft, kayak or coracle from wood bound with hide.
Once you have that skill, "some adventurous people" would of course try to achieve a landing on that island on the horizon.
[+] [-] rozab|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kazinator|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AtlasBarfed|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] helsinkiandrew|3 years ago|reply
Isn't Britain still part of the European continent?.
Even 10K years ago, Britain was 'connected by land' to the rest of the European continent.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/doggerland
[+] [-] ssl232|3 years ago|reply
The author is likely referring to what is colloquially known in British English as "the continent", which means the mainland part of Europe.
[+] [-] aaaaaaaaaaab|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stoobs|3 years ago|reply
Trawlers still occasionally pull up tree stumps etc in their nets from the Doggerland area
[+] [-] wronglyprepaid|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Veen|3 years ago|reply
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006707
[+] [-] tremon|3 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] denton-scratch|3 years ago|reply
Britain has never been cut off. As the cliche goes: "Storms in English Channel; continent cut off".
[+] [-] kingcharles|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rosetremiere|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cnity|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tombh|3 years ago|reply
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/timi4/the_as...
[+] [-] ghaff|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] easytiger|3 years ago|reply
> Like all scientific laws, Thatcher’s has exceptions. Britain has not really “always been” in Europe, because there has not always been a Europe to be in. Our planet has existed for 4.6 billion years, but shifting continental plates only began creating what we now call Europe about 200 million years ago.
- a "scientifc law" (nope!) you invented in the previous paragraph predicated on a blatantly incorrect interpretation of a statement someone made about something unrelated to whatever you are talking about
> Britain has not really “always been” in Europe, because there has not always been a Europe to be in. Our planet has existed for 4.6 billion years, but shifting continental plates only began creating what we now call Europe about 200 million years ago.
- North America was also in Pangea. So what? I can't tell if this is failed wit or failed attempts at engineering some kind of moral highground based on geography?
All that before you mention the pompous political shoehorning.
I should have kept the writing up if this meets a publisher's standards
[+] [-] Turing_Machine|3 years ago|reply
> whatever their other skills, Roger and his kind could not cross 34 km of open sea.
We see similar arguments with respect to the Bering Sea land bridge, despite the fact that Siberians and Alaska Natives had seaworthy vessels that were crossing the Bering Strait (~80 km) on a regular basis long before European contact, and continue to do so to this day (there are still a few groups constructing traditional vessels for cultural reasons).
While I'm sure some of the indigenous people of the Americas did cross during "land bridge" periods, I'm equally sure that many arrived by boat.
[+] [-] NoGravitas|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZanyProgrammer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pachico|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _aaed|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theGrift|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aasasd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trgn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AtlasBarfed|3 years ago|reply
If I told an experienced marathoner to run 20 miles and it was critical, they'd be done in 3-4 hours and shrug it off.
If I told a rando from the street to do that, well they'd look at me like I was insane.
I would posit a scout/cavalryman with a good horse with route experience could do that.
I guess a horse can do a "trot" at 8-12 mph for 20 miles. That's interesting, it's not substantially better than a marathoner, I have read that humans have advantages over other animals in speed over long distances.
https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/124606/how...
I guess 40 klicks is the general maximum distance by a horse. That's only 25 miles.
[+] [-] randomcarbloke|3 years ago|reply
Notable also is that the article conflates the Europe in the quote with the EU which is very obviously not what is meant.
[+] [-] robonerd|3 years ago|reply
The real trick is how monkeys got from Africa to South America about 40 million years ago.
[+] [-] nimbius|3 years ago|reply
Kindly ask her majesty the queen if she fancied a swim that day, or if the mood suited her more for a brisk walk.
[+] [-] brainwipe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Turing_Machine|3 years ago|reply
Great Britain: the island that contains the countries of England, Scotland, and Wales (throw in Cornwall as a separate country if you're of a mind, I'm fine with that).
Less Britain: an old name for Brittany in what is now France. The native language there is Breton, a Celtic language related to Welsh.
England: One country within Great Britain.
United Kingdom: The countries of Great Britain, plus Northern Ireland, plus some of the surrounding islands -- but not all! Ireland (excluding Northern Ireland) is obviously not part of the United Kingdom, nor are the Channel Islands (in some of which Queen Elizabeth is the Duke of Normandy, rather than the Queen per se), nor numerous others.
The British Isles: Great Britain, Ireland, and all of the surrounding islands. This is a geographic designation, not a political one, as there is no unitary government.
Yes, it's confusing.
[+] [-] __alexs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmlx|3 years ago|reply
Great Britain is an island that is a lot older than 1707 :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain
[+] [-] brainwipe|3 years ago|reply
But seeing as everyone's in the mood for educating me, here's the logic behind it:
Britain was an invention of a King that wanted rule of the whole. Great Britain is the island (which didn't exist when you could walk to it). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island is the political entity. The Romans called it Brittania. After the Romans left, it stopped being called Britain (as it was separate countries and principalities) until the act of Union in 1707 removed Scottish parliament and the King proclaimed that it came under a single rule for the first time.
[+] [-] azangru|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blibble|3 years ago|reply
Britain is an island
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] LudwigNagasena|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comeondude|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] not2b|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vt85|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HillBates|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] effnorwood|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] crikeyjoe|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]