Читать книгу Northmost Australia - Robert Logan Jack - Страница 28

FIRST TO CIRCUMNAVIGATE NEW HOLLAND (1642-3). TOUCHES VAN DIEMEN'S LAND (TASMANIA). BELIEVES IT TO BE SOUTHERN EXTREMITY OF NEW HOLLAND. COASTS 'NEW ZEALAND. To BATAVIA, VIA NORTH COAST OF NEW GUINEA, WHICH HE BELIEVES TO BE JOINED TO AUSTRALIA. THE 1644 EXPEDITION. THREE VESSELS LEAVE BATAVIA. SAILING ORDERS. SATISFIED THAT THERE IS NO STRAIT BETWEEN NEW GUINEA AND NEW HOLLAND. REPORT, IF ANY, STILL UNDISCOVERED, BUT A SKETCH-MAP SHOWS THAT TASMAN FOLLOWED COAST-LINE FROM THE "DRY BIGHT" (TORRES STRAIT) ROUND THE SHORES OF GULF OF CARPENTARIA, PAST ARNHEIM LAND AND ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST COAST OF AUSTRALIA TO THE TROPIC OF CAPRICORN. A POOR COUNTRY, INHABITED BY MISERABLE BUT MALIGNANT SAVAGES. TASMAN PROBABLY DID NOT CARRY THE "PERA" DIARY OR CHARTS. HAD BEEN FURNISHED WITH AN INACCURATE "SPECIALLY PREPARED" CHART. NAMES NEW INLETS IN CAPE YORK PENINSULA AND OBSERVES MOUTH OF PORT MUSGRAVE ESTUARY. NAMES PRINCE INLET (PENNEFATHER RIVER). NAMES VLIE6E BAIJ (ALBATROSS BAY). MISIDENTIFIES THE "Pera's" COEN AND NASSAU INLETS. ARNHEIM RIVER (= VAN ROOK CREEK?). MISIDENTIFIES "Pera's" STATEN INLET. NAMES VAN DIEMEN INLET (NORMAN RIVER), VAN DER LIJN INLET (BYNOE MOUTH OF FLINDERS RIVER) AND CARON INLET (MOUTH OF FLINDERS RIVER).

Of all her gallant sailors there is none of whom Holland has more reason to be proud than of ABEL JANSZOON TASMAN. In many voyages of discovery he rendered signal services to his country. Only two of these, however, come within the scope of our inquiry.

Prior to the first of these voyages, the western and a portion of the southern shores of Australia were already known, but the theory that the South Land formed part of a great antarctic continent had yet to be disproved. In 1642-3, Tasman demonstrated the INSULARITY OF "NEW HOLLAND" by sailing round it, although at a great distance, with Batavia as his starting- and finishing-post. He touched TASMANIA (named by him Van Diemen's Land) and rounded its southern end, believing it to be the southern limit of the South Land, now to be called New Holland. Thence he sailed eastward to NEW ZEALAND, which he coasted to the north. He returned to Batavia via the Friendly Islands, Fiji and the north coast of NEW GUINEA, which he believed to be the northmost part of New Holland. Tasman's journal is extant and relates, with painstaking industry, the minutest details of his remarkable voyage.

The voyage which mainly concerns us is that of 1644. The INSTRUCTIONS[1] of the Governor-General and Council of the Dutch East India Company were drawn up at Batavia on 13th January, 1644, and were signed by Antonie Van Diemen, Cornelis Van Der Lijn (Director-General), Joan Maetsuijker, Justus Schouten ("Councillor-Extraordinary to the present assembly"), Salomon Sweers, and Pieter Metschagh (Secretary).

The ships employed in the expedition were the yachts "Limmen" and "Zeemeeuw" and the galiot "Bracq," and their respective complements were:—

"Limmen" 45 sailors, 11 soldiers = 56 "Zeemeeuw" 35 6 = 41 "Bracq" 14 = 14 —- Total 111 —-

From the instructions and a list of members of the Full Council, we gather how each of the ships was officered:—

"Limmen". Commander and Skipper, Abel Janszoon Tasman. Assistant Skipper, Pilot-Major Francois Jacobszoon Visscher. Mate, Crin Hendrikszoon. Trader (Assistant Supercargo), Counsel and Secretary, Anthonio Blauw.

"Zeemeeuw." Skipper, Dirck Corneliszoon Haen. Supercargo, Isaac Gilesemans. Mate, Carsten Jeuraenszoon.

"Bracq." Skipper, Jasper Janszoon Koos. Mate,. Cornelis Robel.

When matters concerning navigation were to be discussed in the FULL COUNCIL, the second mates were to be called in. Councils of individual ships were to consist of the officers, to whom were to be added the Assistant Supercargoes or book-keepers and the master-boatswains. The minutes of the Full Council were to be made out in triplicate.

The fleet left BATAVIA on 30th January, and returned to that port on l0th August, 1644.

The SAILING ORDERS began with a preamble recapitulating the achievements of previous navigators in the region to be visited, and to this narrative we are indebted, inter alia, in default of the "Duyfken's" journal and charts, for some of our scanty information regarding her disastrous pioneering voyage along the coast of the Cape York Peninsula.

The orders were first to go to Banda and there to take in water and firewood and to obtain such information regarding "New

[1) Printed in Dalrymple's Collections concerning Papua, in Major's Early Voyages, in Heeres' Life of Tasman and (partly) in Heeres' Part borne by the Dutch, etc.]

Guinea" as could be supplied by the Vice-Governor, who, it was said, was likely to have a copy of CARSTENSZOON'S JOURNAL of the "Pera" and Aernem" expedition. This shows that, in 1644, the journal was not obtainable in Batavia; and it may be assumed that the "Pera's" chart was also missing. Tasman, therefore, unless he succeeded in obtaining copies in Banda, must have started on his voyage of exploration without these documents which were so essential to his success in identifying the localities visited and charted by Carstenszoon.

After leaving Banda, Tasman was instructed to make for FALSE CAPE, on the New Guinea coast; to follow the coast east to 9° S. latitude; cautiously to clear the shoals (the so-called "DROOGE BOCHT," the entrance to TORRES STRAIT); to anchor near the High Island (PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND) or the SPEULT RIVER and to send the "Bracq" into the bight to make one more search for the alleged (and actual) passage. Having settled this point, he was to skirt the west coast of "New Guinea" southward to the FURTHEST KNOWN POINT, about 17° S. latitude. Thence he was to follow the coast and connect the coast-line charted by Carstenszoon with the "VAN DIEMEN'S LAND" discovered by himself and supposed to be the southern extremity of the "South Land." He was, however, to carry out only as much of this programme as time would permit; but, in any case, he was to be back in Batavia, via Sunda Strait, "by June or July."

The expedition, as we have seen, returned to Batavia on 10th August, and we are justified in assuming that the instructions were obeyed, although the carrying out of the full programme was impossible. As a matter of fact, Tasman had only followed the Australian coast (already to some extent known) to the Tropic of Capricorn when the prescribed time-limit compelled him to make for Batavia. Considerable portions of the Australian coast west of where the "Pera" turned back had already, however, been discovered and more or less charted from twenty-eight to twenty-one years before; so that Tasman's achievement consisted of a demonstration of the CONTINUITY OF THE LAND from the 44 Drooge Bocht (Torres Strait) to the Tropic of Capricorn. His contributions to cartography were chiefly the southern and western shores of the GULF OF CARPENTARIA and the coast-line from Melville Island to the Tropic of Capricorn.

A clause in the instructions (perhaps mere routine) empowered Tasman to take possession of new discoveries and to enter into Treaties. There is nothing to show that either power was exercised. The tone of contemporary official references to the expedition gives the impression that the Dutch East India Company regarded it as having been only moderately successful and as having failed to add materially to the Company's assets. The presumption is that Tasman did not claim to have discovered any land of value or to

have fallen in with any potentates with whom it was worth his while to conclude alliances.

Before leaving Batavia, Tasman was supplied with a SPECIALLY PREPARED CHART, which, no doubt, showed all that was known of the south coast of New Guinea (as we know the island to-day) and the north, west and south coasts of Australia. There is reason to believe that, as regards previous exploration of the coast of the Cape York Peninsula, this chart was very imperfect.

In a report under date 23rd December, 164, signed by Van Dieman, Van der Lijn, Sweers, Crooq and Van Alpen (President), representing the Governor and Council of the Dutch East India Company, and addressed to "The Noble, Worshipful, Provident and Very Discreet Gentlemen" (The Directors of the Company in Holland), it is stated that Tasman's expedition, after leaving Bantam on 29th February, 1644, "followed the coast-line, but found NO OPEN CHANNEL between the half-known Nova Guinea and the known land of Eendracht or Willem's River in 22½° S. latitude and 119° longitude.[1] They, however, found a large, spacious BAY OR GULF, as shown in the annexed CHART AND JOURNALS. Nor did they make any profit by bartering, having only met with naked, beach-roaming wretches, destitute of rice and not possessed of any fruits worth mentioning, excessively poor and in many places of a very malignant nature, as Your Worships may in great detail gather from the BATAVIA MINUTES, in which are recorded the courses kept and the incidents of the voyage, under date 4th, 5th and 10th August last, at which time the said Tasman returned to our port through Sunda Strait, from the latitude and longitude aforesaid of the South Land (having continually sailed in shallow water along the coast)...This vast and hitherto unknown South Land has by the said Tasman been sailed round in two voyages and is computed to comprise 2,000 miles of land, as shown by the delineation of the Charts, which we subjoin for Your Worships' inspection."

Whatever became of Tasman's journal, it has not come down to us. There is, however, a CHART, on the scale of 1 cm. to a degree of longitude, showing Tasman's routes in 1642-3 and 1644, entitled "Company's New Netherlands. To the east the large Land of Nova Guinea forming one land with the first-known South Land, and all of it joined together, as may be seen from the dotted course-line of the Yachts 'Limmen' and Zeemeeuw' and the Galiot 'Bracq' anno 1644." A further inscription says: "This Work has been put together out of divers Writings, together with Personal Observations by Abel Janszoon Tasman anno Domini 1644." The chart shows a continuous New Guinea and Cape York Peninsula, with a shallow bight between. PROFESSOR HEERES,

[1) Actually 113° E. The Dutch of this period reckoned longitude from the meridian of the Peak of Teneriffe, which is 16° 46' W. of Greenwich.]

in his great work, The Life of Tasman,[1] describes it as having been "drawn-up immediately, after the (1644) expedition and under the eye of Tasman himself." It may, indeed, be a copy of the chart forwarded with the Report by the Governor-General and Council at Batavia to the Directors in Holland. It was reproduced by JACOB SWART in his Journaal van de Reis nar het Onbekende Zuidland in den Jare 1642 door Abel Janszoon Tasman (Amsterdam, 1860), and HEERES, in his Life of Tasman gives a version of it, with the place-names and other inscriptions translated into English.

The names along the west coast of the Cape York Peninsula in the charts reproduced by Swart and Heeres are as in Column I of the table below, and the latitudes as in Columns II and III; but the small scale of the map, together with a "personal equation" resulting from mechanical differences in drawing between the two maps, makes it impossible, in some cases, to be certain of the positions indicated within a few minutes of latitude.

[1) The full title is: "Abel Janszoon Tasman's Journal of his Discovery of Van Diemen's Land and New Zealand in 1642, with Documents relating to his Exploration of Australia in 1644, being Photo-lithographic Fac-Similes of the Original Manuscript in the Colonial Archives of the Hague, with an English Translation and Fac-Similes of Original Maps; To which are added Life and Labours of Abel Janszoon Tasman, by J. E. Heeres, LL.D., Professor at the Dutch Colonial Institute, Delft, and Observations made with the Compass on Tasman's Voyage by Dr. W. Van Bemmelen, Assistant Director of the Royal Meteorological Institute, Utrecht". Amsterdam, 1898. It is almost needless to say that the greater part of the facts quoted in this chapter relating to Tasman's voyage are borrowed from this exhaustive work, for which Professor Heeres is peculiarly qualified not only because of the exceptional opportunities enjoyed by him for obtaining access to the original documents, but also because of his critical and judicial mind. He is, however, not at all responsible for the views and comments herein. I may claim, perhaps, better opportunities for access to Australian documents and charts.—R.L.J.]

It would be of great assistance to know whether or not Tasman succeeded in getting Carstenszoon's diary and charts from the Vice-Governor at Banda. I am inclined to think that he left Banda without these important documents[1] and had to rely entirely on the general chart with which he was furnished at Batavia. Had he been able to refer to the original report and chart, he would surely have adopted for the northmost "Watering-place" at which he touched, Carstenszoon's name of "Van Spult Revier." The question arises, was the sketch-chart made by de Leeuw, mate of the "Pera," prepared for the guidance of Tasman? I conclude that it could not have been, or Tasman would have used de Leeuw's name of "Batavia Revier" instead of Carstenszoon's "Carpentier."

The note at 17° S. latitude, on Tasman's 1644 chart, which may be freely translated: "Some people have been as far as this," was, in all probability, of the nature of an instruction. To that point the coast had been explored, and it was in Tasman's discretion (I) to hurry past it and begin where Carstenszoon left off, or (2) to land from time to time for the purpose of verifying Carstenszoon's report. His decision would depend upon how much time he was prepared to spend on an already-known coast.

In all probability, he landed, or at least anchored, in several places on the coast of the Cape York Peninsula short of previous explorers' furthest south, as he makes observations, or leaves names, which he could not possibly have got from pre-existing charts, e.g., the Prince Revier 12° 12'), the Revier mit Bosch (12° 30' or 12° 33'), Vliege Baij (13° 12'), Visscher's Revier (13° 42', named after his Assistant Skipper) and the Pera Revier (16° 15'). It remains for us to consider the places named by Tasman, one by one, in their order from north to south.

Having given the shoals of the "Drooge Bocht" a wide berth, the first position noted in Cape York Peninsula is the WATER PLAETS to which the latitude of 11° S. is assigned.

Carstenszoon, in the "Pera," on 14th May, 1623, noted an inlet (SEE MAP A) which he named "WATERING-PLACE" and also "REVIER VAN SPULT," in, as he said, 10° 50' S. lat. For reasons already given, I have pointed out that this (which is the latitude of Red Island) is impossible, and that the Van Spult Inlet must be a mouth of the Jardine River, and in, or about, 10° 59' S. Carstenszoon having described it as an ideal watering-place, where fresh water could be taken up in buckets lowered from ships, Tasman was likely enough to have paid it a visit, especially if he needed water. If he really found and identified it, he was practically

[1) My son, R. Lockhart Jack, suggests that if Tasman had a difficulty in obtaining the "Pera's" charts, he would endeavour to enlist and carry with him some of the "Pera's" old sailors, in the hope of getting from them assistance in the identification of Carstenszoon's reviers.—R.L.J.]

correct in placing it in 11°. But why did he not 'adopt Carstenszoon's name of "Van Spult"?

The next position noted by Tasman is the "STAETEN REVIER," in 11° 50' (Swart) or 11° 54' (Heeres). (SEE MAP B.) Close to the coast and in either of these latitudes, Tasman would be looking into the mouth of PORT MUSGRAVE, the estuary common to the Batavia, Ducie and Dalhunty Rivers of modern maps. He had just passed (apparently without observing it) the river to which Carstenszoon gave the name of CARPENTIER (called the SKARDON RIVER in modern maps), and still believed that river to be a long way south and this shows how inaccurate was the chart on which he had to rely for information as to his predecessor's discoveries. Having missed the real Carpentier and found another "revier" not very far to the south, he would almost certainly have called the latter the Batavia had he been in possession of either de Leeuw's chart (date uncertain, say 1623-30) or Kepler and Eekerbrecht's chart (1630), as de Leeuw had altered Carstenszoon's name of Carpentier to Batavia and Kepler and Eekerbrecht had copied from him. TASMAN' DID NOT, however, CALL THE INLET THE BATAVIA, but, believing it to be new, called it the Staeten (States) Revier. Why he should have called it by that name is a mystery, seeing that (as proved by his subsequent erroneous identification of another Staeten Revier in 16° 47') Carstenszoon's Staten Revier was shown (although, incorrectly, to the north of lat. 17°) in the "specially prepared" map which he carried.

Up to the date when Tasman passed Port Musgrave, the singular state of affairs was that NO inlet had yet been named the Batavia, although the name even then stood on at least two charts. As a matter of fact, the name was first applied in 1756 to the principal river debouching into Port Musgrave by VAN ASSCHENS, the mate in command of the "Buijs," who, no doubt, was in possession of Kepler and Eekerbrecht's chart, if not of de Leeuw's. Thus Tasman was the first to notice the mouth of the Port Musgrave Estuary, but he gave it a name (Staeten) which cannot be accepted, and Van Asschens was the first to apply the name Batavia to the principal river discharging into the estuary.

Tasman's third position is in 12° 18' (Swart) or 12° 13' (Heeres), and is named the PRINCE REVIER, probably in honour of Prince Frederik Henry, then Stadtholder of Holland. The only opening between 12° 13' and 12° 18' is the mouth (12° 14'-12° 15') of the PENNEFATHER RIVER, which has figured on maps for several decades as the "COEN" River, from Flinders' erroneous identification with the "revier" to which Carstenszoon gave that name. Tasman had named the inlet in question the "PRINCE" more than two centuries before it was named the Pennefather.

Tasman's "REVIER MIT BOSCH"" (Wooded Inlet) is placed in 12° 33' by Swart and in 12° 30' by Heeres. On modern charts,

the mouth of PINE or NOMENADE CREEK is in 12° 30', but to reach it Tasman must have doubled sharply round DUYFKEN POINT, and it is very odd indeed that his 1644 chart gives no indication of this very prominent cape. The omission may be attributable to a desire to avoid overcrowding the chart with details.

If Tasman really sailed to the mouth of Pine Creek, he was then well inside of ALBATROSS BAY, and his next inlet, which he calls the "REVIER CARPENTIER," 1S placed in a bay in 12° 48'. In 12° 40', the EMBLEY RIVER discharges into Albatross Bay. Tasman's observation may be correct, but why should he have given a new name (Staeten Revier) to Carstenszoon's Carpentier Inlet? And why should he have identified as Carstenszoon's Carpentier an inlet 55 minutes to the south of it? It is easier to believe that he was supplied with a very imperfect chart of Carstenszoon's voyage than that he was careless in his identifications. I conclude that he did not find Carstenszoon's diary and chart at Banda, as the Governor and Council at Batavia expected he would, and that the "special chart" supplied to him was imperfect and misleading.

Tasman next writes "VLIEGE BAIJ" (Fly Bay) on the coast in 13° 12' S. Towards the latter end of the nineteenth century, this bay was labelled by the Hon. John Douglas (I am afraid unalterably) "ALBATROSS BAY." It extends from Duyfken Point (12° 33' S.) to Pera Head (12° 55' S.), and receives the important, and to some extent navigable, MISSION and EMBLEY RIVERS. Here, for the first time, Tasman's latitude will not square with modern charting, as, even if the latitude given by him is meant to be that where he left the bay behind him, he is wrong by 17 minutes too much south. In any case, his name of Fly Bay has priority, by more than two and a half centuries, over the de facto name Albatross Bay. The name probably records the fact that mosquitoes had forced themselves on Tasman's notice. The skipper of the "Buijs," in April, 1756, recognised VLIEGE BAIJ, although, a month later, the skipper of the "Rijder" named it MOSSEL BAIJ. (SEE MAP D.)

South of Albatross Bay, an inlet in 13° 30' (Swart) or 13° 27' (Heeres) was named the REVIER COEN by Tasman, who evidently believed that he had identified the inlet (in 13° 7') so named by Carstenszoon.

The "Investigator" Chart by FLINDERS (1802), corrected by the Admiralty surveyors up to 1896, shows no break in the coast-line in the position (13° 7' S.) assigned to the Coen Revier by Carstenszoon in 1623; nor does the Lands Department map. In the chapter devoted to Missionary Exploration it is shown that the "Pera's" anchorage was in 13° 7' and that a boat's crew landed there, and a short walking distance to the north found a small inlet remarkable only for the presence of esculent herbs, and which was named the COEN. The Rev. N. Hey, of the Mapoon Mission,

informs me that there is such a water-course in 13° 4' S. lat. Tasman was mistaken in his identification of the inlet in 13° 27-13° 30' with Carstenszoon's Coen, which is in 13° 4'. Tasman's inlet is, in fact, in lat. 13° 20'-13° 21', and is the mouth of the important river named the ARCHER by Jardine in 1865. Some 70 miles from its mouth, the Archer splits into two branches, and the southern and shorter has borne the name of the COEN since 1876, for the reason that the discoverers of a GOLDFIELD on its upper reaches believed it to be the head of the "Pera's" (i.e., Carstenszoon's) Coen. The Lands Department maps now call the river of the goldfield the "SOUTH COEN." Tasman's erroneous identification was probably due to the imperfection of the charts with which he had been supplied.

It would not surprise me if direct investigation were to prove the inlet in 13° 27'-30' which Tasman mistook for the Coen to be a mouth of the Archer. Considering the "habit" of rivers on this coast, I should expect a river like the Archer to have several mouths. In fact, a sketch-map recently made by the Rev. A. Richter, and certified by the Rev. N. Hey, shows a mouth named the DUGALLY RIVER in 13° 33'. There are probably 'other inlets or mouths of the Archer between 13° 33' and 13° 20', where the only charted mouth is located, and in this case we need not even suppose an error of a few minutes of latitude on Tasman's part.

Next in order, in Tasman's 1664 chart, is VISSCHER'S REVIER, in 13° 42'. Here, again, no inlet appears on the most recent Admiralty charts or on the maps of the Lands Department. On the latter, the whole of the coast-line from the mouth of the Archer River to Cape Keerweer is a blank; but my charting (not very far to the east) of Jardine's route of the last days of 1864, from his camp numbered 55 to that numbered 57, shows that a group of considerable streams must find their way to the sea somewhere on this stretch of coast, unless they all go to feed the Archer River. It is, however, equally probable that, assuming Tasman's latitude to be correct, the inlet which he named in compliment to his Assistant-Skipper was a mouth of the Archer itself. So far, there is no reason for suspecting any serious error in Tasman's latitudes. The fact that he named what he believed to be a new "revier" in 13° 42' is strong evidence that he actually landed in or near that latitude.

The next locality noted on Tasman's chart is CAPE KEERWEER (where the "Duyfken" turned back), which he places in 14° 36'. In that latitude nothing like a cape appears in modern official sea charts or land maps. I suggest that his course here was too far out at sea to enable him to lay down this not very prominent cape from his own observation and that he copied it from the defective chart which he carried. (SEE MAP F.)

South of the real (13° 58') and the imaginary (14° 36') Cape

Keerweer, Tasman's chart shows the "VEREENIGDE REVIER" (the "main channel" of the MITCHELL RIVER), in 15° 12' (Swart) or 15° 6' (Heeres). Modern charts place it in 15° 9'. Did Tasman identify the inlet so named by Carstenszoon, or did he merely copy from the chart supplied to him?

Next in order comes the "WATER PLAETS" in 15° 30', which agrees with Carstenszoon's data. I doubt if Tasman would have attempted to land here if he had had access to the text of Carstenszoon's diary, which shows that water was only to be collected by a tedious process and in trifling quantity. For this reason, I conclude that he did not land, and that he merely copied the note from the chart supplied to him. (SEE MAP H.)

Tasman next places the REVIER NASSAU in 15° 37' (Swart) or 15° 48' (Heeres), instead of in 16° 10' where it was placed by Carstenszoon, and where, according to modern maps, an unnamed creek runs into the sea. A large river, which modern maps name the Nassau, and which is one of the mouths of the Mitchell River, runs into the sea in latitude, 15° 54', but it was unnoticed by Carstenszoon. It is more likely that Tasman copied the Revier Nassau from the imperfect chart supplied to him than that he was 33 or 22 minutes out in his own observation, so that I doubt if he really visited it. His supposed identification of Carstenszoon's Nassau was, unfortunately, accepted by FLIN DERS (1802), and has, since then, passed into geography and literature, so that the error cannot now be corrected. It must, however, be understood that the "NASSAU" MOUTH of the MITCHELL, as it appears on modern land maps, is not Carstenszoon's Nassau, and that the name is merely a complimentary one.

On an inlet in 16° (Swart) or 16° 15' (Heeres), Tasman bestows the name of the REVIER PERA. If the latitude (16°) scaled from Swart's version of Tasman's chart correctly conveys Tasman's meaning, this Pera Inlet must, according to the Lands Department map, be the "TIDAL MOUTH" OF LEICHHARDT'S "ROCKY CREEK." This mouth is navigable by small craft for four miles. It may, therefore, be conceded that Tasman landed at or rowed up the inlet which he named the Pera Revier.

South of the Pera inlet, and 5 minutes south of the mouth of the large river which modern maps (incorrectly, though irrevocably) name the Staaten River, Tasman places the REVIER ARNHEM in 16° 30'. Modern land maps show that a water-course, known as VAN ROOK CREEK, leaks out of the Einasleigh, a tributary of the Gilbert River, and falls into the Gulf in this latitude, only 6 miles south of the mouth of the Staaten River, de facto, after meandering across the coastal plain, in a general WNW. direction, for 150 miles. Carstenszoon, in the diary of the "Pera's" voyage, made no mention of an inlet in this neighbourhood, where he was fuming over the desertion and supposed treachery of the "Aernem."

I am inclined to believe that Tasman actually saw the inlet which he named the Arnhem, and that he named it in commemoration of the last appearance of that yacht on the "New Guinea" coast.

In an inlet in 16° 47' (Heeres), Tasman believed himself to have recognised Carstenszoon's STATEN REVIER. The modern land map shows a mouth of the Gilbert River falling into the Gulf in 16° 45', and it may be assumed that this is the inlet mistaken by Tasman for Carstenszoon's Staten Revier. There is, however, as is argued elsewhere, every ground for believing that CARSTENSZOON'S STATEN REVIER was ACCIDENT INLET, another mouth of the Gilbert, in 17° 13'. However, seeing that the note in the chart "specially prepared" for Tasman's use laid down 17° as the limit of previous discovery, he was compelled to recognise, SHORT OF THAT LATITUDE, some inlet or other as that which was the "Pera's" and "Aernem's" furthest south, and which Carstenszoon named the STATEN REVIER. That note itself was incorrect, Carstenszoon's diary giving the latitude as 17° 8', while 17° 13' is probably more accurate. That Tasman accepted the authority of the note is an additional proof, if such were required, that he was not in possession of Carstenszoon's diary or chart.

The foregoing attempt to follow Tasman, with the assistance of modern charts, along the coast previously described by Carstenszoon leads to the conclusion that while he might very well, in following the instructions laid down for his guidance, have passed rapidly over the already-described region and commenced operations where Carstenszoon left off, he adopted the alternative course of spending a considerable amount of time in verifying Carstenszoon's information. That his success was indifferent is probably attributable to the imperfection of the chart with which he was supplied.

It must be remembered that we have not the chart which accompanied Tasman's instructions, and that there are good grounds for the belief that it gave only an imperfect, second-hand delineation of Carstenszoon's discoveries; that Tasman, apparently, was not furnished with Carstenszoon's diary or chart; and that we have not Tasman's account of his own voyage and have to rely on a small-scale chart on which he laid down his discoveries, identifications and observations. (SEE MAP M.)

Free at last, and with an absolutely untouched stretch of coast before him, I am inclined to think that Tasman found that he had already spent too much time in verifying Carstenszoon's data, and that he had to hurry over what should have been the most important part of his task. It may be truthfully said in excuse for him that the whole world presents but few stretches of coast less picturesque than that on which he was now entering. It may well be imagined that he was content, in the first place, by a cursory observation, to

settle whether "New Guinea" (as he regarded it), or Cape York Peninsula (in reality), was continuous with Arnhem Land or whether a passage to the south lay between.

Presumably with the intention of making certain that he was now on an unexplored shore, Tasman made his first descent at 17° 30' (Swart) or 17° 33' (Heeres), where he named VAN DIEMEN INLET (Revier). Next, he named the VAN DER LIJN and CARON INLETS, the latter in 17° 47'.

FLINDERS, in 1802, in the "Investigator," believed he had identified Tasman's Van Diemen Inlet in the mouth of the Gilbert River (16° 57'). All the attendant circumstances point to the incorrectness of this identification, but it has, nevertheless, been adopted without question in subsequent official maps. Firstly, there is the discrepancy between the latitudes of 16° 57' and 17° 30'. Then it is precisely at his Van Diemen's Inlet that Tasman makes the trend of the coast-line change from S. by W. to W. by S. I see no reason for doubting that Tasman's latitude of 17° 30' was substantially correct, especially as it is here that his chart shows the abrupt change in the trend of the coast-line. There can be no reasonable doubt that Tasman's VAN DIEMEN INLET was the MOUTH OF THE NORMAN RIVER, now the port for the Croydon goldfield and a considerable area of pastoral country. Its latitude is 17° 28'.

Tasman's three inlets, the Van Diemen, Van Der Lijn and Caron, are all, according to his chart, within 17 minutes of latitude. The position in which the name of the VAN DER LIJN is written appears to me to be purposely indefinite, as if it were designed to convey merely that the inlet is between the Van Diemen and the Caron. I take it to be what is now mapped as the "BYNOE" mouth of the FLINDERS RIVER.

The CARON INLET is placed on Tasman's chart in 17° 47', and must be the principal MOUTH OF THE FLINDERS itself. Here, however, Tasman's latitude is incorrect, according to modern charts, which place the mouth of the river in 17° 36', so that Tasman's position is II minutes inland. I am under the impression that Tasman had become rather indifferent as to his true position and had come to regard the continuity of the coast of the Cape York Peninsula with that of Arnhem Land as the problem of the moment.

It may be noted here that FLINDERS' chart of 1802 shows the CAPRON RIVER coming from the east and falling into the Norman River at Normanton. Subsequent Lands Department maps have always given the name of the CARRON RIVER to this water-course, thus creating a mistaken impression. that this was supposed to be Tasman's Caron.

From the Caron Inlet (Flinders River) Tasman passes beyond our ken. By following the coast he established the CONTINUITY OF THE CAPE YORK PENINSULA (which he named CARPENTARIA)

WITH ARNHEM LAND, and incidentally that instead of a passage to the south there was merely the GULF OF CARPENTARIA.

SUMMARY

The loss of Tasman's journal reduces us to conjecture and the weighing of probabilities when we attempt to realise what it was that he accomplished, the groundwork or text of such speculations being the sketch-chart containing the names which he bestowed on certain inlets or capes.

So far as the Cape York Peninsula was concerned, he was apparently supplied with a very imperfect and misleading "SPECIALLY MADE" CHART of the voyage of his predecessor, CARSTENSZOON (in the "Pera"). He failed to procure the copies of Carstenszoon's journal and chart which it was expected he might pick up at Banda. Carstenszoon's journal, however, is available to us, although it was denied to him, so that we are in a position to judge how far he succeeded in identifying the inlets, etc. named by Carstenszoon.

The truth is that he was very unsuccessful; but this must be attributed entirely to the defects with the "specially made" chart and to no fault of his own.

He began his exploration of the Peninsula by rediscovering the "Pera's" "WATERING-PLACE" in or near 11° S. lat., but did not give it the additional name of the "REVIER VAN SPULT" which Carstenszoon had bestowed on it. He next made a very bad guess at the locality of Carstenszoon's COEN REVIER, but either correctly identified or copied from his "specially made" chart (which seems to have been correct in this instance) Carstenszoon's VEREENIGDE REVIER (the MITCHELL RIVER).

Carstenszoon's NASSAU and STATEN REVIERS were incorrectly located by Tasman, the latter inlet being placed north instead of south of 17°, because the "specially made" chart had erroneously fixed that latitude as Carstenszoon's southern limit.

He was the first[1] to notice PORT MUSGRAVE, which—probably misguided by the "specially made" chart—he seems to have taken at first for Carstenszoon's Staten Revier (before he realised that the latter was in the neighbourhood of 17°).

He next found a new inlet (12° 13'-18') which he named the PRINCE REVIER. The name never "caught on." For a good part of the nineteenth century this inlet was believed (incorrectly) to be Carstenszoon's COEN, and towards the end of that century was officially, and irrevocably, named the PENNEFATHER.

He indicated a "REVIER MIT BOSCH" just inside of DUYFKEN POINT, where modern maps now show the mouth of PINE or

[1) Unless he was anticipated by Janszoon, in the "Duyfken," of which there is no record.]

NOMENADE CREEK. To press Tasman's undoubtedly just claim to priority of nomenclature is not to be thought of, as it would only add one more to the too numerous family of "Scrubby" Creeks.

He was the first to give a name, VLIEGE BAIJ (Fly Bay) to what was afterwards named MOSSEL BAIJ, and, in recent times, ALBATROSS BAY, now unalterably fixed by usage and official recognition.

An inlet in this bay (12° 48') was named by Tasman the CARPENTIER, although its identification with the inlet so named by Carstenszoon would be absurd. This is one of the few remaining uncharted portions of the coast land, and if there should turn out to be an inlet of any importance in the locality indicated, I would suggest that it be named the TASMAN.

In 13° 27'-30', Tasman was the first to note a revier which he erroneously took for Carstenszoon's Coen, but which must have been one of the mouths of the great river named the ARCHER by Jardine in 1865.

A new Revier, VISSCHER'S, was placed by Tasman in 13° 42'. Should there prove to be such an inlet in this uncharted portion of the coast land, there is every reason why Tasman's name (Visscher) should be applied to it.

CAPE KEERWEER (where the "Duyfken" turned back) is placed in an altogether wrong position. 'It is more than doubtful if Tasman saw it, and I believe he merely copied it from his incorrect "specially prepared" chart.

An inlet in 16° was named the REVIER PERA. This inlet, one of the mouths Of LEICHHARDT'S ROCKY CREEK, is only designated a "TIDAL INLET" in the modern official map, and should have the name given to it by Tasman.

On Tasman's REVIER ARNHEM, long use and official recognition have irrevocably fixed the name of VAN ROOK CREEK.

In Tasman's three inlets named VAN DIEMEN'S, VAN DER LIJN'S and CARON'S, there is no difficulty in recognising respectively (1) the mouth of the NORMAN RIVER, (2) the "BYNOE" MOUTH Of the Flinders River and (3) the "FLINDERS" MOUTH of the Flinders.

The name of the Van Der Lijn does not appear to have ever been adopted by modern maps, but Flinders was responsible for erroneous identifications of the Van Diemen and Caron, and, following him, the name Van Diemen still persists as applied to one of the mouths of the Gilbert River, in 16° 58'. The sooner it is dropped the better. Nor could any useful purpose now be served by restoring Tasman's names for the three inlets, even if it were possible to overcome the weight of long-established private and official use of other names.