Still Waters Posted January 15, 2014 #1 Share Posted January 15, 2014 A 16th century manuscript featuring an image that looks like a kangaroo could prove that Portuguese explorers discovered Australia before the first recorded European landing in 1606. http://www.telegraph...an-history.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted January 15, 2014 #2 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Looks more like a wallaby to me. Or maybe a bilby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avs76 Posted January 15, 2014 #3 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Great find DM! I have long been attracted to the idea that other nations had contact with the the Australian continent long before recorded history. Pretty exciting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter B Posted January 16, 2014 #4 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Interesting find. It's also not the first. Back in 1977, Kenneth McIntyre wrote a book called "The Secret Discovery of Australia" which also proposed a theory that the Portuguese were the first Europeans to find Australia, in the 1520s. The book has an illustration of a bizarre looking creature in a map title: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Speculum_Orbis_Terrae.jpg In the bottom right corner is a creature which looks like it has the head of a camel, but it also appears to have a young creature in a pouch - a very clear sign of someone having seen a marsupial. McIntyre provided an amended version of the picture with a kangaroo's head in place of the camel head, and the effect is striking. As for the underlying theory - that the Portuguese reached Australia decades before the Dutch - I'm willing to consider it, although the evidence is so thin as to be almost non-existent. I also find it hard to believe that the Portuguese didn't find a reason to exploit any part of Australia which they could claim under the Treaty of Tordesillas (roughly corresponding to West Australia). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaitSith Posted January 16, 2014 #5 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Kind of looks like an armadillo in the face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted January 16, 2014 #6 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Kind of looks like an armadillo in the face Agreed, i think that bush is more of a plant, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xynoplas Posted January 16, 2014 #7 Share Posted January 16, 2014 An aardvark for sure! Or a badly drawn rabbit? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaitSith Posted January 16, 2014 #8 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Lets look at it from a different angle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ealdwita Posted January 16, 2014 #9 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I have seen several similar illustrations in Medieval bestiaries, and I believe that one is meant to represent a brown hare. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud the mackem Posted January 16, 2014 #10 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Oh dear here we go again, So will the Portuguese try to claim Australia as their territory,the same as the Spanish are trying to claim Gibraltar and the Argies the Falklands.Just as well we (U.K) are friendly with the Portuguese or we might have another conflict to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted January 16, 2014 #11 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Well, the Aborigines first, obviously. Not that I'm terribly impressed with 'first settler' claims: human nature being what it is, the first settlers were probably booted off the land by the second settlers and so on, all long before the Europeans arrived for their turn in the crab-bucket. Edited January 16, 2014 by PersonFromPorlock 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted January 17, 2014 #12 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I have seen several similar illustrations in Medieval bestiaries, and I believe that one is meant to represent a brown hare. Which seems more likely than the Deer mentioned in the article. It looks a heck of a lot like a Roo without a tail, but why would an Australian Kangaroo feature as art on a text (or music) concerning liturgical procession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry_Dresden Posted January 17, 2014 #13 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Definitely looks like a kangaroo to me... as far as I'm concerned, compelling proof that the Portuguese were the first Europeans to see Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toyomotor Posted July 14, 2014 #14 Share Posted July 14, 2014 A 16th century manuscript featuring an image that looks like a kangaroo could prove that Portuguese explorers discovered Australia before the first recorded European landing in 1606. http://www.telegraph...an-history.html This is not new. It's known that ships from almost every European colonising country at some time, prior to the British, were in Australian waters. But none of them staked a realistic claim, and didn't hang around to develop what they'd found. There have been finds of an old canon (I can't remembers if it was Spanish or Portugese) and coins, all of which predate the British. There are also unconfirmed stories of the Vikings having reached the North East Coast of Australia-but they appear to be far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now