Europe Between the Oceans

Customer Reviews

• A fascinating history of the European continent

  There's something about "ancient" history that just gives me goosebumps. I don't know whether it's the unavailability of many written texts, so that the history has to come from archeological evidence or whether it's just trying to imagine how people lived back in a day where the discover of bronze-making was a remarkable feat, but I just love reading about that sort of thing. So when I stumbled upon Barry Cunliffe's Europe Between the Oceans: 9000 BC - AD 1000, I knew I had to take a look at it. It certainly helped prod me toward it when I looked on Amazon and saw some of the amazing photography in the book. I knew then I had to have it.
  
  It is definitely an interesting read, but keep in mind that you will not be carting this book around with you on your travels, on the off chance that you'll get a spare moment here and there to crack open the book and read a couple of pages. I have no idea if the intention for this book was for it to be a textbook, but that's basically what it is, and it has the size and heft to match that impression. It is one heavy tome, so much so that I had to take another book if I was actually going anywhere. This was a stay-at-home book, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
  
  Europe Between the Oceans is basically a geographical history of Europe, tracking the movements of peoples from one area of the continent to the another, using archeological evidence to show how the various tribes lived. It begins with a look at how the ancients saw time and space, and how the ancient history books chronicled what had come before even them. Cunliffe also introduces the concept of three various wavelengths of time, offered by French historian Fernand Braudel. There's the "longue duree," the geographic time which is slow as landscapes rise and fall, the land changing. Then there's the more medium wavelength, which he called "conjonctures," which concerns the movement of societies and peoples, the "frameworks that control human actions." Finally, there's the "l'histoire evenementielle," events instigated by individual people and which generally contains the history that we all generally study.
  
  It's a fascinating concept and one that Cunliffe uses the whole book to flesh out. While Cunliffe does give us some of the short-term history once he gets into the first millennium BC and civilizations begin forming in the Mediterranean, he concentrates on the medium-term, with the movements of the various German tribes, the Huns and other Asiatic tribes storming across Europe, the trade between the various empires and the northern Europeans, and things like that. Before the first European civilizations forms, he talks about the Neolithic societies that were forming in various areas all over Europe, and how they appear to have found each other enough to trade with them. He tracks the movement of various commodities that demonstrate these trade routes. Cunliffe is not above speculating how things might have went, but he's always clear when it is speculation and he allows for the fact that he could very well be wrong.
  
  Cunliffe introduces a concept that is striking in its simplicity yet also allows readers to completely change their world view and open up their mind to new thoughts on history. Imagine turning the map of Europe and Asia 90 degress. Suddenly, Europe becomes a peninsula emerging from the vastness of the Asian continent. On this peninsula, the movements of peoples migrating from the vast landmass toward the various coasts (either north or south) of this peninsula become even more interesting. It really does change your perspective on things, especially as the history of Europe becomes not only the migration of peoples around the peninsula, but a tale of mass migration from those who are finding themselves squeezed out of the huge continent that is Asia.
  
  Europe Between the Oceans also has some beautiful photography in it, whether it's the pictures of various archeological sites or artifacts from various peoples and times that give us some indication of what these people were like. Once the wheel becomes prominent, we see artwork containing chariots and things like that. We see burial chambers that housed multiple people, including those of higher status, which indicate that class was becoming a part of these peoples' lives. Also, many of the pictures are maps, all of them interesting, whether they detail the influence of various societies or the most likely trade routes that were set up among them.
  
  As with any textbook, there are no notes and there is just a "further reading" section at the end which doubles as a bibliography. Cunliffe rarely cites a specific source for any particular piece of information included in the book (though he does occasionally). This just adds to the textbook feel, where most of these items are included at the end in one big section. The "Further Readings" section of Europe Between the Oceans is filled with detail on various sources for the ideas Cunliffe uses in the chapters. It is divided by chapter, so you can get a sense of the huge quantities of material that Cunliffe had to absorb for each one. In fact, this section could almost be read as part of the book because Cunliffe really goes into detail on the concepts that he is addressing and the literature from which the reader can actually draw more information. It's not just a list of sources, but interesting in its own right.
  
  Overall, I can't find any real problems with Europe Between the Oceans. When you open it, you might think it dry at first, all of this talk about history and the ways that mankind has always studied it. Why should you care about what a miniscule set of archeological evidence says about one random tribe who it appears inhabited what is now France back around 9000 BC? But Cunliffe somehow draws you into it, and the pictures/diagrams are a helpful break in the text as well. It helps that the book is so beautifully produced. If you have any interest in this time period at all, then this book will be a valuable addition to your library.
  
  Originally published on Curled Up With a Good Book. © David Roy, 2009

• Too basic, lots of errors and speculations

  This book is a quick summary of European prehistory, ancient and early medieval history. I bought it chiefly for the prehistoric section (two thirds of the book). It is very readable and well illustrated, but so basic that it reminded me of a secondary school textbook (although a nice one). I didn't learn much. I was annoyed by the fact that Barry Cunliffe speculates a lot and gives his personal opinion everywhere, but not enough archaeological data that would allow the reader to draw his own conclusions. Archaeological periods are usually mentioned without starting and ending dates, which I find unacceptable.
  
  The first three chapters (86 pages) are not about history or archaeology, but consist of a boring description of European geography and geology. There is very little about the central European and Italian Bronze Age; only to sentences about the Unetice culture and not a single mention of the Tumulus culture (1600-1200 BCE), nor of the Terramare culture (1700-1150 BCE), two essential periods to understand the development of Celtic and Italic cultures. There is very little on north-eastern Europe as well.
  
  For a book specifically about European (pre)history, I found that there was an undue emphasis on the Near East (Anatolia, Levant, Egypt) and much too little about Europe beyond Greece, Italy and the Balkans.
  
  Cunliffe keep insisting that no major migration took place between the Pontic steppes and the rest of Europe, despite overwhelming genetic evidence to the contrary. He claims that Indo-European languages came with Neolithic farmers from Anatolia (p.137). This goes against all linguistic studies that date the split of Indo-European languages to 4000-3000 BCE from their Pontic steppe homeland, much later than the spread of agriculture to Europe (7000-5000 BCE). Archaeological evidence confirms that bronze technology, horse-riding, single graves and the rise of patrilinear hierarchical societies all originated in the Eurasian steppes, and moved progressively westward until reaching the Atlantic coast of Europe. Cunliffe reports all this in the book, but repeats obstinately that all this change happened without substantial migration.
  
  On pages 99-101 and 111, the author argues that the Neolithic Greek and Balkanic populations descended directly from the Mesolithic population, and not from Near-Eastern immigrants. How could Indo-European languages spread with agriculture (as he believes) without a migration of population ? In fact, Cunliffe's claim has been completely disproved by DNA studies as well. The Balkans and Greece are much closer genetically to Anatolia and the Levant than to the rest of Europe. This much was clear beyond reasonable doubt when the book was written in 2007.
  
  Barry Cunliffe even argues that the Etruscans did not have any Near Eastern origins. On p. 250, talking about the rise of the Etruscan civilization, he pompously and wrongfully declares that "it is now generally accepted that development was continuous with no influxes of new people". Not only is it not generally accepted, but once again DNA tests have confirmed a Near-Eastern origin both for modern and ancient Tuscans, but also for cattle lineages found in Tuscany today.
  
  The author's dogged refusal to admit a spread of Proto-Celtic people, culture and language from central to western Europe has for consequence that his view of Bronze Age Europe is flawed from the start. On pp. 254-258, he is amazed at the similarity of weapons and feasting gears in Iberia, France, Britain and Ireland in the period 1200 to 800 BCE, and attempts to explain it simply by the existence of maritime networks. It does not ocur to him that this Proto-Celtic culture might have sprung from a common source. Maritime networks don't explain the presence of the same objects inland, far from the coasts. He also does the unforgivable mistake of illustrating the late Western European Bronze Age with a map of P-Celtic and Q-Celtic languages based on the earliest Roman accounts of Celtic languages dating from over 1000 years later ! It is unlikely that the P vs Q split had already occurred around 1000 BCE. How can a serious historian make such a basic anachronism ?
  
  Without trying to nitpick, I noted that some dates were quite inconsistent in different parts of the book. For instance, on p.95 Cunliffe writes that farming reached Crete from Anatolia in 7000 BC, but on p.174 it is 6000 BCE. One thousand years is a long time for such an imprecision.
  
  The next criticism focuses on the author's unrepenting Anglo-centrism. On p.181 he claims that "the earliest appearance of regular bronze-using economy is to be found in Britain and Ireland in the period 2200-2000 BC, after which it spread eastwards and southwards through Europe". The reality is quite different. The Bronze Age started in the Near East, Caucasus and Pontic steppe from 3500 BC, then spread to the Carpathians, Balkans and Greece around 3000-2500 BC, then Central Europe around 2300 BC, and only reached the Atlantic fringe around 2200-2000 BC. I don't know who is is fooling writing that it spread the other way round.
  
  Along the same vein I was shocked to read this passage on p.28 : "At a simple level it would be possible to see the Mediterranean world - a centre of innovation from the third millennium BC - as a core for which the rest of Europe served as periphery. There is a degree of validity in this generalization. Extending the argument, one could say that things only began to change in the seventh and eighth centuries AD when the focus of innovation started to shift to the Atlantic fringes of Europe, where it remained until the end of the nineteenth century." What is he saying is that the Atlantic coast of Europe (the British Isles and western France and Iberia) led scientific/technological innovation in Europe from the early Middle Ages. This is just absurd. During the medieval period it was first the Byzantine Empire then Italy then progressively France and Germany that led innovation. Britain really started influencing the rest of Europe from the late 17th and early 18th century onwards, but along with France, Germany and Austro-Hungary. In France, new ideas came from Paris or eastern France, rarely western France. Iberia hardly led Europe through its scientific innovations, mostly because of the oppressing religious climate under the Inquisition.
  
  Cunliffe speculates (e.g. p.139) that the Western European seafaring tradition and the social prestige attached to exploring unknown territories and colonizing them have their roots in the spread of farming during the Neolithic. In other words, he is suggesting that the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch and British colonialism can be explained by what people did 6000 to 8000 years ago ! I am not going to list all the aberrations contained in this book, but you will understand why I only grant it two stars. I won't give it only one star because the writing style is pleasant and the illustrations are nice.

• Europe before history

  This is a terrific book! The strongest part is the opening chapter, which I literally stopped reading to think about for almost a week. In the end, I think this chapter changed the way I look at history. The rest of the book is perhaps not as compelling because there was a tendency to run through a checklist of sites and finds that need to be discussed but are rather similar to one another. Still, the illustrations are first-rate, there are plenty of maps, the writing is clear and lucid, and this is the best book of its type that I've ever seen. Highly recommended.

• A Great Resource; But Very Technical

  This book is more akin to a scholarly treatise on the geography, climate, and resources of the European continent as written by an archaeologist than it is a discussion of art and literature. Having read the entire book, I was surprised a reviewer mentioned that the author discussed Homer or art and literature because actually virtually all of what makes Europe Europe or Western Civilization different is given very little attention, virtually none in fact.
  
  This book has far more about prehistoric Bandkeramik farmers than the Roman empire, more about siliceous stones than Homer. "Neolithic packages" get far more attention than Christianity (which doesn't even merit mention until after Islam appears - and even then only in passing). Cunliffe is definitely not concerned with writing a book discussing literature or the ephemeral stuff like empires, great men and great ideas.
  
  This is a book about the "longue duree", the transhumant and the presence of ovicaprids, than it is about what we non-scholars mean when we think we're getting a book on European history. So many are giving the book a great review - and it a worthwhile book - but if I hadn't read the book myself, I would've been surprised how very techical and data-filled the book is from beginning to end: if you were time-traveling and you wanted to know what to expect in terms of plants cultivated, animals, geography, geology, temperatures of 5000 B.C. - and what type pottery local humans were using - this is your book.
  
  I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that many of the Amazon reviews seem to me to mostly ignore Cunliffe's very technical focus.
  
  I thought the book was worthwhile but mostly because I've read a great deal about European history and literature that it was refreshingly different. This is an author who writes more about obsidian deposits than Greek civilization, more about steppe migration patterns than Rome, and made me wonder if we were going to be quizzed about the many varieties of plants Mesolithic cultures utilized.

• Europe Between the Oceans

  An altogether different perspective on the geography of Europe and its effect upon the development of Western Civilization. Most interesting and easy to grasp.