3 ms·
In order to establish something to be inhabited, you need some kind of evidence, not just presumption. In addition, there are many islands that are not large e
by mc32 4y ago
In order to establish something to be inhabited, you need some kind of evidence, not just presumption. In addition, there are many islands that are not large enough to sustain any kind of lived-in habitation -or may be barren or lack fresh water. Stopping over to repair a canoe is not inhabiting some place. At the minimum an inhabited island would need enough resources to sustain a family, more likely an extended family and perhaps a settlement to be long-term inhabitable.
- p0pcult 4y agoThe presumption applies to the navigational techniques, not the inhabitance. As your own pull quote states, the inhabitance is a thing that archaeologists have determined, not presumed. Also: where is the hyperbole?
- mc32 4y agoThat is a claim not a fact. The hyperbola is "even the remotest island in the Pacific was inhabited". Surely many were, but they exaggerate and imply by virtue of relative position that even the remotest island was inhabited --that is very unlikely. What is the remotest island in the Pacific if I'm on an Aleutian island, vs Micronesia, vs Indonesia, etc...