Is there any true terra nullius in historical time? Basically, is there any place in the world where humans have permanently settled in historical time where no humans had previously lived there? I know Iceland fits this description, but what I am wondering is if any other place fits this description as well?
Islands like the Falklands and Saint Helena spring to mind.
Polynesia.
Quote from: Tyr on July 02, 2011, 09:14:04 AM
Polynesia.
Those were settled in prehistory.
I'm thinking some tiny Atlantic islands possibly. Like St. Helena. Maybe Spitsbergen.
Detroit.
New Zealand and Madagascar were settled in the last 1000 years weren't they?
Quote from: barkdreg on July 02, 2011, 09:10:47 AM
Islands like the Falklands and Saint Helena spring to mind.
And the mid-Atlantic islands like Bermuda and Azores.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 02, 2011, 09:28:26 AM
New Zealand and Madagascar were settled in the last 1000 years weren't they?
Er, close I think. But they had no writing so they are by definition "prehistoric".
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 02, 2011, 09:31:08 AM
And the mid-Atlantic islands like Bermuda and Azores.
Definitely true in the case of Bermuda, but haven't there been some controversial finds of Roman or Phoenician pottery in the Azores?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 02, 2011, 09:28:26 AM
New Zealand and Madagascar were settled in the last 1000 years weren't they?
NZ I can see (although I'm still surprised), but Madagascar? That's boggling.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 09:16:17 AM
Those were settled in prehistory.
I'm thinking some tiny Atlantic islands possibly. Like St. Helena. Maybe Spitsbergen.
Not all of them, some were settled in very recent times. New Zealand for instance was just around 1000ad iirc. And then there were some islands that were unsettled- Pitcairn for instance had been settled by Polynesians at one time but they'd long since left when the Brits showed up.
Madagascar seems to have been settled first between 300 BC and 500 AD according to wikipedia.
New Zealand seems to have been settled in the 13th century AD, also according to wikipedia.
The issue I have been going for has been identifying true aboriginals, so the Malagasy and Maoris do seem to be true aboriginals. True aboriginals would be the ones that didn't throw anybody else of the land to take it.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2011, 09:46:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 02, 2011, 09:28:26 AM
New Zealand and Madagascar were settled in the last 1000 years weren't they?
NZ I can see (although I'm still surprised), but Madagascar? That's boggling.
Hint: closest major landmass is Africa. It wasn't settled from Africa.
What about Easter Island?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5767/1603.abstract
QuoteRadiocarbon dates for the earliest stratigraphic layers at Anakena, Easter Island, and analysis of previous radiocarbon dates imply that the island was colonized late, about 1200 A.D.
Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2011, 10:19:38 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2011, 09:46:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 02, 2011, 09:28:26 AM
New Zealand and Madagascar were settled in the last 1000 years weren't they?
NZ I can see (although I'm still surprised), but Madagascar? That's boggling.
Hint: closest major landmass is Africa. It wasn't settled from Africa.
...but by Polynesians! That came from across the other side of the Indian ocean.
indonesians, no?
They originally seemed to have come from Taiwan.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 12:41:35 PM
They originally seemed to have come from Taiwan.
So Madagascar, Southeast Asia, and all of Polynesia are all traditional Chinese territory? :(
*cough*
Most of the known world was not populated by Humans before we got to it. :sleep:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 02, 2011, 01:32:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 12:41:35 PM
They originally seemed to have come from Taiwan.
So Madagascar, Southeast Asia, and all of Polynesia are all traditional Chinese territory? :(
No, Taiwan was colonized and it's indigenous population oppressed and Han'ified by the Manchu Dynasty. The Taiwanese Aboriginies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_aborigines) are almost uniformally pro independence.
Quote from: Viking on July 02, 2011, 02:01:24 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 02, 2011, 01:32:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 12:41:35 PM
They originally seemed to have come from Taiwan.
So Madagascar, Southeast Asia, and all of Polynesia are all traditional Chinese territory? :(
No, Taiwan was colonized and it's indigenous population oppressed and Han'ified by the Manchu Dynasty. The Taiwanese Aboriginies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_aborigines) are almost uniformally pro independence.
I honestly find the wide dispersion of that language group fascinating. Some guys in little boats were a able to navigate the pacific and colonize areas between Hawaii and Madagascar. It's probable they reached the Americas as well (but there is no direct evidence of that). It's extremely impressive.
Yeah, really weird they got all the way from Borneo to Madagascar. Surely they must have stopped over in India and other places and their descendants there have just been wiped out?
Iceland and Greenland are the only large landmasses that qualify, I think (apparantly, the Vikings got to Greenland before the Eskimos according to some sources, though that's not exactly universally accepted). I'm not even 100% sure if either of them qualify--I'm not certain the first Viking settlers in either place were literate, though obviously some of the people who followed them were.
The other places that might qualify are either small islands (St. Helena, etc., though I guess the Falklands aren't really all that small), or were settled in what would be considered historical times, but by pre-literate peoples (New Zealand, Madagascar), or even today don't have permanent populations (Spitzbergen).
Quote from: dps on July 02, 2011, 03:03:26 PM
Iceland and Greenland are the only large landmasses that qualify, I think (apparantly, the Vikings got to Greenland before the Eskimos according to some sources, though that's not exactly universally accepted). I'm not even 100% sure if either of them qualify--I'm not certain the first Viking settlers in either place were literate, though obviously some of the people who followed them were.
The other places that might qualify are either small islands (St. Helena, etc., though I guess the Falklands aren't really all that small), or were settled in what would be considered historical times, but by pre-literate peoples (New Zealand, Madagascar), or even today don't have permanent populations (Spitzbergen).
There was a previous people who lived in Greenland called the Dorset. The Eskimos wiped them out.
Mauritius and Reunion were uninhabited till the 16th century IIRC, they are actually quite a decent size, with a population of a million or so each.
Quote from: dps on July 02, 2011, 03:03:26 PM
Iceland and Greenland are the only large landmasses that qualify, I think (apparantly, the Vikings got to Greenland before the Eskimos according to some sources, though that's not exactly universally accepted). I'm not even 100% sure if either of them qualify--I'm not certain the first Viking settlers in either place were literate, though obviously some of the people who followed them were.
The other places that might qualify are either small islands (St. Helena, etc., though I guess the Falklands aren't really all that small), or were settled in what would be considered historical times, but by pre-literate peoples (New Zealand, Madagascar), or even today don't have permanent populations (Spitzbergen).
Spitzbergen has a permanent population. :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 02, 2011, 03:15:10 PM
Mauritius and Reunion were uninhabited till the 16th century IIRC, they are actually quite a decent size, with a population of a million or so each.
They actually look like pretty good tourist destinations. :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on July 02, 2011, 03:16:51 PM
Quote from: dps on July 02, 2011, 03:03:26 PM
Iceland and Greenland are the only large landmasses that qualify, I think (apparantly, the Vikings got to Greenland before the Eskimos according to some sources, though that's not exactly universally accepted). I'm not even 100% sure if either of them qualify--I'm not certain the first Viking settlers in either place were literate, though obviously some of the people who followed them were.
The other places that might qualify are either small islands (St. Helena, etc., though I guess the Falklands aren't really all that small), or were settled in what would be considered historical times, but by pre-literate peoples (New Zealand, Madagascar), or even today don't have permanent populations (Spitzbergen).
Spitzbergen has a permanent population. :hmm:
Hmm. I had read in several places that it was only seasonally settled, but according to Wiki you are right.
Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2011, 10:19:38 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2011, 09:46:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 02, 2011, 09:28:26 AM
New Zealand and Madagascar were settled in the last 1000 years weren't they?
NZ I can see (although I'm still surprised), but Madagascar? That's boggling.
Hint: closest major landmass is Africa. It wasn't settled from Africa.
I know, I looked it up. That's weird.
Although it wasn't in the last thousand years, as asserted above it was about two thousand years ago, which makes it less weird. I can see the island remaining undiscovered/unclaimed prior to the advent of the Arab marine, but not long afterward.
Quote from: RazI honestly find the wide dispersion of that language group fascinating. Some guys in little boats were a able to navigate the pacific and colonize areas between Hawaii and Madagascar. It's probable they reached the Americas as well (but there is no direct evidence of that). It's extremely impressive.
Shockingly so, really. I can't understand the mindset that says, "let's spend half a year in an canoe looking for shit that may or may not exist!" Although I guess a lot of discoveries were made because they got lost or were tossed off course by accident.
Quote from: TyrYeah, really weird they got all the way from Borneo to Madagascar. Surely they must have stopped over in India and other places and their descendants there have just been wiped out?
Wiped out or absorbed. Isn't that interchange how Hinduism got spread to Indonesia and Vietnam? (And maybe Buddhism too, although I think for Vietnam that came indirectly via China.)
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 02:57:28 AM
Although it wasn't in the last thousand years, as asserted above it was about two thousand years ago, which makes it less weird.
Still people managed to reach Australia 50k years ago, and modern humans lived right next store in Africa for over twice that long.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2011, 03:03:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 02:57:28 AM
Although it wasn't in the last thousand years, as asserted above it was about two thousand years ago, which makes it less weird.
Still people managed to reach Australia 50k years ago, and modern humans lived right next store in Africa for over twice that long.
People managed to reach Australia because they walked there.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 03:07:01 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2011, 03:03:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 02:57:28 AM
Although it wasn't in the last thousand years, as asserted above it was about two thousand years ago, which makes it less weird.
Still people managed to reach Australia 50k years ago, and modern humans lived right next store in Africa for over twice that long.
People managed to reach Australia because they walked there.
Nope, not true.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2011, 03:12:51 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 03:07:01 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2011, 03:03:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 02:57:28 AM
Although it wasn't in the last thousand years, as asserted above it was about two thousand years ago, which makes it less weird.
Still people managed to reach Australia 50k years ago, and modern humans lived right next store in Africa for over twice that long.
People managed to reach Australia because they walked there.
Nope, not true.
No, you're technically right. They needed boats to cross from the attached Indonesian peninsula to Sahul (the greatly enlarged Australian landmass), if not particularly good ones. And they only walked from there to modern Australia.
But there's a pretty big difference between the crossings needed to reach Sahul and the one needed to reach Madagascar.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2011, 03:03:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 02:57:28 AM
Although it wasn't in the last thousand years, as asserted above it was about two thousand years ago, which makes it less weird.
Still people managed to reach Australia 50k years ago, and modern humans lived right next store in Africa for over twice that long.
:lol:
Come on. It's gotta be an elaborate hoax.
[Edited for clarity. REALLY, TIMMAY?]
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 03:22:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2011, 03:12:51 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 03:07:01 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2011, 03:03:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 02:57:28 AM
Although it wasn't in the last thousand years, as asserted above it was about two thousand years ago, which makes it less weird.
Still people managed to reach Australia 50k years ago, and modern humans lived right next store in Africa for over twice that long.
People managed to reach Australia because they walked there.
Nope, not true.
No, you're technically right. They needed boats to cross from the attached Indonesian peninsula to Sahul (the greatly enlarged Australian landmass), if not particularly good ones. And they only walked from there to modern Australia.
But there's a pretty big difference between the crossings needed to reach Sahul and the one needed to reach Madagascar.
Give me some #s on those distances.
My understanding has always been that you did indeed only need basic boats to get to Australia back in the day, not ocean going vessels like Madagascar.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2011, 04:16:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 03:22:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2011, 03:12:51 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 03:07:01 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2011, 03:03:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 02:57:28 AM
Although it wasn't in the last thousand years, as asserted above it was about two thousand years ago, which makes it less weird.
Still people managed to reach Australia 50k years ago, and modern humans lived right next store in Africa for over twice that long.
People managed to reach Australia because they walked there.
Nope, not true.
No, you're technically right. They needed boats to cross from the attached Indonesian peninsula to Sahul (the greatly enlarged Australian landmass), if not particularly good ones. And they only walked from there to modern Australia.
But there's a pretty big difference between the crossings needed to reach Sahul and the one needed to reach Madagascar.
Give me some #s on those distances.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F5f%2FMap_of_Sunda_and_Sahul.png&hash=411609a633f18e75f07bd512421c8b15b9022a8b)
You like maps more than I do, you do it.
Madagascar, as near as I can tell (from a crappy little map of the Upper Paleolithic that google seems to have cached or whatever the technical term is, but is broken), was at roughly its modern distance from the mainland.
Do you think bmolsson walked from Sweden to Indonesia during the Ice Age? :hmm:
Quote from: Norgy on July 03, 2011, 07:47:08 AM
Do you think bmolsson walked from Sweden to Indonesia during the Ice Age? :hmm:
Honestly? No.
Quote from: Norgy on July 03, 2011, 07:47:08 AM
Do you think bmolsson walked from Sweden to Indonesia during the Ice Age? :hmm:
I think he probably used the in house golf cart moving between gates while in transit at Changi Airport in Singapore. Walk; no.
Quote from: Norgy on July 03, 2011, 07:47:08 AM
Do you think bmolsson walked from Sweden to Indonesia during the Ice Age? :hmm:
It is a possibility. After all, you can be a Swede (requiring only that you have visited however briefly) despite lacking an ethnic connection and a passport. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2011, 02:57:28 AM
Shockingly so, really. I can't understand the mindset that says, "let's spend half a year in an canoe looking for shit that may or may not exist!" Although I guess a lot of discoveries were made because they got lost or were tossed off course by accident.
I think some cases may have been exile - a major political family that loses a power struggle might be told to sail away. I'm pretty sure I read or saw that somewhere, but I can't remember where.
odd that no one has mentioned antarctica.
iirc, wheren't there people living there permantently? Chileans I believe.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 03, 2011, 12:31:20 PM
odd that no one has mentioned antarctica.
iirc, wheren't there people living there permantently? Chileans I believe.
Not that odd. There is no permanence about the settlements on Antarctica so it falls outside of the scope of the question.