Post

First Nations people in Australia

Up until recently the Azores didn’t have any evidence of human habitation prior to the 1400’s, but there is some evidence in lakebed soil that there may have been a Norse settlement of some kind on the island of Pico in the 700’s. They were uninhabited when the Portuguese got there 700 years later

Iceland

Pitcairn Island

How far back do you want to go? www.ibe.upf-csic.es/news/-/asset...

British settlers in the Falklands

Madagascar

The white people in areas of the Americas that were uninhabitable prior to air conditioning

Given that human history goes back further in Africa than anywhere else I’d wager the Pygmy groups were several waves in

In fact there are good genetic and cultural reasons why people might prefer to marry outsiders with different resources and knowledge. "This is our land we don't want your sisters" said no prehistoric people ever

I think I've seen that argument for the San in the Kalahari? Although when you think of it everyone in Africa probably moved around quite a bit You probably have a better case with more recently-settled areas, like the tip of South America, Tasmania, or Polynesian islands

We are all out of Africa. Human history is the history of migration.

maybe some Inuit groups?

Haha

But overall yeah: the only places that don't have a history of displacement were island Archipelagos that were terra nullis until colonization (e.g. Azores, Madeira, Cabo Verde)

NZ - Māori people

Oh, no way, the Basque are several population turnovers since the first people who lived there. They are non-Indo European but definitely displaced the EEF population (who themselves displaced the WHG population, who probably weren't even the ones to first displace the Neanderthals...)

I think the idea of counting cultural continuity instead of genetic continuity is to avoid claiming continuity where pre-existing peoples were subject to y-chromosomal (but not x-chromosomal) extinction by a different arriving group.

Andaman Islands?

Pitcairn Island (huge bummer of a footnote for this one). Iceland, most of Polynesia. Aboriginal Australians (at least some, as I understand it).

I can't find the source now, but I remember reading that the genetic evidence of modern humans indicate that European populations experienced seven population replacements. Depending on your definition of human, Europe has been colonized by people on and off for almost 2 million years

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1...

I was originally going to say the Falklands but it seems like the French beat out the British by a year. 😂 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklan...

Hell

*citation needed

Yeah - someone asked for a cite and when I looked deeper every study I had seen previously was debunked. Was going to write earlier this AM to correct myself but was distracted by my puppy.

@ryanlcooper.com can't see the bluesky post but yea I assume that's impossible. makes the libertarian argument re property rights basically bullshit. somebody took it by force or there was a dispute re the first enclosure.

Faulklanders.

I’ve been thinking lately that one of the most important lessons of history is tough shit

I mean even in the Americas it breaks down. The Iroquois were not living in that area for thousands of years, it had turn over before that

…many of the people who are using “indigenous” as shorthand for “the good guys” seem to be putting a left-wing coat of paint over “blood and soil.”

Pre-Clovis Americans. Plenty of evidence of human activity 20-25 thousand years ago. Most were wiped out in the Berengian expansion. There are a couple of tribes in South America whose closest DNA is with Andaman Islanders. They were very likely the first.

And within the America’s any indigenous person can claim residency in the continent back to 13000 bce *at least* but there are probably few if any particular tribes/nations that have been in the same spot the whole time

The ISS. Iceland. Beyond that it depends what you mean by “occupied”

Heritage Americans, of course, from Alabama (Alibamu), Alaska (Aleut), Arizona (O’odham), Arkansas (Algonquian), Connecticut (Algonquian), llinois (Algonquian), Iowa (ayúxba), Kansas (Kansa (Kaw), Kentucky (Iroquoian), and Massachusetts.

that's a good question, I don't know the status quo there

People still talk about it but it's been largely abandoned, especially since all the early dates (~300-500 CE) have been discredited. If there was more than one group then they came very close in time (within 200 years, 800–1000 ya) so it's not clear you could even call them different peoples.

Yeah a great deal of the islands of the Pacific would qualify due to having been settled quite recently on the scale of human history. Even New Zealand wasn't settled until circa 1300.

Specifically the island of Ni'ihau

Most of the mid-Atlantic Islands: Iceland, Faroes, Azores, Bermuda, Madeira, Ascension , St Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Falklands, a few others

Western Africa, and only certain regions and cultures. Probably goes for most of Africa, really

Bet there were a few waves between Clovis culture at 13000 bce & Pueblo Skimming Wikipedia: they show up as a discreet culture in the Common Era, with connections to the Mogollon & Hohokam people who only go back to around 1500 bce. That leaves 10000 years post-Clovis unaccounted for!

Maori

Also Madagascar iirc.

They interbred with Denisovans (probably in Asia). But on the Homo sapiens side it’s ambiguous whether they (and Papuans) are entirely East Asian, but had genetic drift from a population bottleneck, or whether a small component (c. 1/8?) of their ancestry is from an earlier group.

In ~50,000 years of habitation it’s hard to imagine anyone is left living in the same location their migratory ancestors originally settled. All it takes is two waves of cultural expansion, and we know there was at least one because of widespread language similarity.

Iceland (Irish monks don't count) Azores Various Pacific islands Space?

Western Greenland

Arguably the Karuk of the mid-Klamath. Their neighbors were primarily peoples of the Algonquian or Athabaskan language groups. Karuk is clearly distinct, and their own traditions say they were here when the other folks showed up. www.karuk.us

Sentinel Island?

The Sentinel Islanders.

Being able to answer this question is at the heart of native title in Australia

oh whoops nope, failed dutch colony (with african slaves) prior to the successful french colony (with etc)

The San peoples maybe being the best answer to this question, assuming where they are now is where they were back then

Like the linguistic evidence puts the arrival as late as 1500 (though possibly as early as 1000, and obviously different groups) so it is entirely possible that the same Yavapai dude might have seen the Apache show up when he was a kid and the Spaniards show up when he was an old man

if anything I’d say the fact that humans originated in Africa makes it the *least* likely place where this would be true

100K+ years is a loooong time, I’d wager in any *sub-continental* area there’d have been multiple climate change cycles, dozens of epidemics sweeping through & so many conflicts such that no group of people alive today can trace their lineage back to a specific region more than like 10K years

Just my intuition here but I think given how long humans have been around & our propensity for moving around that there’s probably no one alive today in roughly the same location as any direct ancestors were 20K+ years ago, except on a continental scale

All of Eastern Polynesia really

The Māori are the largest population. The folks on the Falklands, too, I think?

I think the Saami could. I'm sure there are others, positive. And in some cases, like with the first iron age people of the British isles, the original inhabitants were mostly gone. There aren't really people genetically descended from the people who built stonehenge.

The northwest of the Netherlands, I suppose Also Madagascar, if I remember correctly

My hang up is always “which line?” Go back even ten generations and we each have over 1,000 individuals that we’re descended from. The list of places where that group of 1K+ ancestors is likely to be fairly homogeneous has shrunk considerably in the last 600ish years.

for Europe it’s probably the Sámi

Which is kinda wild because the Māori got to New Zealand in like 1300 ce

Lapps or Sami people?

Falkland Britons

That is not a thing

a lot of our ideas of sedentary permanent habitation come from feudalism. "i own this land and i always have"

To further caveat my statement, perhaps I misunderstood “unbroken”. Does that mean also not further colonized, in addition to e.g. diaspora groups “returning” to an area their ancestors existed in?

which is why i said it depends on what he means by "area" and that if he means country borders it's a totally different thing

the question didn't actually mention either of those rights, and it's extremely unclear why the legal concept of ownership of land would be relevant to those rights

Like the tribes along the Pacific Northwest coast who didn’t have to deliberately farm anything to have their nutritional needs met, the fish & foragable fruits & vegetables were so abundant

I would further take that cultural connection over generations is thin. My cultural connection to my grandmothers Mennonite upbringing is non-existent. To my grandfathers Catholic upbringing- minimal. My Liberal tolerance for cultural diversity is unimaginable to (some of) my grandparents.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams was a pretty fantastic little film that drove this home. There was clear cultural continuity over periods of tens of thousands of years but eventually things drastically changed

My understanding is that there was a first wave of human migration that got decimated by a supervolcano eruption (about 80k years ago), leaving scattered pockets of survivors who migrated back into depopulated areas.

the pikmin

Atlantis.

African countries?

I would think Iceland has a pretty good claim to that.

The Ainu of Hokkaido?

Veddas (Wanniyala-Aetto) in Sri Lanka

Indigenous Australians, of course.

Plausibly some Native Americans, but it's hard to be sure which. Clearly sometimes one group of Am Indians displaced another. But the linguistic or archaeological evidence doesn't show anything on the scale of the Indo-European or Bantu expansions (within the Americas)