-borders between colonies will seem very straight and artificial, like what happened in OTL Africa. Perhaps even more than so.
-settlement in the mountainous areas will be much harder (again due to no local natives to teach settlers how to survive in such a harsh environment).
I'm afraid that your question will have to be moved to the ASB forum due to the implausibility of this hypothesis.
The Americas have some very high and wide-spanning mountain chains.Also, why would settlement in mountainous areas be any more difficult than settlement elsewhere? If people are at all surviving in the New World, then why would it necessarily be that much harder to survive in the mountains?
The Americas have some very high and wide-spanning mountain chains.
And not to mention the natives in these places, who spent thousands of years adapting their physique to the local climate.
The lack of such natives for settlers to intermarry with would mean problems for adaptation, menaing there's gonna be either slower settlement or none at all.
The Americas have some very high and wide-spanning mountain chains.
And not to mention the natives in these places, who spent thousands of years adapting their physique to the local climate. The lack of such natives for settlers to intermarry with would mean problems for adaptation, menaing there's gonna be either slower settlement or none at all.
I think calling this ASB is a bunch of nonsense. That term is incorrectly used so often. This is incredibly unlikely but not impossible. Madagascar is a massive island right next to humanity's home continent and yet it wasn't settled at all until around either 300 BCE or 250 CE (and it wasn't by people from Africa). New Zealand wasn't settled until the 1400s.
It's unlikely but not as absurd as you are claiming.
I think calling this ASB is a bunch of nonsense. That term is incorrectly used so often. This is incredibly unlikely but not impossible. Madagascar is a massive island right next to humanity's home continent and yet it wasn't settled at all until around either 300 BCE or 250 CE (and it wasn't by people from Africa). New Zealand wasn't settled until the 1400s.
It's unlikely but not as absurd as you are claiming.
This is false
That's true ASB can be a post where Britain is ISOTed to 105 or a Star Wars fan fiction. Nether-less Humans that didn't cross the Bering strait enters that category as well.It doesn't help that "ASB" is used for so many different things, the term is very close to useless as a description.
That's true ASB can be a post where Britain is ISOTed to 105 or a Star Wars fan fiction. Nether-less Humans that didn't cross the Bering strait enters that category as well.
I think its great you use pop science articles about Madagascar but this is infact a simplification of Indian Littoral settlement, trade and migration. The populations of Madagascar has gone through several waves from the b.c. to the proto-Merina expansion. All however touch off in Africa and along with people show a rather mixed origins before arriving on the island.How so? The original settlers of Madagascar were Austronesian and Bantu. It is not clear to me which group was first, but I suspect it was the Austronesians.
New picture emerges on human settlement of Madagascar
More than 4,000 years ago, a proto-globalization process started in the Indian Ocean, one of the outcomes being a great human migration of African and Asian peoples spreading across the Indian Ocean to inhabit the fourth largest island in the world, Madagascar. Austronesian peoples came from Borneo on boats, and Bantu migrants crossed over from East Africa. Overall, the Malagasy is thought to be composed of more than a dozen ethnic groups, and the specific geographic, linguistic origins and settlement dates are still hotly debated.
To get at the heart of Malagasy genetic ancestry and reconstruct their history, a research team led by Dr. Francois-Xavier Ricaut investigated genome-wide genotyping data of Malagasy populations along with populations across the Indian Ocean, including two groups of anthropological interest: the Banjar and the Ngaju from Southeast Borneo
A new picture has emerged on the settlement of Madagascar.
Ricaut's group has shown that the Malagasy genetic diversity is 68 percent African and 32 percent Asian. Based on their evidence, the Banjar were the most probable Asian population that traveled to Madagascar. The genetic dating supports the hypothesis that this Austronesian migration occurred around 1,000 years ago, while the last significant Bantu migration to Madagascar began 300 years later, perhaps following climate change in Africa.
Lastly, the authors propose that a language shift occurred in Southeast Borneo after the migration of Banjar to Madagascar. It is thought that the Banjar, currently speaking a Malay language, presumably spoke a language closer to that reconstructed for Proto-Malagasy. This linguistic change would have followed a major cultural and genetic admixture with Malay, driven by a Malay Empire trading post in Southeast Borneo. The collapse of the Malay Empire during the 15th and 16th centuries could correspond to the end of the Malay gene mix into the Banjar population.
"Our study is the first to reconcile data and hypotheses coming from linguistic, archaeological and genetic research to build an anthropological scenario placing the Malagasy ancestry in the Banjar group, living 6,000 km away," says Dr. Ricaut.