Awsome idea.
I love AH which involves more advanced aborignal and Polynesian societies.
My knowledge of Australian edible plants is pretty poor to be honest (I know much more about NZ species, and also desert/Boreal/Alpine species from the Northern hemisphere from an ecological perspective mostly). Which species will get cultivated? Will crops from Southern Asia reach Australia?
The short version is that Australia has a lot of edible species, but the ones which are likely to be of most importance are the wattles - Australian representatives of the genus
Acacia. These are very fast-growing trees which produce large numbers of edible and indeed highly nutritious seeds. They are high in protein, fertilise the soil, tolerate quite low rainfall (i.e. need no irrigation) and offer a handy source of timber and eventually mulch - they don't live that long. Certain species of wattles are already being used in some areas of Africa (Niger and Senegal) where they form up to 30 percent of people's diet in some areas.
There are some other species which will probably be used as well, but wattles are the important ones. They'll transform the *Aboriginal culture. And if they're exported to New Zealand, they'll transform the culture there. They'll also transform the ecology, too - wattles are pretty much the definition of invasive species - but you can't have everything...
Also, you mentioned that the Maori will receive Australian crops potentially, when will this transfer happen? Few people know, but it's believed that there were two waves of Polynesian colonisation to New Zealand, one around 2000 years ago, and one ~1000-800 years ago. The first settlement failed, possibly due to a lack of crops suitable to the environment. If they have different (ie non-tropical crops) things could go differently.
I'm expecting that Maori will make first contact with Australia, rather than the other way around. So it will be sometime after the Maori are established in Australia... say 1200 to 1400, although I haven't picked a date yet. And transfer of crops will go both ways - kumara may or may not be welcomed, but the *Aboriginals will love New Zealand flax and the arts of weaving.
Also- imagine Australian mammals in the NZ bush being introduced earlier! Possums I could see, but also dingos, snakes, wallabies etc.
Or would a much more extensive devastation of the Australian wildlife occur in this scenario?
Well, that depends on whether those mammals are domesticated. Other than the dingo, I'm not sure if Australia will have any domesticated mammals. It may be possible to tame/domesticate some of the smaller ones, and if so some of those are likely to end up in NZ. But I doubt that the larger animals will. And NZ is pretty much too cold for most species of snakes, so they should be safe from that...
And it looks like the Aboriginals will be able to put up a better fight with the Europeans... Settlement will be radically different, maybe delayed enough so that some sort of Aboriginal Treaty of Waitangi will be signed?
There will definitely be more resistance to European invasion, if only because the population is considerably higher. This will have ramifications for settlement. It's possible that there will be some equivalents of Waitangi, but there will be several treaties rather than a single one covering Australia. There will be many societies within Australia, and no-one would think that they could make one treaty covering all of them.
Cool idea Jared! This sounds very interesting.
Personally, I like the title "Lands of Red and Gold" but that's just my $.02.
"Lands of Red and Gold" is the latest in a series of four working titles for the same timeline. It's the one I most like so far, but I may change my mind again. It happens...
Yes, that's more or less what I was getting at. I'm curious about when (chronologically) you'll allow the butterflies to get out of the bag. For instance, it could have large impacts if these *Aboriginals are exposed to some mainland diseases, which could happen if there's any sort of sustained trade contact with Indonesia.
My rule of thumb is that when there's actual contact between peoples, the butterflies will start. Butterflies will affect the Maori from whichever date they make contact with the Australian mainland, for instance. But the question of when the Macassars first contacted Australia is actually quite a vexed one. Some sources say that contact started around 1720, which is after I'm expecting the Dutch to make contact. Other sources say that contact started some time in the 1400s.
I'll eventually have to pick one of those dates as being "true" for the purposes of the timeline. However, I don't actually think it will make that much difference, since northern Australia is still going to be hunter-gatherer until at least the sixteenth century. So while the Macassars may be visiting, they won't be making direct contact with the agricultural civilizations further south. Historically speaking, the Macassars actually brought some diseases across anyway, including smallpox, but due to the low population density, these diseases didn't spread across Australia. It will take rather more sustained contact - and probably permanent population movements - before the diseases are likely to spread Australia-wide.
It's a Jared timeline, so it will be realistic rather than a Nativewank. I should think that the Aborigines will be more like the Maori or the Indians of Mexico, i.e. yes they will be successfully colonised by Europeans, but they will retain much more of a cultural identity and influence on the eventual post-colonial states.
I am going for realism here, yes. There will no doubt be a few areas where the *Aboriginals are more advanced than what would be expected for the "norm." Just as the Maya developed reasonably advanced mathematics and astronomy, and the Inca developed exceptional roads and advanced bureaucracy, the *Aboriginals will probably develop a few technologies to a reasonably high degree. Having taken a look into the iron ore deposits within south-western Australia, it seems like they would be primed to go straight from Stone Age to Iron Age without needing to pass through the Bronze Age (much as sub-Saharan Africa did). And there will probably be a few other instances like that. The overall picture, though, will probably be much as what happened in Mesoamerica...
Also, an agricultural Australia that can support many more people might result in a realistic scenario in which the continent is divided up between several powers, for a change.
That's entirely possible. In particular, Western Australia is likely to be administered separately from the south-east.
Seeing as Australia is a fairly large continent and if properly cultivated and advanced, it may resemble south africa if enough of the civilization remains. If sufficantly militarized it may also discourage heavy European settlement. While I see that this civilization remaining indepent through the imperialist era is wishful thinking at best, I could see several scenarios where the ethic culture of the aboriginal Australia would become dominant over European culture.
I suspect that much of this will vary between regions, too. The coastal regions are going to be the ones most directly settled and/or heavily influenced by Europeans. The interior of the Murray basin, on the other hand, may maintain more of its native culture and ways.
Am I the only one who is reminded of "Bronze Age New World" by the preview post? This seems to deal with familiar themes.
As for the name, why not use this thread's title?
I've read bits of Bronze Age New World, although not all of it. The themes have a bit of overlap, but where BANW seemed to be more about "already agricultural civilizations become a bit more advanced", this timeline will be about "hunter-gatherer cultures becoming agricultural." Similar in some respects, but a different focus.
In terms of names, the thread title here is a bit long for a timeline title. I need to pick one or the other, or go with something else.
