An old swivel gun found on a remote Northern Territory beach in 2010 had been lying on the seabed for as long as 250 years, new dating tests show.

Scientists say this suggests there was previously unknown foreign contact with Australian shores before Captain Cook’s arrival in 1770.

A Darwin boy discovered the bronze, 107-centimetre-long cannon at Dundee Beach, south-west of Darwin, in 2010.

Australian scientist Tim Stone says the find will help rewrite the nation’s history. Dr Stone is an Australian geomorphologist and member of the Past Masters, a team that explores historic mysteries.

‘‘The cannon is one of the most significant historical artefacts ever found in northern Australia,’‘ he said. When first reported, it was speculated the gun might have once belonged to 16th century seafarers from Portugal. However, the Past Masters think Macassan or other sailors from Indonesia are likely to have lost the gun 250 years ago. The likely date of about 1760 places the gun at the start of the Macassan trepang trade.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/old-gun-discovered-in-darwin-predates-captain-cooks-arrival-on-australias-shores-20131212-2zabz.html#ixzz2nJwCMNqD

There was plenty of stuff happened before Cook, albiet most of it accidental.

>>Scientists say this suggests there was previously unknown foreign contact with Australian shores before Captain Cook’s arrival in 1770.

Well scientist are stupid then, historians have well documented evidence of heaps of foreign contact with Australia before Cook.

The Cook comparison was probably a poor choice. Done because of the estimated 1760 date. I am surprised that they say the trade with people to the north only started around 1760. I imagined that it had been going on for centuries before that.

>I am surprised that they say the trade with people to the north only started around 1760.

They might have meant the start of historically traceable trade.

i daresay they mean recorded trade. can’t really comment too accurately on any other trade.

see.

Anyway, it is a fascinating thing. Imagine the thrill of being the kid who found it.

Would it have fired balls or pellets? Looks a bit like a small anti-tank gun.

either i would think.

I would also note that, based purely on the estimated date, it could well be from one of Cooks voyages anyway.

Presumably they’ve ruled that out on the basis of the gun type.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>Scientists say this suggests there was previously unknown foreign contact with Australian shores before Captain Cook’s arrival in 1770.

Well scientist are stupid then, historians have well documented evidence of heaps of foreign contact with Australia before Cook.

That would suggest that there was heaps more unknown foreign contact, wouldn’t it?

if iy was from one of cooks voyages then its loss would have been logged. also is the style one that the english used?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>Scientists say this suggests there was previously unknown foreign contact with Australian shores before Captain Cook’s arrival in 1770.

Well scientist are stupid then, historians have well documented evidence of heaps of foreign contact with Australia before Cook.

That would suggest that there was heaps more unknown foreign contact, wouldn’t it?

correct.

Bubblecar said:

Presumably they’ve ruled that out on the basis of the gun type.

Not what it says though.

If these guns were around in the area to the North in 1760, then it’s quite possible that Cook would have one on board in 1770.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Presumably they’ve ruled that out on the basis of the gun type.

Not what it says though.

If these guns were around in the area to the North in 1760, then it’s quite possible that Cook would have one on board in 1770.

what they say is: When first reported, it was speculated the gun might have once belonged to 16th century seafarers from Portugal. However, the Past Masters think Macassan or other sailors from Indonesia are likely to have lost the gun 250 years ago.

Doesn’t say anything about British manufacture.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Presumably they’ve ruled that out on the basis of the gun type.

Not what it says though.

If these guns were around in the area to the North in 1760, then it’s quite possible that Cook would have one on board in 1770.

what they say is: When first reported, it was speculated the gun might have once belonged to 16th century seafarers from Portugal. However, the Past Masters think Macassan or other sailors from Indonesia are likely to have lost the gun 250 years ago.

Doesn’t say anything about British manufacture.

Neither did I.

If these guns were around in the area to the North in 1760, then it’s quite possible that Cook would have one on board in 1770.

he most certain had swivel guns, 12 in fact on the endeavour, but whether they were this style i don’t know.

In the absence of any documentation from Cook’s voyages about a gun being obtained further north and then lost overboard, it’s probably safer to assume it came from another vessel.

Bubblecar said:

In the absence of any documentation from Cook’s voyages about a gun being obtained further north and then lost overboard, it’s probably safer to assume it came from another vessel.

I’d say it was safer to assume that we can’t be sure one way or the other.

>I’d say it was safer to assume that we can’t be sure one way or the other.

Aye, but we’re not experts :)

Imagine the Star Wars stormtroopers trying to use one of those, they wouldn’t be able to hit anything.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

In the absence of any documentation from Cook’s voyages about a gun being obtained further north and then lost overboard, it’s probably safer to assume it came from another vessel.

I’d say it was safer to assume that we can’t be sure one way or the other.

yeah.

Bubblecar said:

>I’d say it was safer to assume that we can’t be sure one way or the other.

Aye, but we’re not experts :)

Surely the gun can be backtracked to manufacture but as was pointed out, this could mean little.

ahhhhh the old splitting hairs.

Boris said:

ahhhhh the old splitting hairs.

Well, who knows? Cook may not have logged having to pick up another gun because some dickhead lost one overboard?

The Australian Dingo that was introduced to Australia is thought to have arrived around 4,000 years ago, which means people from the north have been visiting Australia for quite some time.

PermeateFree said:

The Australian Dingo that was introduced to Australia is thought to have arrived around 4,000 years ago, which means people from the north have been visiting Australia for quite some time.

Long before Cook, it is true.

Cook may not have logged having to pick up another gun because some dickhead lost one overboard?

if someone had lost a gun overboard then it would be logged. these guns usually were not permanently mounted.

PermeateFree said:

The Australian Dingo that was introduced to Australia is thought to have arrived around 4,000 years ago, which means people from the north have been visiting Australia for quite some time.

and we’re off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOki2hdsdQ

Boris said:

Cook may not have logged having to pick up another gun because some dickhead lost one overboard?

if someone had lost a gun overboard then it would be logged. these guns usually were not permanently mounted.

OK.. I’m not arguing.. just tossing up the ball.

Looks like one of Duyfken’s guns. The age is about right too.

No cannon was permanently mounted.. they relied upon the reaction for movement.

roughbarked said:

No cannon was permanently mounted.. they relied upon the reaction for movement.

Swivel guns were often removed & stowed below. That is what was meant by not permanently mounted.

No cannon was permanently mounted.. they relied upon the reaction for movement.

what?

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

No cannon was permanently mounted.. they relied upon the reaction for movement.

Swivel guns were often removed & stowed below. That is what was meant by not permanently mounted.

fair enough.

thanks tamb, glad someone here has a brain.

Boris said:

No cannon was permanently mounted.. they relied upon the reaction for movement.

what?

At best they were tied with ropes.

Boris said:

thanks tamb, glad someone here has a brain.

;) we’ll get back to you on that.. your turn will come. ;)

Boris said:

thanks tamb, glad someone here has a brain.

According to mz Tamb it’s only on loan from her.

Tamb said:

Boris said:

thanks tamb, glad someone here has a brain.

According to mz Tamb it’s only on loan from her.

with interest?

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Boris said:

thanks tamb, glad someone here has a brain.

According to mz Tamb it’s only on loan from her.

with interest?

her interests…

Anyway, it is Friday, I have an empty fridge. There is at least 3 hours of work to do(about five k’s from home on back roads) so maybe I could start FNDC .. at work but that would mean doing 20 k’s just to get some beer that will only get hotter as I work.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

According to mz Tamb it’s only on loan from her.

with interest?

her interests…

and we all know what these entail.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Boris said:

thanks tamb, glad someone here has a brain.

According to mz Tamb it’s only on loan from her.

with interest?

No doubt there will be a monetary consideration in the form of Estée Lauder cosmetics

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

The Australian Dingo that was introduced to Australia is thought to have arrived around 4,000 years ago, which means people from the north have been visiting Australia for quite some time.

and we’re off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOki2hdsdQ

Do I annoy you PWM? :)

Bubblecar said:

An old swivel gun found on a remote Northern Territory beach in 2010 had been lying on the seabed for as long as 250 years, new dating tests show.

Scientists say this suggests there was previously unknown foreign contact with Australian shores before Captain Cook’s arrival in 1770.

jjjust moi said:

There was plenty of stuff happened before Cook, albiet most of it accidental.

The Dutch had basically mapped the entire north and west of the continent from Cape York round to the Great Australian Bight by the middle of the 1600s, over a century before the date of this gun.

> I am surprised that they say the trade with people to the north only started around 1760. I imagined that it had been going on for centuries before that.

If I remember correctly, Flinders talking to the Makassar people found that they had started visiting Australian shores only shortly before. That’s where the quote about “the trade with people to the north only started around 1760” comes from.

mollwollfumble said:

> I am surprised that they say the trade with people to the north only started around 1760. I imagined that it had been going on for centuries before that.

If I remember correctly, Flinders talking to the Makassar people found that they had started visiting Australian shores only shortly before. That’s where the quote about “the trade with people to the north only started around 1760” comes from.

Yes, that’s right. I have just been reading from his journal dated 17 February 1806. Through his Malay cook who acted as interpreter, he recorded one of the Macassans, Pobasso, as saying that he had come to the NT (near Gove) 7 times in the last 20 years and that he was one of the first. Flinders also reports that one of their vessels carried two small brass guns. They had also lost a vessel the year before, and Flinders produced a rudder from a wrecked vessel that they recognised as one of their own.

It appears to have hardly been trade. The Macassans were armed to the teeth and had frequent clashes with the locals.

morrie said:

mollwollfumble said:

> I am surprised that they say the trade with people to the north only started around 1760. I imagined that it had been going on for centuries before that.

If I remember correctly, Flinders talking to the Makassar people found that they had started visiting Australian shores only shortly before. That’s where the quote about “the trade with people to the north only started around 1760” comes from.

Yes, that’s right. I have just been reading from his journal dated 17 February 1806. Through his Malay cook who acted as interpreter, he recorded one of the Macassans, Pobasso, as saying that he had come to the NT (near Gove) 7 times in the last 20 years and that he was one of the first. Flinders also reports that one of their vessels carried two small brass guns. They had also lost a vessel the year before, and Flinders produced a rudder from a wrecked vessel that they recognised as one of their own.

It appears to have hardly been trade. The Macassans were armed to the teeth and had frequent clashes with the locals.

This may clarify the situation a little.

>>It may not be possible to specifically date the first contacts between Indigenous Australians and Indo-Malay people, or other outsiders. We know that, after a long period of isolation, that regular contact with Melanesians crossing Torres Strait or sailing down the northern coasts of Queensland, began about 4,000 years ago. Their impacts show up in terms of new types of stone tools, language change and adoption of new types of watercraft. It was at this time that the dingo came into Australia, but whether through Torres Strait or with seafarers from the Indonesian region is uncertain.<<

>>An archaeological program to date these images is being led by Professor Paul Taçon. The paintings are being dated by radiocarbon dating beeswax figures and lines that were applied at a late time. The oldest (SANU 1682) has a date range from 1517 to
1664, with the median age being 1577. It means this painting of the prau must pre-date that. Although not absolute proof that the Macassans or other mariners from eastern Indonesia were sailing to northern Australia before Europeans made landfall, it certainly provides strong circumstantial evidence.<<

http://rupertgerritsen.tripod.com/pdf/published/Djulirri_Rock_Art.pdf

Additional information.
http://austhrutime.com/macassan_traders.htm