In many cases, these uncertainties would have been somewhat less significant than you make them seem.
Firstly, you don’t need to make direct visual contact with a new island to know its there - evidence from cloud patterns, tidal patterns and bird tracking (for example) can greatly expand the region within which land is detectable.
Also, as has been pointed out, in the case of the Pacific, it’s now pretty clear that the islands were settled from west to east (with the exception of the Galapagos, which weren’t settled so much as just sporadically visited by South American indians) - in other words, against the dominant winds and currents. It’s been theorised that this is actually a fairly safe colonisation / exploration strategy, for any society that has a basic astronomical awareness. You could fight your way upwind, searching for new lands, and then return home fairly easily by returning to your home’s latitude and drifting westwards. The last major landmass to be colonised by humans, New Zealand, was colonised from the east, by people going with the currents, around AD 1350. There’s some evidence that it was repeatedly, briefly contacted for more than 1000 years before settlement, though, which might indicate that while individual rafts or canoes found it easy to drift on the currents and sail with the winds to New Zealand, they couldn’t get back home to tell anyone about it, and organise a colonisation expedition.
Incidentally, I believe the 60,000 year figure cited by Blake for the first evidence for humans in Australia is currently not thought to be too accurate. 40,000 is a much more widely accepted figure. Still, it represents the earliest evidence by far for a crossing of open ocean by humans.
It’s all open to debate. 60, 000 seems to be accepted amongst most of the authorities. 40, 000 is essentially indisputable. Even 40, 000 years puts the colonisation ta time when Neanderthals were stil living in Europe. But what’s 20, 000 years between fellow hominids?
Question.
What land is east of NZ? Easter Island? Where did these folk come from? Last I heard the gentic evidence showed the NZ Maori to be a mix of Melanesian women )from western islands and Polynesian men form the north. Not that that tells us anything about where they went after leaving those places.
Jut wondering why people are now assming NZ was colonised form the east.
Check out this book. It’s probably the most recently published one that addresses exactly what you are trying to get at.
I’ve never heard the man/woman dichotomy for the Maori. There are thought to have been two major waves of settlement, but I thought both were Polynesians. From the north. Aotearoa (NZ) being the farthest south that the Polynesians got.
As for the “giant rats”, the assertion was that they evolved into giants in less than 125,00 yrs.
Yeah, I should’ve said north-east, but my point was just that it’s one of the rare known instances (in the Pacific) of first settlement occuring via downwind/current travel.
Oh, and this is from February, regarding humans in Australia:
Also remember that the highlands of New Guinea were one of the cradles of “civilization” on the planet. Not that it really means anything (as Australia was settled far before the emergence of agriculture or writing systems), but that humans living there were amongst the most advanced on the planet. At least according to Jared Diamond.
Also, to add to a point that hasn’t been addressed here yet, the hypothesis that modern man interbred with Neanderthal looks less likely with each passing year. The very old theory that Java Man, Peking Man and a host of other early hominids represent the first “races” is now nearly completely discredited.
I think that was the book Edwino was referring to in the post immediately above yours. An intersting book in its own right, but it doesn’t contain answers to the OP.
