People in Iran deciding to keep walking to Australia before settling India is pretty funny.
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
147 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13954 readers
705 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Anywhere is walking distance if you've got the time
I suspect a lot of this was just tribes breaking off into smaller tribes for whatever reason and then hiking like 20-100 miles down a river cuz fuck living next to your in-laws!
Leftist infighting is simply human nature
Not a bad alt-history idea, what if most of humanity stayed put in Africa, save for a isolated nomadic tribes, and central Africa just became this densely populated ancient mega civilization?
There was a 20,000 year old bone found in Africa with markings that suggest relatively complex math being used
I dont doubt that there wasnt an Einstein living in the pre-stone age but damn its crazy to think that some cave man didnt just predict where the sun was going to perfectly shine downward or some shit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
or one tribe doing well and needing more land, so they split and some of the kids move 20-30km over. do that for generations and you can cover the earth pretty quick, especially along coastlines
Before NIMBYs decided to end the ice age we had a walkable planet.
Wait, how did they do that before cars??????
these are the people who INVENTED the wheel
"damn this place sucks let's keep going"
Hitting Tierra del Fuego:
"Shit."
I would walk 500 miles and I would walk 500 more, and so on and so forth 
Some people also went to Lemuria.
"humans reach Australia before Europe" amen brother
We all have that one friend who's like "don't worry, I think it's just another couple blocks."
Hey im just heading out for a snack see you in bout 150000 years
yeah.....i'm known to get a little bipedal with it now and then
Yall mind if a white boy speaks a little proto indo European?
Eyyyy I'm walkin' ovah heeeeaaaa
15000 year city
I totally get it. Walking to new spots is fun
The search for treats never ends.
Are we there yet?
Shut up back there, don't make me pull over this toboggan, I swear to god!
>Crossing the Amazon basin
>Gets slapped
>"That's it! Back to Winnipeg"
Australia had people before western Africa?!
I'm more surprised that the Maori only arrived in New Zealand like a 1000 years ago.
They had to come pretty far and it required quite sophisticated maritime technology
I always compartmentalised the Polynesian triangle expansion as somewhere around 0-400 AD for some reason.
New Zeeland being settled for a shorter time than Iceland just seems strange to me.
There's smaller hops from island to island and the distance is shorter, e.g. here is NZ if it was in the northern hemisphere with the same distance from NZ - Australia depicted as NZ - Scotland
I understand why, but I think of Iceland as a recent venture (relatively speaking). It is a bit like having to recalibrate that Rome never conquered the highlands of Sardinia. There were just guys up there intermittently raiding their settlements for 1000 years.
wait what, really? OH MY GOD COOL, eternal guerillas resisting the great satan?
i think they had an early expansion and then the big one, no?
Around the same time Vikings settled Iceland.
I think a lot of these are very conservative estimates, like the oldest date there is hard evidence for. Like with the coastal travel to the Americas bit, there's a growing body of evidence that would put that at closer to 30 or 40 thousand years ago just because there are sites in the Americas that seem to be that old and "coastal boats" are the best theory since the land bridge was blocked by ice sheets, which would necessarily push back several earlier points in that chain too.
I think the red arrow show people arriving 5,000 years earlier to West Africa than Australia? hard to say, there's no explanation for the yellow numbers, maybe they were cut off with the Americas.
Most of the old world probably already had hominids of one type of another, and for example there was a 210,000 year old homo sapiens skull found in Greece, but we already really know about the successful migrations where humans were able to survive long enough to make a mark - which would have been more likely to occur where there weren't any hominids already (like Australia)
Wanderlust is how we spread out the gene pool
There were multiple waves so it gets a bit more complex. Also the Americas were inhabited earlier than this says.
no more half measures walter
No more have measures walker
I tought pacific peoples (maybe not Melanesians but definitely Hawaiians and Maori) are descended from people that migrated from Taiwan thousands of years ago, ie they're related culturally and genetically to indigenous Taiwanese peoples, and not to for example Papuan or indigenous Australian peoples
You are right, but indigenous Australians are completely unrelated to Austronesian people (the descendants of indigenous Taiwanese who cover an area from Madagascar to Rapa Nui). Papua New Guinea is a mosaic of Papuans who arrived tens of thousands of years ago and Austronesian "Melanesians" that arrived much later and usually live along the coast.
So was Kon Tiki just kinda bunk science or?
Apparently even at the time the kon-tiki expedition was largely regarded as racist pseudoscience. Heyerdahl made a simple raft when Austronesian people have sophisticated outrigger canoes and refused to accept the common knowledge of the day because he said they were "too primitive" to sail into the wind.
Edit: he also hypothesised colonisation by a white, blonde, blue-eyed people rather than. Y'know. Polynesians. Because he believed only white people could be capable of such a feat.
Got it, just to be clear I read Kon-Tiki in 8th grade and hadn’t followed up on my knowledge since, I didn’t realize it was racist pseudoscience (but in hindsight I totally see that)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›