I am currently putting together a book on James Cook’s First Voyage.
The idea of it is to look at the voyage in relation to: 1. the Doctrines of Discovery 2. Potential British motivations 3. The mass theft of documents the British made in Manila (ie. what the British secretly knew). 4. The geopolitical context especially with respect to Dutch claims over “New Holland”. 5. The available navigational technology available during different eras. Yes – the same kind of thing that I sometimes blog about, but I want to put it in a book, with some kind of structure (unlike my blog which kind of jumps about all over the place) and focusing on Cook’s first voyage.
This will be unlike any book ever written about Cook’s first voyage. Because I have found details that have been sitting there – right in front of everyone noses in Cook’s journals and charts – that no one seems to have noticed. You know – all those little odd details that seem out of place – like the location of Point Hicks. Most Cook authors just skip over it like it’s nothing. For me – I want a explanation. I think previous authors have been caught up and overly influenced by previous books on Cook – such as Beaglehole’s – that they have failed to step back and see the forest for the trees. Most authors also have so much respect for Cook that they cannot envisage him making mistakes or being outright deceptive. This is kind of ridiculous given the cloak-and-dagger way colonialism functioned in practice. I have taken a different approach by concentrating firstly on the primary sources, on the doctrines of discovery and how they operate in practice by looking at how it worked in other parts of the world, and using satellite imagery to recreate the path of different voyages (not just Cook’s).
I have never written a book before, so I don’t know how long it’s going to take. I know it will be a lot different from a blog where I can just write about random stuff I find when I find it. At the moment, I got an idea of what I want to put in the book, but I am not sure of the structure yet.
I’m tossing up between a non-fiction narrative style (which reads like a novel – a bit more creative, and hopefully entertaining to read with an attempt at character development) or a strait-up chronological run-down of history (not as fun to read, dry, but potentially more comprehensive and closer to the truth). I’ve already put together outlines for both styles and have started to fill them out. I think a narrative style book will be a real page turner if I can successfully pull it off… But I’m kind of a stickler for including all the minutia I have found that support my hypothesis. A lot of that minutia will have to be tossed in a narrative style because it will bog down the flow of the story.
The really important thing about this book – and why I want to write it – is that I think there is currently an attempt to rewrite Australian history but in a very misleading way. Under this new history, Aboriginal people were never colonised. Aboriginal people were simply people of an earlier wave of settlement. It may be that they were not even the first wave – if the ridiculous “pygmy hypothesis” gets picked into the mainstream narrative (I think this may happen – given enough time). The new history narrative is simply false. By examining Cook’s voyage in the way I will in this book will prove that we were colonised, how we were colonised (because it happened a bit differently than in other parts of the world) and that we are under colonial occupation to this day. This book will be a preemptive strike against the new history narrative. From a practical political standpoint, right now it doesn’t even matter if we are not the first people (we are!)… what matters is we are under colonial occupation and that entails special rights for self determination under a decolonial context.
So maybe I will not blog as much now as I focus on the book. But during my research I am still finding new surprising things which I can’t help but share…. in that case I might still drop a blog post here and there.
My hypothesis is that the British moved into claim the eastern coast of New Holland because they found out about the existence of the Torres Strait. The existance of the strait revealed that the single landmass consisting of what is now west Papua, Papua New Guinea, mainland Australia and Tasmania – was actually two landmasses. And the Dutch only had a treaty over the northernmost landmass – leaving mainland and Australia as a landmass over which the Dutch have not secured with a treaty.
Anyway – it seems fairly obvious that Alexander Darlymple must have found the Torres Strait in the naval archives during the British occupation of Manila from 1762 to 1764. So what documents did he find? This is an interesting question to ask – because the answer will further reveal what the British knew while plotting James Cook’s First Voyage to claim the east coast of New Holland.
Something I noticed recently, is a tweet by Margaret Cameron-Ash on the 9 October.
Cameron-Ash seems to be implying that Darlymple learnt of the Torres Strait not from combing through documents in Manila – but from finding a very rare document in bookshop in London. I think this is bit incredulous that Darlymple should search though a treasure trove of old Spanish documents in Manila and find nothing – but later stumble on such a rare document in a London shop. I think this propaganda to be honest – designed to downplay what the British knew and when they knew it.
But maybe I biased and butt-hurt – because if this were true – it would partly (but not completely) spoil my theory that James Cook’s voyage was initiated as a response to the discovery of the Torres Strait. This is because it pushes the date of Darlymples finding from 1762-ish to a later date of 1766. 1766 is already after the longitude sea trial to Barbados in 1763 – which I think was a technical test run for Cook’s voyage.
As for this document that Darlymple allegedly stumbled on in a London Bookshop – it is an Arias Memorial (of which there are several). I don’t know what it says, but I found a description of it on this sales-pitch;
Arias, a Franciscan, was appointed as an official “chronicler” of the Indies in 1591 and, after the death of Quirós in 1614, became one of the greatest promoters of Quirós’s vision to establish a Spanish empire in the western Pacific. Arias wrote his Memorial at the behest of another fervent supporter of Quirós, Juan de Silva, who had himself written a series of direct appeals to King Philip III on the subject. …..
For more than a century-and-a-half following Torres’s voyage the strait was considered by most geographers likely to be a mirage, which was why Dalrymple was so astonished by the evidence laid out by Arias, and why his important monograph An Account of the Discoveries made in the South Pacifick Ocean (“1767”, but issued in 1769) included a small chart which roughly sketched the track of Torres. He was so excited that he rushed a pre-publication copy of the work to Joseph Banks before the latter sailed in 1768, and was bitterly upset when he felt his contribution had been overlooked in the official account of the Endeavour voyage written by John Hawkesworth, which finally appeared in mid-1773. He rushed into print immediately after, his A Letter from Mr. Dalrymple to Dr. Hawkesworth (1773) a pamphlet notorious for its intemperate language and sometimes wild accusations
A few things to note – the memorial/letter is by a associate of Quiros. Quiros wasn’t even on the Torres Strait portion on the voyage – so this memorial is at best a third-hand account. I don’t know why Darlymple would be so certain based purely on such a document.
This story above also ties in with a story of butt-hurt Dalrymple – the poor old sod who knew about the Torres Strait, but nobody listened to him. That puts distance between the huge geopolitical ramifications of the the discovery and the motivations of Cook’s voyage. It says – the British were too stupid or naïve to see that the Torres Strait greatly weakened Dutch claim over that “south land” (mainland Australia and Tasmania). But I’m not buying it – I don’t think the British are so naïve.
Also note that the date of Darlymple’s find has been pushed as late as plausibly possible here – because Darlymple has Torres’s track in his book in 1767 they can’t go later than that. Propagandists can only do so much.
So if I’m right and Darlymple found something in those Manilla archives – what did he find?
I think he found the full accounts of Prado y Tobar. I think Cook had a full copy with him during the Voyage. This is why Cook went into the bay near Yarrabah (near Cairns) because it looks like Prado y Tobar’s sketch of the Bay of Saint James and Saint Phillip (which is actually in Vanuatu – marked in image below as Espiritu Santo).
If Cook had Prado y Tobar’s map, then he would also have at least 4 other maps detailing a handful of places along the south coast of Papua. Maybe that’s why he headed up near False Cape – he was looking for the site of one of these other maps.
Another reason I think Darlymple found the full account is from reading his book, he seemed to know that Espiritu Santo was expected to be found much further east – ie. not on the New Holland coast. Cook also seemed to be under that general impression – but didn’t stop him totally discounting the possibility (eg. by checking out Yarrabah). I don’t know what’s in the Arias Memorial though, but I doubt that kind of information as to how west Espiritu Santo lies would have been in it.
I have seen some ‘historians’ say that Cook knew Espiritu Santo wasn’t on the coast because of Bougainville’s discovery – but that doesn’t make sense because Cook wouldn’t have known of Bouganville’s voyage until he arrived in Batavia.
But with the Prado y Tobar account alone – the British would also be under the impression that Prado y Tobar was the captain of this voyage – not Torres. If that were so – then Darlymple et al. would have named the strait Tobar Strait – not the Torres Strait.
So maybe Margaret Cameron-Ash is right after all. Perhaps… Darlymple found the full-monty Prado y Tobar’s account plus charts in Manila. But the British didn’t want to let-on they had that kind of information. The Arias Memorial was sitting around in London somewhere, someone dug it up on Darymple’s return, and the story was it being magically found it in Covent Gardens bookshop. The discovery was further downplayed with Darlymples butt-hurt and public whiny letters.
Just saying also – those account of Prado y Tobar were eventually published – and guess who publishd them? Yeah the British. They showed up in 1888 in the hands of a woman’s right activist – Anne Clough (random!) and eventually published by the Hakluyt Society.
Take Abel Tasman’s stated longitude of Fredrick Henry Bay (where he planted the Princes Flag):
167 degrees 55 minutes East of Teneriffe.
Convert this to east of Greenwich using James Cooks stated longitude difference given in his journal on 24th September 1768 – Teneriffe lies “Longitude 16 degrees 32 minutes from Greenwich”:
151 degrees 23 minutes East of Greenwich.
Convert from east of Greenwich to west of Greenwich:
208 degrees 37 minutes West of Greenwich.
Now look at Cook’s journal. What is his given longitude given for Botany Bay? It’s the exact same value as above!
208 degrees 37 minutes West of Greenwich
But that isn’t where Botany Bay actually is. See map below at point labeled “Cook’s stated position of Botany Bay”:
Map showing Cook’s stated position of Botany bay and the actual landing place.
I think the British were trying to ‘bait’ the Dutch into a trap. Here is how the trap should work (hypothetically).
Dutch read/hear about the British planning a settlement at Botany Bay(Stingray Bay). They look at Cook’s journal to find where it is.
They are provoked – because they note that the British are sticking a settlement at the EXACT same longitude as the Prince Flag (where their formal possession claim was made), therefore right smack-bang on top of “the border”.
First Fleet arrives in Botany Bay(Stingray Bay) but secretly relocates and settles in the real Botany Bay (in Sydney Cove).
A informant leaks (correct) information to the Dutch that Stingray Bay (landing place on map above) which the Dutch should be misled to believe is the settlement site, actually lies 10 minutes in longitude west of where Cook states it is.
Dutch call for a survey of the location of the settlement – as they believe (due to the informant) it lies on the Dutch side of the line. By calling for a survey on that basis, they inadvertently validate the entire premise of having a Anglo-Dutch border along a certain longitude (rather than geographical contiguity principle)
British agree to resurvey (of course, as was the plan).
Survey is completed and Stingray Bay and it’s opening into the sea is discovered to be on the Dutch side of the line.
British then pull the ace out of their sleeve and call for a resurvey of the Peak of Teneriffe/Greenwich (and therefore Tasman’s Prince Flag longitude).
Resurvey of Teneriffe shifts the Prince Flag location and derived border-line (reckoned from Teneriffe which is now moved) 6 minutes further to the west (to the red line on the map above). The true location of Teneriffe Peak is 16 degrees 38 minutes west of Greenwich – not 16d 32min (which the British know because Cook sailed past it and checked).
This new line (with 6 minute shift) is marked on map above in red. As Cook claimed “bays, harbours and rivers” – Sydney harbour is now the southernmost bay/harbour/river that opens east of the red line.
British then pull out the other ace card…. and reveal that the “Botany Bay” settlement is in fact – further north in Sydney Cove not in Stingray Bay. They reveal the true location of the settlement, and perhaps also reveal 1770 charts of Sydney Cove. Note also – that the Stingray Bay landing site and Sydney Cove lie at the exact same longitiude – also handy for trying to trick the Dutch.
But La Perouse would have ruined the whole plan by telling everyone in Europe where the settlement was really located. The Dutch would have been tipped off, and would have known the settlement was not at Stingray Bay at latitude 34. It’s no wonder he disappeared with no survivors.
I’ve been digging a bit more into this, and found this rabbit holes goes deep.
You know you are onto something – when your hypothesis starts to explain questions that you know others have, but you weren’t actively trying to find the answers for.
Why did Cook name Port Jackson (port where Sydney is) after “Mr Jackson”? Who the heck is he? People used to speculate that there must have been someone on the ship named Mr Jackson, but Mr Jackson turned out to be a secretary of the Admiralty – George Jackson.
On the other side of the Tasman sea is “Point Jackson”, which lies on the north west of Queen Charlotte Sound. “Point Jackson” in New Zealand is – I think – what Cook believed to be adjacent to a candidate for Murderer’s Bay. This is also named after George Jackson. So George Jackson seems to pop out of nowhere into this story, with places named in these particular areas that fit in with my hypothesis.
But “Jackson” is not the only name that pops up. “Stephens” is the other name – Cape Stephens is the cape that lies at the top of Admiralty Bay, and is topped off with Stephens Island. On the “Australian” side, there is Port Stephens. They are both named after Philip Stephens – First secretary of the Admiralty.
Perhaps these places were named not by Cook while on the voyage, but in the gentlemen’s smoking room back in London on Cook’s return. The narcissistic men present – drawing up the fudged map, and dividing the un-named places, and then naming them after themselves.
Who is “Mr Jackson” and why did Cook name two places after him? My thoughts – Cook didn’t name it at sea with his sextant in-hand. A group of men negotiated the names back in London with whiskey and cigars in-hand.
There are two, moveable place names – that were like labels – they needed to be placed on the correct geographical feature. They are “Cape Farewell” which is a cape lying at the same longitude of Tasman’s Murderer’s Bay (wherever it is – Cook couldn’t find it on the voyage itself), and “Botany Bay” which needed to be attached to the future site of British settlement.
“Botany Bay” chosen as a name – possibly being a hangover from Alexander Darlymple’s hypothesis of Portuguese discovery. The Dieppe Maps had a “Costa des Herbaiges” on it – a name with a “Botanic” aura to it. The Portuguese discovery hypothesis is politically convenient for the British as it would help undermine Dutch First Discovery claims. So it makes sense for the British to pretend that their Botany Bay is part of the Costa des Herbaiges.
My hypothesis is that on the return of the First Voyage, Joseph Banks used his influence and money to get hold of Tasman’s journal (a copy of which was in his library after he died). From the journal, the smoking-room-Admiralty-men figured out that Murderer’s Bay is not Ship Cove, nor any cove in Admiralty Bay – but is what Cook named “Blind Bay”.
During the voyage, Cook had made allowances and cleverly left a margin-of-error to accommodate candidate bays between Queen Charlotte Sound and Admiralty Bay as being Murderer’s Bay – but Blind Bay was way outside this margin of error. This is why Cook’s chart of New Zealand had to be greatly distorted, and why there are large problems with some coordinates – some points being off by nearly 2 degrees in longitude (keep in mind Lunar distances should put them within about 30 minutes so 120 minute errors are very suss).
Where is Botany Bay?
As for Botany Bay – remember how the current Botany Bay was originally named by Cook as Stingray Bay?
Here’s another idea I have. When Cook left Stingray Bay – it was still called Stingray Bay. Another landing site was near Circular Quay inside Sydney Harbour. So there were two “Botany Bay” settlement candidates. One is in the bay that is today called Botany Bay (where the airport runway sticks out into). The other one is the Sydney Harbour “Botany Bay” at the Royal Botanic Garden behind the Opera House. I believe the Sydney bay was the site of the farm and governor house at the initial penal colony. Both are sacred Whiteman’s land, walked upon by the hero James Cook. Whiteman never built there to this day, they left both as botanical places. These two sites actually lie at the same longitude – they are in line with each other north/south.
Also note that the penal colony itself, located inside Sydney Harbour (and not the bay where the airport is) was colloquially called “Botany Bay” for a long time. Maybe that was no colloquialism… it really is Botany Bay. So to sing of going to Botany Bay was a kind-of “in-joke”.
And what happened to La Perouse? Did the British sabotage him because he actually SAW the First Fleet moving between the two Botany Bays? Was Perouse going to go spoil of plan of playing “guess the bay” with the Dutch? I think the British were actually counting on the Dutch making a lazy contestation of the penal settlement based on Cook’s given longitude of the site, and then doing a big reveal of the real Botany Bay as laying further north. La Perouse turned up at the exactly wrong moment – and he would have blown the entire thing had he gone back to Europe and blabbed. So the British topped him – sabotaged his ship.
Queen Elizabeth II has a time capsule for the people of Sydney to be opened in 2085. Is it a 1770 chart or drawing of Port Jackson?
Why did Margaret Cameron-Ash come up with the ridiculous story of Cook walking all alone, in secret, without any of his crew noticing, overland from Stingray Bay to Port Jackson using Aboriginal paths? I think because there is – somewhere – a 1770 drawing or chart of Port Jackson – and this is an attempt to explain it away before it is revealed to the public.
Where did Joseph Banks collect his botanical samples? Is it too late to do what the Gerard Baden-Clay prosecution did – (with their botanical expert proving the crime scene location) locating the collection place of Bank’s samples? Why was Banks (and others on the Endeavour) so full of praise for the landing site when Stingray Bay is a poor site? Maybe because they were actually in Sydney Cove – a sheltered deep harbour with a water-spring.
I’ve been trying to figure out what went wrong with the plan for Cook’s First Voyage.
Below is the sequence of events that I think happened and how the error played out. It might not have been Cook’s fault/miscalculation at all.
In England, before the voyage starts, someone takes the four relevant positions from Rembrantse’s extract of Tasman’s 1964 voyage, and converts the longitudes from East of Teneriffe (as used by Tasman) to West of Greenwich (as Cook will use). The four positions are 1. Princes Flag, 2. Van Diemen’s Land departure point, 3. Murderer’s Bay and 4. Cape Maria Van Diemen.
The conversion of the longitude of one of the points – Cape Maria Van Diemen is incorrect. The converted point is one degree too far east. It is pretty easy to make such a mistake – especially when manually converting longitudes from East to West. (I no longer think it was a subtraction “carry” error as I wrote previously, because of the way the one degree error popped up again later on 18th April with Cook failing to catch it at that time).
Cook successfully locates Cape Maria Van Diemen. He calculates the offset between his value of Cape Maria Van Diemen and Tasman’s value as 49 minutes in latitude, when it is – in fact – 1 degree, 49 minutes. This error is due to the earlier mis-conversion of the Cape Maria Van Diemen point.
Cook takes Tasman’s value of Murderer’s Bay, then calculates a point 49 minutes to the west. He searches this area for Murderer’s Bay. This is in Queen Charlotte Sound – around Ship Cove. Cook is searching one degree too far east due to the error.
Cook spends several days in this area of Queen Charlotte Sound, taking his time – exploring and charting it well. His astronomer is busy determining the precise longitude by repeated astronomical observations during this time. However Cook has some doubts he is in the correct spot because the latitude is too far south.
This hunting for the precise bay by pure longitude is – in a practical sense; a waste of time. Abel Tasman used dead-reckoning and an hour glass to measure his longitude of Murderer’s Bay. For Cook’s men to try to find this arbitrary longitude that was imprecisely measured in the first place is pointless – UNLESS the goal is to show off the technology Cook’s party is using. This is why I think ultimately – the goal was not to find the exact bay Tasman got attacked, it was to show off to the world that the British have solved the longitude problem.
After leaving Queen Charlotte Sound, then doing a complete anti-clockwise round of the south island, Cook finds there is more land further to the west of Queen Charlotte Sound (at the top of the south island). He searches for Murderer’s Bay again – this time using it’s recorded latitude. This is when he goes into Admiralty Bay
Cook (wrongly) realises that Murderer’s Bay must lie somewhere inside a large labyrinth of coves. He needs more information to correctly identify it. He has top-secret instructions to take his departure directly from Murderer’s Bay – but he doesn’t know where Murderer’s Bay is – so he has a problem. He solves this problem by inventing “Cape Farewell”. At time of departure, “Cape Farewell” is not a geographical feature – it is a “label” for a theoretical cape that lies at the same longitude of Murderer’s Bay (which he can’t find). At the time of departure – Cook gives the longitude of “Cape Farewell” as the same real-life longitude of Whareatea Bay (a cove inside Admiralty Bay). Whareartea Bay is a good candidate for Murderer’s Bay as it lies at the expected latitude of 40 degrees 50 minutes South. It’s clever to call the label “Cape Farewell” – as it is also a self-cue to Cook – “the place I was supposed to take my departure from”.
On the 17th April, Cook is transiting the Tasman Sea and is close to New Holland. He indicates that some astronomical calculations have been done, and that there may be an error of up to 22 minutes in his ship log position. This 22 minutes error range – backtracked and superimposed on NZ, is enough to encompass Ship Cove as a possible location of Murderer’s Bay. He is allowing himself a possibility to shift “Cape Farewell” to the top of Queen Charlotte Sound at a latter date. He thinks Murderer’s Bay should lie within this 22 minute longitude range that encompasses both Admiralty Bay (Whareatea Bay) and Queen Charlotte Sound (Ship Cove).
On the 18th April, Cook states “By our Longitude we are a degree to the Westward of the East side of Van Diemen’s Land”. Doing the sums here – it is clear he has used the erroneous 49 minute offset value, and added this to the value of Tasman’s departure point from Rembrantse – rather than use the correct value of 1 degree, 49 minutes.
At the arrival in New Holland, Cook has a slight problem. He doesn’t know where he is supposed to land. He makes-do. His first successful landing is at Botany Bay. He gives the Longitude of Botany Bay as being “Latitude of 34 degrees 0 minutes South, Longitude 208 degrees 37 minutes West”. This is EXACTLY the longitude Rembrantse’s extract has given for the Prince Flag (167 degrees 55 minutes east of Teneriffe) – converted to west of Greenwich Observatory using Cook’s longitude for Teneriffe that he has in his journal on 24th September 1768 “<The Peak of Teneriff>… lies in the Latitude of 28 degrees 13 minutes North, and Longitude 16 degrees 32 minutes from Greenwich.”.
Cook has actually landed 10 minutes to the east of this stated longitude. This lies within the expected 1/2 degree error range for using the lunar distances method. But it could also be that Cook has a chronometer at-hand, and has (secretly) adjusted for the true position of Teneriffe relative to Greenwich. The standard conversion number used at the time (Teneriffe to Greenwich) was off by about 6 minutes of longitude. If it is the case, and Cook has adjusted for this 6 minute error (he swung by Teneriffe earlier on this journey and had the opportunity to measure it’s position with a stealth chronometer) – then he has landed in Botany Bay within 3 minutes of longitude of this adjusted goal – very precise. The adjusted goal is the red line in the map below.
Was the longitude of the Princes Flag reckoned with a chronometer all the way from Teneriffe (red line)? Note that the line also cuts through Sydney Harbour – so it makes sense that Cook would have also explored in there.
It would not surprise me if Cook also sailed into Port Jackson/Sydney – firstly because it lies at the same longitude as the Botany Bay landing site, and secondly – it lies right on this red line. If Cook got the landing spot-on (without the 3 minute error), Port Jackson would have been the real target. If he was combining lunar distances and the chronometer, and also using lunar distances to periodically re-calibrate the chronometer, he may have been able to pinpoint to-the-minute precision. It certainly seems like he already achieved this INSANE level of precision at Cape Maria Van Diemen and at Ship Cove. I suspect there exists a drawing or chart of Port Jackson from 1770 that will be revealed sometime in the future – a drawing without depth sounding information (water depths taken by holding a string with a weight off the side of the boat to see how deep the water is). This is the reason Margaret Cameron-Ash has speculated that Cook walked overland from Botany Bay to Port Jackson – I think this story is to ‘prime’ people with an explanation when the drawing is eventually revealed. Cameron-Ash seems to already know there is no depth sounding data on this sketch/chart. It would make sense strategically to keep Sydney Harbour secret. Also Botany Bay lies at exactly latitude 34 degrees south – so it’s easy to find by low-tech methods, and makes a good ‘decoy’ for Sydney Harbour. Perhaps this is why La Perouse also found Botany Bay so easily in 1788.
Back to the NZ situation. Short of taking a long detour for further exploration, I don’t think Cook could have much else during the voyage to ‘solve’ the problem of not finding Murderer’s Bay, and therefore salvage one of the key missions – to showcase British technical ingenuity in solving the longitude problem. But Cook was genius in leaving as many options open to later place Murderer’s Bay through his “Cape Farewell” idea. On return to England, more information was sourced – namely – Abel Tasman’s journal and charts. Through this – Blind Bay was revealed as the location of Murderer’s Bay. “Cape Farewell” was stuck on the top of Blind Bay.
The rest of the chart of New Zealand was then moulded around this – into a creative fiction to place other key places at the “correct” location. This has no bearing on actual location of places. Cook had a habit of leaving spaces in his journal for latitudes and longitudes to be filled in afterwards (you can see this in the holograph scans). In practice, coordinates would have been kept track of inside tables in a dedicated navigation log (far more convenient). Cook filled in his journal coordinates based on the ‘creative’ chart that was made afterwards – not from the original navigation logs. It was probably filled-in after he got back to England and found where Murderer’s Bay really is. And at whatever time it was filled in, the original one degree error had still not been discovered – otherwise the chart would not have been distorted, as there would have been no need to.
The problem with this – while a chart and a ship’s journal can lie, the actual coastline of New Zealand will never mould itself to conform to the chart. The British (and Cook) must keep their mouths shut about the achievement (and I acknowledge – the longitudinal precision achieved on this voyage was groundbreaking) and try again. If they use this voyage as proof of solving the longitude problem using fraudulent charts and an embarrassing high-school level math error, the fraud will be eventually revealed by the New Zealand coastline itself. Instead – Cook openly takes chronometers on his second voyage.
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.
Abel Tasman’s chart showing the longitudinal difference between Van Diemen’s Land (left) and New Zealand (middle).
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.
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;
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
Table: Calculations Cook would have done to find the expected longitude of Murderer’s Bay
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.
White lines show our calculated Lat/long – the intersection of white lines is where Cook should be looking. Instead, he is searching exactly one degree further 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)
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.
Overlay: 1. Cook’s chart (faded paper colour) 2. modern outline map (d-maps.com) blue water, white land. Overlaying visually shows the distortion is centered around Cape Farewell/Admiraty Bay/Ship Cove.
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).
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
Table: Resetting the longitude of N.Z. zero-point from Admiralty Bay to Ship Cove
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?
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.
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.
Map showing a red line marking Cook’s first voyage course. Possession Island and landing near Valsche Caep are marked.
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.
CARTE DE LA TERRE DES PAPOUS, DE LA NOUVELLE GUINEE, ET DES ISLES DE SALOMON SELON LE SYSTEME DE M. LE CHEVR DALRYMPLE PAR LE SR. DE VAUGONDY 1774.
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?
Valsche Caep means False Cape – because it’s a separate island. Nothing to do with any “Walsch”.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Map showing the location where Tasman planted the Prince Flag. Today, there is a small monument there, I believe at the southern end of a beach now called “Two Mile Beach” near Dunalley. I found a blog post of someone who visited – it’s looks to be a very low-key and obscure landmark.
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!
A map showing the British view of the situation after their new find in the Spanish naval archives
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.
