The first unambiguous recorded European sighting of the east coast of New Holland was in 1770 by James Cook on his first expedition. The sighted point of land was named Point Hicks, as it was first seen by the second-in-charge Lieutenant Zachary Hicks. But there is a problem with Point Hicks. According to Cook’s records, it lies more than 20km out to sea. This is a very unusual error for Cook – who was known for his exceptional navigation and cartography skills.
There are a few different hypothesis’s to explain why Cook placed Point Hicks far out to sea. None of them are satisfactory in my opinion.
One is that he saw a weather phenomenon – a phantom cloudbank that resembled land. However this explanation doesn’t make sense because it was not just Point Hicks that was misplaced, but an entire section of coastline. Some land is also on Cook’s chart as sea. Furthermore, cloudbanks are temporary illusions – but Cook was in the area for several hours. Later on, Matthew Flinders and others verified the presence of long-lingering, local cloudbanks – but given that Flinders works for the same “team” as Cook, it’s possible Flinders was doing a cover-up job and simply lied about the presence of cloud banks to cover for Cook’s deceptions.
Another explanation recently put forward by Margaret Cameron-Ash is that Cook secretly discovered the Bass Strait, and placed Point Hicks and a short section of coastline in the wrong place in order to obscure the Bass Strait. I think this sounds a bit more plausible – but it still does not make sense. The fudged coastline only obscures a very small fraction of the Strait. It is such a small fraction that it’s pointless – it would have made more sense for Cook to simply leave everything south of nearby Cape Howe (where the coast sharply turns northward) off the official chart completely and pretend that Cook was never south of Cape Howe. I think Margaret Cameron-Ash is correct that the Bass Strait was secretly discovered by the British – but I just think it happened afterwards on Cook’s second voyage by Tobias Furneaux. Margaret Cameron-Ash is probably giving us a limited hangout.
I have a hypothesis which I think makes more sense that any other explanation put forward so far. I have already explained it in a video, but I will write it again here.
The real secret instructions
My hypothesis as follows here. Cook had a second set of secret instructions – instructions so secret that have still never seen the light of day.
Everyone has heard the “story” of how in 1768-1771 Cook went to Tahiti, observed the transit of Venus, and then opened his so-called secret and sealed instructions to discover a southern land of great extent. But these instructions were never really secret in the first place. The mission (minus detailed specifics) of searching for a large southern land was published in London newspapers before Cook even left England. Under the Doctrines of Discovery, there is nothing nefarious about claiming Aotearoa/Staten Landt/New Zealand because no European power had ever formally claimed discovery of it. The only previous sighting was by Abel Tasman, and Tasman merely charted a small part of it. The Dutch – despite 127 years of knowing of Aotearoa, never formally claimed possession of it. There is no need for Cook’s so-called secret instructions to be secret.
But my hypothesis is that Cook’s real secret instructions were to find and claim any parts of Van Diemen’s Land/New Holland that lie eastward of Abel Tasman’s eastern-most claims of discovery. As such land would presumably be contiguous with greater New Holland, this gives reason for the mission to be secret as it is moving-in on formal Dutch possession claims. Cook was secretly and explicitly instructed to sail up the eastern coast of New Holland, and to land on the mainland on sections that lie east of the longitude of Tasman’s Prince-flag. Cook’s instructions were to start charting the east coast at Latitude 38 degrees south, and then head along the coast north and through the Torres Strait.
The impetus for this mission is that the British had recently ‘discovered’ the Torres Strait in Spanish records during the British occupation of Manila. As the Dutch had treaties with the Sultanate of Tidore (in modern day Western New Guinea), this newly found presence of the Torres Strait reveals that the Dutch have no treaty with any lands contiguous with the greater New Holland land mass. That means – New Holland or at least parts of it is possibly up for grabs for discovery. Cook was to try and get the British foot in the door by claiming possession of an extreme eastern section between the Torres Strait (north) and Latitude 38 degrees South (south) for the British Crown. An extreme eastern section makes the most sense due to precedents set long ago in the Treaty of Saragossa.
Why down to latitude 38 degrees south? A possible reason is that Abel Tasman’s chart of Van Diemen’s land approximately covers latitude 44 south to 41 south – a span of 3 degrees of latitude. 41 degrees south, plus another margin of 3 degrees northward gives a latitude of 38 degrees south. This gives the Dutch the coast they have discovered and doubled it in terms of degrees of latitude. Another reason is that 38 degrees south looks not unreasonable for Cook’s cover story of heading from New Zealand to Batavia.
Consent of the Natives
If you read Cook’s not-so-secret instructions carefully and in their entirety (instead of relying on out-of-context snippets normally fed to us by colonial propaganda), you will note that Cook was instructed to make some limited formal possession claims with the consent of the natives. This instruction to gain consent specifically applies to a possible “Continent or Land of great extent” lying between Tahiti and Tasman’s Staten Landt/New Zealand (or perhaps to Staten Landt itself if it is of great extent). But such a land does not exist. Cook was not instructed to gain consent of the natives over anything discovered after charting New Zealand, including New Holland.
It is a big misconception that is currently doing the rounds (here for example), that Cook was instructed to get consent of the natives New Holland (assuming it is inhabited) and he failed. But there was no discrepancy. Cook followed the known instructions to the letter, including doing the possession ceremony from an off-shore island.
The reason for the lack of instruction to gain consent from the natives of New Holland is perhaps due to the discourse of Abel Tasman. Tasman’s own instructions were to plant a “Prince-flag” in cases of discovery where there is no sovereign.
All continents and islands, which you shall discover, touch at and set foot on, you will take possession of on behalf of Their High Mightinesses the States General of the United-Provinces, the which in uninhabited regions or in such countries as have no sovereign, may be done by erecting a memorial-stone or by planting our Prince-flag in sign of actual occupation, seeing that such lands justly belong to the discoverer and first occupier; but in populated regions or in such as have undoubted lards, the consent of the people or the king will be required before you can enter into possession of them, the which you should try to obtain by friendly persuasion’ and by presenting them with some small tree planted in a little earth, by erecting some stone structure in conjunction with the people, or by setting up the Prince-flag in commemoration of their voluntary assent or submission; all which occurrences you will carefully note in your Journal, mentioning by name such persons as have been present at them, that such record may in future be of service to our republic.
Instructions to Abel Tasman
In 1642, Tasman planted a Prince-flag in Van Diemen’s Land/Tasmania at what he named Frederick Henry Bay (currently near Marion Bay due to Matthew Flinders doing a rename/cover-up-job for Furneaux). This flag planting can be seen as an assertion by the Dutch East India Company that there is no sovereign there. At this time, the Bass Strait was unknown, so the act of Tasman planting the flag also implies there is no sovereign in Van Diemen’s land/New Holland – as they were considered to be one contiguous land mass (Doctrines of Discovery principle of contiguity). Tasman then sailed on to Aotearoa where he had diplomatic interactions with the Maori, but did not plant a Prince-flag there. So through Tasman’s actions, he diplomatically recognised that Aotearoa had sovereign/s, but not Van Diemen’s Land and also by implication – New Holland.
Tasman’s flag planting is a possible origin for the terra nullius myth. The British followed Tasman’s suit and diplomatically recognised the Maori and not the natives of New Holland. This non-recognition has led to confusion over our legal status which continues to this day, as well as genocide, mass land theft, assimilation policies etc. There are some aspects of colonialism that are unique to Australia compared with other settler-colonial states, I think most of these aspects can be traced to this initial non-recognition. The attempted extermination of the natives of Van Diemen’s Land was a particularly concentrated effort, because it is more important that land be fully “cleared” because it is where Tasman planted his terra nullius flag. Survivors of the Black Line in Van Diemen’s Land were relocated to other nearby islands (non-contiguous lands), this relocation was a purposeful exercise. Tasman did not just plant a Prince-flag, but also planted a seed of genocide which the British fully nurtured.
What went wrong with Cook’s instructions?
The problem is that when Cook made land on the east coast of New Holland at about 38 degrees south, the coastline was not running north-south as expected, but was running east-west and slightly north of 38 degrees south (see map below). Upon approach to the coast, Cook found himself travelling parallel to the coast instead of perpendicular as expected.
This meant Cook had a problem. It was impossible to fulfil his instructions. As the coastline was not observed to reach down to 38 degrees south, it was not possible to chart the coastline from this latitude. So Cook fudged the coastline in his accounts so that it reached 38 degrees south in order to fulfill his secret mission.
There is other circumstantial evidence that support this hypothesis;
- Cook’s Point Hicks lies exactly at 38.0S. As Margaret Cameron-Ash has noted, this is a very round number, as if someone made it up while sitting at a desk.
- At the Torres Strait on Possession Island, Cook claimed possession of the coastline down to exactly 38 degrees south This would be a sketchy claim if Cook had not first charted land at 38.0 degrees south.
- When Cook was crossing from New Zealand to New Holland, in the first half of that stretch he went north of 38 degrees south, then corrected his course to stay south of this line (see image below). This correction is completely unnecessary if he were simply “heading to Batavia for repairs”.
Ancestors at work?
This is one of two cases I have found where it seems the coastline has conspired to reveal British trickery and false claims over our land. If the coast did not turn sharply westward at Cape Howe just a smidgen north of 38 degrees south as it does, there would not be this smoking gun left behind in Cook’s charts.
The other example of “conspiring coastline” is Tobias Furneaux being caught out on his Adventure in Van Diemen’s Land by mistaking Storm Bay for Fredricks Henry Bay. His chart, the errors in it, along with his written narratives are also a smoking gun as to what the British were really up to with the Adventure. I will do a more detailed post on this in the future.
These examinations of voyages and finding these smoking guns is important – because they are the original lies on which all other lies are grounded. As in the Goanna song – “someone lied”. Real “Truthtelling” should begin at the foundational level – not building on top of fresh lies such as “we are the First Australians” or we were “British Subjects”. We, and our lands retain a separate and distinct status from all colonial-occupier institutions as per UN General Assembly Resolution 2625.
These little details show that the British had a premeditated intention to claim and colonise New Holland before Cook ever set sail on any voyage. The British discovery of Australia was not serendipitous and out of nowhere, nor was it a made claim up after-the-fact to find a new place to dump prisoners after the American Revolution.
Ironically, the 250 year anniversary of Cook’s voyage and a planned “reenactment” of the voyage was upset by devastating bushfires in this exact same area as “Point Hicks”. The Corona/Crown virus then finished off the whole circumnavigation spectacle. The title image for this blog post is a photo taken by Rose Fletcher on New Years Day 2020 of the sky filled with smoke from these bushfires – a sky resembling the Aboriginal flag. At the time this photo was taken, thousands of people were trapped by bushfires in Mallacoota and sheltering on the same coastline Cook had doctored on his fraudulent chart.
The land needs it’s custodians to care for country. The ancestors have sent a message from the site of one of the original lies. The false reenactment of Cook’s voyage was stopped. It’s time to stop making up new lies as to what happened, it’s time to acknowledge the the full sovereignty and ownership of the people of the land, to recognise the laws of the land, and work from a more honest and truthful basis.