# Prehistoric Migration



## Laurence (Feb 25, 2015)

I'm currently building my world from start to finish, country by country. 

A couple of my main countries originate from islands. I've written how they came to leave their islands and end up on the continent of my story (equivalent to 1000BC technology at this stage.)

My question is, if these people had migrated to these islands from the original source of humans (somewhere on the main continent) 10,000 years prior to this, then would it make sense that they would have no idea what lay beyond the sea all these years? Or do you think they're more likely to have kept contact with the mainland throughout this time? The sea crossing would be about 100miles between each land mass. I'm open to suggestion though. 

Another question: when these civilisations do eventually get back to the mainland for whatever reason, assuming they're peacefully accepted by the current mainland civilisations, how would they have interacted despite language barriers? Can you guys think of any real life equivalents I could research?

Thanks!


----------



## CupofJoe (Feb 25, 2015)

100 miles of sea is not too much...
I would guess that once a journey has been made, it will be made again and again... as long as there is a need... The links between two disparate groups maybe fairly well established... They maybe not frequent journeys but they would be known... Such useful knowledge is not usually lost. It may be corrupted and misunderstood, become myth and legend but it is still there.


----------



## Terry Greer (Feb 25, 2015)

Yea 100 miles isn't a lot - if you read how Polynesians navigated the open pacific with simple tools and the stars it's quite an eye opener. They knew that if they sailed north or south until a particuar star was just visible the horizon at night (one that corresponded to the latitude that the destination was on), then all they had to do then was know if it was east or west and then go in the required direction. Beautiful Simplicity!

Having said that captains couldn't read longitude without an accurate timekeeping device, so until relatively recently most voyages with larger ships were made within sight of land. This was mainly because of the risk of hidden reefs - on which larger vessels could run aground. Roman and greek ships fit this category and even in the med tended to stay close to land. On a journey to england they wouldn't have cut across the bay of Biscay unless they felt the risk warranted it. Smaller and more shallow drafted boats didn't suffer this so much - but couldn't handle the open sea as well as the larger ships.

How rough the sea is important - the pacific is relatively calm compared to the Atlantic and north sea, and polynesian boats were small. However viking raiders made it across the north sea from scandinavia - and to the Americas. 

Forgetting where they were originally from could happen - it would take many generations - and even then the memory would likely enter myth.


----------



## Laurence (Feb 25, 2015)

Thanks guys. I hadn't put much thought in to the distance between the islands/mainland. I think I'll go for 1000 miles between my two islands and around 2000 miles between them and the mainland. Baring in mind this is quite choppy sea.

I figured that prehistorically there was a land bridge joining my mainland and islands which was hidden by rising sea levels. This would also help because it would mean that when the civilisations eventually met again, their languages would have the same roots, making it more plausible for them to meet peacefully when they do. 

Also, does anybody know of any examples, in real life or novel, where a whole civilisation of up to 100,000 people has had to evacuate an island on boats? Preferably between say, 2000BC and 1000AD. Even better if that civilisation had never travelled this distance across ocean before.


----------



## X Equestris (Feb 25, 2015)

Laurence said:


> Thanks guys. I hadn't put much thought in to the distance between the islands/mainland. I think I'll go for 1000 miles between my two islands and around 2000 miles between them and the mainland. Baring in mind this is quite choppy sea.
> 
> I figured that prehistorically there was a land bridge joining my mainland and islands which was hidden by rising sea levels. This would also help because it would mean that when the civilisations eventually met again, their languages would have the same roots, making it more plausible for them to meet peacefully when they do.
> 
> Also, does anybody know of any examples, in real life or novel, where a whole civilisation of up to 100,000 people has had to evacuate an island on boats? Preferably between say, 2000BC and 1000AD. Even better if that civilisation had never travelled this distance across ocean before.



It's not from an island, but there is the case of the "Sea Peoples".

Sea Peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Laurence (Feb 26, 2015)

Great read - thanks!

Does anyone know of any civilisations that have helped other civilisations set up new countries?


----------



## CupofJoe (Feb 26, 2015)

Laurence said:


> Does anyone know of any civilisations that have helped other civilisations set up new countries?


Most of Western Europe [Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Holland and probably others...], but they called it colonisation and I'm not to sure the recipients would have said that it "helped".
I'm not an authority, but I'd look at the Vandals who seem to have started in Poland [?] and at least some of them ended up in Spain and founding a kingdom in North Africa...


----------



## Laurence (Feb 26, 2015)

Thanks Joe!

Here are the specifics:

I have a civilisation who have to leave their island for whatever reason and luckily they stumble across a wealthy but kind nation who agree to set them up in their own bit of land (which the wealthy nation didn't want for reasons undisclosed).

The country who have fled their island do not have any materials/few livestock and would need a lot of help. Are there any cases of genuine help with no ill will like this?


----------



## CupofJoe (Feb 26, 2015)

Nations rarely and without a very good reason give up territory that they want. I could see that someone might be owed to settle on a few barren rock or in worthless marshland...
The only real-world things I can think of and they don't really fit are how Native American Nations were treated by the US... given new land elsewhere [usually further west] to clear other land for "settlers" [back east]. My apologies to any Americans of any origin if I am misremember or misrepresenting what happened...
And how Israel was founded, by a few countries [British, French and American? and other?] carving up someone else's land to make room for a new nation.
Honestly I can't help but think that any nation would see 100,000 people suddenly appearing on its borders [no matter their state or attitude or the reason for them arriving] as anything but a threat to the host nation's security and stability... look at how Lebanon has had to deal with that many and more Syrian refugees. It has crippled their economy and caused I don't know what kind of problems as well...
And the effects don't have to be real... they have to be believed by the populous...
All that said... This is Fantasy so you can pretty much make whatever you want happen... as long as you can make it believable... "Real World" can be sooooo boring...


----------



## Russ (Feb 26, 2015)

Not really set up other countries but...it is worth taking a long hard look at how migrating people's were dealt with in the late Roman empire.

The empire was plagued by all sort of nations on the move, and developed many ways of dealing with them.  Sometimes they would fend them off, sometimes invite some of them in, or some they would let pass through in the hope they would keep going to settle somewhere else.  Sometimes it worked as planned, often it did not. 

I think the Romans intentionally settled some tribes in one area of the empire that had previously been depopulated by war and famine.  It might have been Aquilia but I can't quite recall.

Some empires have settled people in an area that is empty to create a buffer between them and other hostile nations.  It was self-interest but similar to what you are talking about.  Modern Austria may have gotten started that way.

But I think for what you are discussing it is worth a look at.

I am sure there are other examples but they are just not springing to mind.


----------



## X Equestris (Feb 26, 2015)

Laurence said:


> Thanks Joe!
> 
> Here are the specifics:
> 
> ...



Rome settled various tribes within or next to its borders at various points in its history, typically to create a buffer zone.  I don't think there is any civilization that is going to give up land to a new people who showed up on their borders out of the kindness of their heart.  You can change that in your story, if you can make it believable.


----------



## Laurence (Feb 26, 2015)

The whole 'buffer country' thing is actually similar to what I'd planned (although my world just happens to also be filled with people who are generally slightly kinder and more logical than the real world. I.e there's no large scale racism/sexism/homophobia) The wealthy country wants allies and tells the refugees to move 'next door' in a land which is fine but contains some slightly suspicious activities. This turns out to be the work of one of my magical races that no one knows about at this point. 

Thanks a lot for the help, guys. I'll get back to you once I've researched all your suggestions!


----------



## ThinkerX (Feb 27, 2015)

> I have a civilisation who have to leave their island for whatever reason and luckily they stumble across a wealthy but kind nation who agree to set them up in their own bit of land (which the wealthy nation didn't want for reasons undisclosed).



Closest I can think off hand - except its almost the opposite case - is forced resettlement:  Country A conquers country B and then disperses country B's populace far and wide.  (Happened with ancient Israel during the exile period).

In your specific case, most realistic way it could happen was your city wanted a client state at that location for reasons of their own, but didn't want to do it themselves - internal factionalism, perhaps.  Maybe there is a external threat of some sort, and your kindly city elders want the newcomers to take the brunt of it first.  Either way, though, they'd make dang sure to remind your refugees who was in charge.  

One other possibility with a bloody real world parallel: the prophecy.  The old line conquistadors were greatly assisted in their conquest of the Aztecs because of a prophecy predicting the return of the feathered serpent and his pale messengers (more or less).    Perhaps there is a similar prophecy known to the denizens of your kindly city.


----------



## Saigonnus (Feb 28, 2015)

Another possibility is that they chose a point further north or south when they settled on the mainland in an area near to the existing country, but on piece of land hasn't yet been settled by them and incorporated into their kingdom. Sometimes progress in this area is slow, maybe it wasn't particular fertile and though they survived, life was hard and soon they began migrating in small numbers to the kingdom, that might account for the population eventually becoming part of the kingdom without having 100 thousand people just showing up. 

Along the same lines is the concept that they found their own kingdom that was later absorbed into the empire, either for economic, societal or cultural reasons. Perhaps it takes a thousand years of trading and interaction between the two cultures for this to happen, but it wouldn't happen overnight in most cases anyway.


----------



## AggieCowboy (Mar 1, 2015)

A modern day example to look at are the Maldives. With rising sea levels, the island nation is disappearing, so it has been buying land in Australia in the event of a mass exodus from the islands becomes a necessity.


----------



## arbiter117 (Mar 2, 2015)

2 huge factors you should think of: Latitude of countries and east-west length of continents. There's a big theory on why:

Plants and animals have specific needs for sunlight, temperature, seasons, etc... this allows migration of plants and animals to other locations. History says most domesticated animals and plants come from East-Southeast Asia and Middle East (chickens etc...) and these animals were able to migrate with the people to Europe. Same goes for plants.

"Long" continents, such as Eurasia, will have very long tracts of land in the same latitude, allowing easy movement of people, plants, and animals without worrying for climates. These two factors allow for easy trade and travel, because as civilization develops, people will be able to herd their animals across great distances to go live somewhere else, without worrying if their livestock will die. The free trade and movement leads to an extreme growth in civilizations, economies, philosophies and exchange of diseases, and war of course.

Contrast this with the Americas (north-south orientation). Using this bit of knowledge, we can see how civilizations developed, but were highly isolated. There was no contact between North American tribes-Aztecs-Inca. Plant life and animals did not migrate either, creating very unique diets, economies, etc... and these people were not exposed to many diseases, they hardly domesticated animals because there was no need to travel/trade with foreign economies, because there weren't any.

EDIT: This is a major factor in the development of Western culture and science. The Chinese or Indians invented the stuff and traded with the Middle East and Europe via Silk Road, the Middle East would refine this tech to suit their needs, then would get in numerous wars with the West. Then the West discovered algebra and the number 0 from the Middle East.


----------



## arbiter117 (Mar 2, 2015)

Note that the above does not take into account mountain ranges, rivers, or islands. These all present their own problems. Rivers are very often highly fertile areas and water is a necessity for people as well. Thus many early civilizations (often becoming powerful and stable) began in fertile river valleys (Fertile Crescent, Nile, Indus, Ganges, Mississippi, Jordan, etc...). Rivers were among the best trade routes in ancient times, allowing certain civilizations to grow along its length (Egypt) regardless of latitude and potential climate change. Then of course the civilization grows as they irrigate the land and build aqueducts.

Mountains will have a windward and leeward side, meaning one side will get most of the rain and be fertile, and the other side will receive little to no rain, resulting in a desert (Think Atacama-Andes-Amazon). No one wants to cross mountains unless there is a natural path through them. Nobody wants to live in a desert unless they can reliably get food, water and shelter. Thus deserts were often barren of human settlement in early history.

Mountains also became natural barriers between civilizations. India is surrounded on all landward sides by mountains, allowing India to grow with fewer immigration problems than say...Rome.


----------



## arbiter117 (Mar 2, 2015)

For oceans, you should think of water and wind currents and if/how they change over seasons, and what weather patterns they create. Arctic water from the north doesn't do anything other than cold beaches and fog. Warm water and wind results in warmer beaches and tropical storms/hurricanes. But that's not what's important.

These currents will help or hinder sea travel. For example, if you use an average Phoenician trading boat and start your sea journey from Oman/Yemen, you can get to the United States following the wind and waves down the coast of Africa, then up the western coast of Africa, then straight across the Atlantic to the Caribbean within 150 days.

If you try going the opposite direction (up current toward India, up current around India, up current around Thailand, then with the current up and around the Pacific Ocean) you can get to Canada/USA in two years or more. The Polynesians reportedly could read the wind and waves to know where islands were, and could use this to their advantage.

Everything that serves to isolate a civilization from another (whether ocean, mountain, or distance) will lead to alterations in language and culture over time. Extreme isolation can lead to the loss of knowledge/technology.

OK I'm done.   I'm no history or civilization buff, but that's what I remember from my Early World History class.


----------

