7 ms·
You might want to read up on Doggerland: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/doggerland/ https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/doggerland/ The TLDR is th
by cstross 7y ago
You might want to read up on Doggerland: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/doggerland/ https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/doggerland/
The TLDR is that a huge low-lying basin of fertile land around what is now the British Isles was inundated at the end of the last interglacial. (What is now the North Sea/English Channel was one of those river valleys you alude to.) The British Isles today would have been the relatively cold, arid, mountainous uplands survivors migrated into when their fertile, low-lying territory got flooded out. Assuming population density in the chilly uplands (glaciers, remember!) was low, then you'd expect the frequency of surviving stone tools to be lower, reflecting that. People don't leave stuff lying around in places where people don't live!
- simonh 7y agoI'm fully aware of doggerland, but so what? Given all of Africa and Eurasia, doggerland was a tiny benighted patch of lowland in a cold remote corner. I'm sure some people called it home, but I don't see any compelling reason to put a lost civilization on it 100k years ago. There are plenty of very fertile, habitable areas in the same region that would have been just as attractive. So settlements? Sure. But surely a civilization is more than just a settlement?