Talk:Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portugal Portal Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Portugal To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Portugal Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

Portal	Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian exploration.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Unfair Deletion? 2 pt:Descoberta da Austrália 2.1 Visitas portuguesas 3 Reinstatement 4 Dauphin Map 5 Page move 6 Map 7 Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight 8 Feedback 9 Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia 10 Carronade Island 11 Manuel Godinho de Eredia 12 Sad 13 A Shemozzle? 14 Deletion 15 April 2007 revision 16 Theory?! 17 Theory? 18 Carronade Island Guns 19 Date of Portuguese in Timor 1516? 20 Add Erédia map?

[edit] Unfair Deletion?

√αzzρεr has rewritten the page on 03:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC). I deem it necassay for this topic to have a page of its own, as it is a strong and interesting topic in Australian History. I have not merely re-added what was once previously on the page, I have completely composed my own exposition of the theorys and evidence of a Portuguese discovery of Australia. √αzzρεr 03:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not allow original research on Wikipedia. --cj | talk 03:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

excuse me, but this is not original research. I have cited a bibliography which explains where i got all of my information from. Cj, you are Australian, and as such can't you see the need for this page?

√αzzρεr 03:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posted from User talk:Cyberjunkie#Discovery of Australia

Whether or not the work was entirely a piece of original research or not, it was not properly verifiable. Moreover, that you listed yourself in the references as the "brains" did not instil confidence vis-à-vis the article's validity and, in fact, seemed to violate both WP:OWN and WP:NSR. I approach this article not as an Australian, but as a Wikipedian - or encyclopædist. Although it may seem to you that the theories surrounding Portuguese discovery are of great importance, they simply are not of such importance to justify a separate article (or fork, as the case may be). It is discussed, rightly, in the article about European exploration of Australia. Doing so was supported by consensus. So I do not support restoring your edit. Thanks, --cj | talk 04:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

i apologize for certain wikipolicies that you think i have breached. However i disagree that the topic does not deserve a page of its own. there are thousands of "stubs" on the wikipedia network that have a page of thier own, most of which are completely explained on other pages. This is a topic that is not touched on in more than a sentence anywhere else, and it needs it's own page. Please allow me to revise my contribution, sticking with all wikipolicies, and allow it to remain on a separate page to the European exploration of Australia page, which is nought but an overview of an extremely broad topic. What i don't understand is that there are individual pages on the Mahogany Ship, the Geelong Keys, and Dieppe maps, yet an overview of these topics in context is not allowed. please reply again

sincerely, √αzzρεr 04:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And to add, I have to say that I disagree about your policy on theories. Quite simply, the Big bang is a theory. Darwinism is a theory. Theories are essential to the human world of knowledge because they provide valid possibilities for topics that we can never be completly sure about

sincerely once again, √αzzρεr 04:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not have a policy against theories: we have a policy prohibiting original research. The role of an encyclopædia is to document existing knowledge, not to publish original thought.--cj | talk 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I must stress that this IS NOT original thought. Everything that I expressed is put forth in the book The secret discovery of Australia by Gordon McIntyre, a renowned and respected Australian Historian.

cheers, √αzzρεr 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

KG McIntyre is neither renowned or respected, and his title as an historian is dubious at best. His book is not evidence.--cj | talk 07:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I support the view that it is not original thought. As per my comments in the deletion review, this is a topic studied by Australian high school history students , with a view to getting the students to understand and evaluate conflicting source materials. There is some compelling evidence in favour of the Portugese discovery but there are some key facts which highlight why it is very probably not the case. I think it is worth an article on Wikipedia. It is not original research but referenced in academic books. It is at least as worthy as every last Star Trek episode or Pokemon fancruft ....--A Y Arktos\^talk 09:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is rubbish. No reputable historian believes any of these tired old theories, which a handful of antiquarians have been hawking around for 30 years. Ken McIntyre (I assume that's who you mean) is not "a renowned and respected Australian Historian." He is an amateur antiquarian. The title "Portuguese Discovery of Australia" is grossly POV, since there was no such thing. Adam 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This article presents a view that is believed by some people, and has been fairly extensively written about, even though it has no academic support, and is thought to be rubbish by most persons with any knowledge of the subject. As such, it is probably comparable to iridology, and has about as greata claim to a Wikipedia article as iridology does. Ideally the article should present it as a minority viewpoint, and cover the arguments of its proponents and opponents. I agree with Adam that the title is grossly inappropriate. Snottygobble 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the controversy over this subject, definitely an inappropriate title. But some gaps in the main article about the exploration of Australia (based on my extremely limited knowledge on the subject):

1. Isn't it well established that Indonesian fisherman, traders, and the like regularly visited the northern parts of Australia before the arrival of Europeans (unsure of the time period); and

2. We know that the Portughese established trading posts on the island of Timor around the year 1500 (sorry, unsure of the precise timing off the top of my head, but certainly much earlier than 1600). That strikes me as an important piece of information, why is it missing from this article? Coupled with the first point, it strikes me as almost inconceivable that the Portughese were not aware of something south of Timor. Having gone half way around the world to reach Timor - did they just sit tight for the next two centuries?

True, speculative, but definitely not a preposterous notion. I am a bit surprised at the manner in which some wikipedians have dismissed this possibility.

--ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• On the first point: Yes, and the History of Australia article says so, but what the Indonesians did is not relevant to the question of the European discovery of Australia, which is what this argument is about.
• On the second point, there is no evidence whatever that the Portuguese crossed from Timor to Australia. Possibly they did, but, like the Dutch, they probably found the Kimberley coast not very interesting and the inhabitants very unwelcoming, so they went away and left no record. And events which are not recorded are not history. Adam 13:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - but isn't the fact that the Portughese were in East Timor in the 16th century (I can't get a more precise timing out of Wikipedia) of some relevance to this article? i.e. they were floating around 100km of the northern coastline of Australia for two centuries before Captain Cook "discovered" Australia. It is interesting that the Dutch accidently landed on the west coast of Australia at least a dozen times in the 17th century trying to get to Java, and with Timor even closer to Australia, the Portughese never landed here once, wittingly or otherwise. Sorry, I don't buy it, we haven't researched this enough. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • It is argued that the Dieppe maps are the record that they were here. Other than Gordon McIntyre, there are a number of eminent historians who have explored the issue including Oskar Spate see NLA manuscripts. Encyclopaedia Brittanica has an article on the subject. Oxford University asserts in their undergraduate blurb for Portugese that the Portugese reached Australia and seem to be linking it to 15th and 16th centurey exploration!?! As mentioned above, the issue is part of the school currculum in high school to teach the students to evaluate critically evidence available. See the NSW Board of Studies syllabus component CCS2.1 which refers to describes the involvement of some people and groups from other countries in Australia’s heritage, including European and Asian contact and exploration, eg the trading expeditions of the Macassans, exploration by the Dutch and Portuguese, James Cook, the British First Fleet ([ ref page 23 of the *pdf from the New South Wales Board of Studies), also at primary school for example Palmerston District Primary School. I fel very strongly that we should be doing an article, not merely a redirect.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You've convinced me! I don't really understand the objection against it... ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• On your first point, the fact that the Portuguese were in Timor is of no relevance to this subject unless you can show some evidence that they vistited Australia. The Portuguese presence in Timor in the 16th century was little more than a fort and a trading post. They were there to make money, not explore the region.
• On your second point, the fact that various secondary sources repeat these myths is only evidence of their laziness and failure to go back to primary sources - they are all just quoting each other, a common problem with encyclopaedias and popular reference works, including of course Wikipedia. The "Portuguese discovery" has now become an established myth widely believed by people who get their "history" from the media, secondary sources and amateur scribblers like McIntyre. To repeat, there is no acceptable evidence that the Portuguese or any other Europeans visited Australia before 1606. Stories about lost shipwrecks and keys are not evidence.
• I would support an article called European discovery of Australia at which this question can be discussed in a neytral way. Adam 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• • There already is a section within an article at European exploration of Australia#Early European sightings - that was the result of the last AfD debate. The question here is, should the redirect be expanded to be its own article. Not everybody who is talking on this page, disputes that "Stories about lost shipwrecks and keys are not evidence." and your other similar assertions. What I am saying is this is a topic worthy of a wikipedia article which can in fact say, though with more detail: there is no acceptable evidence that the Portuguese or any other Europeans visited Australia before 1606. If it is a topic covered in the NSW secondary history syllabus to get to that point, and it is a topic covered by Encyclopaedia Britannica, why cannot it be a topic covered on Wikipedia with its own article? Why is it less significant than The Ca$inos or Sydney Swans 2006 Season?--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I just said I would support a separate article. Adam 02:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • Adam - I'm not sure whether you were addressing your last post to AYArktos or me, or even both. But using your numbering system, I respond with the following:

1. At a minimum, Portugal's presence on Timor is at least a relevant historical note to the article. Afterall, the article itself says: Before even the Portuguese, Marco Polo reports on a large land mass to the south of Asia, but of course did not see it himself. How as that bit of information any more worthwhile than some of the others we are discussing, including Portugal's presence a hop, skip and jump away. Fuirthermore, if it is true that Luis Vaez de Torres (passed through Torres Strait in 1607, may have sighted Cape York), then the likely reason for that fact is precisely because Portugal were trading footy cards in Timor. To conclude on this point, I didn't realise that altruism was the principal criterion for being considered an explorer of Australia - now I am really worried about Captain Cook's place in history!

2. These secondary sources you dismiss appear to include some fairly important ones. I can't personally say whether they are rock solid or not, but to be so quick to dismiss all of them out of hand seems a bit rich. At a minimum, are you able to go through each one in turn and explain why they are so weak as a reference, in particular, are there any historical anomalies in any of these stories - where they do exist - it should be fairly easy for all of us to then be as dismissive as you are - but to this point, you haven't been all that convincing that they are all definitely weak references. By the way, I don't defend any of them, I don't know, but my meagre experience with historical chronicles is that the cream rises to the surface, and the rest readily sink to the bottom - why have these others sunk to the bottom? that's what I would like to know (if you have half a tick to explain). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Marco Polo reported rumours of a large southern land mass - and so did Herodotus. This is mythology, not history.
• For the 3rd time, the Portuguese presence in Timor is only relevant to this article if you can find some evidence, as opposed to speculation, that they crossed to Australia. Spare me your sarcasm about Captain Cook etc etc. After two years at Wikipedia heavy-handed sarcasm cuts no ice with me.
• I can and will dismiss all secondary sources on this subject, because they are all drinking from the same well - a very slender evidentiary base consisting of a lost shipwreck which might or might not have been Portuguese, some missing keys and a map which could just as easily be a map of Mars and which is probably what it says it is, a map of Java.
• On a wider view, the question is - if the Portuguese did see Australia in the 16th century, so what? They didn't tell anyone about it or do anything about it, so it is of no historical significance. Even if true, it is no more than a footnote. Adam 05:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So I think that it has almost been settled; an article should be permitted discussing the Portuguese discovery of Australia as a theory, outlining the evidence for and against the fact that the Portuguese may have discovered Australia before any other European nation. √αzzρεr 06:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But it can't be called Portuguese Discovery of Australia. Adam 06:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, this page should now welcome suggestions for a new title. May I suggest something along the lines of theory of Australian discovery by the portuguese. And as to those who questioned if there was infact any evidence, I outlined evidence such as the Mahogany Ship, the Geelong Keys, and the Dieppe maps in my edit as of 13:18, 2 April 2006, Jazzper which can be seen at the history page of the article (not the redirect). Thankyou everyone for voicing thier opinions on the subject - √αzzρεr 06:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think European discovery of Australia is much more elegant and neutral title. You can canvass the theory about the Portuguese, provided you do so in a balanced way, and then do the Dutch and Captain Cook as well. Adam 06:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What i am fighting for is that the portugue aspect needs a page of its own, as Captain Cook etc. are already explained sufficiently on wikipedia, - √αzzρεr 07:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pt:Descoberta da Austrália

This is what I got from the portughese wikipedia on the subject of the discovery of Australia. It seems to me that you can't tell the full story unless you are sure you have exhausted all European references on the subject - and who better to check with than the Portughese themselves (unless you think that they are nothing more than a bunch of lying, cheating, worthless greasy wogs). Just because the Portughese chroniclers didn't make a big song or dance about finding a worthless piece of land (as they most likely saw it at the time), doesn't mean that we shouldn't be reporting it, or giving the likelihood far more credence than you appear to want to do.

[edit] Visitas portuguesas

O primeiro contacto europeu com o continente do Sul terá sido efectuado por navegadores portugueses, embora não haja referências a esta viagem ou viagens nos arquivos históricos de Portugal. A principal evidência para estas visitas não declaradas foi a descoberta de dois canhões portugueses afundados ao largo da Baía de Broome na costa noroeste da Austrália. O estilo dos canhões mostra que são de construção portuguesa e que podem ser datados entre os anos de 1475 e 1525.

Tem sido também sugerido que duas expedições portuguesas realizadas nos mares da Indonésia no primeiro quartel do século XVI teriam atingido o território australiano: a expedição de Cristóvão de Mendonça a partir de Malaca para o sul em busca das "ilhas de ouro" (1522), mas sobretudo a de Gomes de Sequeira (1525) que supostamente teria atingido a Península de York. Para reforçar esta tese evoca-se o estabelecimento pelos portugueses em 1516 de um entreposto comercial em Timor, que fica a cerca de 500 quilómetros da Austrália.

Segundo o historiador e filólogo Carl von Brandenstein, os portugueses teriam naufragado perto da ilha de Depuch entre 1511 e 1520, tendo sido os primeiros europeus a tocar a Austrália, de onde não puderam sair. Estes portugueses acabariam por se integrar com a população local, deixando marcas culturais assimiladas pelos aborígenes. A fundamentação das suas teorias encontra-se na análise das línguas das etnias Ngarluma e Karriera (tribos da Austrália Ocidental), que apresentam particulariedades que não se detectam nas outras línguas aborígenes, como o uso da voz passiva. Von Brandenstein apresenta também uma lista de palavras destas línguas que alega terem uma origem portuguesa (exemplos: thartaruga de tartaruga, monta/manta de monte, thatta de tecto).

Uma série de mapas conhecidos como as Cartas de Dieppe, produzidos por uma escola de cartografia na cidade francesa com o mesmo nome entre 1536 e 1566, e que revelam uma influência portuguesa, retratam uma terra chamada Java La Grande que apresenta uma configuração de costa que lembra a costa ocidental australiana, em alguns casos representando formas vegetais e etnográficas. Alguns académicos rejeitam uma ligação dos mapas com representações da Austrália, argumentando que as formas vegetais e humanas são típicas das ilhas da Indonésia ou que seriam meras representações lendárias. (copied from pt.wiki) ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

One major problem; you are probably the only person to ever read this page who can understand portuguese. And please, although I hate to nag, on en.wikipedia, please spell the adjective describing Portugal Portuguese. - √αzzρεr 08:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

However, there are articles on en.wikipedia outlining certain aspects of the Portuguese Discovery case. these include:

• Mahogany Ship
• Geelong Keys
• Cristóvão de Mendonça
• Dieppe maps

Can we please simply make a single page that summarises these and other evidence points. - √αzzρεr 08:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstatement

I was informed by a couple of administartors, namely CyberJunkie and Rossami, that infact no appeal has to take place for the revision of historical aritcles. Following what they have said, at 09:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC) I have reinstated a revised edition of a previous edit of mine. √αzzρεr 09:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry, you're right re "Portuguese" - I write 10 times as much in scn.wiki as I do here, and it was simply force of habit. Where's the new article? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

no worries, i have great respect for multilingual people. new article is right here (top left of page select article) - √αzzρεr 10:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• There is no point posting slabs of Portuguese text here which no-one can read.
• People editing at the Portuguese wikipedia have no greater basis of knowledge about Australian history than people here do, and probably less.
• There is a nationalist mythology in Portugal, as there is in most countries, and theirs is that the Portuguese discovered the whole world.
• If this article is not immediately renamed so as not to express an obvious POV, I will move for it to be deleted. Take your pick. Adam 09:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point adam, but what shall we call it? Please allow us to come up with a new suitible title before taking further action. Cheers - √αzzρεr 10:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• • It's true that we all have to be on guard against nationalist mythologies. When I finished primary school in 1973, it was still officially considered the gospel truth that Captain Cook discovered Australia. Fortunately we are all a bit more enlightened within Wikipedia and accept that any Portuguese chronicles that exist from the mid 16th century are as worthy and important as those written in English two centuries on (afterall, the Portuguese may not have discovered the world, but they came pretty bloody close!). From where I sit, it's as much their history as ours. But nevertheless, there is a problem with the title of the Portuguese language article (they too should qualify it with the addition of an adjective), and I think we all agree that the name of this current article isn't ideal - but how do we come up with a better one without making it two lines long? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• European discovery of Australia is a perfectly concise and neutral title and lets you cover whatever ground you like, so long as you do so in a NPOV way.
• I don't believe, by the way, that it has ever been taught in Australian state schools that Cook discovered Austraklia. George Collingridge's The Discovery of Australia (1895) and Ernest Scott's biography of Flinders (1914) were influential texts and both gave the Dutch full credit. (Catholic schools in NSW taught that de Quiros discovered Australia.) Adam 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• • In primary school (Anglican) I learnt about Dirk Hartog's pewter plate, plus Jansz, Dampier et al. There was also a great emphasis on European exploration of the world - not just Australia which was only part of the big picture. The issue with European discovery as a title is it is perhaps a broader topic than intended, but otherwise I have no difficulty with it and would be prepared to contribute. I appreciate that the present title implies an assertion of discovery that is not agreed. Could it be Portuguese "Discovery" of Australia? --A Y Arktos\^talk 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A number of issues must be addressed;

• The title 'European discovery of Australia' as put forth by Adam is irrelevant. We ARE NOT looking for an overview of European exploration of Australia. That is already taken care of in the European exploration of Australia page. We want a page solely dedicated to theory of a Portuguese discovery, similar to what currently lies on this page, but perhaps with a different title.
• What different people were taught in primary school is irrelevant
• The idea of 'discovery' in inverted commas get the point of a sopposed idea across, but I am fairly sure other wikipedians would object

- thanks all, √αzzρεr 12:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dauphin Map

I refactored parts of the discussion about the Dauphin Map, because I was unhappy with the assertion that its depiction of Jave La Grande "convincing resembles Australia". Having seen the relevant detail of the map, I must say that the broad outline of the land mass Jave La Grande looks nothing like Australia before the longitudinal corrections are applied, although certain finer features such as the positioning of King Sound and Port Jackson are quite convincing. Snottygobble 12:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the image needs to be rotated 180 degrees, or else the caption should mention that north points downward. The point in the top left is supposed to be Cape Howe, and the inlet to its right is supposed to be either Botany Bay, Port Jackson or Broken Bay, I forget which. It is virtually impossible for the reader to make these connections without a bit of help. Snottygobble 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I might add that the theory that the Portuguese were the first Europeans to make contact with the west coast of Australia gets four pages of serious consideration in Appleyard and Manfred (1979), The Beginning, a respected academic text. They come to the conclusion that

"The first contact with the western coast of Terra Australis by Europeans may well have been made by Portuguese traders who formed the vanguarrd of European expansion overseas in the fifteenth century.... It is to the Dutch, however, that credit is given for systematically revealing the shape and terrain of Western Australia's coastline."

Snottygobble 12:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It was merely a previously open rights image already on the wiki medianet. Feel free to contstructively add to the article in any way, including finding a better or picture ore expanding on the brief points already there. - √αzzρεr 12:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Adam is not known for joking or bluffing. He will nominate the article for deletion if it is not renamed, as he has said above. As no-one else seems keen to action this, I will now move the page to Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia. It might be a pretty crappy title, but at least it will buy us time to decide upon a better one. Snottygobble 12:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• I couldn't get my head around how to have a title that conveyed the doubt that Adam feels so strongly about and with which I and others concur. The present solution seems a much better title, and of course the redirect allows people to find the article as Theory of ... is not necessarily an intuitive search term in the case of exploration.--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks snotty, a prompt move was a good idea. However I agree with AYArktos that the title isn't ideal for searching. But can we do any better? If it hasn't already been done, i'll create some links to this page from other related topics. cheers - √αzzρεr 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't object to that title.
• I don't know Appleyard and Manfred, but if they could write: "The first contact with the western coast of Terra Australis by Europeans may well have been made by Portuguese traders" they obviously had no idea what they were talking about, since no-one has suggested that the Portuguese discovered the west coast. Adam 01:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The Dauphin map covers the northwest down to Shark Bay. That bit of the map is said to have come from a voyage by Gomes de Sequeira in 1522. Snottygobble 22:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

good to see you accept the title, but I have no opinion on the Appleyard and Manfred issue; i did not add that. Furthermore, what do people think about a capitol D for discovery?, - √αzzρεr 02:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

there is no valid reason for making it a capital "D" - it would be contrary to Wikipedia formatting guidelines. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

sure, √αʑʑρεř 05:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Is the picture of the map now the right way up? I'm trying to do a project for school, and personally I can see no resemblence to Queensland, or indeed any part of Australia, in the current map configuration. I think making the map right would be a lot more productive than arguing over the use of a capital 'D' in the title. I mean, really! --202.45.110.99 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)- Smoobaloo (I don't have an account :)

• The image is reproduced from the National Library - it is presumably only part of the map, and no it doesn't seem to prove that the Portuguese found Australia. You may need to find another source for an image of the map - this is the only image we have available--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• The map is upsidedown - Im assuming the numbers on the left hand side are the latitude, with the Tropic of Capricorn at about 23 degrees --Astrokey44 10:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

As everyone has worked hard and created a good result, I have nominated the page for Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, Everyone be sure to cast your votes ASAP. cheers, - √αʑʑρεř 05:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

What does everyone think about the inverted commas on "Mahogany Ship"?, √αʑʑρεɾ 23:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I have removed what I saw to be the gratuitous quotes--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, √αʑʑρεɾ 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia

Hello, I'm portuguese and I will try to help the discussion of value of this theory.

Note: Some may say I'm just a portuguese nationalist trying to get all the credit to Portugal, but that's not what I am doing. I am just analysing facts and trying to rationally explain things. The portuguese are somewhat undercredited in history. Even today I listen to people saying that Portugal is a province of Spain and that kind of stuff (by the way Portugal is older than Spain and was never part of Spain).

But let's go to what matters:

First, the lack of evidence in Portugal of such voyages could be explained by these factors:

a)Australia was on the spanish side of the Treaty of Tordesillas and portuguese objective was not to discover lands to the spanish crown. Such a discovery would probably become secret. The spanish did have doubts that some Indonesian islands on the portuguese side were really on the portuguese side. Portuguese simply bough them to the spanish to end the doubt. Also, portuguese explorations were sucessfully secret sometimes, just look at the Newfoundland "discovery" (just pick the Lavrador example: there is no such record of that voyage, but there is a Land of Lavrador and there is a João Fernandes Lavrador, portuguese explorer of that time).

b)Australia didn't have what the portuguese looked for: spices, gold or something valuable. So, portuguese were not interested to explore Australia quickly or to explore Australia at all (knowing what the portuguese did and how they though that time, I found hard to believe on the second), and that is the cause of such sparse "remains".

c)There were records of that voyage(s), but they were destroyed by the earthquake in Lisbon in 1755 and following tsunami and fires. Casa da Índia, portuguese building of the discoveries, was destroyed by it.

d)Simply the portuguese never get to Australia.

Second, we must analyse the probabilities of such voyage:

a)Everybody agree that the portuguese had enough technology to reach Australia

b)Portuguese reached Timor in 1511 and Japan in 1543. Portuguese explored New Guinea, S. Lázaro (I believe today it's Micronesia or Palau) and Salamon Islands. In the middle of the 16th century New Guinea is view as an island, so it indicates circumnavigation of it.

c)Portuguese did some espionage on spanish lands. Magalhães (Magellan) (wrote by Pigafetta) said that it saw on a map of the portuguese king (when he was still working for portuguese king) the passage to the pacific through the south america, so it was so secure of it. Australia was on spanish side so it could be discovered in espionage mission.

But life isn't about probabilities, so we must analyse the "reports" or "evidence":

a)The Mahogany ship, the keys, the cannons, the house with the tree on the middle (sorry :)). You surely know more about it than me, but the cannons are still in there, aren't they? I heard they have the portuguese coat-of-arms. So I say: just take a (lots of them!) photo, there will be lots of experts saying yes or no.

b)The Dieppin/Dieppe maps. Well, I cannot see what is represented in this map. It could have 10 km, 100 km, 1000 km. It could be Australia or just a part of Java. Interestingly, the maps of the Terra Australis Incognita (Australia + Antarctica) in the Australian part is shaped in size as Australia (although connected to Antarctica), it don't go too west nor too east, so it is confined. The same happens on a map of New Guinea: Australia goes south, not east, so it was confined too. Just seem more below.

c)The portuguese report of the Terra dos Papagaios Gigantes (Land of the Giant Parrots). There is a report of a land where the parrots where huge and made a lot of noise. Some say it is Antarctica and that the parrots were penguins. Maybe. But it could also be South America. But why not Australia? You have a lot of parrots, and some are really big (the black cockatoos you have, the...well...the Probosciger aterrimus).

d)The portuguese report of the voyages inside the antarctic polar circle (!) where they said the days where very short (or long, I can't remember right now), a probable evidence of being inside the antarctic polar circle. But they say also that the night was hot and somewhat wet (!). This is very strange, in ~1500 there was a mini-ice-age. So these reports are somewhat contradictory. But, the far as I know, Australia climate is the most close to this "hot and somewhat wet" in the south.

e)Mercator maps, Oroncé Finé map, and others, that put in Terra Australis Incognita (TAI) the following names: Regio Brasilis (Reign of Brasil, portuguese colony) and Psittacorum regio (Land of the parrots) and said that it had that name because the portuguese named so because of the birds and the size they get. But the inscription Regio Brasilis appears in the indic coast of the TAI, far away from South America, and the inscription Psittacorum regio appears on...the west coast of Australia! Just see these maps, they appear everywhere in the net.

f)Ortelius map, that shows the portuguese possessions on the eastern asia and show below java (that appears, by the way, bigger than borneo lol) a land that says: BEACH, pars continentis Australis. I don't now what BEACH means (beach couldn't be...), but pars continentis Australis means part of the Australian Continent. In New Guinea it also says: Insula, pars continentis australis incertum est, that says, Is it not know if it is an island or part of the Australian Continent. This map clearly shows that someone know that that land below Java was part of the Australian Continent (TAI) and had no doubt of it, because in case of doubt it would appear the same that appeared in New Guinea.

g)The portuguese words that appear in amborigenee (sorry, I don't know how to write it correctly in english) dialect: some are written on the article in portuguese you copied, and the others I read: pogueira (portuguese fogueira, fire camp) and thama (portuguese chama, flame). I just heard this, so you can confirm or denie?

So, I just have to say: damn earthquake...:P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.84.114.30 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-02.

[edit] Carronade Island

This article and other sources mention the pair of cannon found on Carronade Island in Western Australia. I've never heard of such a place and cannot find a reference to it other than in relation to this topic. WA's a big place, so it would be useful to know where this supposedly small island is exactly. Can anyone enlighten me? -- I@n ≡ talk 04:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

13º 56' S 126º 36' E. i.e. on the far north coast, in the bay west of Cape Londonderry. The nearest town would be Kalumburu. Snottygobble 04:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel Godinho de Eredia

I'm surprised this article doesn't mention Manuel Godinho de Eredia as another possible Portuguese explorer or geographer who knew of Australia in 1602. a Google search for "de Eredia" provides several references. There are several references in Wikipedia to him, although none seem to be linked. Any reason not to mention him? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He is mentioned in early versions of Australia, but dropped without explanation in a major edit to that article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Scott - given the amount of opposition that was directed at this whole concept at the very beginning by experienced and respected Australian wikipedians (see discussion above) - I am not really surprised to hear that at all. We know this to be a truism already: the biggest defenders of NPOV writing are only human, and therefore often carry with them as much POV intent as the next person - only some POV ideas are more equal than other POV ideas - and who am I, of poor peasant extraction, to argue with someone of such nobel (and perhaps fabled) provenance. Having said that, the initial exuberance displayed by the person who first suggested this article would have got most noses out of joint. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well...there is one map of australia that refers him here: http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/cdview?pi=nla.map-rm3864-e Câmara (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sad

It is sad how Portuguese history and exploration in Australia is treated in Wikipedia. It mix it with legend (Phoenicia) call it just a "theory", comments here are near the ridicule and ignorant. This is garbage, people don't deserve reading such garbage. - Pedro

So fix it Pedro, fix it! Gillyweed 12:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Shemozzle?

I hope this does not offend any previous contributors, but I really think that despite all the good intentions, this page has become a bit of a mess. This is an interesting debate in Australian History that certainly deserves an entry under this heading, written from a strictly NPOV. No offense intended to anyone, but wikipedia carries so many well written informative and dispassionate articles, couldn't this be another? --Nickm57 01:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. For the information of the correspondant who added "Also the book of McIntyre - it is 250 years before Cook, not 200 years before Cook. Careful with details. In fact there are plenty that need correction...a time consuming task" into the body of this article (sorry I'm new to Wikipedia so I can't really tell who or when), this is actually the subtitle of Kenneth McIntyre's 1977 book; "The Secret Discovery of Australia; Portuguese ventures 200 years before Captain Cook". It was pointed out at the time it was published that he meant "250 years", but the title stayed. Possibly though, all this preoccupation about which European power was "first" is not really the point anyway.--Nickm57 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've excised from the article the following text which the above comment references.--cj | talk 02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to edit: the above is not correct about Magellan. The Spice Islands Magellan was going into, were already knew to the Portuguese. In fact Magellan had his Portuguese friend Serrao (Serram) waiting for him in such islands with a load of Spices. So Cristovao de Mendonca was not sent to claim anything before Magellan. This needs to be corrected. Also the book of McIntyre - it is 250 years before Cook, not 200 years before Cook. Careful with details. In fact there are plenty that need correction...a time consuming task.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.150.251.184 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 22 April 2007 (ACST).

[edit] Deletion

In tidying up the section on the Bittangabee Bay ruins so as to include references to various theorists, inc. Trickett's 2007 theory, I removed the following, as it appears related to something else.--Nickm57 01:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There are also alleged to be more stone buildings erected before European settlement can be found just south of Sydney where a group of 20, like a small village, are set beside the coast and there are well-built paths leading from a small reservoir to a 15-metre stone wharf beside the sea.

[edit] April 2007 revision

I've rewritten much of the introduction to this page, deleting a short section on the complex development of the C16th Portuguese Empire because it is now dealt with on its own page. I have also rewritten and corrected the section that related to the Dieppe maps. I've added in missing citations where I could. I've also added in reference to the most prolific writer on this topic- Associate Professor Bill Richardson. I have also written a section on the development of the theory - but I realise some contributors will feel this needs its own page. Why did I write bother to do this? I want students using the Wikipedia on this topic to get the theory in an informed and neutral context--Nickm57 00:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The citations need consistency and cleaning up which I'm working on, also alternative points of view.--Nickm57 00:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory?!

After all the evidences shown on the page and all the books related to this question how is it possible to still consider this as a "theory"? Even the so called "early dutch exploration" has less evidences than what we can found here for Mendonça!

I mean, what more do you need in order to admit that it really was a portuguese discovery of australia? Something like John Howard claiming "Cristovao Mendonça really discovered our country"?

PS: As for the "alternative views" proposed by Richardon, one as to consider for the most they are now 18 years older than the last works done about Cristovão mendonça and his discovery. Let's not forget that please.

You've possibly misread several sources here. Richardson's most recent writing appears in 2006, not 18 years ago. It includes refernces to Gavin Menzies 2002 theories for example. As to all the evidence presented to support the theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia; it is all contentious, and an encyclopedia like Wikipedia needs to identify it as such. Wikipedia's principles make it clear that it's not set up to push one side of a debate, which is what the discussion last year (as above) on this talk page was largely about. So even if Australian PM John Howard believes the theory, it would have as little relevance here as anyone else's.--Nickm57 00:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory?

For your information, Trickett's book was very well accepted in Europe. It was lastly published in 2007 and nobody opposed to him any sientific refutation, neither did anybody in Australia.

What do you mean evidences are ALL "contentious"? So now ALL the material is false? It was ALL created by "Trickett" in order to sell more of his books?!

Do you realize that we now got more evidences related to the portuguese discovery than to the dutch discovery?!

But you still didn't answer my question:

What more will it take for WP to consider it as what it is: a discovery, not a theory. Tell me, I'm very interested.

"Contentious" does not mean false, it means likely to cause argument or controversial. The very fact there is healthy controversy here – which you are contributing to – demonstrates just that point. Most Australian writers on this topic, irrespective of their p.o.v, would accept that it’s a historical debate about a contentious theory. Regarding your second question, I can only refer you again to discussion previously on this talk page regarding the need for neutral points of view, which was accepted by all correspondents in mid 2006. I wasn't around then. By the way, its generally good practice on Wikipedia to sign your comments, so that others feel welcome to respond. --Nickm57 03:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carronade Island Guns

The addition that has been made by 85.138.191.172 ? - "However, Makassar is one of the former Portuguese colonies, which proves it is possible that the cannons were indeed left by the portuguese sailors" seems to have no bearing on the paragraph, or the 2006 research alluded to in the preceeding footnotes. Possibly this was because the contributor found the link to Jeremy Green's article didn't work - it had changed - I have now corrected this. The research by Green (Head of Maritime Archaeology at the Western Australian Museum) shows "there is no evidence for Spanish or Portuguese association [with the guns] or for a date any earlier than the late 18th century..." Perhaps 85.138.191.172 could clarify/reword/or delete the contribution?--Nickm57 08:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Portuguese in Timor 1516?

Kenneth McIntyre and Bill Richardson both claim the date of Portuguese arrival in Timor as 1516. What evidence is there that they arrived in 1515 (as changed by 199.4.155.10 on September 28)? McIntyre uses a number of sources for his dating, both Portuguese and English. The Wiki articles on Timor/East Timor don't help. A very minor point I know, but worth clarifying.--Nickm57 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See this article: http://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~cesa/History_of_Timor.pdf The Portuguese navigated there since 1513-16 but didn't established any "official" settlement in Timor, only later they went into more ambitious colonizing. Anyway, they frequently visited all the islands of this part of Indonesia.Câmara (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article (by Geoffrey Gunn ?)on the History of Timor is indeed interesting. I might try to find a way to cite it. It struck me it also should be used on the Timor page, which is in need of sources.--Nickm57 (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add Erédia map?

I propose to add the map that is here: http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/cdview?pi=nla.map-rm3864-e about the supposed discovery of Australia by Manuel Godinho de Erédia in 1601. I heard that this map had been refused by some historians. Could you say by who or why? Thank you Câmara (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Câmara, I completely disagree with the inclusion of this map [1] on this page. For useful reviews of the value of this map, see McIntyre (1977) p.361-367 and Richardson (2006) p.42-43. The map does indeed say "Nuca/Antara discovered in 1601 by Manuel Godinho de Erédia..." but as you can easily see yourself it also clearly identifies the land discovered and named by the Dutch - "Endracht ou Cocordia", named after Dirk Hartog's ship Eendracht of 1616. In fact, as Richardson points out, this map's origins are from 1630, despite the National Library of Australia's dating of the map as "1601-1610?"

In the mid 19th century, R.H. Major, Keeper of Maps at the British Museum, was the first and only person to seriously suggest this map had some connection to the European discovery of Australia. After claiming this as startling evidence of Portuguese discovery of Australia, Major then read some of Erédia's writings, which revealed that Erédia never left on his planned voyage of discovery at all. Erédia, ever the eccentric dreamer (McIntyre p.362-364), had made composite maps of the area he hoped to visit. The NLA map is based on one of these. In 1873 R.H.Major printed a retraction, but it destroyed his reputation. The maps he collected live on in the British Museum, and this Australian copy.--Nickm57 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would be inserting the map and Nickm57's information above into the article. Hesperian 01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

On further thought - I guess we could put a section on C19th writers on the topic (Major and Collingridge) straight after "The Theory" and before McIntyre is introduced. Or maybe at the end - after the secondary evidence section. Such a section could include Major's copy of Eredia's map. But I still think it creates a bit of a muddle in a novice readers mind. The contemporary debate has long since moved past Major.--Nickm57 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. We probably need a "Development of the theory" section, to cover stuff that was once thought but, as you say, the contemporary debate has long since moved past. For example that old chestnut about Jorge de Menezes. Hesperian 23:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Have added a C19th development of the theory section - Major and Collingridge.--Nickm57 (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Hesperian 11:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)