In a scenario where the Polynesians colonized Australia around the same time that New Zealand was colonized historically by the Polynesians (so around 1200-1300), what would a Polynesian Australia look like? How would Polynesians deal with the conditions of Australia (granted, they'd mostly stay in the relatively fertile east coast of the continent) and interact with the Aborigines? What would the society and culture of such a Polynesian Australia look like? Assuming minimal butterflies, how would colonization of a Polynesian Australia proceed?
What would a Polynesian Australia look like
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
They'd assimilate and displace a lot of the east coast Aboriginals, so would appear a bit darker than your typical Polynesian type. The ability to reach Australia from New Zealand presumes they're continuing to sail around, so they're going to be settling Tasmania too (although being so cool, Tasmania will look more like South Island). Their center would be about 30 S in NSW to Far North Queensland. Their agriculture based on kumara will thrive here.
Most of Victoria/NSW will get settled in time, as will the southern, wetter parts of South Australia. This is incidentally where there were thick populations of locals who were somewhat settled themselves, and if kumara can grow in fields irrigated by rivers then perhaps you might have a Polynesian influenced Aboriginal culture arise. Displacing/assimilating every coastal Aboriginal tribe does seem like a bit of a stretch.
Most of Victoria/NSW will get settled in time, as will the southern, wetter parts of South Australia. This is incidentally where there were thick populations of locals who were somewhat settled themselves, and if kumara can grow in fields irrigated by rivers then perhaps you might have a Polynesian influenced Aboriginal culture arise. Displacing/assimilating every coastal Aboriginal tribe does seem like a bit of a stretch.
So, this is basically the situation when the Europeans arrive in the 18th Century if the Polynesians had landed in Australia about the same time they landed in New Zealand, right?
HOW would they 'colonize' Australia? They didn't really have a major tech advantage over the locals. And it's a LONG way from any Polynesian base to Australia.
Could they have gained a small foothold somewhere in northern Australia? Probably. But their agricultural package was suboptimal for North Island, and useless for South Island. So NSW would be too far south for them to have any advantage, a d Tas.ania is right out.
Honestly, it'd likely be like a hypothetical Roman or Phoenician landing in North America - possible, but they'd realistically disappear and assimilate in a few generations.
Could they have gained a small foothold somewhere in northern Australia? Probably. But their agricultural package was suboptimal for North Island, and useless for South Island. So NSW would be too far south for them to have any advantage, a d Tas.ania is right out.
Honestly, it'd likely be like a hypothetical Roman or Phoenician landing in North America - possible, but they'd realistically disappear and assimilate in a few generations.
Last edited:
GodzillaFan1992
Banned
Weren't the Australian Aborigines prior to European contact 40,000 years behind due to lack of agriculture? Last I recall the closest thing to domesticated animals they had were dingoes and even then those were tamed. The Polynesians actually at least had dogs, pigs and such.
In all honestly I'd see the Polynesians or anyone conquering them rather easily.
Last edited:
You don’t need conquest for colonization. A few outpost could thrive as mentioned the Polynesians has domisticatea and if the agricultural package takes hold their population will grow enough to displace the Australians
The Maori apparently had lost all domesticated animals by the time they got to NZ.
They'd still have sweet potato, taro and yam. But I suspect the neighbouring tribes would pick up those crops, too, so the Maori aren't going to expand THAT much. IMO.
They'd still have sweet potato, taro and yam. But I suspect the neighbouring tribes would pick up those crops, too, so the Maori aren't going to expand THAT much. IMO.
Tasmania had a lot fewer people than the rest of Aboriginal Australia, so it's safe to say that a Polynesian group could establish themselves there, especially on the islands around Tasmania which were uninhabited. And Australia is warm compared to New Zealand, even in winter. The far north of North Island was solid for Polynesian agriculture, and Sydney has a similar climate (albeit warmer in summer), as does Melbourne. Although I think they'll gravitate toward the Queensland/NSW border and north.
By Polynesians, I'm taking this to mean Maori, or at least settlement via New Zealand early in the history of what would become the Maori. If this referred to colonisation of Australia by other Austronesians, this would be quite a different topic. It would also demand the question why these Austronesians waited until 1200.
The most likely settlement route is via New Zealand and then Norfolk Island. Polynesians did briefly settle Norfolk Island in OTL, but the settlement failed. ITTL, the settlement succeeds (handwave), and becomes the basis of Maori/Polynesian eexploration of the east coast of Australia. Lord Howe Island is probably settled too at some point.
In terms of what this colonisation would look like, first of all, forget any ideas of the Maori displacing most of the locals. That's not at all plausible. The Maori are very few in this era, probably with a founder population in NZ of less than 10,000, if not a tenth of that. The population of Australia was probably a million or more, and the east coast was among the more highly populated regions. There's no tech advantage either, and most of the Maori are staying in NZ where there's no hostile locals to contend with.
The most likely analogy is how Austronesian contact wifh New Guinea and the Solomons went in OTL. First stage is coastal outposts, preferably on offshore islands where they exist. Not many such islands on fhe east coast: Fraser Island is probably fhe best overall once the Maori get that far. Where islands are not available, ie on most of the east coast, the next best option is more defensible headlands with decent fresh water.
From here, there will be some level of trade and engagement with the locals. Perhaps agriculture will speead through such means, perhaps not. The Polynesian agricultural package is reasonable for eastsrn Australia (though unworkable in Tasmania), unless it has been attenuated by use in New Zealand, where many of the crops don't grow. The only domestic animal which made it to NZ was the dog, and there are already tamable ones in Oz, so no major changes there.
With agriculture, the Maori will probably be too locally numerous to push out, but that doesn't mean that they can go a-conquering either. You could see an east coast situation like New Guinea, where Austronesian languages spread to various local pockets, but not far inland, and there was some intermarriage but still mostly local descent. Or somewhat more likely, the beginnings of what happened in the Solomons, where Austronesian languages were much more widespread and there was considerable intermarriage, although still majority local descent. This would mean an east coast with pockets of surviving Aboriginal languages, but large parts would be speaking Maori or mixed languages.
Given the timeframes until Europeans arrive, I doubt that there would be much penetration of the interior. Probably no more then scattered outposts on the coast of Victoria.
The most likely settlement route is via New Zealand and then Norfolk Island. Polynesians did briefly settle Norfolk Island in OTL, but the settlement failed. ITTL, the settlement succeeds (handwave), and becomes the basis of Maori/Polynesian eexploration of the east coast of Australia. Lord Howe Island is probably settled too at some point.
In terms of what this colonisation would look like, first of all, forget any ideas of the Maori displacing most of the locals. That's not at all plausible. The Maori are very few in this era, probably with a founder population in NZ of less than 10,000, if not a tenth of that. The population of Australia was probably a million or more, and the east coast was among the more highly populated regions. There's no tech advantage either, and most of the Maori are staying in NZ where there's no hostile locals to contend with.
The most likely analogy is how Austronesian contact wifh New Guinea and the Solomons went in OTL. First stage is coastal outposts, preferably on offshore islands where they exist. Not many such islands on fhe east coast: Fraser Island is probably fhe best overall once the Maori get that far. Where islands are not available, ie on most of the east coast, the next best option is more defensible headlands with decent fresh water.
From here, there will be some level of trade and engagement with the locals. Perhaps agriculture will speead through such means, perhaps not. The Polynesian agricultural package is reasonable for eastsrn Australia (though unworkable in Tasmania), unless it has been attenuated by use in New Zealand, where many of the crops don't grow. The only domestic animal which made it to NZ was the dog, and there are already tamable ones in Oz, so no major changes there.
With agriculture, the Maori will probably be too locally numerous to push out, but that doesn't mean that they can go a-conquering either. You could see an east coast situation like New Guinea, where Austronesian languages spread to various local pockets, but not far inland, and there was some intermarriage but still mostly local descent. Or somewhat more likely, the beginnings of what happened in the Solomons, where Austronesian languages were much more widespread and there was considerable intermarriage, although still majority local descent. This would mean an east coast with pockets of surviving Aboriginal languages, but large parts would be speaking Maori or mixed languages.
Given the timeframes until Europeans arrive, I doubt that there would be much penetration of the interior. Probably no more then scattered outposts on the coast of Victoria.
Last edited:
Ricardolindo
Banned
The Maoris' technology was far more advanced than the Aboriginal Australians' technology.
ASSUMING
Assuming a start similar to NZ and similar population growth the Maori population would be about 110,000 so I am sure you are right.
Assuming a start similar to NZ and similar population growth the Maori population would be about 110,000 so I am sure you are right.
In terms of military technology, which is what matters for potential conquest - not particularly. Especially not in 1300, which is the timeframe for potential colonisation.
Many of the Maori weapons of war that were familiar to Europeans developed later. In terms of what they had in 1300 - various stone spears, clubs and other melee weapons, and short-ranged thrown weapons. They didn't use bows and arrows.
The main weapons the Aborigines used at the time were spears (wooden or stone-tipped), spear throwers, clubs, shields, and war boomerangs. These were broadly comparable to what the Maori had in 1300.
If you're positing that the Maori technology would evolve significantly after 1300, that's certainly possible. But given that the Aborigines would be in constant contact with the Maori ITTL, their military technology would have time to evolve in parallel too.
In terms of other technology, the Maori were ahead in some areas, although not universally. In shipbuilding and navigation, they were obviously far ahead. Ditto agriculture, although that's less clear-cut of an advantage in Australia, given that their crop package wasn't the best-suited for Australian soils, and the Aborigines were very good at managing the land to obtain food.
In some areas, eg hunting, I'd rank the Aborigines as ahead of the Maori.
Rome was not ahead in military technology but in military organisation and strategy.
Here the Maoris are way ahead, the Aborigines were organised in small separate hunting groups. Individual Australians had no trouble driving them off. The Maoris had forts, armies and generals. To defeat the Maoris required an army.
....In 1300?
Nope, they didn't have anything like that level of organisation. They were a few colonists in small groups. All of this building of forts, armies and generals came much, much later.
In terms of organising resistance across multiple Aboriginal groups, the first time that happened in OTL was within 5 years of British settlement of Australia. Pemulwuy began a campaign which united multiple clans within that time. Some later leaders united warrior groups of considerable size as well.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Aborigines are going to form armies in the tens of thousands and push the Maori back into the sea. But they were capable of matching the 1300s-era Maori in organisation and (approximately) military technology. Any Maori colonisation of Australia will be a slow, multigenerational process, not Maori show upmand instantly take over everything in sight.
Anyways, how would the society of a Polynesian Australia develop and what would it look like when Europeans arrive?
Well as colonist they came in organised groups under organised chiefs. The building forts, armies and generals came later but the knowledge was already there.
At his peak Pemulwuy,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Parramatta
In March 1797, Pemulwuy led a group of aboriginal warriors, estimated to be at least 100, in an attack on a government farm at Toongabbie. The colony never brought in extra troops, I have no figures for the British but it could have been that many.
and in comparsion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars
At the peak of hostilities in the 1860s, 18,000 British troops, supported by artillery, cavalry and local militia, battled about 4,000 Māori warriors.
I doubt the organisation part.
This I agree with, the scattered groups of Maoris would take many years before they could build up their strength. This may give the Aborigines time to upgrade their society, in the OTL this did not happen but the Aborigines will have more time here.
Centuries later, to be precise.
The best estimate for the founding population size of the Maori, based on mitochondrial DNA lines, is that the founding population of Maori consisted of 70 women (number of men unknown, obviously).
They weren't going to build up from there to generals and forts for quite a while.
Yes. Key point here is 1860s. The entire Maori population wasn't 4000 people in 1300. Or even in 1400, based on the most likely population growth rates.
Amusingly enough, based on what happened in OTL Australia, ATL Maori colonists would be facing the same problem that the British colonists faced during the Maori Wars: combating guerrilla warfare against an opponent who knew the land much better than they did.
I'm not sure why. Based on the size of early Maori settlements, they would not have been large enough to field more than 100 warriors (probably less). The Aborigines were easily capable of matching that.