Why Were Madagascar and New Zealand Discovered So Late?Were sermons in the Middle Ages devoted to Old...

Have I saved too much for retirement so far?

How do I repair my stair bannister?

Why Were Madagascar and New Zealand Discovered So Late?

Could solar power be utilized and substitute coal in the 19th century?

For airliners, what prevents wing strikes on landing in bad weather?

What will be the benefits of Brexit?

Is there an Impartial Brexit Deal comparison site?

What do you call the infoboxes with text and sometimes images on the side of a page we find in textbooks?

Organic chemistry Iodoform Reaction

Can a Gentile theist be saved?

Can I create an upright 7-foot × 5-foot wall with the Minor Illusion spell?

Do all polymers contain either carbon or silicon?

No idea how to draw this using tikz

How will losing mobility of one hand affect my career as a programmer?

Java - What do constructor type arguments mean when placed *before* the type?

Can the electrostatic force be infinite in magnitude?

Are Warlocks Arcane or Divine?

Resetting two CD4017 counters simultaneously, only one resets

Proving by induction of n. Is this correct until this point?

Invariance of results when scaling explanatory variables in logistic regression, is there a proof?

What is the term when two people sing in harmony, but they aren't singing the same notes?

Meta programming: Declare a new struct on the fly

Golf game boilerplate

A known event to a history junkie



Why Were Madagascar and New Zealand Discovered So Late?


Were sermons in the Middle Ages devoted to Old Testament or New Testament subjects?Why were even royals in medieval europe living without running water and sewerage?Did the aborigines of Australia and the Maoris in New Zealand know about each other's existence, before the Europeans came?Were children often renamed in late Saxon England?Why are most late medieval fencing manuals German?Housing Materials, Structure and Style in the late Middle Ages in GermanyWhy were the first Universities created?Why were La Réunion and Mauritius uninhabited?Why some languages uses the term “high” to refer to an early period and the world “low” to refer to a late one?How motivated were the Australian, Canadian and NZ soldiers in the British army during the two world wars?













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



























    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

























      3












      3








      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 3 hours ago









      JohnWDaileyJohnWDailey

      199110




      199110






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4














          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 out far out of sight of land. This includes their craft. 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 though requires a whole suite of specialized techniques (often including math) that really can't be developed in societies without 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. 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 Polynesians. 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. So New Zealand wasn't hit upon until about the 13th Century.



          enter image description here



          Native Australians of course were 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

































            0














            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































              0














              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
























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

                – JohnWDailey
                2 hours ago






              • 1





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

                – Pieter Geerkens
                2 hours ago













              • I wonder if it had something to do with climate. Meaning, polynesians didn't like to head that far south.

                – John Dee
                1 hour ago











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

                – JohnWDailey
                1 hour 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
                6 mins ago











              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

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              4














              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 out far out of sight of land. This includes their craft. 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 though requires a whole suite of specialized techniques (often including math) that really can't be developed in societies without 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. 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 Polynesians. 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. So New Zealand wasn't hit upon until about the 13th Century.



              enter image description here



              Native Australians of course were 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






























                4














                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 out far out of sight of land. This includes their craft. 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 though requires a whole suite of specialized techniques (often including math) that really can't be developed in societies without 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. 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 Polynesians. 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. So New Zealand wasn't hit upon until about the 13th Century.



                enter image description here



                Native Australians of course were 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




























                  4












                  4








                  4







                  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 out far out of sight of land. This includes their craft. 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 though requires a whole suite of specialized techniques (often including math) that really can't be developed in societies without 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. 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 Polynesians. 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. So New Zealand wasn't hit upon until about the 13th Century.



                  enter image description here



                  Native Australians of course were 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 out far out of sight of land. This includes their craft. 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 though requires a whole suite of specialized techniques (often including math) that really can't be developed in societies without 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. 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 Polynesians. 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. So New Zealand wasn't hit upon until about the 13th Century.



                  enter image description here



                  Native Australians of course were 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 1 hour ago

























                  answered 2 hours ago









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

                  76.6k10171314




                  76.6k10171314























                      0














                      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




























                        0














                        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


























                          0












                          0








                          0







                          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 2 hours ago









                          AllureAllure

                          1826




                          1826























                              0














                              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
























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

                                – JohnWDailey
                                2 hours ago






                              • 1





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

                                – Pieter Geerkens
                                2 hours ago













                              • I wonder if it had something to do with climate. Meaning, polynesians didn't like to head that far south.

                                – John Dee
                                1 hour ago











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

                                – JohnWDailey
                                1 hour 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
                                6 mins ago
















                              0














                              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
























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

                                – JohnWDailey
                                2 hours ago






                              • 1





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

                                – Pieter Geerkens
                                2 hours ago













                              • I wonder if it had something to do with climate. Meaning, polynesians didn't like to head that far south.

                                – John Dee
                                1 hour ago











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

                                – JohnWDailey
                                1 hour 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
                                6 mins ago














                              0












                              0








                              0







                              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 2 hours ago









                              Pieter GeerkensPieter Geerkens

                              41.2k6118193




                              41.2k6118193













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

                                – JohnWDailey
                                2 hours ago






                              • 1





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

                                – Pieter Geerkens
                                2 hours ago













                              • I wonder if it had something to do with climate. Meaning, polynesians didn't like to head that far south.

                                – John Dee
                                1 hour ago











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

                                – JohnWDailey
                                1 hour 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
                                6 mins ago



















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

                                – JohnWDailey
                                2 hours ago






                              • 1





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

                                – Pieter Geerkens
                                2 hours ago













                              • I wonder if it had something to do with climate. Meaning, polynesians didn't like to head that far south.

                                – John Dee
                                1 hour ago











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

                                – JohnWDailey
                                1 hour 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
                                6 mins ago

















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

                              – JohnWDailey
                              2 hours ago





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

                              – JohnWDailey
                              2 hours ago




                              1




                              1





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

                              – Pieter Geerkens
                              2 hours ago







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

                              – Pieter Geerkens
                              2 hours ago















                              I wonder if it had something to do with climate. Meaning, polynesians didn't like to head that far south.

                              – John Dee
                              1 hour ago





                              I wonder if it had something to do with climate. Meaning, polynesians didn't like to head that far south.

                              – John Dee
                              1 hour ago













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

                              – JohnWDailey
                              1 hour ago





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

                              – JohnWDailey
                              1 hour 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
                              6 mins 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
                              6 mins ago


















                              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

                              As a Security Precaution, the user account has been locked The Next CEO of Stack OverflowMS...

                              Українські прізвища Зміст Історичні відомості |...

                              Список ссавців Італії Природоохоронні статуси | Список |...