I figure the title doesn’t make a lot of sense, but let me explain. This question popped into my head as I was reading this thread(about the Falklands/Malvinas).
What would be the last previously uninhabited place people moved to? And made habitable. I’m not counting oil rigs or antarctic research stations as they are completely dependant upon outside assistance, but rather places like the Falklands. Places where no one lived before (in recorded history), but now people do.
Probably Easter Island, around 1000 AD. While places like Svalbard and Novaya Zemlya may have been first settled later (and I don’t know on this, I’m just guessing), I’d class them with oil rigs and Antarctic stations (as not “real” settlements) but places people went to exploit resources,. where ‘home’ was somewhere else, not there.
Did Pitcairn Island have inhabitants before the “Mutiny on the Bounty” folks arrived? If not, that’s a strong candidate, along with such places as Tristan da Cunha.
Unless the inuit were up there in the north, I’d class them the same.
But the Falklands weren’t settled until 1764, which beats the Easter Island by quite a bit. Back in those days, I’m guessing you had to be almost completely self sufficient to make it.
Tristan da Cunha, sails up in the lead, with this amuzing piece from Wiki:
Wel, there had been people living there before, there are traces, but at that point in time, they were uninhabited. The Bounty landed in 1790. Less than 50 people currently live there.
Tristan da Cunha was inhabited by one man from 1810-1812, when he died. It was not resettled until GB put a military garrison there a little later. There is a couple hundred people living there now.
Kili island is where they settled the dudes from Bikini island in 1948. It was unihabited at that time (although it might have been inhabited in the past), and it now has around 600 people.
I was watching a show last night about the smaller British isles, and they went to one tiny one in the Shetlands that was uninhabited until a year or two ago when a guy set up camp there and declared it independent. I don’t know if that would count, though, because the Shetlands in general have been inhabited for a long time, and people almost certainly had dropped by there before.
No, I wouldn’t count lonely loons or hermits. Kili counts since it’s home to 600 people who make their living there (even though they do get lots of outside assistance). They could, however, survive without that assistance, even if many of them would probably die
A thought… live/work communities are regularly still being built, where previously there was only open countryside. The idea is that to create more space for manufacturing, build a whole new town, so that workers in the new manufacturing complex that’s built in the middle of nowhere aren’t having to commute for hours to get to and from their jobs. Usually in America it winds up being a suburb of a larger city, where first industrial complexes are built and then housing and all of the services that the people living and working there will need – and this all starts in the middle of a field somewhere, and usually grows until it hits the edge of a larger, longer-established city, at which point it loses its individual identity and becomes just another suburb of the larger city.
Did that make any sense, and did it meet the conditions of the question? I guess basically it means that as long as there is open countryside anywhere, there is no way to answer this question accurately, because it continues to happen. Of course, it was just a shot in the dark, as usual… :dubious:
In terms of large land masses, Madagascar was the last to be settled. I was thinking it was during the 1st century, but the Wikipedia says between the 3rd and 5th.
I rather meant a place like Tristan da Cunha, which was previously completely uninhabited. Instead of it previously being farmland, grassland, woods or whatever that’s on the border of “civilization”.
Hmmm…my history is not so great, but new Zealand has been and was considered settled for a very long time…it was considered fully settled by the Maori when Tasman and Cook arrived.
The Maori themselves were also settlers, before them were the Mori-Ori (spelling?)
I understand that Australia was considered to be unsettled when the “white man” came (totally discounting of course the Aborigines), at least from a “legal settlement” point fo view.
From a league of nations type of overview, I understand that New Zealand law is considered quite unique in terms of cedeing hte country.
At the time a country could be ceded either by a single “King” or by conquering it in a war - new Zealand was neither. It was ruled by a series of local chieftans - many hundreds of whom signed the “Treaty of Waitangi”, which is our founding document.
Australia on the other hand was “claimed” for the Crown as it was considered uninhabited.
Accordin to Wikipedia, the Maori arrived in New Zealand between AD 800 and 1300. That is later than the time Madagascar was settled, and I believe that’s what dtilque was talking about when he said New Zealand was more recently settled than that.
And for the record, the dates are about the same for the settlement of Iceland. Irish monks probably started living there in the 8th century or so. Tradition has it that the first permanent settlers, those who came to build communities, make babies, etc., arrived in 874.
