How come the Polynesians didn't colonized Australia, or at least its coast? They made it to New Zealand, Hawaii and even as far as South America, yet they seemed to ignore that largely empty landmass to the south and west. And what would the island-continent look like if the Polynesians landed in force? How far would the penetrate?
Polynesians in Australia.
- Thread starter The Kiat
- Start date
There is a timeline on this board called Lands of Red and Gold. I don't think the Polynesians would have done better than the Aboriginals.
The best chance they had was on Norfolk Island, Ball Island, Kangaroo Island, various islands behind the Great Barrier Reef, and the Flinders/King Islands. You see, who ever gets to an area first has the best chance. All those islands were uninhabited, as the populations died out (Aborigines did not have adequate boats for more than 7 or so miles off shore to reacquaint with the larger gene pool), or in the first two simply too small and far away to ever have had any landing.
Aborigines were not slouches and could defend themselves, as could the Melenesians. The Melanesians had pressure from the Polynesians, and only a few Islands like Rennel were successfully colonized (locals wiped out usually).
Did the natives have anything worth trading (or taking)? Or at least something the mariners would value? Makes me wonder if they'd just ignore them if not.
Don't know, but the Torres Islanders had a generally superior civilization, especially in maritime skills. Some of the bigger islands off the coast not too far south were inhabited, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Palm_Island
Inhabited by about 200 people in Cooks first arrival.
Part of the issue is that the Great Barrier Reef offers few openings. Sailing expeditions by Polynesians or Melanesians would be blocked and the tendency is not to sail along it as long as Cook did. If they did, the tendency might have been to go to the mainland, where they would be attacked or absorbed by the Aborigine population.
Many of the uninhabited islands get covered in a hurricane (called Willy Willy in Australia, I hear) as being too low. Add to that a foam area of ten feet higher where no one can breathe. The storm surge alone can cover up to 65 feet higher than sea level, in recorded events, right over the hurricane eye. With enough overpopulation, one simply has the death toll covered up by higher or untouched islands, as happened in Polynesia. But it would be a death blow to a small population trying to make a go of it. Also, trade would be very difficult in a cloistered area as behind a nearly total barrier of reef, at least until the routes were discovered, which takes time.
So it may have been colonized, but died out and yet undiscovered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitsunday_Islands
Also Aborigine settled. Not heard of any Aborigine oral history of guest invasions except south like Byron Bay.
The current system in the Tasman and Coral Seas aren't particularly favourable either:
The SEC basically flows too far north for the Maori to catch and other westward flows hit the Tasman front and turn around. That more or less precludes crossing from NZ.
It would be possible for Polynesians to ride the SEC from Fiji instead but chances are they'd run into the Soloman Islands-Vanuatu-New Caledonia island arc first, probably ending up stopping there and admixing with established Melonesian populations as a result. Assuming the resulting hybrid population retains polynesian sea faring technology then eventual further spread may work.
Strike that, neighboring Lord Howe Island instead of Balls Pyramid (a bit too hilly and vertical for your average Polynesian's Taro farm plot!!! Or even for a stray Incan from Machu Pichu for that matter, almost 2,000 feet from sea to peak, near vertical.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s0D0rSWAw4
twovultures
Donor
Well, dingoes had to be introduced somehow. So was the bow and arrow, though the Aborigines decided they didn't like that invention and scrapped it.
katchen
Banned
Cats were first brought to Australia by the Makassans too, according to DNA evidence from Australian feral cat populations. And though the Aborginals developed a taste for putjikata (pussycat) their hunting was never enough to make a dent in the feral cat population any more than it was in the dingo population. At least not enough to put either one in any danger of extinction....
Traders from Southeast Asia (Malay?) from what I recall. Don't know why they didn't stay; must have landed in an undesirable location or something.
twovultures
Donor
Yes: Australia (from there perspective, anyway).
Ultimately there has been Austronesian/Australian interaction in history, but the goods they had to exchange, and the tools they had to bring to the environment precluded Austronesian settlement in Australia, or Aborigine adoption of them. Without fertilizers, a large surplus population to build dams and other land engineering techniques, Australia is generally a very hostile land for farming*. Much of the north has irregular rainfall that would make farming a difficult way to earn a living, while the south is extremely cold. Uninhabited islands like Tasmania's King Island would provide only miniscule sweet potato harvests, without the lure of large game animals like New Zealand had to entice the original settler population over.
*before Cook enters this thread and tells me to fuck off, I'll just point out that this only applies to pre-modern Australia.
Genetic evidence for dingos, according to a recent research, points to a geographically Indonesian origin that precedes attestation of Austronesian presence there. Dingos show more genetic closeness with New Guinean dogs possibly due to a similar origin, apparently not directly related with the Austronesian expansion as they lack typical genetic markers of the Melanesian and Polynesian dogs. I can't provide the source right now as I am travelling, but the research is available somewhere online.