2 ms·

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

• Sharlin 4y 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.
  • emsixteen 4y ago
    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.
    • Sharlin 4y ago
      The headline asks a rhetorical question and the article argues that the answer is more complicated than "duh, they walked there". That's the whole point.
  • tremon 4y ago
    Does the article even have a salient point worth discussing in relation to its clickbait title? I think I can sum up the entire article with just the sentence "a tangle of footprints near Hazebruh (because this is England) has been dated 850,000–950,000 years ago". It certainly doesn't answer the question in a more succinct way than the OP did.
• s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >Why would we ever assume that Britain was difficult to reach 1M years ago? Because we have a lot of geologic data to suggest that Britain alternated between difficult to reach and a frozen wasteland. This is the topic discussed in the article. When the Isles were warm enough to live in, the English Channel would be full of water, and, whatever their other skills, Roger and his kind could not cross 34 km of open sea. But when Europe got cold enough for falling sea levels to turn the Channel into a land bridge, it was usually too cold for anyone to cross it and live in Proto-Britain.