Captain Cook discovered Australia in 1770. If you believe this you are living in dreamland. The Portuguese took Malacca, a small Malaysian state, in 1511. Spain controlled part of the Philippines from 1521. Indonesia "welcomed" the Netherlands from 1596 and the Southeast Asian country was later ruled by the Dutch from 1825. France sent emissaries to Siam in 1600.
The question is did any of the sailors from these countries land in Australia before the British arrived in Singapore in 1819: note Britain had been around in India since 1612. It is obvious that Dutch sailors landed on the north coast of Australia because Indonesia is just next door. Why didn't they claim it? Why didn't Portugal claim it? The Portuguese colonized East Timor from 1613 and that is even closer. The truth is they didn't want it because they couldn't find any advanced societies there. No trade was on offer. In those days trade was everything. There was no welfare state in those days. You had to earn or starve. Seeing a few Aboriginals along the beaches and cliffs, they took on water and left.
What is surprising it that no real evidence of Europeans being in the Antipodes has been found - until now. The skull of a European woman has been found in Wellington, New Zealand. Carbon dating shows she was alive there in 1742. Dating is now very accurate.
So Europeans had visited New Zealand before Captain Cook "discovered" it in 1769. It was claimed for Britain in 1839, first being ruled from New South Wales. Then the whole country was claimed by Britain in 1840.
Getting back to the skull. When first found police thought they had a murder on their hands when they saw puncture wounds. The woman must have arrived there by "independent' means, probably by a European ship sailing at the captain's whim. Abel Tasman saw the shore of New Zealand in 1642 but had no women aboard his ship. Why did it take Europeans another century to search for the great southern land again? There is another issue: evidence of a pre-Maori red haired white race living in New Zealand.
The question is did any of the sailors from these countries land in Australia before the British arrived in Singapore in 1819: note Britain had been around in India since 1612. It is obvious that Dutch sailors landed on the north coast of Australia because Indonesia is just next door. Why didn't they claim it? Why didn't Portugal claim it? The Portuguese colonized East Timor from 1613 and that is even closer. The truth is they didn't want it because they couldn't find any advanced societies there. No trade was on offer. In those days trade was everything. There was no welfare state in those days. You had to earn or starve. Seeing a few Aboriginals along the beaches and cliffs, they took on water and left.
What is surprising it that no real evidence of Europeans being in the Antipodes has been found - until now. The skull of a European woman has been found in Wellington, New Zealand. Carbon dating shows she was alive there in 1742. Dating is now very accurate.
So Europeans had visited New Zealand before Captain Cook "discovered" it in 1769. It was claimed for Britain in 1839, first being ruled from New South Wales. Then the whole country was claimed by Britain in 1840.
Getting back to the skull. When first found police thought they had a murder on their hands when they saw puncture wounds. The woman must have arrived there by "independent' means, probably by a European ship sailing at the captain's whim. Abel Tasman saw the shore of New Zealand in 1642 but had no women aboard his ship. Why did it take Europeans another century to search for the great southern land again? There is another issue: evidence of a pre-Maori red haired white race living in New Zealand.
Evolution by Ty Buchanan
