Archaeologists Offer a Practical Guide to Colonizing Other Worlds

A group of archaeologists has taken a surprisingly grounded approach to understanding how humanity might one day settle other planets. Instead of focusing only on rockets, habitats, and propulsion systems, they looked backward—specifically at how early humans expanded across the Pacific’s vast island networks. Their new study applies those archaeological insights to the future of space colonization, offering eight detailed lessons that could shape how we build and sustain off-world communities. The work appears in Acta Astronautica and was conducted by Thomas Leppard and his colleagues at the International Archaeological Research Institute.

Their main idea is simple: human migration patterns in the past can shed light on how we should approach colonizing distant worlds. While tomorrow’s colonies will be far more technologically advanced than ancient Polynesian voyaging canoes, humans still carry the same biological, cultural, and social needs. Understanding those needs is essential for planning settlements that thrive rather than collapse.

Below is a straightforward breakdown of every major point from the research, along with additional context that helps expand the picture.

Why Distance Matters for Off-World Survival

The first major lesson from island archaeology is that distance from the home population is critical. Throughout human history, the most successful island colonies were the ones close enough to receive help—whether in the form of resources, new settlers, or cultural continuity. Too much distance increases risk because struggling colonies may be unable to receive support in time.

The same principle applies to space. A Mars settlement, for example, benefits from relatively short supply windows. A colony orbiting another star does not. The authors argue that physical separation makes a colony vulnerable unless it can maintain some form of regular interaction or at least information flow with its source population. Even slow data exchanges are better than complete isolation.

Why the Size of a Planet or Moon Influences Colony Success

The study’s second lesson is just as straightforward: larger worlds generally offer better odds of long-term survival. Bigger environments tend to contain more varied resources and more locations suitable for different kinds of activities. Islands with more land historically supported larger populations, greater diversity, and stronger resilience.

But the researchers also point out that space adds new constraints. A world can be too large or too massive, such as a gas giant, which humans could never stand on. So the “bigger is better” rule applies only within a realistic range of gravity and environmental conditions.

The Advantage of Colonizing Worlds in Groups

The third lesson highlights the value of what the authors call an archipelagic configuration. Colonies do far better when they exist in clusters rather than as one isolated outpost. Networks of settlements—like multiple bases on moons, asteroids, or orbital habitats—provide backup options. If one colony suffers a disaster, people can evacuate or receive aid from others.

This offers a clear rebuttal to the idea of a single pioneering Mars settlement. Instead, the researchers imagine something more like the Jovian system, where several moons sit close together. In that kind of environment, colonies can share materials, talent, energy, and technology.

Why Resource Distribution Must Be Handled Carefully

Historical island communities often struggled when resources were unevenly distributed. According to the study, clusters of valuable resources can lead to severe inequality, eventually threatening political and social stability. A colony that is completely cut off from its source population is especially vulnerable to these internal divides.

This problem is even more pronounced in space. If a vital resource—such as water ice or a rare mineral—is found only in a few locations, competition and conflict could escalate unless managed carefully. The researchers suggest planning early to avoid concentration of power in resource-rich areas.

The Importance of Having Enough People

One of the most practical questions in space colonization is population size. Numerous studies over the years have suggested everything from a few dozen to several thousand people as the minimum starting point. Leppard and his co-authors argue that at least 1,000 settlers would be necessary to ensure long-term genetic health and social stability.

A larger population naturally means more genetic diversity, more skill diversity, and more resilience when facing challenges. The ideal size, the authors note, is “as large as possible within technological-ecological limits.” In other words: bring as many people as your ships and life-support systems can handle safely.

Keeping Colonies Connected

Another major insight is that colonies should never sever their ties with their world of origin or with each other. Human cultures thrive on exchange—of ideas, technologies, beliefs, knowledge systems, and people. Maintaining these flows is essential.

Of course, communication becomes a challenge as distance increases. Interstellar colonies cannot share physical goods easily, but they can still exchange information. That exchange alone can help keep cultures dynamic and prevent stagnation.

Why Colonies Should Create More Colonies

Lesson seven is surprisingly counterintuitive: instead of focusing only on survival, a successful colony should eventually launch its own colonizing missions. Historically, this prevented island populations from hitting a resource limit that would lead to conflict or collapse. Building daughter colonies also creates new partners for trade, cooperation, and mutual support.

The researchers argue that off-world settlements would benefit from the same branching structure—expanding outward in waves rather than stopping with a single destination.

Protecting Physical and Ecological Systems

Even though many future colony sites—such as Mars—may have no ecosystem at all, the authors caution that their physical systems still need protection. Planetary environments are interconnected in ways we do not fully understand. Attempting large-scale changes too early, such as rapid terraforming, could backfire.

The safest approach is to maintain existing conditions as much as possible, especially in the early years, until we fully understand how different elements of an environment interact.

Best Potential Worlds for Colonization

Based on the eight archaeological lessons, the authors identify a few promising targets:

Mars, for its relative closeness and manageable conditions.
The Jovian moons, which offer clustered environments with abundant resources.
The exoplanetary system around GJ 1061, about 12 light-years away, with three planets in or near the habitable zone.
Barnard’s Star and GJ 887, which are closer but contain planets less suitable for long-term settlement due to harsh surface conditions.

Interestingly, the paper does not focus much on colonizing the Moon or constructing massive orbital habitats—two popular topics in space-settlement discussions. The authors acknowledge the limitation, noting that space allows for the creation of entirely artificial “islands,” something with no true equivalent in Earth’s history.

Additional Background: Why Archaeology Helps in Space Planning

Using archaeology to study space colonization may seem unusual, but humans have repeatedly shown patterns in how they explore, settle, and adapt to new environments. Archaeology helps us understand:

how communities respond to resource scarcity
why some settlements collapse while others flourish
what role culture plays in survival
how interconnected networks boost resilience
the minimum conditions needed for long-term habitation

These insights are not technological—they are human. And because humans will remain human no matter where we live, they’re directly applicable to planning off-world life.

Research Paper:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.10.053