Discovery of Australia

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,343
Australia
#31
It was common for travellers and traders to have coins from different regions. All it proves is that someone with an African coin was in that part of Australia some time after the year 1400.

White settlers in Australia relied on Spanish coins for decades due to a shortage of English currency. Do you think that this is proof that early white settlers were Spanish?
 
Last edited:
Oct 2015
5,179
Matosinhos Portugal
#32
According to the writers the Portuguese discovery of Australia would have been kept secret because of the. Treaty of Tordesilhas that divided the world in two in 1494

Segundo os escritores a descoberta portuguesa da Austrália teria ficado em segredo por causa do. Tratado de Tordesilhas que dividiu o mundo em dois em 1494
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,343
Australia
#33
According to the writers the Portuguese discovery of Australia would have been kept secret because of the. Treaty of Tordesilhas that divided the world in two in 1494

Segundo os escritores a descoberta portuguesa da Austrália teria ficado em segredo por causa do. Tratado de Tordesilhas que dividiu o mundo em dois em 1494
This is a better translation: "We don't need to show proof because it is secret".
 
Last edited:

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,343
Australia
#35
Dan Howard OK

TERRA DE JAVA . Cristóvão Mendonça 1522 ) AUSTRALIA

Discovery of the Timor 1512 portuguese Timor It is close to Australia
Really? You think a distance of over 2000 km is "close"?

Look, it is good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. Australians have been studying this subject pretty thoroughly for over a century. We would love to see some proper evidence that sheds more light on this part of our history.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#36
This is an outdated idea. We've already had an extensive thread debunking this.

I didn't know that.But then, it's over 30 years since I studied aboriginal culture at university. Embarrassing when one's 'expert knowledge' of a topic becomes out of date.

Perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

Guess I should have checked first, but the studies on kinship I remember made it pretty clear Aboriginal society was egalitarian and anarchic, not tribal. However, if that view is wrong it's wrong.

Forgive me if I don't simply take accept the consensus of an internet forum; the level of scholarship here seems to range from the post graduate to elementary school. I admit my own opinions can be lacking in erudition. But not on this occasion, being out of date is not quite the same thing as simple ignorance. .Guess I have some reading to do.Most interested in reading that thread. Could you perhaps let me have the title and where its hiding?
 
Mar 2017
869
Colorado
#38
It was common for travellers and traders to have coins from different regions. All it proves is that someone with an African coin was in that part of Australia some time after the year 1400.

White settlers in Australia relied on Spanish coins for decades due to a shortage of English currency. Do you think that this is proof that early white settlers were Spanish?
Don't shoot the messenger! I merely posited another possibility and cited my source.

Is it likely? No. Is it possible? Yes.

There's a whole corner of archaeology specializing in "Pre-Columbian Pans-Oceanic Trade." However, no one talks about Africa:Australia ... except for those coins. Without any context, coin collectors could have fabricated it. Or not ....
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,343
Australia
#39
Who said anything about fabrication? I fully acknowledge that an African coin was found in Australia. It tells us nothing about the nationality of the owner and it tells us nothing about when that person was there (except that it was after the year in which the coin was minted).
 
Feb 2015
111
south Slavic guy
#40
If you don't tell anyone, then I don't think you deserve the credit of having discovered it, since it was irrelevant as far as the rest of the world knows.

And accidentally washing up on shore as a shipwreck survivor doesn't qualify as discovering a place. Also the evidence for both the Chinese and Portuguese is not definitive, merely suggestive, so their claims should be ignored until concrete proof is presented, which hasn't happened yet.

People accept the Vikings were in North America first because there is actual physical evidence to support it, not just highly convoluted arguments and ambiguous evidence. Still, we don't celebrate Leif Erickson Day in the US, but still Columbus, since his discovery is what made a difference.
The Vikings were the first explorers of the New World, and the first ones who settled there. It makes a difference.
So that really closes the question about America.
 

Similar History Discussions