New podcast episode.

I think I have just found a smoking-gun, mathematical proof that it was always planned for Cook to claim the east coast of New Holland. Cook made a very simple mathematical error that gives it away.

The Strategy

One of the secret goals of Cook’s first voyage was to claim parts of New Holland that lay to the east of the western-most parts charted by the Dutch (what I have dubbed the Orange line).

The challenge is to do this without having to actually locate the section of east coast of Van Diemen’s Land that Abel Tasman charted. This can be done mathematically.

In 1642, Abel Tasman sailed directly from the east coast of Van Diemen’s Land to New Zealand. In his journals, he recorded longitudes on both sides of the Tasman sea. With these longitudes in hand – anyone can calculate the longitudinal difference between the two coasts.

The difference is 23 degrees and 46 minutes longitude between the location where Tasman planted the Prince Flag (Van Diemen’s Land) and Moorderaers Bay (New Zealand).

So for Cook to sail in the OPPOSITE direction – all he has to do is locate Moorderaers/Murderer’s Bay and count the ~24 degrees of longitude back to the Prince Flag. This is what Cook attempted to do – but he made a simple miscalculation and didn’t find Murderer’s Bay correctly – which I will show proof of here.

One result of this – is that the First Fleet went to Botany Bay instead of somewhere else. This simple calculation error changed history.

Locating Murderer’s Bay

Cook had with him a small booklet by Dirk Rembrantszoon van Nierop, translated to English by Robert Hooke (the famous scientist??). You can access the booklet online CLICK HERE.

 but it is necessary to observe that I do not take the Situation of Vandiemen’s from the Printed Charts, but from the extract of Tasman’s Journal, published by Dirk Rembrantse.

Cook’s Journal 19th April 1770

This book contained some coordinates from Abel Tasman’s Voyage. This helps my investigation as the booklet only has a handful of coordinate sets. It means Cook only had a few points to work with – so there isn’t much “hay” in which I must search for the needle. Tasman’s full journal and charts – which have much more information – were not widely available in the anglosphere at this time.

In the Rembrantse extract, there are only two sets of coordinates given on the New Zealand side. These are;

• #R_CMVD – Rembrantse Cape Maria Van Diemen.
• #R_MB – Rembrantse Murderer’s Bay

I’m putting #’s in front because they are variables that I will show later in calculations. Also keep in mind – I am concentrating on Longitudes here – not Latitude, as Latitudes are straightforward and irrelevant in these calculations.

Cook can use either of these two points as the “starting line”. Murderer’s Bay is probably preferable because Abel Tasman arrived there first – theoretically there will be less chance of error. Ideally, Cook will find both of these points.

On the other side of The Ditch, there are two points in Van Diemen’s Land given in Rembrantse’s extract.

During this voyage, Cook had some basic “second-hand” charts of New Zealand – charts that were widely available in publications, but not the highly detailed “original” (I’ll show proof of why I think this later). An example of available chart is the Thevenot chart – which was published in English 1705 in Navigantium atque itinerantium bibliotheca (example of an original copy).

So Cook’s task is first to find both of these points in N.Z.. Let’s follow how that goes.

Locating Cape Maria Van Diemen

Cook approaches New Zealand from Tahiti – sights the east coast of the north island first. He initially heads south along the east coast, but then turns around and follows the coast north. He ends up rounding the north island coast at the North West Cape – Cape Maria Van Diemen. He verifies the correct location by also finding the nearby Three Kings Island – an island that Tasman also identified there.

Tuesday, 2nd. Fresh breezes at South-South-West and West accompanied with a rowling Sea from the South-West. At 5 p.m. the wind Veering to the Westward we Tack’d and Stood to the Southward. At this time the North Cape bore East 3/4 North and was just open of a point that lies 3 Leagues West by South from it, being now well assured that it is the Northermost Extremity of this Country and is the East point of a Peninsula which Stretches out North-West and North-West by North 17 or 18 Leagues, and as I have before observed is for the most part low and narrow except its Extremity where the land is Tollerable high and Extends 4 or 5 Leagues every way. Cape Maria Van Diemen is the West point of the Peninsula and lies in the Latitude of 34 degrees 30 minutes South; Longitude 187 degrees 18 minutes West from Greenwich.

…

At 1/2 past 7 p.m. the Island of the 3 Kings bore North-West by North and Cape Maria Van Diemen North-East by East, distant 4 Leagues.

Cook’s Journal 2 January 1770

So far, so good. Cook now has the longitude of Cape Maria Van Diemen. This is another variable for our calculations.

• #C_CMVD Cook Cape Maria Van Diemen

From this, Cook can use Rembrantse’s extract to calculate the Longitude where Murderer’s Bay should be. This is fairly simple to do. Just looking at a modern map, you can see that Murderer’s Bay and Cape Maria Van Diemen are almost in a north-south line with each other – so the offset shouldn’t be that much.

Note: You don’t have to worry that Cook and Tasman reckon longitude from different meridians (Greenwich and Teneriffe) because we are calculating relative/offsets longitudes, and we aren’t spanning any anti-meridians. It just means you can’t just look these numbers up directly on a modern map.

Mathematically:

#R_CMVD	Rembrantse Cape Maria Van Diemen.	191d 9m
#R_MB	Rembrantse Murderer’s Bay	191d 41m
#C_CMVD	Cook Cape Maria Van Diemen	187d 18m
#R_OFFSET	Tasman difference = #R_MB minus #R_CMVD	32m
#C_MB	Expected longitude of Murderer’s Bay = #C_CMVD minus #R_OFFSET	186d 46m

Now – all Cook has to do is follow the east coast down, south to Latitude 40d 50m South (also from Rembrantse) where there should be Murderer’s Bay sitting there at Longitude 186d 46m. Then he has his starting point to New Holland.

Easy peasy…

Just FYI – 186d 46m is West of Greenwich. When converted to East of Greenwich, you can look where this is on a “normal” map – it is 173d 14m EAST. (the international prime meridian is not exactly Greenwich, but it’s precise enough for our purposes). So on our modern maps, Murderer’s Bay should be at Latitude 40d 50m South, 173d 14m East.

Cook heads south following the coast…

Ship Cove

When he gets down towards our target zone, on 16 January 1770, Cook navigates his way into a place called Ship Cove. If we look on our modern map where this is (it’s still called by that name, and Cook gives a description that matches) we will see that Ship Cove is EXACTLY one degree east of where our calculations place Murderer’s Bay – it’s at 174d 14m East.

Reading Cook’s journal is very insightful here.

These people declared to us this morning, that they never either saw or heard of a Ship like ours being upon this Coast before. From this it appears that they have no Tradition among them of Tasman being here, for I believe Murtherers bay, the place where he anchor’d, not to be far from this place; but this cannot be it from the Latitude, for I find by an Observation made this day at Noon that we are at an Anchor in 41 degrees 5 minutes 32 seconds South, which is 15 miles to the Southward of Murtherers Bay.

Cook’s Journal, 16 January 1770

Clearly he thinks he is DIRECTLY SOUTH of Murderer’s Bay. This indicates he believes is at the correct Longitude. But 15 miles northward of his position there is no bay, just water. And using Google Earth’s measure tool, latitude 40d 50m South lies about 15 “Seemeilen” (I’m using a German language install) north of Ship Cove. I don’t know what units Cook used for a mile or what a “Seemeile” is (maybe a nautical mile?), but it checks out.

He asks the locals if they have ever seen white-man ships before – so he is trying to verify if the place is Murderer’s Bay.

Cook has done a simple miscalculation. In our earlier calculations here of the variable #C_MB we came up with a value of 186d 46m. Cook has calculated 185d 46m – he is one degree too far east. This can happen by a subtraction “borrow” error when calculating #C_MB = #C_CMVD minus #R_OFFSET (187d 18m minus 32m)

*** EDIT.. I don’t think it was a subtraction borrow error anymore, but there was a one degree error.

Cook’s confirmation bias might be setting in – the next day in his journal, Cook unconvincingly writes that the locals are feasting on human flesh (like the cannibal “murderers” of Tasman’s crew)

Soon after we landed we meet with 2 or 3 of the Natives who not long before must have been regaling themselves upon human flesh, for I got from one of them the bone of the Fore arm of a Man or Woman which was quite fresh, and the flesh had been but lately picked off, which they told us they had eat; they gave us to understand that but a few days before they had taken, Kill’d, and Eat a Boats Crew of their Enemies or strangers, for I believe they look upon all strangers as Enemies.

Cook’s Journal, 17 January 1770h

I admit – I laughed at the mental-image of Cook’s party landing, finding locals sitting around under a tree – nonchalantly nibbling on a human forearm. “Hey how’s it going there white strangers! We are just eating the people from that other strange boat parked over there. Look, here is a forearm – wanna try some?”. It sounds absurd.

If the locals routinely eat strangers – why doesn’t Cook seem concerned for his own party’s safety? He hangs around the area for some days in total, seemingly unconcerned.

A few days after further exploring the area, verifying the separation of North and South Islands, and claiming possession, Cook has an interesting conversation with an old man;

The old man, seeing us under sail, came on board to take his leave of us. Amongst other conversation that passed between him and Tupia, he was asked if either he or any of his Ancestors had ever seen or heard of any Ship like this being in these parts; to which question he answer’d in the Negative, but said that his Ancestors had told him that there came once to this place a small Vessel from a distant part, wherein were 4 Men that were all kill’d upon their landing; and being asked where this distant land lay, he pointed to the North, intimating that it would take up a great many days to go thither. 

Cook’s Journal, 6 February 1770

I suspect that Cook has made this story up, trying to “prove” this is Murderer’s Bay. There are elements of this story that don’t make sense. Like how do the people know the vessel sailed very far away north? They are inside a maze of coves with only so-many ways out. Also – Tasman’s men were killed in their dinghy – they didn’t land. But from the way Rembrantse’s extract reads, one would get the impression they landed. I think this fiction is for the benefit of Cook’s superiors – because Cook is supposed to locate Murderer’s Bay, this story is confirmation that he must have the right place.

Anyway – fast forward the voyage a bit…. Cook then does a clockwise-lap around the south island, then comes back to the same area.

Blind Bay

On the 24th March, Cook rounds the northern point of the south island (Farewell Spit), then sails straight past Murderer’s Bay in good weather without exploring it. He obviously has no idea that he is sailing past his goal;

Saturday, 24th. In the P.M. had a Gentle breeze at South-West, which by Dark run us the length of the Eastern Point set at Noon, and not knowing what Course the land took on the other side, we brought too in 34 fathoms about one League from the land. At 8, it falling little wind, we fill’d and stood on until 12, at which time we brought too until 4 a.m., then made Sail. At daylight we saw low land extending from the above point to the East-South-East as far as the Eye could reach, the Eastern Extremity of which appear’d in round Hillocks; by this time the wind had veer’d to the Eastward, which obliged us to ply to windward. At Noon the point above mention’d bore South-West by South, distant 16 miles; Latitude observ’d 40 degrees 19 minutes South. This point I afterwards named Cape Farewell, for reasons which will be given in their proper place

Cook’s Journal 24 March 1770

He heads further west to fully complete his lap of the south island, and from about the 27th till the 31st of March, does daily non-descript “wooding and watering” excursions in the labyrinth of islands and inlets around Admiralty Bay. To me, that sounds like an alibi for a 4-day-last-ditch attempt to find Murderer’s Bay in the maze – this time trying to find it by Latitude, as Admiralty Bay lies at the expected latitude.

Now back to something I mentioned before, that I think Cook was using second-hand charts. Below are two charts showing Murderer’s Bay in context- one is an “original” chart from Tasman, the next is a typical low-res version that was in books in Cook’s era. As you can see – it’s hard to find the exact Murderer’s Bay with the poor-man’s chart. But the poor-man’s chart would be enough to eliminate the maze where Cook is searching. Note also – the poor-man’s chart includes the 3 Kings Island (Het Eylandt drie Koningen) which Cook used to identify Cape Maria Van Diemen.

Cook’s first voyage charts has Murderer’s Bay marked as “Blind Bay” – a mysterious, uncharted area. I think some time later after he already left New Zealand, he realised from revising his poor-man’s charts that Blind Bay is a possible location for Murderer’s Bay. But it’s too late to explore because he has already left. He scrawls his suspicions on the bottom of one of the pages of his journal… don’t know if you can tell from the image below, but on better quality image you can clearly see that the last 1.5 lines are in a slightly different ink or pen. (source – https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-229033436/view navigate to image number 427, very bottom of page). There are quite a few scribbles and alterations around this section of the journal that tell the story of Cook’s confusion. It was at this moment that he knew… he f**ked up.

A slight tangent – but Cook came back to this area on his second voyage. And when he did, he immediately identified the correct Murderer’s Bay. So sometime between the first and second voyages, he had sourced the “original” charts. This is very important because the original accounts were the secret weapon of Furneaux’s side-expedition. If Cook had the original charts during the second voyage, then Furneaux would have had a copy too. When Joseph Banks died, in his library there was a Dutch version of the full Tasman’s account, complete with the charts and drawings, and a English translation with a handwritten-note from the translator. I’m guessing that money-bags-Banks sourced it sometime between Cook’s first and second voyage.

Kook Kardashian chart

There is something very wrong with Cook’s charts of New Zealand – and it is due to Cook’s error.

If you eyeball the north-west point of the north island, then draw your eye directly south, with most maps and charts you should hit Farewell Spit, roughly on the northern-most point of the south island. But on Cook’s charts, you will instead hit somewhere along the east coast of the south island.

Cook was so certain about his Murderer’s Bay calculation that he warped his entire chart to put the geographical features of Cape Farewell at that longitude.

Everyone knows about Cook wrongly depicting Stewert Island as a peninsular – but few notice that the entire chart is distorted like a Kardashian on Instagram.

Landing in Botany Bay

Cook then proceeds across the Tasman Sea in an attempt to measure 23 degrees 46 minutes longitude from Murderer’s Bay. Then he plans to land just east of that line. Problem is – he doesn’t know where Murderer’s Bay is.

As Cook tracks across the Tasman Sea, he is reckoning his longitudes from “Cape Farewell”.

I think “Cape Farewell” is just code for the arbitrary zero starting point, and it is not tied to any geographical feature until afterwards. By the raw coordinates, it’s actually at Admiralty Bay.

Noon on the 17th of April, Cook makes some more detailed lunar/solar calculations from Greenwich. This was just before landfall in New Holland. These numbers are very interesting. It appears that Cook was reckoning his longitude from zero-point “Cape Farewell”, but on the 17th he used a fake lunar/solar calculation to covertly reset that zero point longitude from Admiralty Bay to Ship Cove (Ship Cove is #C_MB_Error, what he thinks is the true longitude of Murderer’s Bay).

#C_CF	Cook Cape Farewell (nowhere near today’s Cape Farewell, 174d 2m East)	185d 58m
#C_MB_Error	Cook Murderer’s Bay calculation with his 1 degree error	185d 46m
#C_17Offset	Cook 17th April offset from Zero Point	22d 22m
#C_17Log	Cook 17th April position by ship log	208d 20m
#C_17Astro	Cook 17th April position by Solar/Lunar measurements	207d 58m
	Zero Point (log) = #C17_Log minus #C_17Offset (should be same as #C_CF, yes it is)	185d 58m
	Zero Point (Astro) = #C_17Astro minus #C_17Offset	185d 36m
#C_17Average	Average of #C_17Log and #C17_Astro	208d 09m
#C_ZeroPoint	Zero Point (Average) = #C_17Average minus #C_17Offset	185d 47m

In light of these new findings, that there are several different zero points – I will re-evaluate the landings on the east coast of New Holland in another post. The first landing attempt in Bulli appears to have been calculated from Admiralty Bay. Botany Bay seems to have been calculated from longitude 175 degrees 0 minutes – a round number and conservatively placed far to the east, as if Cook had given up on finding Murderer’s Bay.

The proof of the deception of Cook’s first voyage lay in the numbers – waiting for someone to discover the conspiracy through crunching numbers.

I still have one question for my own curiosity. Did Cook lie for the Admiralty, or did he lie to the Admiralty to cover-up his failure? If the latter – did he ever get caught?

Just trying to test something here.

I have collected a massive amount of notes which I have kept on my PC on Google Earth. I think it is really useful to map events out (spatially) and also make timelines (temporally).

I am trying to find a way to present what I have found.

Anyway – here it goes;

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=16ZENbNznNr07WDqvFVbLUwZjLhng9h0&usp=sharing

If you click on the above, hopefully you will see a map of Cook’s voyage with notes.

This is only a small part of the notes that I have, there is a limit of objects that can be imported onto these maps, so I started only with a folder of James Cook first voyage notes. I might add more maps later on.

Note 1: Also – if anyone tries this link – can you let me know in the comments – what language do the menus come up in? I’ve done it on my German language PC, and uploaded it in Germany with a German google account – so I don’t know what language it will come up with if anyone else opens it up. Thanks.

** Note 2: So I decided to share a larger kmz file. You need to install Google Earth on your computer first (not Google MAPS – but Google EARTH), download and save this kmz file, then open it in Google Earth. It has way more stuff in it than just the Cook Voyage. This is a work in progress that I haven’t finished yet. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P0EIBfxwocM8ZkKo7tYRDFFlft84OvZe/view?usp=sharing

Just after Cook claimed the east coast of New Holland from Possession Island, he took a side-trip up to Papua/New Guinea. He made a landing north of Valsche Caep.

Alexander Darlymple was the brains behind Cook’s first voyage. There is a French version (by Robert de Vaugondy) of a chart by Alexander Darlymple of the Papua and New Guinea area. The chart is dated 1774 – a few years after the Endeavour passed through.

The French chart has a channel marked in current-day west Papua that cuts through – separating the single big PNG island into two – marked Papua and New Guinea. The channel is marked in French – ‘les anciennes Cartes marquent ici un passage’ which translates to ‘the old Maps mark a passage here’.

Why is this passage on the map when it doesn’t exist in real life? Cook was right there, and landed as if he was specifically looking for the passage, so Cook could have verified it is not there.

This channel on this chart indicates that in 1770, the British already had ambitions on the east part of the PNG island. As per the contiguity principle, to allude to a channel to break the island into two helps a partial British claim. It separates a eastern chunk (New Guinea) from the western part of the island (Papua) that was under Dutch treaties with the Sultanate of Tidore.

Another interesting thing on this chart is the pointy-cape along the south coast. It is marked “Walsh Cap”. In Cook’s journal, he called it “Point St. Augustine or Walsche Caep”. If you look at this land feature on satellite, you can see in real-life that it is an island, not a cape. The Dutch called it Valsche Caep, with a V not a W. This translates to False Cape, an appropriate name for an island that looks like a cape. This is probably where “the passage on the old maps” really is. I’m wondering – did someone “move” the passage to try make a case for claiming the eastern side of that land, and change the name of False Cape to Walsch Cape?

Pre-Federation moves

Later on in 1901, the British colonies in Australia were consolidated into a federation. There were preparations in the lead-up to federation- including formalising and reform of colonial/state constitutions. I think this preparation also included the annexation of further territories including the Torres Strait Islands and the Territory of Papua. It may be the last chance to do so before consolidation.

I think there are parallels with today, where there is constitutional reform to formally consolidate Aboriginal people and their territory into the Australian polity and institutions. In 1883, Queen Victoria was getting old, much like Queen Elizabeth II is getting old now. It’s smart to consolidate all the Crown assets in preparation for the accession of a new King or Queen. Queen Victoria passed away just a couple of weeks after Australia federated.

In 1883, Queensland – or should I say the police magistrate of Thursday Island – annexed the eastern half of the Papua Island.

Now here is a crazy part of the story which I read in a German book. The reason Queensland annexed Papua was purportedly to pre-empt German ambitions to annex it into the Bismark Islands. But the German ambitions were overblown and taken out-of-context by British propaganda.

A German geographer named Emil Deckert did a talk in a group/club for geography in Dresden on 17 November 1882. Drawing on my own experience from living in Germany – even today, there are all kinds of special interest groups (Verein) in even small towns in Germany. This talk in Dresden, was a case of well-travelled man, academic and teacher, doing a talk in one of these groups on his opinion on the merits of Germany colonising Papua. It wasn’t some official government thing. His talk was replicated in the Allgemeine Zeitung München (Munich) 1882. I tracked down the newspaper in German.

A condensed translated summary of the article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald (link). The story also appeared in other Australian newspapers. But was not well attributed – for example, the Sydney Morning Herald itself just gives the “Allgemeine Zeitung” as the source. This is like saying the “Daily Mail” from somewhere in England – there are dozens of newspapers with the same name. Another newspaper said the talk was in Berlin not Dresden. Currently there’s a wikipedia article that puts it in the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung as the source. All of this makes it hard even even someone with a connection to Germany to verify it and see it in correct context.

Reading this in the Sydney Morning Herald or in other Australian newspapers alone, you would have the impression that it was an official statement from the German government. But ot was taken out of context. It served as propaganda and pretext that led to Queensland annexing the Territory of Papua.

The annexation

There are a couple of interesting points around the annexation itself.

An arms-length maneuver

Henry Chester was the one who did the annexation. He was the Police Magistrate of Thursday Island. Previously, this post was at Somerset on the mainland of Cape York. But the post evacuated to Thursday Island not long before the annexation of Papua. I think this move is significant because Somerset lies in Cook-discovered area, but Thursday Island was never part of New South Wales (being north of both Cook’s declaration and north of Phillip’s instructions). The Torres Straits themselves were acquired by Queensland governors being appointed over them, reception of law was done dodgy. So in terms of authority, by getting the Police Magistrate of Thursday Island to do the dirty work of annexing the Territory of Papua puts the annexation at arms length from the British Crown. It’s not the British Crown doing it, it’s Queensland. It was done by a magistrate based in a part of Queensland that was never part of New South Wales.

The British authorities did not initially approve of the annexation by Queensland, but later ‘caved in’ and made it a British Protectorate. This is kind of a joke – you have Queensland authorities going full-cowboy annexing lands, and even earlier than that in 1873 – John Moresby claimed Port Moresby for the British. After both these actions the British pretended that they are not interested, but never repudiated any actions done in the name of the British Crown. Much like when Aboriginal people were massacred – the British just benefited with free land while looking the other way.

After federation, the Territory of Papua became a Australian-ruled territory – not integrated into Queensland. But the Torres Strait Islands were kept in Queensland. In terms of geographical contiguity which I discuss in this linked post, this makes sense.

Subsequent German Annexation, the Berlin Conference, the Anglo-German Treaty of 1886

In 1884, The German New Guinea Company made the northern quarter of the island a protectorate – German New Guinea. This was the north-half of what the Queensland police magistrate claimed, with the western border was at the same longitude of 141°E. Very shortly after (I think 3 days, but sources vary) the southern quarter became a British protectorate, this time with the proper blessing from Britain.

Shortly after (a few weeks tops), the Berlin Conference was held (1884–1885). This was the infamous meeting where European powers carved up Africa like a cake for themselves, and revised the Doctrines of Discovery rules-of-engagement between themselves.

In 1886 there were treaties between the British and Germans, settling territorial disputes in the Pacific and in Africa.

Given the very small time-gap between German and English claims, the fact the Germans only claimed the northern quarter, the fact they reused Queensland’s 141°E line as the western boundary – it looks like the Germans left the south-eastern quarter on a silver platter for the British. The Germans helped legitimise Queensland’s choice of the 141°E line by using it themselves. And given the German and British protectorates were established around the time of both the Anglo-German treaty and the 1886 Berlin Conference – it does seem like it was pre-arranged in the men’s smoking room.

West demarcation of Queensland’s annexation

Queensland set the western border of Papua at 141 degrees East. That was cancelled, redone by the Germans, and then by Britain.

Indonesia still uses this borderline, justifying it by claiming to be successors of the colonial Dutch East Indies, and arguing that it was the eastern border of the Dutch East Indies.

Why 141 degrees east? I talked about this at the end of this linked post. I think it is because it is the eastern-most longitude of the Dutch treaty with the Sultanate of Tidore.

Location of Port Moresby

The longitude of Port Moresby is a tad east of longitude 147°E.

Here’s my theory on why the capital of British New Guinea was put where it is.

In event of a colonial territorial conflict, there are several different candidate lines that one could use as a starting point for negotiations, akin to the Treaty of Saragossa that divides the world into the eastern and western hemispheres (Dutch/British line on New Guinea by proxy). The British can take their pick from a few options – but for this purpose they obviously need a candidate line that is east of 141°E, and runs through the land in question.

Ideally, they should situate the first settlement just on the east of the candidate line. That way, if a territorial conflict breaks out, the settlement forms it’s own second back-up-border.

There are two candidates – 147°E (measuring from the westernmost tip of New Guinea 297.5 leagues as per Treaty of Saragossa text, or 16.4 degrees, places the line at 147 degrees East longitude) or they could go with measuring the line from Islas de las Velas/Mariana Islands at 144°45′E. The second option puts the new capital in a swamp – not ideal, so Port Moresby it is.

South Australia and Queensland border and the 141 E line

The 141 degrees east longitude was already engrained in British colonial borders before New Guinea – on the “mainland”.

From wikipedia:

The portion of New South Wales between 132° east and 141° east, and south of 26° south, was made the Province of South Australia. The actual landing and proclamation occurred on 28 December 1836. Its border with New South Wales south of the Murray River would be erroneously surveyed roughly 3.6 kilometres (2.2 mi) west of 141° east, and the resulting disputes with the colonies and, later, states that share that border would not be fully resolved until 1914.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Australia

So there is a little zig-zag of the border at the Murray River. I don’t think the survey of the line south of the Murray River was “erroneous”, but deliberate. As the Murray Darling Basin is under British First Discovery under an expanded interpretation of Cook’s claim over “Rivers”, the 141°E border only needs to go down to the northern edge of the Murray Darling Basin (Barrier Range near Silverton NSW). From that point, the Anglo/Dutch border can follow the edge of the basin westwards to the sea. By putting the little zig-zag in is like a British assertion that the portion of border running through the Murray Darling Basin is their prerogative administrative boundary rather than a Anglo-Dutch frontier. The “survey error” changes the nature of the entire border from an international one to an internal administrative one. It’s clever.

141°E was also the initial border of the Colony of Queensland proclaimed in 1859. That same prerogative was used to shift a portion of the border westwards in 1862, but this time it happened outside of the Murray Darling Basin. It’s an escalation of power. This is the event in which my own ancestral lands came under Queensland occupation.

These state borders predate the happenings in New Guinea. It shows that the British were continually looking northward into the Dutch East Indies to find a suitable border between Dutch “New Holland” and British “New South Wales” that could extend all the way down to the south coast of the mainland.

End note

This post ended up going all over the place, but I want to show that the British were always concerned about the Dutch claims, and were trying to claim more and more Dutch discovered territory. The evidence is engrained in both Australian internal and overseas borders that were drawn up to strategically maneuver against the Dutch.

In 1642, Abel Tasman’s carpenter planted a flag on the east coast of what’s now known as Tasmania, claiming “said land”. This happened at the end of a stay in a bay.

When we had come close inshore in a small inlet which bore west-south-west of the ships the surf ran so high that we could not get near the shore without running the risk of having our pinnace dashed to pieces. We then ordered the carpenter aforesaid to swim to the shore alone with the pole and the flag, and kept by the wind with our pinnace; we made him plant the said pole with the flag at top into the earth, about the centre of the bay near four tall trees easily recognisable and standing in the form of a crescent, exactly before the one standing lowest. This tree is burnt in just above the ground, and in reality taller than the other three, but it seems to be shorter because it stands lower on the sloping ground; at top, projecting from the crown, it shows two long dry branches, so symmetrically set with dry sprigs and twigs that they look like the large antlers of a stag; by the side of these dry branches, slightly lower down, there is another bough which is quite green and leaved all round, whose twigs, owing to their regular proportion, wonderfully embellish the said bough and make it look like the upper part of a larding-pin. Our master carpenter, having in the sight of myself, Abel Jansz Tasman, Skipper Gerrit Jansz, and Subcargo Abraham Coomans, performed the work entrusted to him, we pulled with our pinnace as near the shore as we ventured to do; the carpenter aforesaid thereupon swam back to the pinnace through the surf. This work having been duly executed we pulled back to the ships, leaving the above-mentioned as a memorial for those who shall come after us, and for the natives of this country, who did not show themselves, though we suspect some of them were at no great distance and closely watching our proceedings.

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600571h.html
(Hint: search text for “carpenter” to find it)

Tasman had voyage instructions (see appendix E in link) to only plant the flag under two different scenarios; 1. with the permission of the sovereigns – in which case the names of the sovereigns need to be recorded. or 2. in the absence of a 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.

As Tasman did not record any names of persons from “Tasmania”, the implication is that he has claimed a land with no sovereign.

In the same voyage, Tasman continued on to Aotearoa/Staatenlandt/New Zealand. There, he interacted with Maori chiefs (diplomatic recognition). By doing this, he recognised them as sovereigns. Note that Tasman did not plant a Prince flag there.

So – Tasman planted the flag in “Tasmania”, but not in “New Zealand”. This means – the Dutch recognise Maori diplomatically but not the natives of Tasmania.

This is the basis of terra nullius in Australia. But the story goes on…

---

Onto Tasman’s second voyage…

Later in 1644, Tasman went on a second voyage up in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The voyage had a specific goal to find out if New Guinea is connected (geographically contiguous) with Van Diemen’s Land. This basically meant – verifying if what we now call the “Torres Strait” existed.

Verifying the contiguity of New Guinea with Van Diemen’s Land (+Eendrachtsland +mainland Australia) was also one of the goals of the previous 1644 voyage, but that didn’t happen – making this second voyage necessary.

Map showing the rough route of Tasman’s two voyages. I blurred some of the uncharted coastlines just to give an appreciation that they were unknown at the time.

Tasman went around from Caep Valsch (on south coast of PNG), followed the coast into the Gulf of Carpentaria – and reportedly – completely missed the Torres Strait. He had ONE JOB – and he failed… or, did he? I think he did find the Torres Strait, but the Dutch just pretended it wasn’t there.

There’s a good strategic reason for the Dutch to pretend the Torres Strait was not there, and it is to do with the principle of contiguity. If all these lands are contiguous, the 1642 flag planting in “Tasmania” would count for all the way to west Papua. So it makes things much simpler. If the land is openly publicised to other European powers as not being one single land, it creates a higher burden on the Dutch for defending each separate land from other European claims. It would mean the Dutch would have to go to each of the lands, claim them, and make treaties or settlements. It is much easier and for only a small increase in risk to just blur some lines on a chart. Note also that Abel Tasman missed the Bass Strait (separating Tasmania from mainland Australia), and he also missed the Cook Strait (separating New Zealand north and south islands).

Note that Tasman’s instructions on his first voyage were to keep following any coastlines found – but he abruptly exited Tasmania just one day’s sailing before he would have found the Bass Strait. I don’t think it’s stretch at all to say the Bass Strait, Torres straits and Cook straits in NZ were probably deliberately covered-up.

After going in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Tasman went on to mark what is now Melville Island (near Darwin) on his chart as Van Diemen’s Land. This implies that Tasman thinks it is part of (joined with, contiguous with) Tasmania/Van Diemen’s Land. It gives the impression that you can walk from Tasmania to Darwin and onto Melville Island. And that is the impression if you look at many old charts of New Holland. You can even walk from Tasmania to West Papua – all the lands form a contiguous land mass with “mainland Australia”.

---

So the geographical understanding at this time can be described as follows (I will use modern names to make it easier);

West Papua, Papua New Guinea, mainland Australia and Tasmania are one single connected land mass called “New Holland”. It is (initially) a terra nullius – because of Tasman’s actions in context of instructions when claiming with the Princes flag.

New Zealand is a separate land in the Pacific with diplomatically recognised sovereigns.

---

The Treaty

The Dutch then do a treaty with the Sultanate of Tidore. The Sultanate of Tidore has territory on the coasts of West Papua.

So – Under the geographical understanding at the time – this means the Dutch now have treaty with natives of New Holland (because West Papua is thought to be connected to “mainland” New Holland).

After the treaty, terra nullius on this large, contiguous landmass of “New Holland” is (temporarily) undone. There are natives of New Holland, and the Dutch have a treaty with some of them.

Other European colonial powers then basically stay away from the whole area for nearly 150 years… Why? Because they think the Dutch have a rock-solid discovery claim of that area. It is stitched-up with Tasman’s Prince flag, with lots of maps, and with the Tidore treaty.

Under international law – ~150 years of other European powers staying away and not challenging the Dutch is significant because the basis of claims of sovereignty are based on self-claim and on peer recognition of that claim. The 150 years, unchallenged, is a strong sign of peer recognition. Dutch are basically sovereign over New Holland…

---

This time period – of Europeans staying away from Dutch New Holland – ends with Cook’s first voyage in 1770.

This is because the British found a new WEAKNESS in the Dutch claim.

The catalyst: The British found Luís Vaz de Torres’s voyage account during the 1762-1764 occupation of Manila. They read the Spanish naval archives and in there, they found the Torres Strait.

The existence of the Torres Strait means that the land that the Dutch have treaty over (West Papua) is NOT geographically contiguous with the large “continental” New Holland.

It means two things:

1. the Dutch can’t use the Tidore treaty to boost their claim over “continental” New Holland – the very large land mass…

2. the large land mass reverts back to Tasman’s 1642 terra nullius claim, because the Tidore treaty and any diplomatic relations with european powers (Dutch) happened on a different, geographically separate land.

“Mainland” New Holland just became up-for-grabs!

The British send out Cook specifically to claim discovery over areas of the “continental” New Holland that lie east of parts already charted by the Dutch. The British can do this – because they are now in-the-know that the Dutch don’t have a treaty anywhere on that “land”.

---

Terra Nullius – WHY DID THE MAORI GET A TREATY, AND WE DIDN’T?

As Abel Tasman in 1642 had already basically declared the mega-land (Tasmania+mainland Australia) as having no sovereign, the British piggy-backed on that implied declaration, and also treated that land as having no local sovereign.

This is in contrast to New Zealand – where the British went to some lengths to secure a treaty – even helping the Maori prepare by formalising their sovereignty through declaring independence, and designing the Maori flag etc.

The British found the Bass Strait during Cook’s second voyage. The proof of this is in Tobias Furneaux’s chart – IT IS A FRAUDULANT, COMPOSITE CHART.

But by the time of the First Fleet, the British still pretended NOT to know about the Bass Strait. They wanted to claim the big prize – “mainland Australia” without having to recognise sovereign Aboriginal nations. By pretending NOT to know about the Bass Strait – means they can still piggyback on Tasman’s implied claim of there being no sovereign (in Tasmania), and apply it to the mainland. The British waited until AFTER Port Jackson was settled before pretending to find the Bass Strait.

Footnote: the 141 E Border

The British (or maybe it was Queensland… it’s complicated) later in 1883 also annexed an eastern portion of New Guinea. This was a preemptive response to what I think (*explained more here*) was a manufactured threat that the Germans were about to annex it themselves. Queensland attempted to annex the east part, with a western border of longitude 141 degrees east.

Now here is a map of the extent of the Sultanate of Tidore:

According to this map (eyeballing), the eastern extremity of the Sultanate of Tidore was at about 141 degrees east. So, in turn that is also be the eastern extremity that the Dutch had treaty over.

The current border between Indonesian province of West Papua and Papua New Guinea roughly lies along this line, but it now has a small a zig-zag in it.

141 degrees east is also the eastern border of South Australia, also has a little zig-zag because of a “surveying error”. 141 was also, the initial eastern border of the Colony of Queensland.

Interesting, isn’t it?

In the Referendum Council Final Report, some legal advice is reproduced regarding sovereignty.

Here is the advice as in the report (I broke it into chunks and added the numbers in for further reference). In the report it is on page 12.:

1. Phillip’s instructions assumed that Australia was terra nullius, or belonged to no-one.

2. The subsequent occupation of the country and land law in the new colony proceeded on the fiction of terra nullius.

3. It follows that ultimately the basis of settlement in Australia is and always has been the exertion of force by and on behalf of the British Crown. No-one asked permission to settle.
No-one consented, no-one ceded.

4. Sovereignty was not passed from the Aboriginal peoples by any actions of legal significance voluntarily taken by or on behalf of them.

Referendum Council Final Report

In this post, I will go through each number, and dissect this advice and give some commentary.

---

1. Phillip’s instructions assumed that Australia was terra nullius, or belonged to no-one.”

Firstly, in 1788 Australia didn’t exist. Phillip’s instructions do not mention Australia, they refer to “Our Territory of New South Wales and its Dependencies”.

Secondly: The instructions use the word “Our” in “”Our Territory of New South Wales and its Dependencies”, which indicates possession. The territory is assumed to belong (or at least be reserved for) the British before the First Fleet arrives. If it belongs to the British, then it isn’t a terra nullius.

Maybe this could have been worded alternatively like – “British claim over the territory of New South Wales was made under an assumption that it was a terra nullius.” But without the British coming clean – we can’t know what they assumed.

---

2. The subsequent occupation of the country and land law in the new colony proceeded on the fiction of terra nullius.

The occupation proceeded based on presumed British ownership claims. We don’t know for sure if those British claims and related Acts of State were based on terra nullius – we can only speculate.

Based on my own speculation – I think colonisation proceeded in a complex and non-uniform way. The British have several different and overlapping grounds for territorial claims – some based on terra nullius, others not – even early on. Different parts of Australia were colonised in different ways. For example, the letters patent that established South Australia were not based on terra nullius. The basis of British claims over New Holland and Van Diemen’s Land were never “locked in”, because no one effectively challenged them. In other words – they got 6+ different stories ready-to-go, but never had to use them. The only stories out of these 6+ that were used are 1. ‘Captain Cook discovered Australia’, and 2. ‘terra nullius’. If the Dutch had set themselves up on the west or north coast of New Holland, British claims would have adjusted to one of the alternative stories.

What I find interesting about the advice in general, but particularly in this sentence 2., is the limitation of discourse to land law – instead of law. I think it’s because in the initial Port Jackson area, land tenure law was used as the foot-in-the-door for the reception of English law, which led to presumed British sovereignty. The cart came before the horse.

But don’t forget – it is not just our land that is under occupation – we as peoples are under occupation. They impose their law on us; on our person, on our physical bodies, on our culture, on our symbols and intellectual property. Also – territory is more than just land, so this does not address the occupation of waters and airspace which is also part of sovereignty.

---

3. It follows that ultimately the basis of settlement in Australia is and always has been the exertion of force by and on behalf of the British Crown. No-one asked permission to settle.
No-one consented, no-one ceded.

“No-one asked permission to settle.” Settlement: as a means of acquiring sovereignty of a no-man’s land, does not need permission – because you can’t get permission from a “no-man”. If the British got permission from Aborigines to “settle”, then it wouldn’t be settlement anymore – it would be something else. In the context of providing legal advice on sovereignty – this is a very confusing thing to write.

Maybe they are using the term ‘settlement’ to mean the domestic settling of the frontier, and not of acquiring sovereignty. But Mabo 2 uses the term “settlement” as a method to acquire sovereignty – so this just makes things confusing. Acquisition of sovereignty by settlement of a terra nullius with force = a contradiction in terms.

I have an issue with the assertion that “the exertion of force has always been ‘by and on behalf of the British Crown“. Over time, Australia has become increasingly administratively independent. The force “by and behalf of” over time has shifted towards the States and the Commonwealth and to the Australian people. It’s not all on the British Crown – let’s not forget that there is now a “Queen of Australia”. There are State governments, each with their own Crown, who forcibly extinguish Native Title. Let’s not forget there was the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADC) in 1987 which occurred after the Australia Acts 1986. The recommendations for the RCIADC were not enacted by the newly-administratively-independent local colonial administration, and this failure cost more Black lives. The claim that exertion of force is on the British Crown is very concerning to me, because I think we are being set-up so that after constitutional reform – if there are any reparations from the British Crown they will go directly to the Australian administration (who were partly responsible) instead of to the actual survivors of genocide.

“No-one consented, no-one ceded”. – This is a tricky one, I’ll get back to this at the end after I deal with 4…

---

4. Sovereignty was not passed from the Aboriginal peoples by any actions of legal significance voluntarily taken by or on behalf of them.

This is in regards to actions taken, or not taken by “Aboriginal peoples”. I’m assuming this here does not include Torres Strait Islander peoples, as they are in a different situation.

Note that this doesn’t say – “there was no treaty in the establishment of Australia” – because that wouldn’t be true. Australia is a treaty – it is a federation of States/colonies, the word federation derives from a word meaning treaty. Aboriginal people were never involved in any of the treaties that form the foundation of Australia.

---

Back to point 3 earlier – “no-one consented, no-one ceded”.

Well, it may be the case that the Dutch consented and ceded New Holland and/or Van Diemen’s Land to the British. Whether that happened or not, and whether that was valid or not, would be a technical question for an international court to determine. The question could be something like:

Did the Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824 include the territories of New Holland and Van Diemen’s land, and did it transfer sovereignty of those territories from the Dutch to the British?

I think (if you could miraculously get it into an international court – pretty much impossible) the answer would be “no”. Firstly – the lands were not specifically mentioned in the treaty (although the actions of the British suggest they considered the lands to be part of the treaty – see video from about 26 min). Secondly – the Dutch merely had right of preemption based on the Doctrines of Discovery, they never went further than that in their claims. Thirdly – the Dutch did not have any diplomatic relationships with; did not politically represent; nor negotiate any terms in the interests of, or on behalf of; the Aboriginal inhabitants of New Holland and Van Diemen’s Land in the 1824 treaty.

For the “yes” arguments for the question above – there was a change in international recognition from the Dutch to the British. Before 1788, New Holland was Dutch in maps, and other European powers stayed clear of the place in implied recognition of Dutch claim. International recognition of British sovereignty over the territory happened gradually after 1824, as they made new establishments across the land beyond the Great Dividing Range. The treaty marked the formality behind this shift.

But the British put many of their eggs in the basket for a “yes” answer for the technical question above. They never bothered with a treaty directly with Aboriginal nations. Now they are trying to fix this by sneaking us in under the Australian political representation system so they can speak with a sovereign, autochthonous (indigenous) voice.