1
   

New doubts that Cook discovered Australia

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 04:35 pm
cool. Thanks.I like reading this. Im amazingly ignorant of the peopling of that huge tract of land.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 05:48 pm
farmerman wrote:
cool. Thanks.I like reading this. Im amazingly ignorant of the peopling of that huge tract of land.


Without wishing it to be a put down and knowing it is a generalisation...
this is not uncommon for Americans. Thanks for being interested enough to make enquiries.
Our rocks are older than your rocks nya nya nyaaaaa! :wink:

An American tourist in my local supermarket could not understand why they would not accept American money (real notes not an electronic transaction).
She apparently had the idea that the staff were being racist by saying her greenbacks were no good here.

On aboriginal occupation in Australia.
Many aboriginal Australians when asked about this subject will tell you...... "Always". "Always" has a cultural concept/meaning which is hard for Europeans to grasp. Others will say since the "Dreamtime" or "the land is the mother". All these things have meanings centred on a concept of the land giving birth over a period of time. It is sufficient for an aboriginal to say "always" and not to have it specifically dated as we seem to need to do.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:00 pm
Quote:
Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years).

Source USGS Cratonic assemblages and shields.

Our geologists know how to count clicks better than yours neeeyaaaah.


GA=Giga annums, , means a Bazillion years
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:06 pm
Canada doesnt count, all self respecting Americans will tell you that.

Plus anything you keep in the freezer (Minnesota and Michigan) will keep longer.

Our rocks are so old they have worn away and there isn't anything left to study! source: ME
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:12 pm
My rocks are diluting my Don Julio, damn it.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 05:03 am
Like others have said, we were learning in school 30 years ago that there were others here before Cook. Cook is credited with being the first to explore the east coast, leading to the discovery of Botany Bay, which provided safe harbour.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 05:34 am
And the Chinese ( Zhou Man ) were there before the Portuguese.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 06:18 am
So, he was a chef?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 06:47 am
dadpad wrote:
farmerman wrote:
cool. Thanks.I like reading this. Im amazingly ignorant of the peopling of that huge tract of land.


Without wishing it to be a put down and knowing it is a generalisation...
this is not uncommon for Americans. Thanks for being interested enough to make enquiries.
Our rocks are older than your rocks nya nya nyaaaaa! :wink:



And our soils are older....and far less fertile...than your soils....


Crying or Very sad


When it comes to vegetation. Australia almost can't get it up any more, relatively speaking....our fertility is very fragile.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 06:59 am
dlowan wrote:
....our fertility is very fragile.


That's referring to rabbits, I suppose. :wink:
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 07:09 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
dlowan wrote:
....our fertility is very fragile.


That's referring to rabbits, I suppose. :wink:



No.


Soil.



Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 07:13 am
Oh. Laughing
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 07:26 am
Worried about your soils eh? well, just make more rain. Id move your country about 1500 km North so itd be in a nice windward side as a rising land mass. You need more temperate fronts , youre too arid. All it takes is some knowhow.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 07:31 am
farmerman wrote:
Worried about your soils eh? well, just make more rain. Id move your country about 1500 km North so itd be in a nice windward side as a rising land mass. You need more temperate fronts , youre too arid. All it takes is some knowhow.


Now you tell us!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 07:34 am
Quite a few of the comments in this thread have surprised me. I recall having heard of Abel Tasman when i was a kid, and that's well over 30 years ago. The Portuguese stuff is really interesting, but i tend to find suspect anything such as a map which must be cut into two pieces, and the pieces rotated, before being fit together to produce the desired image. That's not to say that i doubt the Portuguese claim, only that the map is doubtful, and the gymnastics needed to make it look like the east coast of Australia doesn't make that so--maps were all notoriously inaccurate before reliable chronometers (you need very, very accurate clocks to know how far east or west you are), and especially in times when non-mariners took mariners navigational "notes" (their rutters) and made maps from them.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 07:36 am
By the way, i had also long ago read that parts of the western coast of Australia were known to the Dutch even before Tasman's first voyage. Anyone have any information on that?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 08:02 am
It's not only that the map must be cut and then both pieces turned ... it must be done in 80° :wink:
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 08:15 am
To say that any European dicovered Australia is like saying Colombus discovered America. There were PEOPLE there already! The Aborigines dicoverd Australia!
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 08:57 am
farmerman wrote:
Builder,Most geologists wouldnt be that free with information, since their future income could depend on it being kept secret.
.


Sure.

They had found nothing, or so they said...... Very Happy
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 05:01 pm
NickFun wrote:
To say that any European dicovered Australia is like saying Colombus discovered America. There were PEOPLE there already! The Aborigines dicoverd Australia!


No nick, I tried to explain that earlier.
Aborigines have "always" been with Australia. The land gave birth to people who were "of the land"
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2579174#2579174


Once, much of Australia was a huge inland sea. Salt scald is a huge agricultural problem in many parts of this country. I read somewhere that the average topsoil depth in Oz is 3 inches. All the rest having been worn away over time.

Setanta
Hartog set off across the Indian Ocean (from The Cape of Good Hope) for Batavia (present-day Jakarta), utilising (or perhaps blown off course by) the strong westerly winds known as the "Roaring Forties" which had been earlier noted by the Dutch navigator Henderik Brouwer as a quicker route to Java. On October 25, 1616, at approximately 26° latitude south, Hartog and crew came unexpectedly upon "various islands, which were, however, found uninhabited." He made landfall at an island off the coast of Shark Bay, Western Australia, which is now called Dirk Hartog Island after him. His was the second recorded European expedition to land on the Australian continent (having been preceded by Willem Janszoon), but the first to do so on the western coastline.
Hartog spent three days examining the coast and nearby islands. He named the area Eendrachtsland after his ship, but this name has not endured. When he left he affixed a pewter plate to a post, now known as the Hartog plate. On the plate he had etched a record of his visit to the island. Its inscription (translated from the original Dutch) reads:
1616 On 25 October arrived the ship Eendracht, of Amsterdam: Supercargo Gilles Miebais of Liege, skipper Dirch Hatichs of Amsterdam. on 27 d[itt]o. she set sail again for Bantam. Deputy supercargo Jan Stins, upper steersman Pieter Doores of Bil. In the year 1616.
source wikpedia

Quote:
The Eendracht plate remained where it had been placed until 2 February 1697, when men of Willem de Vlamingh's expedition found it lying beside a decayed post. Vlamingh replaced it with another flattened pewter plate, inscribed with a copy of the text on the old plate and a record of his own visit, and nailed it to a new post. He took the Eendracht plate to Batavia (Jakarta); from there it was transferred to the V.O.C.'s archives in the Netherlands and later to the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. It is the oldest known record of a landing by Europeans in Australia.
(snip)
Willem Jansz had charted the west coast of Cape York Peninsula some ten years earlier, that land was generally regarded as an extension of New Guinea. After Hartog's discovery, the mythical continent known as Terra Australis Incognita (the Unknown South Land) was replaced on maps by a major landmass called 't Landt van de Eendracht (the Land of the Eendracht). Later discoveries extended charts of its coastline and the continent was later renamed Hollandia Nova (New Holland) by the Dutch, and Australia by the British.
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/AS10210b.htm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.47 seconds on 12/06/2022 at 01:20:24