Wreck may hold clue to nation's discovery

[meuritt]

for our Aussie Friends:

DID American whalers discover the east coast of Australia before Captain Cook?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/wreck-may-hold-clue-to-nations-discovery-20091129-jyvw.html

[seanz]

Will Australians have to drive on the right now?
:)

It's good to be able to add any discoveries to the historical record but it won't change the fact that Cook wasn't the first and that he should always be best remembered for his cartography and outstanding seamanship.


And for nearly discovering Antarctica.
;):)

[katiedobe]

It was the Chiniese in 1421 that sailed all over and touched down everywhere.
The Maori even have Chinese DNA in theirs. So do the Mayans. Plus there are two villages in Peru that speak different dialects of Chinese.

Read the book "1421 the year China discovered America" by Gavin Menzies.
Very controversial but researched and documented very well.
Here is the website.

http://www.1421.tv

[2MeterTroll]

umm i think the aborigines discovered AU. you got to check me on this but i do think its true.

[katiedobe]

Quite right. They were there first, soon after early man left Africa with the first Migration.

[Candyfloss]

Gavin Menzies is a good read, & I'm sure there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere, but NZ was undiscovered by Polynesians in 1421. Best archeological evidence I've read dates their presence no more than 1500 years. And that is an early-as-possible figure. And no-one except Thor Hyadaal (sp?) doubts their Asian origin.

But then again, American Indians (am I allowed to call them that? It's so confusing for those of us of advancing years. They keep changing the names.) North and South are also originally Asians as well. So even if Thor is right, they are all Asians. And scientists are very divided on dates for the (original) settling of America. Or how, why & when Asians became identifiably different from Africans & Europeans.

And it does seem that Aborigines have been isolated in Aus for a very, very, very long time. I'm astonished that no-one has looked deeper into it. Or do you know something I don't Jim?

[BETTY-B]

Read the book "1421 the year China discovered America" by Gavin Menzies.
Very controversial but researched and documented very well.


I made it about half way through. Not sure if I will pick it back up. Something about the way the guy is trying to talk me(the reader) into believing his research bugs me. None the less, very interesting reading anyway.

DAN

[Larks]

Quite right. They were there first, soon after early man left Africa with the first Migration.

There is actually some theory, though not widely supported, that there were others here before them.

[epoxyboy]

Interesting, but since when did hitting a reef 450km off the coast of anywhere count as discovering the coast?

Pete

[The Bigfella]

Yep - I'd call that an epic failure to discover.

There's also the famous Mahogany Ship... which surfaced a couple of times in the sand on a Victorian beach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahogany_Ship

[Dan McCosh]

If you discover something, and don't get back to tell anyone, is it really discovered? Tree falling in the forest and all that...

[WX]

At 450 kms, it would not be possible to sight the coast. Therefore, sadly it misses on 2 counts.
1. Failure to see coastline.
2.failure to report reef.

It is possible though that Cook had copies of notes made by a previous explorer because after hitting the reef he made straight for the future site of Cooktown to careen the ship.

[The Bigfella]

Well, wouldn't you head for a place that was named after you?

[purri]

There is actually some theory, though not widely supported, that there were others here before them.

BTW it's a hypothesis not a theory. The "Bradshaw" no mouths (Wandjinas/ Mimis) of the Kimberley and Cape York are secret/sacred with the knowledge restricted on a need to know principle. And that "hackerdemic" who posited a first wave of migration (thus inherent difference) is a crock!

Linguistic differences of opinion make a distinction between Parma Nyungan and Non Parma Nyungan lingos but trade routes meld both into a variety of "kriols".

Some kartiya "experts" make their entire careers peddling this crap "privileging the other" with scant regard for the truth of the matter.

[Garret]

Well, wouldn't you head for a place that was named after you?

LOL - thanks :D

[Steve Paskey]

Read the book "1421 the year China discovered America" by Gavin Menzies.
Very controversial but researched and documented very well.
Here is the website.

http://www.1421.tv

"Controversial" is a generous description. I've read "1421," and from everything I've seen it's mostly rubbish ... an entertaining read filled with tons of historical junk. There may be some interesting nuggets of truth in there, but there seems to be so much trash that no one could ever sort it out.

Google "1421 debunked" or something like that if you really want to know more.

[The Bigfella]

with the knowledge restricted on a need to know principle


I need to know, so, out with it.

[Taylor Tarvin]

Well, wouldn't you head for a place that was named after you?


No, not a chance.:D

[Candyfloss]

"Discovering" certainly implies living to tell the tale, just as "conquering the mountain" implies getting back down in one piece.

Conspiracy theories abound. 15 minuets in my local library turns up a Gary J. Cook DSc, who posits that NZ was inhabited 3000 years ago.

"The information contained within this book is drawn from "lost" or discarded archival material, a storehouse of old lore, scientific understandings and previous observations worthy of reappraisal by open minds." Sound familiar? I'll have time to read it today.

[katiedobe]

Better yet get a copy of "Before the Dawn- recovering the lost history of our ancestors" by Nicolas Wade. He speaks of the origin of man in africa and how the migrations moved out across the world based upon DNA research.

Very interesting stuff.

Why do you not believe Gavin's theories? He writes a bit defensively because so many people want to believe the Europe as the center of everything important. And what about the DNA evidence? Or the oral traditions of local indiginous people. Down here in the Yucatan the old mayans tell stories told to them by their grandparents of how the Chinaman is their brother.

[johnw]

And it does seem that Aborigines have been isolated in Aus for a very, very, very long time. I'm astonished that no-one has looked deeper into it. Or do you know something I don't Jim?
I'd sort of doubt that. My guess is that people have been arriving slowly over the years since the first immigration, generally by getting shipwrecked. What they didn't have was trade with the rest of Asia.

[WX]

What they didn't have was trade with the rest of Asia.

There was some trade. The Cape York and Torres Strait people traded with the people of PNG and the People of Arnhem Land traded and apparently sometimes crewed on boats from the Moluccas.


AbstractWe examined genetic affinities of Aboriginal Australian and New Guinean populations by using nucleotide variation in the two hypervariable segments of the mtDNA control region (CR). A total of 318 individuals from highland Papua New Guinea (PNG), coastal PNG, and Aboriginal Australian populations were typed with a panel of 29 sequence-specific oligonucleotide (SSO) probes. The SSO-probe panel included five new probes that were used to type an additional 1,037 individuals from several Asian populations. The SSO-type data guided the selection of 78 individuals from Australia and east Indonesia for CR sequencing. A gene tree of these CR sequences, combined with published sequences from worldwide populations, contains two previously identified highland PNG clusters that do not include any Aboriginal Australians; the highland PNG clusters have coalescent time estimates of ∼80,000 and 122,000 years ago, suggesting ancient isolation and genetic drift. SSO-type data indicate that 84% of the sample of PNG highlander mtDNA belong to these two clusters. In contrast, the Aboriginal Australian sequences are intermingled throughout the tree and cluster with sequences from multiple populations. Phylogenetic and multidimensional-scaling analyses of CR sequences and SSO types split PNG highland and Aboriginal Australian populations and link Aboriginal Australian populations with populations from the subcontinent of India. These mtDNA results do not support a close relationship between Aboriginal Australian and PNG populations but instead suggest multiple migrations in the peopling of Sahul.


http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002929707623349
The aboriginal people of Northern Australia appear to have been selective in the technologies adopted from other cultures.
Trade between groups and areas within Australia was widespread and complex.

[purri]

There are long term marriage and belief system links between TSIs and NGs that continue to the present. FWIW Saibai? island is abt 4 KM from the NG mainland and they (as poor relations) come over for health care etc.

Bugis (Macassans) have traded certainly since 1500 and probably for a few milennia, the Yolngu (not all, i.e. Iwaitja) having marriages and trade links across both, with the trade being shut down by balanda in the 1930s. Several dance ceremonies (bunggul) commemorate their presence, activities and blood links.

[johnw]

In contrast, the Aboriginal Australian sequences are intermingled throughout the tree and cluster with sequences from multiple populations. Phylogenetic and multidimensional-scaling analyses of CR sequences and SSO types split PNG highland and Aboriginal Australian populations and link Aboriginal Australian populations with populations from the subcontinent of India. These mtDNA results do not support a close relationship between Aboriginal Australian and PNG populations but instead suggest multiple migrations in the peopling of Sahul.

Thought so.

[purri]

Thought so.

Simplistic hypothesis. The sampling was VERY small, most locals being EXTREMELY suspicious of the intent. The paper's authors talk it up big time but it ultimately fails on the grounds of sample size and colonial and post colonial waves of migration. In our family we have 2 streams of sub continent input but all after 1880. BTW many Indian labourers stayed on after colonial indenture from the 1840's.

FLAWED BIG TIME!!!!

[RFNK]

Thought so.

Purri
I suspect JW's comment was a tongue in cheek reference to the technical jargon rather than actual agreement ...... Rick

[purri]

^Ta mate,
However, always suspicious of hackerdemic "upstairs" talking about "downstairs" to advance their agendas. (ref recent Indian "findings" along the lines of sundry C19 colonial dispossession agendas)

[johnw]

There's a similar situation with the Greenland natives, who may or may not have interbred with the viking colony before it collapsed. Additional immigrants have been there long enough, there's currently no way to tell if the early interbreeding happened. Some stuff gets lost in history.

If there were continual immigrations, I should think they would be from nearby maritime cultures, like the Austronesians who settled everything from Taiwan to Madagascar. I'm thinking they did arrive, but found people already there, and either left again or genetically immersed to an extent that it would be hard to find any trace of them.

Sorry about the tongue in cheek. Sometimes it's hard to resist a little levity even if it leads to misunderstandings.