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.
