What's the REAL reason Polynesians didn't colonise Australia?

[Jared]

I don't think it matters that they weren't Polynesians, any generic argument that uses historical patterns to justify a belief that something AH-related is possible or not can't be "immune" to someone using similar historical patterns or events, the argument wasn't even specific to Polynesians so I'm not sure why what I point out was so irrelevant given it's the closest pertinent example for Polynesians.

The OP asked about Polynesians, so I answered in terms of why Polynesians didn't colonise Australia. This is a question about why the historical pattern of Polynesian migrations turned out the way they did, not about whether Polynesians could hypothetically have colonised parts of Australia. It's perfectly possible to construct scenarios where they did - such as the various islands off the coast in the Great Barrier Reef, for example.

If discussing why other Austronesians didn't colonise Australia in OTL, the answer seems to be that the parts of Australia where they did have contact - the northern fringe, basically - were not that well-suited to their crops and were among the areas very well suited to Aboriginal peoples' land management and other inhabitation strategies, so they didn't have the interest and/or the capacity to colonise it.

Anyway, it seems to me that distance was the biggest barrier. Also something interest, Vanuatu was first settled by Polynesians but over time it became mor Papuan genetically:

Ancient DNA Reveals Genetic Replacement Despite Language Continuity in the South Pacific

www.shh.mpg.de

This could be a signal that maybe Polynesians would have difficulty competing with Papuans in the island but ideally someone that actually knows about the crop package and subsistence strategy of both groups could make a better analysis.

Distance was a factor, probably, but given that the distance was much less than some areas where Polynesians did travel, it can't have been the *only* factor.

I'd be interested if there's more details about what happened in Vanuatu. One possibility could be that founding Polynesian populations were often quite small - they clung to the coast of New Caledonia for quite a while, for example - so it might be that if they've shown there's somewhere worth settling, more Papuans followed them.

 

[Gloss]

Distance was a factor, probably, but given that the distance was much less than some areas where Polynesians did travel, it can't have been t

If it's not distance then what is it? For example Austronesians never expanded in the Northern Ryukyu islands despite being able to cross the open seas into the Philippines and I don't see what else can explain the inconsistency other than maybe wind current patterns.

Maybe crossing large open seas was very probalistic which created a barrier to expansion.

If discussing why other Austronesians didn't colonise Australia in OTL, the answer seems to be that the parts of Australia where they did have contact - the northern fringe, basically - were not that well-suited to their crops and were among the areas very well suited to Aboriginal peoples' land management and other inhabitation strategies, so they didn't have the interest and/or the capacity to colonise it.

Did they have contact with Northern Australia? Since when? Anyway Papuan languages survived in some islands west of Papua to this day, so the Austronization of these islands might have happened over the millennia and not immediately after the Austronesian first reached Indonesia.

I'd be interested if there's more details about what happened in Vanuatu. One possibility could be that founding Polynesian populations were often quite small - they clung to the coast of New Caledonia for quite a while, for example - so it might be that if they've shown there's somewhere worth settling, more Papuans followed them.

I don't think this makes sense if the Papuanization/Melanesiaztion happened centuries after, population grow rapidly in virgin islands.

For example Madagascar seem to have been a bottleneck population of both Africans and Austronesians that makes up most of the ancestry of the population, how that could possibly work I can't fathom but it's theoretically possible this also happened here.

You can see we have samples from about 2 centuries which were mostly Austronesian, then a gap and then people are all over the place. I assume Madagascar was different.

 

[Gloss]

If it's not distance then what is it? For example Austronesians never expanded in the Northern Ryukyu islands despite being able to cross the open seas into the Philippines and I don't see what else can explain the inconsistency other than maybe wind current patterns.

Maybe crossing large open seas was very probalistic which created a barrier to expansion.

Did they have contact with Northern Australia? Since when? Anyway Papuan languages survived in some islands west of Papua to this day, so the Austronization of these islands might have happened over the millennia and not immediately after the Austronesian first reached Indonesia.


I don't think this makes sense if the Papuanization/Melanesiaztion happened centuries after, population grow rapidly in virgin islands.

For example Madagascar seem to have been a bottleneck population of both Africans and Austronesians that makes up most of the ancestry of the population, how that could possibly work I can't fathom but it's theoretically possible this also happened here.

You can see we have samples from about 2 centuries which were mostly Austronesian, then a gap and then people are all over the place. I assume Madagascar was different.

I think I'm wrong about Madagascar, that topic is confusing.

 

[kasumigenx]

The Austronesians who mixed with Austroasiatics have Austroasiatic influence and DNA which means there was no population replacement but the change to Austronesian is a linguistic change.

 

[twovultures]

I think I'm wrong about Madagascar, that topic is confusing.

It often is.

 

[Hastings]

I think the answer for the Polynesians is pretty simple. They were somewhat backward in some respects to other Austronesians and settler-colonialism is *hard* and it wasn’t something they really had other experience of. The Polynesian settlements seem to have been a couple hundred people max. Huntergathers are very mobile and militarized so even at very low densities easy to deal with that. Just think the trouble the Vikings had with a population in Newfoundland with a rather lower density than Australia. The reason huntergathers lose (with a bit of a steppe nomad exception) is agrarian societies scale much more.

The Australians would be quite unlikely to pick up agriculture from Polynesian visits. as subsidence societies tend to be reluctant to change (see European potato adaption!), particularly if they aren’t already agricultural in some way. South America contact was agrarian both sides. Same with Africa. On that note, there are considerable issues in terms of genetic diversity and dating with plantains, lessor yams, and taro between West Africa and East and before the arrival of the Bantu much of East Africa had very limited presence of agrarian people so seems good chance those crops came direct from SE Asia rather than overland to West Africa. In the case of plantains, they reach West Africa by 500BC well before Madagascar was settled. One of many things suggesting Madagascar settlement was essentially a couple hundred people (from Borneo, not exactly the closest part of Indonesia!) taking advantage of long-established networks. One would expect rather less evidence than we have in the African or South American examples of contact since less worth adopting.

In terms of the islands off Australia not being settled, there are two things. One we see this other places, like around Madagascar or parts of Polynesia. Two, maybe they were and we just haven't found the settlement. A lot of smaller islands were abandoned eventually. Realistically the Europeans are the only some parts of Polynesia are populated. They were settled relatively late by Polynesia and the process of collapsing out of the smaller islands was still well underway. More islands would have gone the way of Pitcairn which had a Polynesian population until a few hundred years pre-mutineers.

Really the mystery is why Malayo populations didn’t settle Australia as they clearly were able to override a variety of pre-existing people. Perhaps because the northern part is fairly sucky agriculturally compared to, say, Java.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Surely it's not just distance and technology but trade winds and ability to grow crops (notably taro or kumara/ sweet potatoes)?
Thor Heyerdal showed it was pissible to cfoss from S America to Polynesia, but that doesn't make it a viable route for travel. If you wamt to colonise, unless trying to escae from something, you'd want to find the place, check there's no evidence of hostile natives, decide it's worth settling, go back and convince others to come.
Any one of these going wrong creates a barrier.

It's worth remembering that Hawai'i was effectively two countries early on because sailing routes took ships to one or other half, but not readily (if at all) between the two main groups. Rowing worked, but it was hard and risky.

 

[Kerney]

Obviously, the were-wallabys.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Might the Great Barrier Reef be a partial explanation?

Also, keep in mind that the Polynesian expansion reached New Zealand very late—14th century. They might have simply not gotten around to sailing west by the time Cook showed up.

This has to be emphasized. Technical difficulties notwithstanding the Polynesians could have been able to reach Australia, just as they almost certainly did South America. It just so happened that they did not have enough time to touch Australia, as they barely did South America, before the 16th century.

Meanwhile, I would note that Australia did resist external settlement for quite some time, notwithstanding historical contacts like those with the Makassar and the possibility of ancient cultural diffusion circa 2000 BCE or so (the Pama-Nyungan expansion is notable). Up until the end of the 18th century, it may well be that no one culture had the technological package necessary to make inroads. Would Polynesian agriculture and seafaring have been it?

 

[rfmcdonald]

Surely it's not just distance and technology but trade winds and ability to grow crops (notably taro or kumara/ sweet potatoes)?
Thor Heyerdal showed it was pissible to cfoss from S America to Polynesia, but that doesn't make it a viable route for travel. If you wamt to colonise, unless trying to escae from something, you'd want to find the place, check there's no evidence of hostile natives, decide it's worth settling, go back and convince others to come.
Any one of these going wrong creates a barrier.

It's worth remembering that Hawai'i was effectively two countries early on because sailing routes took ships to one or other half, but not readily (if at all) between the two main groups. Rowing worked, but it was hard and risky.

Also, it is important to note a distinction between the sort of colonization that makes a settlement and the sort that makes a settlement that extends political authority from the colonizing power to the colonized state. Did any states or chiefdoms exist in Polynesia that could do this? The Hawaiian kingdom IIRC was exceptional, and even there it operated almost entirely within the Hawaiian archipelago. Different Polynesian settlements tended to be politically independent.

 

[Gloss]

Also, it is important to note a distinction between the sort of colonization that makes a settlement and the sort that makes a settlement that extends political authority from the colonizing power to the colonized state. Did any states or chiefdoms exist in Polynesia that could do this? The Hawaiian kingdom IIRC was exceptional, and even there it operated almost entirely within the Hawaiian archipelago. Different Polynesian settlements tended to be politically independent.

I'm not sure why Polynesians need to this, why can't they just colonize places like all decentralized farming societies from the Bantus, early-Austro-Asiatics or Anatolian Farmers did?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Also, it is important to note a distinction between the sort of colonization that makes a settlement and the sort that makes a settlement that extends political authority from the colonizing power to the colonized state. Did any states or chiefdoms exist in Polynesia that could do this? The Hawaiian kingdom IIRC was exceptional, and even there it operated almost entirely within the Hawaiian archipelago. Different Polynesian settlements tended to be politically independent.

Even now, New Zealand Maori have some very decentralised organisational and cultural structures, despite having a Maori king. Treaty settlements are usually made at regional (iwi) level, but some of the smaller subtribes (hapu) have issues with being represented by the overarching iwi, and of having their specific cultural and other claims lumped in with those of other hapu.

 

[twovultures]

I'm not sure why Polynesians need to this, why can't they just colonize places like all decentralized farming societies from the Bantus, early-Austro-Asiatics or Anatolian Farmers did?

There's a couple different reasons, IMHO. Polynesians would not have a technological advantage over any hunter-gatherer societies who would resist their advancement, lacking both bows and arrows and metal tools. Compare that to the Bantu, who had advanced iron metallurgy. In a colonization scenario, they would also lack numbers. The Anatolian proto-farmers gathered in dense populations, and after the Agricultural Revolution had a large population base which could expand over land, unrestricted by the logistics of sending people over the ocean. For Columbus' second expedition, the crown of Spain put together a fleet of over 1000 men, many with military experience; by contrast, Polynesian expeditions consisted of a few dozen, and by and large they did not have the political organization to send an army capable of conquest. So no numerical advantage in colonization, despite Polynesian societies having higher population densities than Aboriginal ones.

Up until the end of the 18th century, it may well be that no one culture had the technological package necessary to make inroads. Would Polynesian agriculture and seafaring have been it?

The scenario I did in my timeline exploring the subject (with Lapita Culture settlers rather than Polynesians proper) is that the settlers established themselves in offshore islands in Queensland, and over the course of several generations of interaction with the Aboriginals saw Aboriginal people adopt their farming package. In my scenario, the Aboriginals were motivated to make this change because feral pigs introduced by the Lapita Culture disrupted the ecosystem, making gathering food less tenable as a lifestyle.

 

[Gloss]

There's a couple different reasons, IMHO. Polynesians would not have a technological advantage over any hunter-gatherer societies who would resist their advancement, lacking both bows and arrows and metal tools. Compare that to the Bantu, who had advanced iron metallurgy. In a colonization scenario, they would also lack numbers. The Anatolian proto-farmers gathered in dense populations, and after the Agricultural Revolution had a large population base which could expand over land, unrestricted by the logistics of sending people over the ocean. For Columbus' second expedition, the crown of Spain put together a fleet of over 1000 men, many with military experience; by contrast, Polynesian expeditions consisted of a few dozen, and by and large they did not have the political organization to send an army capable of conquest. So no numerical advantage in colonization, despite Polynesian societies having higher population densities than Aboriginal ones.


The scenario I did in my timeline exploring the subject (with Lapita Culture settlers rather than Polynesians proper) is that the settlers established themselves in offshore islands in Queensland, and over the course of several generations of interaction with the Aboriginals saw Aboriginal people adopt their farming package. In my scenario, the Aboriginals were motivated to make this change because feral pigs introduced by the Lapita Culture disrupted the ecosystem, making gathering food less tenable as a lifestyle.

I don't think Bantus actually had iron when they started expanding, from what I know evidence of Bantu farming predates evidence of iron in most places in East and Central Africa, if they brought iron to some places it would have been Southern Africa.

Also these arguments simply fail to explain why Austronesians or Austro-Asiatics succeded in Western Indonesia and the Philippines both of which had native populations, or how the Yayoi replaced the Jomon populations in Japan.

The actual historical pattern would suggest that the Polynesians should be fully able to colonize every place in Australia where their agricultural package would outcompete hunter-gathering and there are very few cases where hunter-gathers ever adopted farming or pastoralism and countered a new migratory farming population.

 

[Krishna123]

Polynesian colonies or trading posts could have existed in northern Australia and most likely did. Unless they built a large scale urban centre or port for instance it would be pretty hard to find evidence especially as most spots would have been developed during a time when such remains as small villages or settlements would have been dismissed as nothing if found by developers in Australia. The lack of evidence of crop transfers can be explained by the fact that this might have happened and then died out. Pottery for instance was invented independently in three or more places before it spread worldwide.
One thing not addressed overly much so far is the waves of immigration that took place before Homo sapiens even turned up! Such earlier versions of humanity such as the denovians or the hobbit folk of Flores.
Or in fact the reason that when connected during the ice age why didn’t the Papuan agricultural package make its way to northern Australia and beyond?

 

[Gloss]

Polynesian colonies or trading posts could have existed in northern Australia and most likely did. Unless they built a large scale urban centre or port for instance it would be pretty hard to find evidence especially as most spots would have been developed during a time when such remains as small villages or settlements would have been dismissed as nothing if found by developers in Australia. The lack of evidence of crop transfers can be explained by the fact that this might have happened and then died out. Pottery for instance was invented independently in three or more places before it spread worldwide.
One thing not addressed overly much so far is the waves of immigration that took place before Homo sapiens even turned up! Such earlier versions of humanity such as the denovians or the hobbit folk of Flores.
Or in fact the reason that when connected during the ice age why didn’t the Papuan agricultural package make its way to northern Australia and beyond?

There was no agriculture in Papua during the ice age...

 

[omnidirectional]

Their culture was geared for wet and the continent was dry.

 

[Krishna123]

There was no agriculture in Papua during the ice age...

But is that the case? Proto agricultural practices def did as they would have had to exist so as to produce the subsequent agricultural package….
Plus one snippet I read recently is that the baking of bread preceded the growing of grain by several thousand years so why can’t this apply to the papuans?

 

[anotherlurker]

I think i recently read in "The Dawn of Everything" that due to their agricultural package and culture the seafaring Polynesians simply didn't find Australia attractive for settlement. The book goes to great lengths to present ancient and not so ancient peoples as very picky in how they live.

 

[Gloss]

I think i recently read in "The Dawn of Everything" that due to their agricultural package and culture the seafaring Polynesians simply didn't find Australia attractive for settlement. The book goes to great lengths to present ancient and not so ancient peoples as very picky in how they live.

Maybe the book makes a good case for it but I think inherently that argument is not very convincing given in about 2-3 millennia farmers from Anatolia expanded over biomes as different as mediterranean biomes to continental climatic regions like southern Scandinavia to temperate regions like Britain.

Same goes for Bantus that expanded in very different regions over 2 millennia. Clearly some people are not so picky whatsoever.