WI: Ancestors of Malagasy people went to northern Australia

Instead of going to an island off the coast of southeastern Africa (Madagascar to you and me), the ancestors of the Malagasy people went to northern Australia (from Kimberley to Cape York Peninsula)?

How it will affect the development of their language? How will they respond to the environment and climate of Northern Australia? In effect, who will be the alternate settlers of Madagascar?

The POD is still the same.
 

Driftless

Donor
I have no background on the Malagasy peoples, other than a cursory look up.

This migration was only 2,000 +/- years ago, correct?

Is there any archaeological/historical evidence to explain the migration all the way from Borneo(?) to Madagascar? Especially as there are many other destinations much closer at hand, including your Australian option. If they were looking for open space to settle, Australia would have been a better bet, I would think.

Perhaps the rice agriculture they apparently practiced was an issue?
 
I have no background on the Malagasy peoples, other than a cursory look up.

This migration was only 2,000 +/- years ago, correct?

Is there any archaeological/historical evidence to explain the migration all the way from Borneo(?) to Madagascar? Especially as there are many other destinations much closer at hand, including your Australian option. If they were looking for open space to settle, Australia would have been a better bet, I would think.

Perhaps the rice agriculture they apparently practiced was an issue?

The prooves are at least linguistic and all, their language(s) was seemingly very influenced at least by Austronesian(?) of the malay islands apparently, and probably customs and believes similars as well.. as for historical texts speaking of it...

Was there later still trades contacts, not sure myself. Anyone know?
 

Driftless

Donor

That certainly makes the compelling scientific case for the SEA origins of the settlers. There's still no reason why they made such a long trek; and maybe there won't be an answer to that question.

The only thing I can come up with is the ability to successfully grow rice in Madagascar. Is that form of Agriculture not possible in Northern Australia?
 
The only thing I can come up with is the ability to successfully grow rice in Madagascar. Is that form of Agriculture not possible in Northern Australia?
Well, I think it's possible, because the climate is similar to their origin (tropical/equatorial).
 
That certainly makes the compelling scientific case for the SEA origins of the settlers. There's still no reason why they made such a long trek; and maybe there won't be an answer to that question.

The only thing I can come up with is the ability to successfully grow rice in Madagascar. Is that form of Agriculture not possible in Northern Australia?

African Rice could surely grow in both Madagascar (if it's not in here in OTL) and Australia perhaps - it's an hardy specie. Now, Asian Rice, maybe less so...

Do note you can grow (asian) rice without flooding it with water I was told actually - it's more for conveniance and perhaps drowing pests and invasive stuff...
 
That certainly makes the compelling scientific case for the SEA origins of the settlers. There's still no reason why they made such a long trek; and maybe there won't be an answer to that question.
Long treks just seem like something Austronesians did a lot. They did discover and populate Hawaii, New Zealand, and Easter Island after all.
Do note you can grow (asian) rice without flooding it with water I was told actually - it's more for conveniance and perhaps drowing pests and invasive stuff...
Yup. Rice cultivation in Taiwan, which is where the Austronesian expansion ultimately began, was originally in dry, not flooded, fields. IIRC, rice in northern Thailand and Laos isn't flooded either.
 

Driftless

Donor
There's still no reason why they made such a long trek; and maybe there won't be an answer to that question.

The only thing I can come up with is the ability to successfully grow rice in Madagascar. Is that form of Agriculture not possible in Northern Australia?

Long treks just seem like something Austronesians did a lot. They did discover and populate Hawaii, New Zealand, and Easter Island after all.

Yup. Rice cultivation in Taiwan, which is where the Austronesian expansion ultimately began, was originally in dry, not flooded, fields. IIRC, rice in northern Thailand and Laos isn't flooded either.

I was fishing for the reason for choosing Madagascar - it's roughly 8,000km across the Indian Ocean from North Borneo, while North Australia is about 2,500km. Other than the fact it really happened OTL, it would seem implausible.... :D It's always more difficult to argue with reality, I guess...;)
 
Yup. Rice cultivation in Taiwan, which is where the Austronesian expansion ultimately began, was originally in dry, not flooded, fields. IIRC, rice in northern Thailand and Laos isn't flooded either.

Ahhh, I see :) I wonder if glutinous rice varieties, which I heard is what those later peoples use a lot, are more robust then... Maybe some sake rice ones too, because there is a guy in BC, Okanagan Valley I believe, who want to brew the first full on 100%canuck sake. (Which seem to say rice can grow also a bit more north, in somewhat cooler climates than expected.)
 
That certainly makes the compelling scientific case for the SEA origins of the settlers. There's still no reason why they made such a long trek; and maybe there won't be an answer to that question.

The only thing I can come up with is the ability to successfully grow rice in Madagascar. Is that form of Agriculture not possible in Northern Australia?

I do agree that it needs high level tech to grow rice in modern Australia due to the toxic materials in the land. Possibly if they go down south of Australia?
 
Well if they did go all the way to Madagascar, is it really that much a stretch to think they could reach South Australia? As for Madagascar, correct me if I'm wrong but actual African settlement came much later no? if so I can't really see the Malagasy absence changing that; but that's with my very, very limited knowledge of Madagascar.
 
Well if they did go all the way to Madagascar, is it really that much a stretch to think they could reach South Australia? As for Madagascar, correct me if I'm wrong but actual African settlement came much later no? if so I can't really see the Malagasy absence changing that; but that's with my very, very limited knowledge of Madagascar.

yes bantu crossed to madagascar if memory serve correctly 300 years after malagsy come...
though i wonder why malagsy do not count as creole
 
yes bantu crossed to madagascar if memory serve correctly 300 years after malagsy come...
though i wonder why malagsy do not count as creole

Frankly, the separation of creole languages from "normal" languages is already a quite dubious one, from a linguistic perspective. The initial separation of creole languages from normal ones was based on scientific racism, which relegated "black" languages to inferiority. Nowadays you do have some interesting arguments for what differentiates creole language formation from other languages, but many linguists say that the category of "creole languages" shouldn't exist at all.
 
Top