Why Were Madagascar and New Zealand Discovered So Late?












37















Considering how exploration over long distances into the unknown has been a part of human nature right at the beginning, it's surprising that some fairly large places have been discovered relatively recently. The island of Madagascar, for example, is large and very close to Africa, yet it was discovered in 500 AD. Even then, it wasn't by nearby Africans, but by faraway Indonesians. New Zealand, which was just as tantalizingly close to Australia, was discovered by Polynesian sailors 800 years later.



So why were these large and incredibly close landmasses discovered so late in the history of human existence? What was stopping the settlers from getting there a lot earlier, like before the Common Era?










share|improve this question


















  • 36





    Imo, New Zealand is not "tantalizingly close" to Australia. A flight from Melbourne (SE Australia) to Auckland takes about 3.5 to 4 hours; which is the equivalent of flying from London to Cairo and crossing most of Europe. I would describe the UK as being tantalizingly close to Europe (42 km on closest approach to the continent), but Australia to NZ (4,163 km on closest approach) is a hundred times that. Edit: Just looked it up, London-Cairo is 3,511 km so NZ-Aus is still almost 20% further than that.

    – Flater
    13 hours ago








  • 6





    New Zealand has been discovered? It's not on the map!

    – David Richerby
    9 hours ago






  • 5





    @CalinCeteras: Columbus had a fixed destination (even though he was fuzzy on the distance). That's not the same as Australians sailing out into the great big blue with no reason to assume anything is there (remember that many considered Columbus mad at the time for even thinking there was something to be found). Even if they sailed out, who says they didn't miss it by only heading due west/south/east? You're right about the distance (4200km is from the center of Australia, damn you Google Maps automated responses!) but that is still fifty times the distance from the UK to Europe.

    – Flater
    9 hours ago








  • 8





    @Flater Can we not propagate random historical myths on this website? Everyone educated at the time knew that the Earth was round and that if you went sufficiently far you would end up in the Indies. The reason people thought Colombo mad was that the distance to be navigated was impossibly long. And they were right! Colombo was just really really lucky that America happened to be in the way...

    – Denis Nardin
    8 hours ago






  • 4





    @DenisNardin: I wasn't talking about flat earth theories. My point is that Columbus set out knowing there was something to be found, regardless of whether he was expecting a new continent or a new route to an existing one. Similarly, why would Australians head out into the great big blue with no reasonable expectation of finding anything (or needing to go find something)?

    – Flater
    8 hours ago


















37















Considering how exploration over long distances into the unknown has been a part of human nature right at the beginning, it's surprising that some fairly large places have been discovered relatively recently. The island of Madagascar, for example, is large and very close to Africa, yet it was discovered in 500 AD. Even then, it wasn't by nearby Africans, but by faraway Indonesians. New Zealand, which was just as tantalizingly close to Australia, was discovered by Polynesian sailors 800 years later.



So why were these large and incredibly close landmasses discovered so late in the history of human existence? What was stopping the settlers from getting there a lot earlier, like before the Common Era?










share|improve this question


















  • 36





    Imo, New Zealand is not "tantalizingly close" to Australia. A flight from Melbourne (SE Australia) to Auckland takes about 3.5 to 4 hours; which is the equivalent of flying from London to Cairo and crossing most of Europe. I would describe the UK as being tantalizingly close to Europe (42 km on closest approach to the continent), but Australia to NZ (4,163 km on closest approach) is a hundred times that. Edit: Just looked it up, London-Cairo is 3,511 km so NZ-Aus is still almost 20% further than that.

    – Flater
    13 hours ago








  • 6





    New Zealand has been discovered? It's not on the map!

    – David Richerby
    9 hours ago






  • 5





    @CalinCeteras: Columbus had a fixed destination (even though he was fuzzy on the distance). That's not the same as Australians sailing out into the great big blue with no reason to assume anything is there (remember that many considered Columbus mad at the time for even thinking there was something to be found). Even if they sailed out, who says they didn't miss it by only heading due west/south/east? You're right about the distance (4200km is from the center of Australia, damn you Google Maps automated responses!) but that is still fifty times the distance from the UK to Europe.

    – Flater
    9 hours ago








  • 8





    @Flater Can we not propagate random historical myths on this website? Everyone educated at the time knew that the Earth was round and that if you went sufficiently far you would end up in the Indies. The reason people thought Colombo mad was that the distance to be navigated was impossibly long. And they were right! Colombo was just really really lucky that America happened to be in the way...

    – Denis Nardin
    8 hours ago






  • 4





    @DenisNardin: I wasn't talking about flat earth theories. My point is that Columbus set out knowing there was something to be found, regardless of whether he was expecting a new continent or a new route to an existing one. Similarly, why would Australians head out into the great big blue with no reasonable expectation of finding anything (or needing to go find something)?

    – Flater
    8 hours ago
















37












37








37


3






Considering how exploration over long distances into the unknown has been a part of human nature right at the beginning, it's surprising that some fairly large places have been discovered relatively recently. The island of Madagascar, for example, is large and very close to Africa, yet it was discovered in 500 AD. Even then, it wasn't by nearby Africans, but by faraway Indonesians. New Zealand, which was just as tantalizingly close to Australia, was discovered by Polynesian sailors 800 years later.



So why were these large and incredibly close landmasses discovered so late in the history of human existence? What was stopping the settlers from getting there a lot earlier, like before the Common Era?










share|improve this question














Considering how exploration over long distances into the unknown has been a part of human nature right at the beginning, it's surprising that some fairly large places have been discovered relatively recently. The island of Madagascar, for example, is large and very close to Africa, yet it was discovered in 500 AD. Even then, it wasn't by nearby Africans, but by faraway Indonesians. New Zealand, which was just as tantalizingly close to Australia, was discovered by Polynesian sailors 800 years later.



So why were these large and incredibly close landmasses discovered so late in the history of human existence? What was stopping the settlers from getting there a lot earlier, like before the Common Era?







middle-ages navigation new-zealand madagascar






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 22 hours ago









JohnWDaileyJohnWDailey

371412




371412








  • 36





    Imo, New Zealand is not "tantalizingly close" to Australia. A flight from Melbourne (SE Australia) to Auckland takes about 3.5 to 4 hours; which is the equivalent of flying from London to Cairo and crossing most of Europe. I would describe the UK as being tantalizingly close to Europe (42 km on closest approach to the continent), but Australia to NZ (4,163 km on closest approach) is a hundred times that. Edit: Just looked it up, London-Cairo is 3,511 km so NZ-Aus is still almost 20% further than that.

    – Flater
    13 hours ago








  • 6





    New Zealand has been discovered? It's not on the map!

    – David Richerby
    9 hours ago






  • 5





    @CalinCeteras: Columbus had a fixed destination (even though he was fuzzy on the distance). That's not the same as Australians sailing out into the great big blue with no reason to assume anything is there (remember that many considered Columbus mad at the time for even thinking there was something to be found). Even if they sailed out, who says they didn't miss it by only heading due west/south/east? You're right about the distance (4200km is from the center of Australia, damn you Google Maps automated responses!) but that is still fifty times the distance from the UK to Europe.

    – Flater
    9 hours ago








  • 8





    @Flater Can we not propagate random historical myths on this website? Everyone educated at the time knew that the Earth was round and that if you went sufficiently far you would end up in the Indies. The reason people thought Colombo mad was that the distance to be navigated was impossibly long. And they were right! Colombo was just really really lucky that America happened to be in the way...

    – Denis Nardin
    8 hours ago






  • 4





    @DenisNardin: I wasn't talking about flat earth theories. My point is that Columbus set out knowing there was something to be found, regardless of whether he was expecting a new continent or a new route to an existing one. Similarly, why would Australians head out into the great big blue with no reasonable expectation of finding anything (or needing to go find something)?

    – Flater
    8 hours ago
















  • 36





    Imo, New Zealand is not "tantalizingly close" to Australia. A flight from Melbourne (SE Australia) to Auckland takes about 3.5 to 4 hours; which is the equivalent of flying from London to Cairo and crossing most of Europe. I would describe the UK as being tantalizingly close to Europe (42 km on closest approach to the continent), but Australia to NZ (4,163 km on closest approach) is a hundred times that. Edit: Just looked it up, London-Cairo is 3,511 km so NZ-Aus is still almost 20% further than that.

    – Flater
    13 hours ago








  • 6





    New Zealand has been discovered? It's not on the map!

    – David Richerby
    9 hours ago






  • 5





    @CalinCeteras: Columbus had a fixed destination (even though he was fuzzy on the distance). That's not the same as Australians sailing out into the great big blue with no reason to assume anything is there (remember that many considered Columbus mad at the time for even thinking there was something to be found). Even if they sailed out, who says they didn't miss it by only heading due west/south/east? You're right about the distance (4200km is from the center of Australia, damn you Google Maps automated responses!) but that is still fifty times the distance from the UK to Europe.

    – Flater
    9 hours ago








  • 8





    @Flater Can we not propagate random historical myths on this website? Everyone educated at the time knew that the Earth was round and that if you went sufficiently far you would end up in the Indies. The reason people thought Colombo mad was that the distance to be navigated was impossibly long. And they were right! Colombo was just really really lucky that America happened to be in the way...

    – Denis Nardin
    8 hours ago






  • 4





    @DenisNardin: I wasn't talking about flat earth theories. My point is that Columbus set out knowing there was something to be found, regardless of whether he was expecting a new continent or a new route to an existing one. Similarly, why would Australians head out into the great big blue with no reasonable expectation of finding anything (or needing to go find something)?

    – Flater
    8 hours ago










36




36





Imo, New Zealand is not "tantalizingly close" to Australia. A flight from Melbourne (SE Australia) to Auckland takes about 3.5 to 4 hours; which is the equivalent of flying from London to Cairo and crossing most of Europe. I would describe the UK as being tantalizingly close to Europe (42 km on closest approach to the continent), but Australia to NZ (4,163 km on closest approach) is a hundred times that. Edit: Just looked it up, London-Cairo is 3,511 km so NZ-Aus is still almost 20% further than that.

– Flater
13 hours ago







Imo, New Zealand is not "tantalizingly close" to Australia. A flight from Melbourne (SE Australia) to Auckland takes about 3.5 to 4 hours; which is the equivalent of flying from London to Cairo and crossing most of Europe. I would describe the UK as being tantalizingly close to Europe (42 km on closest approach to the continent), but Australia to NZ (4,163 km on closest approach) is a hundred times that. Edit: Just looked it up, London-Cairo is 3,511 km so NZ-Aus is still almost 20% further than that.

– Flater
13 hours ago






6




6





New Zealand has been discovered? It's not on the map!

– David Richerby
9 hours ago





New Zealand has been discovered? It's not on the map!

– David Richerby
9 hours ago




5




5





@CalinCeteras: Columbus had a fixed destination (even though he was fuzzy on the distance). That's not the same as Australians sailing out into the great big blue with no reason to assume anything is there (remember that many considered Columbus mad at the time for even thinking there was something to be found). Even if they sailed out, who says they didn't miss it by only heading due west/south/east? You're right about the distance (4200km is from the center of Australia, damn you Google Maps automated responses!) but that is still fifty times the distance from the UK to Europe.

– Flater
9 hours ago







@CalinCeteras: Columbus had a fixed destination (even though he was fuzzy on the distance). That's not the same as Australians sailing out into the great big blue with no reason to assume anything is there (remember that many considered Columbus mad at the time for even thinking there was something to be found). Even if they sailed out, who says they didn't miss it by only heading due west/south/east? You're right about the distance (4200km is from the center of Australia, damn you Google Maps automated responses!) but that is still fifty times the distance from the UK to Europe.

– Flater
9 hours ago






8




8





@Flater Can we not propagate random historical myths on this website? Everyone educated at the time knew that the Earth was round and that if you went sufficiently far you would end up in the Indies. The reason people thought Colombo mad was that the distance to be navigated was impossibly long. And they were right! Colombo was just really really lucky that America happened to be in the way...

– Denis Nardin
8 hours ago





@Flater Can we not propagate random historical myths on this website? Everyone educated at the time knew that the Earth was round and that if you went sufficiently far you would end up in the Indies. The reason people thought Colombo mad was that the distance to be navigated was impossibly long. And they were right! Colombo was just really really lucky that America happened to be in the way...

– Denis Nardin
8 hours ago




4




4





@DenisNardin: I wasn't talking about flat earth theories. My point is that Columbus set out knowing there was something to be found, regardless of whether he was expecting a new continent or a new route to an existing one. Similarly, why would Australians head out into the great big blue with no reasonable expectation of finding anything (or needing to go find something)?

– Flater
8 hours ago







@DenisNardin: I wasn't talking about flat earth theories. My point is that Columbus set out knowing there was something to be found, regardless of whether he was expecting a new continent or a new route to an existing one. Similarly, why would Australians head out into the great big blue with no reasonable expectation of finding anything (or needing to go find something)?

– Flater
8 hours ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















72














By and large new uninhabited landmasses were discovered in one of three ways:




  1. By hunter-gatherers, walking there when the sea level was much lower at the end of the last glaciation.

  2. By hunter-gatherers hopping there from nearby islands or landmasses using their small coastal craft.

  3. By farming people with ocean-going vessels (usually Austronesians).


So let's look at #1. Here's what the coastlines looked like at the end of the last glaciation:



enter image description here



Notice that while Australia is still not connected to Eurasia, it comes damn close. Also (if you squint a bit) there are all sorts of convenient island chains in between the two.



Also notice that the distance between Madagascar and Mozambique is almost unchanged, as is the distance from Australia to New Zealand, and those distances are far greater.



The navigation techniques employed by hunter-gatherers are generally not designed to work far out of sight of land. A boat that is good for coastal fishing and/or transport is a far cry from something one could entrust their life to in the open ocean. Ocean navigation itself requires a whole suite of specialized techniques (including math) that really can't be developed in societies lacking the stratification and specialization afforded to farming societies.



So given that the distance to the horizon is about 5KM (3 miles), in the absence of convenient mountains, any body more that about 10KM from the coast is going to take some luck to bump into. The further off, the more luck needed.



Madagascar is 419km across the Mozambique channel at its closest point. Even if Mount Everest happened to be on the other side of that channel, it would not be visible to a sailor within sight of the African side.



New Zealand is ten times that distance from Australia. There's pretty much no way a breeding colony of humans is going to just randomly bump into that.



So this means both landmasses were in wait of a farming society to discover them. Enter the Austronesians. They had a agricultural package of domesticated crops and livestock that allowed for job specialization, and used it to create a specialized class/guild of navigators in their society. These folks developed and passed on the open-ocean sailing techniques that allowed their society to discover and populate a third of the globe.



Of course discoveries of nearby islands brought the opportunity for more discoveries, so this process took some time to finish populating the entire Pacific. New Zealand wasn't hit upon until about the 13th Century.



enter image description here



Native Australians of course were physically closer (but still not close!). However, being hunter-gatherers, they simply did not have the means to bridge that gap.



Now, how about Madagascar, you might ask? After all, there were farmers in Africa pretty much as early as there were farmers anywhere on earth! Shouldn't it have been discovered earlier by African farmers, and not had to wait for Austronesians to find it?



The problem there was the initial farming package in North Africa was temperate climate crops. These don't grow very well south of the Sahara. A different tropical crop package was developed there, relying on millet and sorghum. This didn't happen until about 2000 BC directly south of the Sahara in West Africa, and it took a large amount of time for these farmers to displace the hunter gatherers in their march across the continent, and then south. They didn't reach Mozambique until 1-2,000 years ago, and by then the Austronesians were either already living in Madagascar, or nearly there.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    You might also want to mention the Indian Ocean Gyre and the South Pacific Gyre.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    14 hours ago











  • It looks from that diagram, like there was a big push 1500BC-1200BC, then a slower one to 800BC to reach Samoa and Fiji ... then roughly nothing until 700AD (1½ millennia later), with a two century push to Hawaii and Rapa Nui followed by a slower push to NZ.

    – Martin Bonner
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    Love the way you've presented the information. Jared Diamond couldn't have done it better! :)

    – sempaiscuba
    9 hours ago



















12














Because New Zealand is an isolated archipelago a long way from anywhere; and everywhere:



enter image description here



Here is the North Atlantic at the same scale:



enter image description here



One might as well ask why it took so long for the Americas or Bermuda to be discovered.






share|improve this answer



















  • 8





    No, I might not, because the Americas were discovered very early in human history. MUCH earlier.

    – JohnWDailey
    20 hours ago






  • 4





    @JohnWDailey: You confuse populated with discovered. Read about Bering Ice Bridge

    – Pieter Geerkens
    20 hours ago








  • 3





    @PieterGeerkens Don't you mean Bering LAND bridge? And seriously, what is the difference?

    – JohnWDailey
    19 hours ago






  • 7





    @JohnWDailey if there's a bridge, you can walk there. If there were a bridge to the moon, we'd have gotten there long before 1969.

    – Allure
    18 hours ago






  • 34





    To quote Terry Pratchett: "It was mostly unexplored, too*. *At least by proper explorers. Just living there doesn’t count."

    – piet.t
    15 hours ago



















5














You can't just go sailing to nowhere. You need to know where you're going, what you expect to find, and how long it'll take to get there. Imagine for example you're a native on Australia. You look across the sea and don't see anything. If you set off now, how much food should you bring? What if your food spoils? If you find something, you might meet hostile people or animals, so you can't sail alone. You need people, someone to read star charts, keep the ship afloat if there's a storm, and so on.



You might think this is all fine and you would still make it to New Zealand anyway, but just imagine if you were on the west coast of Australia, with the next major landmass being Antartica to the south. The expedition would not end well! On an atlas it might seem like Madagascar and New Zealand are so close to Africa and Australia, but importantly they're not visible from the coast. You need to infer (based on bird flight, sea currents, etc) that there is something "out there".



You might be interested in Wikipedia's article on Polynesian navigation. Once you know there's something out there, the prospects of an expedition improve dramatically.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2





    +1 Imagine leaving Australia in a sailing ship, aiming for New Zealand, missing it, and the next landfall is South America or Antarctica, or bad luck you round Cape Horn and then its Africa. Very worst case, you encounter Australia's west coast.

    – Criggie
    12 hours ago











  • @Criggie Isn't that essentially what happened to Columbus? He thought the world was smaller than it was and thought he'd end much sooner and it was by dumb luck that the Americas were there?

    – Captain Man
    8 hours ago











  • Columbus thought the Atlantic was smaller than it is. He was pretty close to right about the size of the whole world. Further, remember that the Canaries and the Azores had recently been discovered. Columbus expected to find more uncharted land masses along the way a which he could restock his supplies. And in a way, he was right.

    – Ryan_L
    56 mins ago



















0














If you are exploring on blind you have to:




  1. Trust your navigation skills.

  2. Take supplies for the expected breaktrough three times higher.


One need to have resources to go to your targeted distance, expecting you find nothing you have to have resources to return succesfully. The third extra is safety roundup. That is quite expensive for very low probability of success.






share|improve this answer

























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "324"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51809%2fwhy-were-madagascar-and-new-zealand-discovered-so-late%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    72














    By and large new uninhabited landmasses were discovered in one of three ways:




    1. By hunter-gatherers, walking there when the sea level was much lower at the end of the last glaciation.

    2. By hunter-gatherers hopping there from nearby islands or landmasses using their small coastal craft.

    3. By farming people with ocean-going vessels (usually Austronesians).


    So let's look at #1. Here's what the coastlines looked like at the end of the last glaciation:



    enter image description here



    Notice that while Australia is still not connected to Eurasia, it comes damn close. Also (if you squint a bit) there are all sorts of convenient island chains in between the two.



    Also notice that the distance between Madagascar and Mozambique is almost unchanged, as is the distance from Australia to New Zealand, and those distances are far greater.



    The navigation techniques employed by hunter-gatherers are generally not designed to work far out of sight of land. A boat that is good for coastal fishing and/or transport is a far cry from something one could entrust their life to in the open ocean. Ocean navigation itself requires a whole suite of specialized techniques (including math) that really can't be developed in societies lacking the stratification and specialization afforded to farming societies.



    So given that the distance to the horizon is about 5KM (3 miles), in the absence of convenient mountains, any body more that about 10KM from the coast is going to take some luck to bump into. The further off, the more luck needed.



    Madagascar is 419km across the Mozambique channel at its closest point. Even if Mount Everest happened to be on the other side of that channel, it would not be visible to a sailor within sight of the African side.



    New Zealand is ten times that distance from Australia. There's pretty much no way a breeding colony of humans is going to just randomly bump into that.



    So this means both landmasses were in wait of a farming society to discover them. Enter the Austronesians. They had a agricultural package of domesticated crops and livestock that allowed for job specialization, and used it to create a specialized class/guild of navigators in their society. These folks developed and passed on the open-ocean sailing techniques that allowed their society to discover and populate a third of the globe.



    Of course discoveries of nearby islands brought the opportunity for more discoveries, so this process took some time to finish populating the entire Pacific. New Zealand wasn't hit upon until about the 13th Century.



    enter image description here



    Native Australians of course were physically closer (but still not close!). However, being hunter-gatherers, they simply did not have the means to bridge that gap.



    Now, how about Madagascar, you might ask? After all, there were farmers in Africa pretty much as early as there were farmers anywhere on earth! Shouldn't it have been discovered earlier by African farmers, and not had to wait for Austronesians to find it?



    The problem there was the initial farming package in North Africa was temperate climate crops. These don't grow very well south of the Sahara. A different tropical crop package was developed there, relying on millet and sorghum. This didn't happen until about 2000 BC directly south of the Sahara in West Africa, and it took a large amount of time for these farmers to displace the hunter gatherers in their march across the continent, and then south. They didn't reach Mozambique until 1-2,000 years ago, and by then the Austronesians were either already living in Madagascar, or nearly there.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      You might also want to mention the Indian Ocean Gyre and the South Pacific Gyre.

      – Denis de Bernardy
      14 hours ago











    • It looks from that diagram, like there was a big push 1500BC-1200BC, then a slower one to 800BC to reach Samoa and Fiji ... then roughly nothing until 700AD (1½ millennia later), with a two century push to Hawaii and Rapa Nui followed by a slower push to NZ.

      – Martin Bonner
      12 hours ago






    • 2





      Love the way you've presented the information. Jared Diamond couldn't have done it better! :)

      – sempaiscuba
      9 hours ago
















    72














    By and large new uninhabited landmasses were discovered in one of three ways:




    1. By hunter-gatherers, walking there when the sea level was much lower at the end of the last glaciation.

    2. By hunter-gatherers hopping there from nearby islands or landmasses using their small coastal craft.

    3. By farming people with ocean-going vessels (usually Austronesians).


    So let's look at #1. Here's what the coastlines looked like at the end of the last glaciation:



    enter image description here



    Notice that while Australia is still not connected to Eurasia, it comes damn close. Also (if you squint a bit) there are all sorts of convenient island chains in between the two.



    Also notice that the distance between Madagascar and Mozambique is almost unchanged, as is the distance from Australia to New Zealand, and those distances are far greater.



    The navigation techniques employed by hunter-gatherers are generally not designed to work far out of sight of land. A boat that is good for coastal fishing and/or transport is a far cry from something one could entrust their life to in the open ocean. Ocean navigation itself requires a whole suite of specialized techniques (including math) that really can't be developed in societies lacking the stratification and specialization afforded to farming societies.



    So given that the distance to the horizon is about 5KM (3 miles), in the absence of convenient mountains, any body more that about 10KM from the coast is going to take some luck to bump into. The further off, the more luck needed.



    Madagascar is 419km across the Mozambique channel at its closest point. Even if Mount Everest happened to be on the other side of that channel, it would not be visible to a sailor within sight of the African side.



    New Zealand is ten times that distance from Australia. There's pretty much no way a breeding colony of humans is going to just randomly bump into that.



    So this means both landmasses were in wait of a farming society to discover them. Enter the Austronesians. They had a agricultural package of domesticated crops and livestock that allowed for job specialization, and used it to create a specialized class/guild of navigators in their society. These folks developed and passed on the open-ocean sailing techniques that allowed their society to discover and populate a third of the globe.



    Of course discoveries of nearby islands brought the opportunity for more discoveries, so this process took some time to finish populating the entire Pacific. New Zealand wasn't hit upon until about the 13th Century.



    enter image description here



    Native Australians of course were physically closer (but still not close!). However, being hunter-gatherers, they simply did not have the means to bridge that gap.



    Now, how about Madagascar, you might ask? After all, there were farmers in Africa pretty much as early as there were farmers anywhere on earth! Shouldn't it have been discovered earlier by African farmers, and not had to wait for Austronesians to find it?



    The problem there was the initial farming package in North Africa was temperate climate crops. These don't grow very well south of the Sahara. A different tropical crop package was developed there, relying on millet and sorghum. This didn't happen until about 2000 BC directly south of the Sahara in West Africa, and it took a large amount of time for these farmers to displace the hunter gatherers in their march across the continent, and then south. They didn't reach Mozambique until 1-2,000 years ago, and by then the Austronesians were either already living in Madagascar, or nearly there.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      You might also want to mention the Indian Ocean Gyre and the South Pacific Gyre.

      – Denis de Bernardy
      14 hours ago











    • It looks from that diagram, like there was a big push 1500BC-1200BC, then a slower one to 800BC to reach Samoa and Fiji ... then roughly nothing until 700AD (1½ millennia later), with a two century push to Hawaii and Rapa Nui followed by a slower push to NZ.

      – Martin Bonner
      12 hours ago






    • 2





      Love the way you've presented the information. Jared Diamond couldn't have done it better! :)

      – sempaiscuba
      9 hours ago














    72












    72








    72







    By and large new uninhabited landmasses were discovered in one of three ways:




    1. By hunter-gatherers, walking there when the sea level was much lower at the end of the last glaciation.

    2. By hunter-gatherers hopping there from nearby islands or landmasses using their small coastal craft.

    3. By farming people with ocean-going vessels (usually Austronesians).


    So let's look at #1. Here's what the coastlines looked like at the end of the last glaciation:



    enter image description here



    Notice that while Australia is still not connected to Eurasia, it comes damn close. Also (if you squint a bit) there are all sorts of convenient island chains in between the two.



    Also notice that the distance between Madagascar and Mozambique is almost unchanged, as is the distance from Australia to New Zealand, and those distances are far greater.



    The navigation techniques employed by hunter-gatherers are generally not designed to work far out of sight of land. A boat that is good for coastal fishing and/or transport is a far cry from something one could entrust their life to in the open ocean. Ocean navigation itself requires a whole suite of specialized techniques (including math) that really can't be developed in societies lacking the stratification and specialization afforded to farming societies.



    So given that the distance to the horizon is about 5KM (3 miles), in the absence of convenient mountains, any body more that about 10KM from the coast is going to take some luck to bump into. The further off, the more luck needed.



    Madagascar is 419km across the Mozambique channel at its closest point. Even if Mount Everest happened to be on the other side of that channel, it would not be visible to a sailor within sight of the African side.



    New Zealand is ten times that distance from Australia. There's pretty much no way a breeding colony of humans is going to just randomly bump into that.



    So this means both landmasses were in wait of a farming society to discover them. Enter the Austronesians. They had a agricultural package of domesticated crops and livestock that allowed for job specialization, and used it to create a specialized class/guild of navigators in their society. These folks developed and passed on the open-ocean sailing techniques that allowed their society to discover and populate a third of the globe.



    Of course discoveries of nearby islands brought the opportunity for more discoveries, so this process took some time to finish populating the entire Pacific. New Zealand wasn't hit upon until about the 13th Century.



    enter image description here



    Native Australians of course were physically closer (but still not close!). However, being hunter-gatherers, they simply did not have the means to bridge that gap.



    Now, how about Madagascar, you might ask? After all, there were farmers in Africa pretty much as early as there were farmers anywhere on earth! Shouldn't it have been discovered earlier by African farmers, and not had to wait for Austronesians to find it?



    The problem there was the initial farming package in North Africa was temperate climate crops. These don't grow very well south of the Sahara. A different tropical crop package was developed there, relying on millet and sorghum. This didn't happen until about 2000 BC directly south of the Sahara in West Africa, and it took a large amount of time for these farmers to displace the hunter gatherers in their march across the continent, and then south. They didn't reach Mozambique until 1-2,000 years ago, and by then the Austronesians were either already living in Madagascar, or nearly there.






    share|improve this answer















    By and large new uninhabited landmasses were discovered in one of three ways:




    1. By hunter-gatherers, walking there when the sea level was much lower at the end of the last glaciation.

    2. By hunter-gatherers hopping there from nearby islands or landmasses using their small coastal craft.

    3. By farming people with ocean-going vessels (usually Austronesians).


    So let's look at #1. Here's what the coastlines looked like at the end of the last glaciation:



    enter image description here



    Notice that while Australia is still not connected to Eurasia, it comes damn close. Also (if you squint a bit) there are all sorts of convenient island chains in between the two.



    Also notice that the distance between Madagascar and Mozambique is almost unchanged, as is the distance from Australia to New Zealand, and those distances are far greater.



    The navigation techniques employed by hunter-gatherers are generally not designed to work far out of sight of land. A boat that is good for coastal fishing and/or transport is a far cry from something one could entrust their life to in the open ocean. Ocean navigation itself requires a whole suite of specialized techniques (including math) that really can't be developed in societies lacking the stratification and specialization afforded to farming societies.



    So given that the distance to the horizon is about 5KM (3 miles), in the absence of convenient mountains, any body more that about 10KM from the coast is going to take some luck to bump into. The further off, the more luck needed.



    Madagascar is 419km across the Mozambique channel at its closest point. Even if Mount Everest happened to be on the other side of that channel, it would not be visible to a sailor within sight of the African side.



    New Zealand is ten times that distance from Australia. There's pretty much no way a breeding colony of humans is going to just randomly bump into that.



    So this means both landmasses were in wait of a farming society to discover them. Enter the Austronesians. They had a agricultural package of domesticated crops and livestock that allowed for job specialization, and used it to create a specialized class/guild of navigators in their society. These folks developed and passed on the open-ocean sailing techniques that allowed their society to discover and populate a third of the globe.



    Of course discoveries of nearby islands brought the opportunity for more discoveries, so this process took some time to finish populating the entire Pacific. New Zealand wasn't hit upon until about the 13th Century.



    enter image description here



    Native Australians of course were physically closer (but still not close!). However, being hunter-gatherers, they simply did not have the means to bridge that gap.



    Now, how about Madagascar, you might ask? After all, there were farmers in Africa pretty much as early as there were farmers anywhere on earth! Shouldn't it have been discovered earlier by African farmers, and not had to wait for Austronesians to find it?



    The problem there was the initial farming package in North Africa was temperate climate crops. These don't grow very well south of the Sahara. A different tropical crop package was developed there, relying on millet and sorghum. This didn't happen until about 2000 BC directly south of the Sahara in West Africa, and it took a large amount of time for these farmers to displace the hunter gatherers in their march across the continent, and then south. They didn't reach Mozambique until 1-2,000 years ago, and by then the Austronesians were either already living in Madagascar, or nearly there.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 3 hours ago

























    answered 21 hours ago









    T.E.D.T.E.D.

    76.8k10172315




    76.8k10172315








    • 3





      You might also want to mention the Indian Ocean Gyre and the South Pacific Gyre.

      – Denis de Bernardy
      14 hours ago











    • It looks from that diagram, like there was a big push 1500BC-1200BC, then a slower one to 800BC to reach Samoa and Fiji ... then roughly nothing until 700AD (1½ millennia later), with a two century push to Hawaii and Rapa Nui followed by a slower push to NZ.

      – Martin Bonner
      12 hours ago






    • 2





      Love the way you've presented the information. Jared Diamond couldn't have done it better! :)

      – sempaiscuba
      9 hours ago














    • 3





      You might also want to mention the Indian Ocean Gyre and the South Pacific Gyre.

      – Denis de Bernardy
      14 hours ago











    • It looks from that diagram, like there was a big push 1500BC-1200BC, then a slower one to 800BC to reach Samoa and Fiji ... then roughly nothing until 700AD (1½ millennia later), with a two century push to Hawaii and Rapa Nui followed by a slower push to NZ.

      – Martin Bonner
      12 hours ago






    • 2





      Love the way you've presented the information. Jared Diamond couldn't have done it better! :)

      – sempaiscuba
      9 hours ago








    3




    3





    You might also want to mention the Indian Ocean Gyre and the South Pacific Gyre.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    14 hours ago





    You might also want to mention the Indian Ocean Gyre and the South Pacific Gyre.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    14 hours ago













    It looks from that diagram, like there was a big push 1500BC-1200BC, then a slower one to 800BC to reach Samoa and Fiji ... then roughly nothing until 700AD (1½ millennia later), with a two century push to Hawaii and Rapa Nui followed by a slower push to NZ.

    – Martin Bonner
    12 hours ago





    It looks from that diagram, like there was a big push 1500BC-1200BC, then a slower one to 800BC to reach Samoa and Fiji ... then roughly nothing until 700AD (1½ millennia later), with a two century push to Hawaii and Rapa Nui followed by a slower push to NZ.

    – Martin Bonner
    12 hours ago




    2




    2





    Love the way you've presented the information. Jared Diamond couldn't have done it better! :)

    – sempaiscuba
    9 hours ago





    Love the way you've presented the information. Jared Diamond couldn't have done it better! :)

    – sempaiscuba
    9 hours ago











    12














    Because New Zealand is an isolated archipelago a long way from anywhere; and everywhere:



    enter image description here



    Here is the North Atlantic at the same scale:



    enter image description here



    One might as well ask why it took so long for the Americas or Bermuda to be discovered.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 8





      No, I might not, because the Americas were discovered very early in human history. MUCH earlier.

      – JohnWDailey
      20 hours ago






    • 4





      @JohnWDailey: You confuse populated with discovered. Read about Bering Ice Bridge

      – Pieter Geerkens
      20 hours ago








    • 3





      @PieterGeerkens Don't you mean Bering LAND bridge? And seriously, what is the difference?

      – JohnWDailey
      19 hours ago






    • 7





      @JohnWDailey if there's a bridge, you can walk there. If there were a bridge to the moon, we'd have gotten there long before 1969.

      – Allure
      18 hours ago






    • 34





      To quote Terry Pratchett: "It was mostly unexplored, too*. *At least by proper explorers. Just living there doesn’t count."

      – piet.t
      15 hours ago
















    12














    Because New Zealand is an isolated archipelago a long way from anywhere; and everywhere:



    enter image description here



    Here is the North Atlantic at the same scale:



    enter image description here



    One might as well ask why it took so long for the Americas or Bermuda to be discovered.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 8





      No, I might not, because the Americas were discovered very early in human history. MUCH earlier.

      – JohnWDailey
      20 hours ago






    • 4





      @JohnWDailey: You confuse populated with discovered. Read about Bering Ice Bridge

      – Pieter Geerkens
      20 hours ago








    • 3





      @PieterGeerkens Don't you mean Bering LAND bridge? And seriously, what is the difference?

      – JohnWDailey
      19 hours ago






    • 7





      @JohnWDailey if there's a bridge, you can walk there. If there were a bridge to the moon, we'd have gotten there long before 1969.

      – Allure
      18 hours ago






    • 34





      To quote Terry Pratchett: "It was mostly unexplored, too*. *At least by proper explorers. Just living there doesn’t count."

      – piet.t
      15 hours ago














    12












    12








    12







    Because New Zealand is an isolated archipelago a long way from anywhere; and everywhere:



    enter image description here



    Here is the North Atlantic at the same scale:



    enter image description here



    One might as well ask why it took so long for the Americas or Bermuda to be discovered.






    share|improve this answer













    Because New Zealand is an isolated archipelago a long way from anywhere; and everywhere:



    enter image description here



    Here is the North Atlantic at the same scale:



    enter image description here



    One might as well ask why it took so long for the Americas or Bermuda to be discovered.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 21 hours ago









    Pieter GeerkensPieter Geerkens

    41.3k6118194




    41.3k6118194








    • 8





      No, I might not, because the Americas were discovered very early in human history. MUCH earlier.

      – JohnWDailey
      20 hours ago






    • 4





      @JohnWDailey: You confuse populated with discovered. Read about Bering Ice Bridge

      – Pieter Geerkens
      20 hours ago








    • 3





      @PieterGeerkens Don't you mean Bering LAND bridge? And seriously, what is the difference?

      – JohnWDailey
      19 hours ago






    • 7





      @JohnWDailey if there's a bridge, you can walk there. If there were a bridge to the moon, we'd have gotten there long before 1969.

      – Allure
      18 hours ago






    • 34





      To quote Terry Pratchett: "It was mostly unexplored, too*. *At least by proper explorers. Just living there doesn’t count."

      – piet.t
      15 hours ago














    • 8





      No, I might not, because the Americas were discovered very early in human history. MUCH earlier.

      – JohnWDailey
      20 hours ago






    • 4





      @JohnWDailey: You confuse populated with discovered. Read about Bering Ice Bridge

      – Pieter Geerkens
      20 hours ago








    • 3





      @PieterGeerkens Don't you mean Bering LAND bridge? And seriously, what is the difference?

      – JohnWDailey
      19 hours ago






    • 7





      @JohnWDailey if there's a bridge, you can walk there. If there were a bridge to the moon, we'd have gotten there long before 1969.

      – Allure
      18 hours ago






    • 34





      To quote Terry Pratchett: "It was mostly unexplored, too*. *At least by proper explorers. Just living there doesn’t count."

      – piet.t
      15 hours ago








    8




    8





    No, I might not, because the Americas were discovered very early in human history. MUCH earlier.

    – JohnWDailey
    20 hours ago





    No, I might not, because the Americas were discovered very early in human history. MUCH earlier.

    – JohnWDailey
    20 hours ago




    4




    4





    @JohnWDailey: You confuse populated with discovered. Read about Bering Ice Bridge

    – Pieter Geerkens
    20 hours ago







    @JohnWDailey: You confuse populated with discovered. Read about Bering Ice Bridge

    – Pieter Geerkens
    20 hours ago






    3




    3





    @PieterGeerkens Don't you mean Bering LAND bridge? And seriously, what is the difference?

    – JohnWDailey
    19 hours ago





    @PieterGeerkens Don't you mean Bering LAND bridge? And seriously, what is the difference?

    – JohnWDailey
    19 hours ago




    7




    7





    @JohnWDailey if there's a bridge, you can walk there. If there were a bridge to the moon, we'd have gotten there long before 1969.

    – Allure
    18 hours ago





    @JohnWDailey if there's a bridge, you can walk there. If there were a bridge to the moon, we'd have gotten there long before 1969.

    – Allure
    18 hours ago




    34




    34





    To quote Terry Pratchett: "It was mostly unexplored, too*. *At least by proper explorers. Just living there doesn’t count."

    – piet.t
    15 hours ago





    To quote Terry Pratchett: "It was mostly unexplored, too*. *At least by proper explorers. Just living there doesn’t count."

    – piet.t
    15 hours ago











    5














    You can't just go sailing to nowhere. You need to know where you're going, what you expect to find, and how long it'll take to get there. Imagine for example you're a native on Australia. You look across the sea and don't see anything. If you set off now, how much food should you bring? What if your food spoils? If you find something, you might meet hostile people or animals, so you can't sail alone. You need people, someone to read star charts, keep the ship afloat if there's a storm, and so on.



    You might think this is all fine and you would still make it to New Zealand anyway, but just imagine if you were on the west coast of Australia, with the next major landmass being Antartica to the south. The expedition would not end well! On an atlas it might seem like Madagascar and New Zealand are so close to Africa and Australia, but importantly they're not visible from the coast. You need to infer (based on bird flight, sea currents, etc) that there is something "out there".



    You might be interested in Wikipedia's article on Polynesian navigation. Once you know there's something out there, the prospects of an expedition improve dramatically.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      +1 Imagine leaving Australia in a sailing ship, aiming for New Zealand, missing it, and the next landfall is South America or Antarctica, or bad luck you round Cape Horn and then its Africa. Very worst case, you encounter Australia's west coast.

      – Criggie
      12 hours ago











    • @Criggie Isn't that essentially what happened to Columbus? He thought the world was smaller than it was and thought he'd end much sooner and it was by dumb luck that the Americas were there?

      – Captain Man
      8 hours ago











    • Columbus thought the Atlantic was smaller than it is. He was pretty close to right about the size of the whole world. Further, remember that the Canaries and the Azores had recently been discovered. Columbus expected to find more uncharted land masses along the way a which he could restock his supplies. And in a way, he was right.

      – Ryan_L
      56 mins ago
















    5














    You can't just go sailing to nowhere. You need to know where you're going, what you expect to find, and how long it'll take to get there. Imagine for example you're a native on Australia. You look across the sea and don't see anything. If you set off now, how much food should you bring? What if your food spoils? If you find something, you might meet hostile people or animals, so you can't sail alone. You need people, someone to read star charts, keep the ship afloat if there's a storm, and so on.



    You might think this is all fine and you would still make it to New Zealand anyway, but just imagine if you were on the west coast of Australia, with the next major landmass being Antartica to the south. The expedition would not end well! On an atlas it might seem like Madagascar and New Zealand are so close to Africa and Australia, but importantly they're not visible from the coast. You need to infer (based on bird flight, sea currents, etc) that there is something "out there".



    You might be interested in Wikipedia's article on Polynesian navigation. Once you know there's something out there, the prospects of an expedition improve dramatically.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      +1 Imagine leaving Australia in a sailing ship, aiming for New Zealand, missing it, and the next landfall is South America or Antarctica, or bad luck you round Cape Horn and then its Africa. Very worst case, you encounter Australia's west coast.

      – Criggie
      12 hours ago











    • @Criggie Isn't that essentially what happened to Columbus? He thought the world was smaller than it was and thought he'd end much sooner and it was by dumb luck that the Americas were there?

      – Captain Man
      8 hours ago











    • Columbus thought the Atlantic was smaller than it is. He was pretty close to right about the size of the whole world. Further, remember that the Canaries and the Azores had recently been discovered. Columbus expected to find more uncharted land masses along the way a which he could restock his supplies. And in a way, he was right.

      – Ryan_L
      56 mins ago














    5












    5








    5







    You can't just go sailing to nowhere. You need to know where you're going, what you expect to find, and how long it'll take to get there. Imagine for example you're a native on Australia. You look across the sea and don't see anything. If you set off now, how much food should you bring? What if your food spoils? If you find something, you might meet hostile people or animals, so you can't sail alone. You need people, someone to read star charts, keep the ship afloat if there's a storm, and so on.



    You might think this is all fine and you would still make it to New Zealand anyway, but just imagine if you were on the west coast of Australia, with the next major landmass being Antartica to the south. The expedition would not end well! On an atlas it might seem like Madagascar and New Zealand are so close to Africa and Australia, but importantly they're not visible from the coast. You need to infer (based on bird flight, sea currents, etc) that there is something "out there".



    You might be interested in Wikipedia's article on Polynesian navigation. Once you know there's something out there, the prospects of an expedition improve dramatically.






    share|improve this answer













    You can't just go sailing to nowhere. You need to know where you're going, what you expect to find, and how long it'll take to get there. Imagine for example you're a native on Australia. You look across the sea and don't see anything. If you set off now, how much food should you bring? What if your food spoils? If you find something, you might meet hostile people or animals, so you can't sail alone. You need people, someone to read star charts, keep the ship afloat if there's a storm, and so on.



    You might think this is all fine and you would still make it to New Zealand anyway, but just imagine if you were on the west coast of Australia, with the next major landmass being Antartica to the south. The expedition would not end well! On an atlas it might seem like Madagascar and New Zealand are so close to Africa and Australia, but importantly they're not visible from the coast. You need to infer (based on bird flight, sea currents, etc) that there is something "out there".



    You might be interested in Wikipedia's article on Polynesian navigation. Once you know there's something out there, the prospects of an expedition improve dramatically.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 21 hours ago









    AllureAllure

    2357




    2357








    • 2





      +1 Imagine leaving Australia in a sailing ship, aiming for New Zealand, missing it, and the next landfall is South America or Antarctica, or bad luck you round Cape Horn and then its Africa. Very worst case, you encounter Australia's west coast.

      – Criggie
      12 hours ago











    • @Criggie Isn't that essentially what happened to Columbus? He thought the world was smaller than it was and thought he'd end much sooner and it was by dumb luck that the Americas were there?

      – Captain Man
      8 hours ago











    • Columbus thought the Atlantic was smaller than it is. He was pretty close to right about the size of the whole world. Further, remember that the Canaries and the Azores had recently been discovered. Columbus expected to find more uncharted land masses along the way a which he could restock his supplies. And in a way, he was right.

      – Ryan_L
      56 mins ago














    • 2





      +1 Imagine leaving Australia in a sailing ship, aiming for New Zealand, missing it, and the next landfall is South America or Antarctica, or bad luck you round Cape Horn and then its Africa. Very worst case, you encounter Australia's west coast.

      – Criggie
      12 hours ago











    • @Criggie Isn't that essentially what happened to Columbus? He thought the world was smaller than it was and thought he'd end much sooner and it was by dumb luck that the Americas were there?

      – Captain Man
      8 hours ago











    • Columbus thought the Atlantic was smaller than it is. He was pretty close to right about the size of the whole world. Further, remember that the Canaries and the Azores had recently been discovered. Columbus expected to find more uncharted land masses along the way a which he could restock his supplies. And in a way, he was right.

      – Ryan_L
      56 mins ago








    2




    2





    +1 Imagine leaving Australia in a sailing ship, aiming for New Zealand, missing it, and the next landfall is South America or Antarctica, or bad luck you round Cape Horn and then its Africa. Very worst case, you encounter Australia's west coast.

    – Criggie
    12 hours ago





    +1 Imagine leaving Australia in a sailing ship, aiming for New Zealand, missing it, and the next landfall is South America or Antarctica, or bad luck you round Cape Horn and then its Africa. Very worst case, you encounter Australia's west coast.

    – Criggie
    12 hours ago













    @Criggie Isn't that essentially what happened to Columbus? He thought the world was smaller than it was and thought he'd end much sooner and it was by dumb luck that the Americas were there?

    – Captain Man
    8 hours ago





    @Criggie Isn't that essentially what happened to Columbus? He thought the world was smaller than it was and thought he'd end much sooner and it was by dumb luck that the Americas were there?

    – Captain Man
    8 hours ago













    Columbus thought the Atlantic was smaller than it is. He was pretty close to right about the size of the whole world. Further, remember that the Canaries and the Azores had recently been discovered. Columbus expected to find more uncharted land masses along the way a which he could restock his supplies. And in a way, he was right.

    – Ryan_L
    56 mins ago





    Columbus thought the Atlantic was smaller than it is. He was pretty close to right about the size of the whole world. Further, remember that the Canaries and the Azores had recently been discovered. Columbus expected to find more uncharted land masses along the way a which he could restock his supplies. And in a way, he was right.

    – Ryan_L
    56 mins ago











    0














    If you are exploring on blind you have to:




    1. Trust your navigation skills.

    2. Take supplies for the expected breaktrough three times higher.


    One need to have resources to go to your targeted distance, expecting you find nothing you have to have resources to return succesfully. The third extra is safety roundup. That is quite expensive for very low probability of success.






    share|improve this answer






























      0














      If you are exploring on blind you have to:




      1. Trust your navigation skills.

      2. Take supplies for the expected breaktrough three times higher.


      One need to have resources to go to your targeted distance, expecting you find nothing you have to have resources to return succesfully. The third extra is safety roundup. That is quite expensive for very low probability of success.






      share|improve this answer




























        0












        0








        0







        If you are exploring on blind you have to:




        1. Trust your navigation skills.

        2. Take supplies for the expected breaktrough three times higher.


        One need to have resources to go to your targeted distance, expecting you find nothing you have to have resources to return succesfully. The third extra is safety roundup. That is quite expensive for very low probability of success.






        share|improve this answer















        If you are exploring on blind you have to:




        1. Trust your navigation skills.

        2. Take supplies for the expected breaktrough three times higher.


        One need to have resources to go to your targeted distance, expecting you find nothing you have to have resources to return succesfully. The third extra is safety roundup. That is quite expensive for very low probability of success.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 6 hours ago

























        answered 6 hours ago









        CrowleyCrowley

        1393




        1393






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51809%2fwhy-were-madagascar-and-new-zealand-discovered-so-late%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029