How did the Pacific & other islands get settled?

[Beet]

You literally had people living in the Stone Age who survived thousands of miles of sea journey to tiny specks of land they couldn't possibly have known was even there? If you think of it, it's equally as impressive as the moon landing, given the technology at the time. How could they even build boats, provision supplies, and have knowledge of wind patterns to make such a trip possible with both men and women, and probably children? How many people died going off in every possible direction before all these little isles were settled?

[TDAS04]

I believe that the most remote bits of land, like New Zealand and Hawaii, were not settled by humans until about 700-900 AD.  I'm not sure if Iceland had any people before the birth of Christ.

It's still remarkable, though, that people could travel such long distances in boat back then.  Definitely impressive that people built huge stone heads on Easter Island.

[kcguy]

As I started typing this response, I wondered if bird migrations were a clue.  Did people see birds consistently flying away in a certain direction and assume land must lie that way?

For me, Australia is a place that's always been fascinating.  It was settled around 50,000 BC (or whenever), and I'm not sure that was an obvious destination for anyone.  (I'd always thought Australia was always an island, but a web search makes me think I may have been wrong.)

As far as surprisingly tardy settlements go, I'm fascinated by Madagascar.  Mozambique was one of the first parts of the world to be discovered by humans, but Madagascar wasn't settled until almost the Anno Domini era, and even weirder, it was settled by people from the East Indies.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Back during the ice ages, New Guinea was attached to Australia while Borneo, Sumatra and Java were part of the Asian mainland.  While you couldn't walk from one to the other, the islands in between are close enough that it's not surprising that the area was settled long ago.

[dead0man]

Well, they probably didn't leave one island to settle another on purpose.  How would they know the islands were even there until they were right on top of them?  No, I suspect they just spent a lot of time out in the open ocean on their boats fishing.  Maybe some of them got caught in a storm, got lost and stumbled upon one looking for home.  Or maybe they saw some birds and followed them back to a new island.  They could navigate by stars, but that will only tell you how far north or south you are...you need some kind of time piece to figure out east/west (or perhaps they knew/know something us Euros never figured out).  I've also read that they used clouds to find islands (a certain type of cloud is only formed over islands), same with ocean swells (type, speed, distance between).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

iirc most genetic evidence evidence suggests a three stage migration: first an original rush of humans in the Paleolithic that colonised the continent that now forms Australia and Guinea; then a few thousand yearsbefroe common era a group originating in Taiwan (now making up the Taiwanese aboriginals) that developed canoes moved fairly quickly through the Philippines, Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Fiji etc (some of them moved westwards in Indonesia, and colonised Madagascar). These are the relatively light skinned Pacific Islanders (Maori, Hawaiians, Easter Islamders etc); who were followed by Melanesians from Guinea, who you tend to find on Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Tonga etc.

[Beet]

As far as surprisingly tardy settlements go, I'm fascinated by Madagascar.  Mozambique was one of the first parts of the world to be discovered by humans, but Madagascar wasn't settled until almost the Anno Domini era, and even weirder, it was settled by people from the East Indies.

It speaks to how profoundly the environment shapes the fates of human societies.

Most of coastal Africa and Asia is a fairly clean break from continent to ocean (and even the European coast, while broken up by the Mediterranean and fairly peninsular), so while coastal trade must have been an advantage, it wasn't a necessity to the society. On the other hand, look on the map, and the East Indies are practically a training ground for navigation: larger, more closely knitted islands gradually spreading out and becoming smaller. The Austronesians had literally thousands of years of experience jumping from island to island, to the point where they had explored and inhabited virtually every Pacific island by 1200 AD. They had their own versions of many modern navigational techniques, and how they reached islands hundreds of miles away with traditional canoes befuddles even modern researchers. On the other hand, their societies did not even have writing. The pure "how advanced is their seafaring capability":"how advanced is their civilization overall" ratio was just insane.

All because of their geographical environment. I believe the same applies to modern societies and individuals as well. It's a major reason why I identify as liberal: poor people don't choose to be poor, poor communities and nations aren't that way because there is something wrong with the people in them. It's the environment they exist in that shapes their behavior and destiny to a larger extent than conservatives give credit for.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The different races moved to different areas of the world and the race affects the climate they live by. Blacks lived in Africa and kept the dark skin due to arid.  Caucasians(Vikings especially) moved to Europe and had lost their pigmentation due to the dry cold.  Mongloids moved to Asis and affected the shape of their eyes due to the wind(which encompasses: Arabs, Native Americans and Asians-Eskimo Indians) The Mongloids including the Somoians, adapted to the Isles.