Talk:Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia/Archive 1

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. Hesperian 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)

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. 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.

Visitas portuguesas

Carta do atlas de Nicholas Vallard (1547), uma das Cartas de Dieppe, que alguns investigadores consideram representar a costa nordeste australiana (imagem: Biblioteca Nacional da Austrália)

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)

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)

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. Hesperian 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. Hesperian 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."

Hesperian 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)

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. Hesperian 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. Hesperian 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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. Hesperian 04:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

trees

There are living trees that are in Portugal that are over then 300years old that can only come from New Zeland. And this is a fact. I think it proves something.__-_-_-__ 20:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs)

Really? What species are these trees? Could you point us to some sources that verify this claim? --Nickm57 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Cooktown harbour

I have added this section after some thought. It is not a feature of Fitzgerald or Trickett's more recent books, but McIntyre raised the matter to support his case in three different contexts (in 1976 before publishing his book, in his 1977 book and in again 1982).--Nickm57 (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Gayle K. Brunelle

I've added a reference to Gayle K. Brunelle's arguments in David Buisseret's 2007 The Oxford Companion to World Exploration (using Kattigara's contribution from the Dieppe maps page as the basis). I've also moved a sentence on Helen Wallis' view of the Dieppe maps to that page under the section on Helen Wallis. Thanks Kattigara, for drawing attention to Brunelle's recent work on the Dieppe maps.--Nickm57 (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert J. King's article added by Kattigara has been edited down for readability and consistency. Have posted a comment about this on KAttigara's own page several times, without response.--Nickm57 (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Work

Thanks everyone (especially Nickm57) for all the top work you have done! This article really a prime example of a wiki process struggling with issues and coming together, then improving constantly through creation. Although I no longer actively edit on WP, I'm so glad I started this article, and that it has transformed from a pretty average summary into a nice properly referenced and researched coverage of all the barely understood elements of this theory.

Jazzper 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.235.20 (talk)

Gosh, Jazzper drops in to visit but doesn't vandalise my user page. We have come a long way. (G'day mate.) Hesperian 10:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits on the basis of Fringe Theorists

Ref the edits by Doug Weller and GunpowderMa. The issue here surely is this article is fringe theory, but one that's extremely popular amongst some Australians. I think most of the Australian contributors to this page over the last three years, self included, have tried to provide a measured and balanced approach, with more than appropriate criticism of these theorists. (If one actually reads the article, one could not be in much doubt fringe theory is what it is!) Carl-Georg von Brandenstein, Peter Trickett and even McIntyre himself have been variously descibed as fringe theorists by academics - so the logic apparently of new editors Doug Weller and GunpowderMa is - what, delete them as well?

Comments please... Nickm57 (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nick. The sentence is not giving undue weight to fringe theories; on the contrary, it is listing all the ridiculous fringe theories so as to place this particular fringe theory in context as the best supported of them, but a fringe theory nonetheless.

On Phoenicia in particular, Robinson was a fruitcake, and Treasure is not for the finder is self-published utter nonsense. Robinson did indeed claim that Phoenicia discovered Australia therein, but this claim would not be notable if Treasure were the only source it could be cited to. However this claim is also discussed (and ridiculed) in James A. Henderson's Phantoms of the Tryall, which is unarguably a third-party reliable source. Henderson recognition of the claim elevates it to notability in this context. I will add a further citation.

Hesperian 23:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's much better. And although I have only edited this article once before, I did edit it in my, so I'm not 'new', Nickm57. Even if I were, that sort of comment should be avoided as it can discourage editors from contributing. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok - certainly dont want to discourage editors.Nickm57 (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

There are 28 links to Kenneth McIntyre in this article. WP:REPEATLINK anyone? Also 9 links to Australia, and 5 to James Cook may be a bit much. But the Kenneth McIntyre linking is definitely over the top. 98.226.122.10 (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proving the early Portuguese presence in southern Australia

I am a Sydney-based researcher with a History Honours degree from the University of Sydney and I subscribe to the contention that the Portuguese were exploring the southern coast of Australia in the early 16th century.

Over many years I have travelled extensively in Spain and Portugal and with an Australian's natural interest in gum trees I was often struck by the existence of some very large and obviously old ones on the Iberian peninsula. Those of most interest are the Eucalyptus globulus or Tasmanian Blue Gum specimens. While it is well established that E. globulus is a very fast-growing tree the most spectacular growth occurs in its earlier years. The trees in Iberia can be quite massive, though not as tall as the indigenous Australian ones, probably because they are solitary examples without competition for sunlight or space. They are not all in the wetter northern and coastal areas. Some of them have been documented and are on the Portuguese National Estate Register (see interalia www.afn.minagricultura.pt/portal/ArvoresFicha?Processo=KNJ1/126&Concelho=&Freguesia=&Distrito=), as for example the one at Figueiro da Serra. At least two have butts at shoulder height of 12 metres circumference. Over time I have collected specimens of these trees and had them identified and more recently I took photographs. One, which is in its late senescent stage near Celorico, Portugal, I measured at 13 metres circumference at shoulder height.

My interest caused me to make a general supposition. Suppose that Portuguese sailors did reach as far as what is now called Gippsland or Warrnambool; suppose that they saw very fine, large, towering trees of a previously unknown type, apparently very suitable for ship building, growing in forests near the coast; then we might assume that they would want to somehow transplant that resource to where it could be utilised for the good of Portugal (the timber did indeed later become prized for maritime construction); and we might reasonably assume that they would know the only way to do that was to take seeds back to Portugal and germinate them. The nut of E. globulus is a large and obvious one, not entirely unlike an acorn with which they would have been familiar, and its collection can be a simple affair. Even if the sailors (who formerly were very often peasant farmers) mistook this nut for a seed the fact is that the seeds are inside the nut in abundant measure and though germination is not particularly easy the number of seeds provides a reasonable assurance of success. Additionally, they could have easily collected and transported a large quantity of the nuts. If the French were able to do it then there is no reason to believe that the Portuguese would not have been able to do it two hundred years earlier.

So, how can this new line of enquiry be pursued? Firstly, if seeds from E. globulus were successfully taken back to Portugal and germinated and specimens survive today they would be nearly 500 years old. It would be necessary to date them. The science of dating trees by ring-counting is called dendrochronology and it is quite a difficult process requiring specialised scientific knowledge and experience as well as skill. It involves taking a core sample from the trunk (or cutting the tree down) and identifying the growth rings in order to count the seasonal expansion. It is even more difficult to do in hardwood eucalyptus. Matthew Brookhouse in the Department of Forestry, School of Resources, Environment & Society at the ANU is one scientist specialising in dendrochronology whom I have discussed this with. Another method, especially with very old trees, is carbon dating and this method has been used recently to show one old-growth tree in a Tasmanian forest to be more than 500 years old. Additionally, carbon dating and ring-counting can be used in combination. Other methods such as fungal contamination of the wood are being developed. If even one E. globulus in Portugal could be dated at more than 230 years old it would prove that somehow seeds were brought to Europe predating the James Cook/Joseph Banks exploration period and the accepted date for the harvesting of Tasmanian seeds for exportation by French explorers around the end of the 18th century. Scientific study of the longevity of Eucalyptus trees is very patchy and there is some defensiveness on the part of those whose business it is to supervise Australian forests to admit to their ancient status. However there is evidence available in addition to that mentioned above to suggest they can live for well over 500 years in their native environment (see current work nearing completion by Sam Wood supervised by Professor David Bowman at the University of Tasmania). Without competition and natural predators and diseases they could do the same, perhaps better, in an exotic environment. It remains, however, that finding and dating a 500-year-old E. globulus in Portugal would be a difficult challenge even if one does exist. And because of Abel Tasman’s 1642 documented landing in Tasmania anything less than 370 years would also be insufficient proof that it was the Portuguese who brought the seeds back although it would still be highly suggestive.

Secondly, in recent years another and potentially more rewarding route has opened up in the form of DNA analysis. This does not produce an estimate of the age of a subject but by studying DNA markers a more precise answer than “south-east Australia” may be provided to the question of the specific origin of any given specimen. In E. globulus this is due to a significant genetic differentiation among natives from discrete locations. In what could be considered an example of serendipity the Tasmanian Blue Gum is not actually confined to Tasmania but also grows on the Bass Strait islands and most importantly in the Otway and Gippsland (eg Tidal River) coastal regions of Victoria. These last two areas are precisely where the Portuguese explorers are said to have sailed and perhaps to have reached the extent of their journey. The DNA markers for these two areas are quite distinct from the Tasmanian origin markers. Again by chance, and for quite another purpose, DNA analysis has already been done on certain Portuguese-grown plantation trees as well as native specimens from specific locations by Jules S. Freeman at the School of Plant Science and Cooperative Research Centre for Forestry, the University of Tasmania. In a paper entitled “Origins and diversity of the Portuguese Landrace of Eucalyptus globulus” published in 2007, Freeman et al showed that in a study of the DNA of a large number of trees from throughout Portugal there was clear evidence of a connection to trees whose origins were in Victoria. They conclude in their paper: “Molecular profiles of the Portuguese E. globulus Landrace suggest that south-eastern Tasmania and, to a lesser extent, south-eastern Victoria were very likely original collection points. Although we argue against other potential areas of origin (eg King Island and the Otway Ranges) suggested by some of the molecular data, it remains a possibility that these regions had a minor contribution to the Portuguese Landrace.” When writing this they had no inkling of a possible connection to early Portuguese exploration.

The challenge now is to attempt to establish the specific origin, that is Victoria or Tasmania, of some of the older, solitary E. globulus growing in Portugal. For this purpose I have recently travelled to Portugal and am now in the process of importing through quarantine some leaf specimens from 3 such specimens (including the one at Figueiro da Serra mentioned above) for DNA analysis with the invaluable assistance of Jules Freeman at the University of Tasmania. If this investigation shows that there is room to believe that E. globulus of non-Tasmanian origin have somehow been grown in Portugal in contradiction to the current assumption that all such trees came from Tasmanian seed then more work would be warranted on establishing their source and age, including dendrochronological and radiometric study. It would also act as a stimulus to other areas of investigation, such as renewed efforts to find remains of the “mahogany ship”, in order to settle the debate.

Any assistance in this endeavour would be appreciated.

Philip Du Rhone Sydney 27/08/2010 [email protected] Maygray (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Maygray. That's quite interesting research you are keen to conduct, but as I noted on the Cristóvão de Mendonça talk page some months ago, your own research can't be the basis for contributions to Wikipedia.

I have concerns also with the logic you are advancing here - the well documented existance of Eucalyptus globulus in Spain and Portugal does not necessarily have any connection with this topic, or Portuguese explorer de Mendonça, or the fabled "Mahogany Ship." Indeed, even if the samples of tree/leaf you bring back are from Victoria, there is still a large leap of logic to suggest this proves a Portuguese exploration of SE Australia in the early C16th.Nickm57 (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Further to that, after just a cursory look around on the web, there are some quite interesting english language articles linked from the GIT Forestry consulting website [2] which provide a very helpful history of E.globulus in Portugal, apparently known there as early as 1829. Of course, a very easy way to test Philip's theory is to find some reference to E. globulus in the natural history records (or any other records) of Portugal, predating this. Certainly a lot easier than trying to import seeds into Australia!! Nickm57 (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after reading a little further, Im impressed by just how much is known about E.globulus on the Iberian peninsula. A photo of Spain's tallest tree (an E.globulus) is here [3] while some other Spanish E. globulus photos are here [4]. A fascinating topic and worthy of an entire WP page on its own.Nickm57 (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Nick57: Your response is disappointingly negative and I venture to say superficial as follows:-

1. The "well-documented existence of E. globulus in Spain and Portugal" is just that, documented. All current documentation relates to the known importation of E. globulus from the early 19thC. The whole point of taking a different pathway is that there is no known documentation of the early Portuguese exploration of southern Australia and none of the earlier introduction of Eucalyptus. If there were any such documentation this line of research would not be necessary. On the other hand if some documentation does exist perhaps this would be a stimulus to finding it. 2. If eucalyptus trees in Iberia do have Victorian origins the question is how did they get there? All documented seed introduced into Europe came from Tasmanian sources. It does not alone prove that the Portuguese brought them there earlier but it is suggestive. It is neither a leap of logic or faith but a line of enquiry to add to other evidence. In any case the logic is quite simple: if research can prove that E. globulus was grown in Iberia more than 370 years ago then somebody was in southern Australia then and brought seeds back with them (seedlings would be highly unlikely to survive). 3. I am well aware of the GIT site and have been in contact with the principal Pedro Nuno Teixeira Santos who is passionate about eucalyptus trees and has been very helpful with his knowledge. However, I have outlined above the accepted thinking about the introduction of eucalyptus trees into Europe which is documented and indeed very interesting (see "Emigrant Eucalypts" by R. F. Zacharin) and generally speaking the interest in Eucalyptus trees in Europe is for purposes of commerce and the environment and not history. 4. I can see no reason to import eucalyptus seeds into Australia and I have no intention of doing so nor have I said I was going to. 5. Most importantly I would suggest a more careful reading of what I am suggesting viz. that DNA analysis combined with dendrochronology and radio-carbon dating and any other techniques which may become available are tools which could show that eucalypts were grown in Iberia long before the timescale now accepted and lead to a more confident search for further evidence of early exploration of southern Australia by the Iberians. Maygray (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maygray. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia Wikipedia article, not a discussion board for the topic in general. If Nick57 was negative then it was because he assumed you were proposing to add this material to the article, and that would not be acceptable until such time as it is accepted for publication elsewhere. Hesperian 04:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Placenames on Dieppe maps

The placenames used on the Dieppe maps have been identified as having origins that are French, Portuguese or Gallicised Portuguese or unknown origin. Thus I reverted an edit which suggested the placenames were written in Portuguese only. Quite extensive work on the placenames has been done by Bill Richardson. For those interested see some of the references listed.Nickm57 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Opening Para

I have reworked the opening para here, as after an anon edit in October it was repetitive.Nickm57 (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Edits

JCRB, the edits you’ve made do not improve the article. First, you’ve obviously not actually read Dr. Nick Thieberger’s article on von Brandenstein. Amongst other criticisms he writes “...but one turtle name does not provide the evidence of extensive Portuguese contact, which would have been needed for the group of local Aboriginal languages to develop away from the Ergative case marking they would formerly have borne.” and later “…it may be that evidence of Portuguese contact will be found, but the argumentation given in Carl’s papers is extremely unconvincing.” Thus Thieberger’s article is a criticism, not supporting evidence. Second, the Dieppe school of maps is a series of maps by different cartographers, not a single map. Hence they cannot be referred to in the singular as you have repeatedly done. Finally, given the extensive discussion in the later part of 2010 when you wanted to add Quiros as a possible discoverer of Australia to the Australia page, I think you really need to flag your views first on this talk page.Nickm57 (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss changes in the Talk page, but please do not erase my edits. I was trying to improve the article by rewording some sentences and adding another bullet-point to that summary at the top, namely the etymological study of aboriginal languages by Dr. Carl-Georg von Brandenstein, which is another argument for the theory of Portuguese discovery. That's all. Are you saying we should delete this information because Thieberger has criticized it? I'm sure there are articles in favor and against von Brandenstein's research.

Yes, I did discuss the possibility of including Torres, Quiros and the Portuguese discovery theory a few months ago in the Australia article. That was an important effort of research and quoting sources. We learnt a lot from that. Unfortunately the information was finally not included. But what does that have to do with now? We are in a different article and a different topic. The only common denominator is the room for improvement, particularly regarding neutrality and objectivity. I'm sure you agree. JCRB (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello JCRB. I reverted your edits for the reasons I outlined clearly above. I mention your last edits of six months ago because they were on the same topic, albeit mostly on different pages, thus they are quite relevant.Nickm57 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on what I've read in the last half hour or so, von Brandenstein's arguments regarding Portuguese contact were "breathtaking in the way he builds supposition on speculation." (p. 8) He garnered some publicity but never any academic support, and his claims have pretty much all been refuted. I would say that his work merits inclusion here, if at all, only as part of the discussion on the development of the theory. It has no currency now, so it is undeserving of inclusion in the lead. Hesperian 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My edits six months ago were were about including Quiros, Torres and the Portuguese discovery on the Australia article. My edits now are about improving this article, particularly the lede. Your reasons for reverting them are not entirely convincing. I only referred to the Dieppe Maps in singular in the second part of the sentence with the word "map". You could have just added an "s" and substituted "carries" for "carry". As you can see, the sentence mentions a "series of maps":

A series of 16th century French world maps known as the Dieppe maps showing a large landmass called Jave la Grande located south of Indonesia and north of Antarctica. The maps carry French, Portuguese, and Gallicized Portuguese placenames. It can be interpreted to look similar to Australia's northwestern and eastern coasts. [5]

I propose this sentence because it explains the point more coherently. It puts "16th century maps" at the beginning and "large landmass called Jave la Grande" afterwards, which is more understandable. Also, it eliminates the phrase "which by various means" in reference to the interpretation that it is similar to Australia's northwestern coast. That phrase is negative, therefore subjective and unnecessary. As for the etymological study of von Brandenstein, I am happy to leave it out of the lede if you can demonstrate that his claims "have pretty much all been refuted". JCRB (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, part of the reason for reverting, as I have already explained, is that your edit was ungrammatical, and factually misleading. Your proposal - above - is still ungrammatical as in "It can..." when the previous sentences are in the plural.

As regards von Brandenstein, the onus is on an editor wishing to include a reference in the lede, to demonstrate the significance. Von Brandenstein is already briefly alluded to in the body of the article. Have you realised that the work you cited as evidence of his significance actually suggested his arguments were extremely unconvincing? See Hesperian's comments above. Nickm57 (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. "It can.." refers to the "large landmass" which is in fact singular. If you prefer, here is another wording of the sentence:

"A series of 16th century French world maps known as the Dieppe maps showing a large landmass called Jave la Grande located south of Indonesia and north of Antarctica which can be interpreted to look similar to Australia's northwestern and eastern coasts. The maps carry French, Portuguese, and Gallicized Portuguese placenames".

As for von Brandenstein's work, I still don't understand your opposition. The fact that 60 words in aboriginal Australian languages have been proven to derive from Portuguese, is a strong point supporting the theory of Portuguese discovery. It suggests there was contact between Portuguese navigators and Australian natives in the 16th century. If this is worth mentioning in the article, it is definitely worth mentioning in the lede. The onus is not on me for suggesting this, but on editors who think little of von Brandenstein's research as to want to exclude it. If his work "garnered no academic support" as Hesperian argues, and his claims "have all been refuted" as you said, let's see the references. So far, there is only Thieberger's work.

By the way, the sentence in the Kenneth McIntyre section "as Dr. Nick Thieberger has noted, modern linguistic and archaeological research has not corroborated his arguments" is not accurate or objective. The reference only points at Thieberger's research . Apparently it is only Thieberger who has "not corroborated" his arguments, not "modern linguistic and archaelogical research" in general. Unless sources are produced for this "general" disapproval of von Brandenstein's work, that sentence has to be reworded. JCRB (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is "A series of 16th century French world maps known as the Dieppe maps showing a large landmass called Jave la Grande located south of Indonesia and north of Antarctica which can be interpreted to look similar to Australia's northwestern and eastern coasts. The maps carry French, Portuguese, and Gallicized Portuguese placenames". sourced to? And who is it that agrees with von Brandenstein? Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, read the section on Kenneth McIntyre. Other authors who followed McIntyre's thesis include Fitzgerald (1984) and Trickett (2007). This is another map we should include (The Dauphin Chart, drawn in 1530-36): [6] JCRB (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

JCRB, you don't appear to understand his question. He asked - what are the sources to support your proposed wording, and what are the sources for academic support for von Brandenstein? So far, in all the comments on this talk page, you have provided none.

(By the way, you have muddled up comments by Hesperian and me above. Hesperian clearly writes "garnered no academic support" and "have all been refuted" when refering to von Brandenstein. I happen to agree with him, but did not write those words as you incorrectly claim. Please try to read the comments on the talk page carefully) Nickm57 (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

At any rate the only source we have right now is a paper that both describes and dismisses von Brandenstein's work and claims. Evidently JCRB sees this paper as a sufficient and reliable source for the description, but not for the dismissal. It's an odd position. Hesperian 23:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nick57, you're right, I don't see Dougweller's point. I'm just proposing an alternative wording of the sentence. It's the same information written in a more understandable way. Surely that does not require a new source. As for von Brandenstein's work, yes I meant Hesperian when I asked for references to prove that his claims "have all been refuted", my apologies. At any rate, if you agree with him, please help produce these sources and I will be happy to accept the exclusion of this point from the lede.

Hesperian, the source for von Brandenstein's work is Thieberger, who indeed describes and dismisses his research. The article should provide the original source, not another author's interpretation of his work (if possible). In this case, we have the original source. It's this: "Portuguese loan-words in Aboriginal languages of north-western Australia", Brandenstein, C.G. von (1970) [7]. I have included this as the reference to von Brandenstein's work, and left Thieberger as the source for the other information in the paragraph. JCRB (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

JCRB -Sorry, but I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that your command of the english language is not very good. Quite apart from the grammatical errors in what you have proposed, my previous comments, following your response to Dougweller's, are clearly addressed to you, not Dougweller! I added your name at the start of the sentence, and repeated what he asked you, to emphasize this!

I am also completely confused by the lack of logic in your suggestions. You added Thieberger's article as a source for the lede on May 3, apparently not having read it and thinking it supported von Brandenstein's position. Now having realized it doesn't, you seem to think its not acceptable evidence of academic rejection of von Brandenstein? You can't be serious!

So, again, who agrees with von Brandenstein? Nickm57 (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

My God, this discussion is really starting to sound odd. OK, let's keep calm and take this point by point:

• Nick57, the only grammatical error with my previous suggestion for the sentence was that it put "map" in singular, instead of plural: "the map carries" instead of "the maps carry". Fine, your comment was appreciated and the mistake corrected. As for "It can", I also explained it referred to the "large landmass" which is in fact singular. Still, I proposed an alternative wording to avoid confusion. Will you please get over my "grammatical errors" now? This was the last proposal which, rest assured, has no errors:

"A series of 16th century French world maps known as the Dieppe maps showing a large landmass called Jave la Grande located south of Indonesia and north of Antarctica, which can be interpreted to look similar to Australia's northwestern and eastern coasts. The maps carry French, Portuguese, and Gallicized Portuguese placenames".

• Regarding my response about Dougweller's question, it seems you are the one who doesn't understand English. You said "JCRB, you don't appear to understand his question" and I answered "Nick57, you're right, I don't see Dougweller's point" meaning No, I don't understand his question. Get it? The reason I don't understand his question is explained above: rewording a sentence with the same information should not require new sources. The sources are the same as those of the earlier sentence.

• As for my "lack of logic" as you kindly suggest, let me explain that I did not come up with the Thieberger essay as a new source for the research by von Brandenstein. The essay was already quoted in the main body of the article. I merely reproduced it in the lede.

• Indeed, Hesperian made the point that Thieberger's article both "describes" and "dismisses" von Brandenstein's research. So I proposed to quote Brandenstein directly, not Thieberger, which is a third party's interpretation of his work. Get it? Better quote von Brandenstein for von Brandenstein's work, than somebody else.

• Finally, and for the third time, it's not me who has to come up with sources "backing" von Brandenstein's work. It's those who say his claims "have all been refuted" (as an argument to exclude his theory from the lede) that need to prove this. So far, it's only Thieberger's article.

In any case, let's be a bit more constructive in this discussion and try to move forward. JCRB (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I see now. You were being sardonic in your comment to Dougweller. Not recommended on WP, as I have discovered myself.

As no sources can be found supporting von Brandenstein, and only one source provides criticism, I propose deleting any reference to his theory from the article.Nickm57 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Just glanced at my library. Both journalist Peter Trickett and Associate Professor Bill Richardson provide criticism of von Brandenstein. Trickett, a portuguese priority supporter, writes of his theory as "not as yet supported by other accepted historical or archaeological evidence"(p.307). Richardson writes "with the exception of the word tartaruga (turtle)...his 'finds' are far from convincing"(p.7). As von Brandenstein has been considered and dismissed by three writers on the topic, from opposing POVs, that is of significance. Case closed, I think.Nickm57 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, its seems we are finally understanding each other. Ok, there are two final points I would like to make regarding von Brandenstein:

1. First, I have read other sources and to be fair it seems not all his findings are backed by the general academic community. Therefore I accept not to include his work in the lede of the article.

2. Having said this, we must make a clear distiction between his claims, and the support they have garnered. Based on his linguistic studies, von Brandenstein's basic claim is that the Portuguese arrived in Australia in the early 16th century, preceding the Dutch by almost one hundred years. Another claim is that they established a number of secret colonies along the Kimberley coast, which suggests "intensive" contact between aboriginal Australians and Portuguese navigators, which supposedly explains the Portuguese influence in Aboriginal languages. According to the work by Mühlhäusler and McGregor (1996) the evidence for the second claim (secret colony and intensive contact) is "quite unconvincing". However, not the first, basic claim. The example of the word "tartaruga" (meaning "turtle) which you have cited, being the same in Portuguese and in a number of aboriginal languages, proves that the Portuguese indeed had contact with Aboriginal communities of Australia. The following passage summarises the point:

"The most convincing [example of borrowings from Portuguese] is the word 'turtle' in various Pilbara languages including Ngarluma, Karierra, Ngarla, Yinjibarndi, and Nyamal which is 'tartaruga' or 'thartaruga' - the former being identical with the Portuguese word for this animal. Such borrowings must presumably date to the early Portuguese interception of the Pilbara coast, and indicate that the Portuguese did communicate with the Aboriginal people of the Pilbara coast" [8]

Therefore, at least part of von Brandenstein's work has support by other authors and sheds light to the theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia. To conclude, let's leave this out of the lede, but definitely leave it in the main body. I also propose adding this interesting example of "tartaruga" in the sentence about von Brandenstein. JCRB (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the common ground that is starting to emerge is that

1. von Brandenstein gathered together a lot of putative evidence, and drew a lot of conclusions. Most of his evidence, and the conclusions he drew from them, are no longer accepted.
2. von Brandenstein's 'turtle' example has withstood scrutiny, but that is only one data point, and there is no agreement on what conclusions may be drawn from it.

I have attempted a rewording based on this. Hesperian 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hesperian, I partly agree with you, but please don't change the text until consensus has been reached. There has been a long discussion about this above. Also, let me point out that the interpretation of Mühlhäusler and McGregor is not different from Thieberger's. They all agree that "intensive" contact did not take place. The point is that some contact took place, and that's what Mühlhäusler and McGregor argue. The fact that the Portuguese word for "turtle" is the same in various Aboriginal languages seems to prove this contact. JCRB (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're invoking "don't change the text until consensus has been reached", then the article goes back to the pre-dispute version, not JCRB's preferred version. Done. Do let me know when you're prepared to edit constructively and collaboratively towards a mutually acceptable version. You'll find me quite prepared to toss versions back and forth until we come up with something that works for everyone... so long as I don't have to deal with crap like this revert-and-stonewall strategy. Hesperian 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry JCRB, I also don’t agree with your proposed change. I think you are allowing your national bias to run away with you again! You suggest Mühlhäusler and McGregor argue some contact took place. They actually use the word ”communicate.” In English in this context it can have a different meaning. Anyway, this one sentence from an article otherwise critical of Von Brandenstein’s theories is worth a footnote at best – nothing more.

The point is certainly not worth a 100 word (repetitive) inclusion and block quote indent, significantly more than the 60 words Mühlhäusler and McGregor give it in their own article!!! This in itself is massively out of proportion and fails to accurately indicate the relative prominence of their opposing views. See Wikipedia:Undue weight

By the way, anyone interested should read Dr. Andrea K. Molnar’s excellent article on the nature of Portuguese contact with Timor. [9] She moves our understanding of the activities of the Portuguese in South East Asia away from the cinema stereotype of heroic explorersNickm57 (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hesperian you invoke a "constructive" and "collaborative" attitude but it is your belligerent attitude including your swear words thar are the source of disruption of what was until now, a constructive discussion. How dare you revert the changes? The article does not belong to you, or to any editor for that matter. The changes made by me are the result of a discussion which ended May 14th with no opposition from editors... Until yesterday, when you unilaterally decided to revert them. I strongly suggest you don't start an edit war.

Nick, nice way to counter my arguments: resorting to ad hominem attacks, accusing me of "national bias". That attitude will not get us anywhere. Let me remind you that a neutral and unbiased article has room for different points of view and different interpretations as long as they are well-referenced. Stick to the facts. You say that quoting the "turtle" finding is "massively out of proportion" despite being well sourced and critical to this theory. You also fail to see the difference between "intensive" contact and "some" (less intensive) contact as I have explained above. Finally, you argue that the word "communicate" in English "can have a different meaning" in this context. Exactly how? You mean the Europeans text-messaged the Aborigines from their ships, so they never actually landed?

Be serious. Either the Portuguese had contact with the Aborigines or they did not. Von Brandenstein's arguments do not have widespread acceptance by the academia, but some of his findings do because they are irrefutable. Even Muhlhausler and McGregor accept that the "turtle" example supports the theory that some contact took place even if they question the other conclusions. Quoting this information is perfectly fine as long as we mention that the other findings are questioned, which I have done. JCRB (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thieberger: "He observed that the group of languages that include Ngarluma and Yindjibarndi display the Active Verbal Concept and so differ from most other Australian languages. However, he suggested that Portuguese contact was responsible for the switch to a Nominative/Accusative system (Brandenstein 1967d:10) based on the presence of what could well be a Portuguese word (tartaruga for ‘turtle’) in Ngarluma, a coastal Pilbara language. But one turtle name does not provide the evidence of extensive Portuguese contact, which would have been needed for the group of local Aboriginal languages to develop away from the Ergative case marking they would formerly have borne." (my emphasis).

"Irrefutable"? Really? You're reading "irrefutable" out of "what could well be"?

Hesperian 00:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No JCRB, they don’t write “some contact took place.” They used the words interception and communicate. As both Mühlhäusler and McGregor are linguists, they would be expected to write using this language.

In the Eurocentric vision of communication you seem to favour in your humorous mobile phone analogy - a Portuguese vessel arrives and some of the crew wade ashore and meet an Aboriginal man who has just caught a turtle. The Captain says “I see you have a Tartaruga there, my man. Say after me… Tartaruga… Tartaruga ” and the word is then passed around, the traditional word declining because the European is clearly of a culturally dominant force.

In fact, loan words in language don’t necessarily spread this way, as other linguists and anthropologists demonstrate. Michael Walsh and Colin Yallop provide an insight that I quote in its entirety to make the point about the significance of words being loaned between cultures because of local trade:

"There is evidence of contact between Indonesia and northern Australia in relatively recent times. Towards the end of the seventeenth century traders from around what is today known as southern Sulawesi began to visit the shores of northern Australia to collect and process a much-prized commodity variously known as trepang, beche-de-mer or sea-cucumber. These Macassan traders set up seasonal camps on the northern Australian coast for months at a time, mingling with the local Aboriginal population. Some Aborigines seem to have travelled back to Indonesia with the boat crews, returning to Australia on later trading expeditions.This contact is demonstrated linguistically by a sizeable stock of words in some Aboriginal languages of northeast Arnhem land, such as rrupiya 'money' - distantly derived from 'rupee.'" See Walsh and Yallop - Language and Culture in Aboriginal Australia, [10] See also List of loan words in Indonesian

The fact that only ONE word of Portuguese origin exists in northern Australian languages surprises me greatly, given what we know of the trade that existed until 1906. But irrespective of when this single word arrived, its use across several groups possibly indicates that it was related to trade, not necessarily an event of physical contact between Portuguese explorers and Aborigines. (The continuing significance of this sad trade can be read at Hawksbill_sea_turtle and modern news sites such as [[11]].)

The appearance of European material culture in South East Asia often follows a similar transfer pattern. In 1606, when Torres was nearing the western end of the strait that now bears his name, he came across an island where local inhabitants were using iron (fishhooks etc). Again, in the Eurocentric model, this iron must have been given out by kindly Portuguese/Spanish/Dutch navigators, or be evidence of a nearby shipwreck. However, authors Brett Hilder and Miriam Estensen separately suggest it had been traded into the community, as the locals had not met Europeans before. [ See Hilder -The Voyage of Torres, P117-9] This is what is meant by interception and communication.

Dr. Andrea Molnar’s valuable article outlines carefully the nature of Portuguese trade contact with nearby Timor, and section 2b is well worth reading for its deconstruction of old stereotypes about Portuguese explorers.

NB: I wrote the comment in the new section below last night, before this one, and before Hesperian’s most recent response. But I still think you should consider what I've written below.Nickm57 (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggest to arbitration

Time to cool it I think. JCRB I suggest you take the matter to arbitration if you feel other perspectives are needed. I do think you are a bit of a WP: POV Warrior on this topic of discovery of Australia- as your previous edits on other pages have also shown. But if your edits are not related to "national bias" I most happily apologize for any offence. However, your proposed edit does add undue weight, and its not just an addition to the sentence about von Brandenstein as you originally indicated above-it was longer than the original reference.

By the way- there's some great literature around about how language can be transmitted. Have a read of some of our own WP pages.Nickm57 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)