Capt Cooks Ship 'Endeavor' found?

[Max 86]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/05/ ... cmp=hphz03


"Marine archaeologists say they have likely found HMS Endeavour, which Capt. Cook sailed on when he discovered Australia, at the bottom of Newport Harbor.

The Rhode Island Marine Archaeology Project (RIMAP) says that Endeavour, which was renamed Lord Sandwich, is one of 13 ships scuttled in Newport Harbor in 1778. Lord Sandwich had been used to transport troops during the American Revolution and was scuttled in the days leading up to the Battle of Rhode Island.

The vessel was a bark, or three-masted sailing ship."

I never knew it was renamed and used for troop transport during American Revolution. One of the most famous ships in history renamed and re-purposed into anonymity! Definitely would like to see her restored. [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Max 86

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/05/ ... cmp=hphz03


"Marine archaeologists say they have likely found HMS Endeavour, which Capt. Cook sailed on when he discovered Australia, at the bottom of Newport Harbor.

The Rhode Island Marine Archaeology Project (RIMAP) says that Endeavour, which was renamed Lord Sandwich, is one of 13 ships scuttled in Newport Harbor in 1778. Lord Sandwich had been used to transport troops during the American Revolution and was scuttled in the days leading up to the Battle of Rhode Island.

The vessel was a bark, or three-masted sailing ship."

I never knew it was renamed and used for troop transport during American Revolution. One of the most famous ships in history renamed and re-purposed into anonymity! Definitely would like to see her restored. [:)]

warspite1

Thanks for sharing - though I hope they didn't mean he was the first to discover Australia.

[Max 86]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Max 86

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/05/ ... cmp=hphz03


"Marine archaeologists say they have likely found HMS Endeavour, which Capt. Cook sailed on when he discovered Australia, at the bottom of Newport Harbor.

The Rhode Island Marine Archaeology Project (RIMAP) says that Endeavour, which was renamed Lord Sandwich, is one of 13 ships scuttled in Newport Harbor in 1778. Lord Sandwich had been used to transport troops during the American Revolution and was scuttled in the days leading up to the Battle of Rhode Island.

The vessel was a bark, or three-masted sailing ship."

I never knew it was renamed and used for troop transport during American Revolution. One of the most famous ships in history renamed and re-purposed into anonymity! Definitely would like to see her restored. [:)]

warspite1

Thanks for sharing - though I hope they didn't mean he was the first to discover Australia.

[:D][:D]...I think that was exactly what they were saying! He discovered Australia...at the bottom of Newport Harbor![:D][:D]

[waltero]

If I remember correctly; Capt. Cook and all is men were slaughtered in Hawaii?

They were welcome as Gods the first visit. soon after they departed they returned due to bad weather (storm)...Islander killed them- Saying, you ain't No Gods...what is a measly storm to a God!

I believe Cook discovered that vitamin C prevents Scurvy? No Scurvy reported on the three year voyage.

[OttoVonBlotto]

wasn't it the native aboriginals that were already there that knew the place but if we are talking who from the west who found it then the dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, in 1606 or William dampier's map from 1699 that shows without doubt that they they really discovered Australia before Cook in 1770

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: waltero

If I remember correctly; Capt. Cook and all is men were slaughtered in Hawaii?

warspite1

No

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Otto von Blotto

wasn't it the native aboriginals that were already there that knew the place but if we are talking who from the west who found it then the dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, in 1606 or William dampier's map from 1699 that shows without doubt that they they really discovered Australia before Cook in 1770

warspite1

Yep, that is what I was referring to in post 2. Not sure what the article was actually trying to say but would not be surprised if they were stating Captain Cook was the first to discover the place .

[Neilster]

That Cook "discovered" Australia is essentially because he most probably discovered the East Coast (there may have been the odd Spanish ship coming West from the Philippines that was later shipwrecked and never got to report it) and claimed the whole East Coast for England. Eventually the whole joint became part of the English Empire.

There's currently a culture war going on here about whether to call Australia's colonisation an "invasion", driven by Aboriginal people who, quite reasonably, feel their side of the story has been glossed over in the education system for too long.

Mind you, go to any museum here in the last 20 years and Aboriginal history gets a huge section of it and European and modern Australia is embarrassedly squished away in about one room [;)]

Cheers, Neilster

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
There's currently a culture war going on here about whether to call Australia's colonisation an "invasion", driven by Aboriginal people who, quite reasonably, feel their side of the story has been glossed over in the education system for too long.

Mind you, go to any museum here in the last 20 years and Aboriginal history gets a huge section of it and European and modern Australia is embarrassedly squished away in about one room [;)]

Cheers, Neilster

To be fair, aboriginal history covers 40.000 years, whilst the "European" era covers 200 years? Still I get the point.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

That Cook "discovered" Australia is essentially because he most probably discovered the East Coast (there may have been the odd Spanish ship coming West from the Philippines that was later shipwrecked and never got to report it) and claimed the whole East Coast for Britain. Eventually the whole joint became part of the British Empire.

There's currently a culture war going on here about whether to call Australia's colonisation an "invasion", driven by Aboriginal people who, quite reasonably, feel their side of the story has been glossed over in the education system for too long.

Mind you, go to any museum here in the last 20 years and Aboriginal history gets a huge section of it and European and modern Australia is embarrassedly squished away in about one room [;)]

Cheers, Neilster

warspite1

Fixed that for you.

[waltero]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: waltero

If I remember correctly; Capt. Cook and all is men were slaughtered in Hawaii?

warspite1

No

Not sure if this off subject or not. No matter, nobody cares about Australia.

Looks like he was Murdered by the Natives on his third visit.

http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm? ... PageID=266

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: waltero

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: waltero

If I remember correctly; Capt. Cook and all is men were slaughtered in Hawaii?

warspite1

No

Not sure if this off subject or not. No matter, nobody cares about Australia.

Looks like he was Murdered by the Natives on his third visit.

http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm? ... PageID=266

warspite1

It was the bit you stated (and that I specifically put in bold for the purpose) that I was saying no to.

[waltero]

Ah, did not see that. Me eyes are giving me problems...too much time spent on computer gaming.
I will be giving it up for a bit [:(]

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Neilster
There's currently a culture war going on here about whether to call Australia's colonisation an "invasion", driven by Aboriginal people who, quite reasonably, feel their side of the story has been glossed over in the education system for too long.

Mind you, go to any museum here in the last 20 years and Aboriginal history gets a huge section of it and European and modern Australia is embarrassedly squished away in about one room [;)]

Cheers, Neilster

To be fair, aboriginal history covers 40.000 years, whilst the "European" era covers 200 years? Still I get the point.

If you want to know what the earliest modern humans were like, studying the oldest Aboriginal rock art is a good place to start. Some of their language, songs and stories may be extremely old too.

Humans probably left Africa around 60,000 years ago (it's a bit fuzzy and may have been a bit earlier) and they made it to Australia remarkably quickly. Then, just as in the Americas, the got to the most Southerly bits in quick time as well. There is Aboriginal rock art at the bottom of Tasmania that is about 40,000 years old.

I think it's fascinating that these people were wandering around a whole continent for tens of thousands of years in complete isolation and only started encountering outsiders in the last few hundred. When Tasmania got cut off from mainland Australia after the last ice age, they eventually forgot about it and thought Tasmania was the entire world.

Having said that, there has been a fair bit of action in the last 225 years, and possibly now it's European Australia's history that's being glossed over.

Cheers, Neilster

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
.

Humans probably left Africa around 60,000 years ago (it's a bit fuzzy and may have been a bit earlier) and they made it to Australia remarkably quickly. Then, just as in the Americas, the got to the most Southerly bits in quick time as well. There is Aboriginal rock art at the bottom of Tasmania that is about 40,000 years old.

I think it's fascinating that these people were wandering around a whole continent for tens of thousands of years in complete isolation and only started encountering outsiders in the last few hundred. When Tasmania got cut off from mainland Australia after the last ice age, they eventually forgot about it and thought Tasmania was the entire world.

I had read (from prehistorians) that the humans had possibly arrived to Australia by accident. The ocean currents made the trip difficult if not almost impossible. I don't know if they are correct but that might explain the isolation. Indonesia (and Southeast Asia in general) is just right there, very close. And yet Australia was isolated.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Neilster
.

Humans probably left Africa around 60,000 years ago (it's a bit fuzzy and may have been a bit earlier) and they made it to Australia remarkably quickly. Then, just as in the Americas, the got to the most Southerly bits in quick time as well. There is Aboriginal rock art at the bottom of Tasmania that is about 40,000 years old.

I think it's fascinating that these people were wandering around a whole continent for tens of thousands of years in complete isolation and only started encountering outsiders in the last few hundred. When Tasmania got cut off from mainland Australia after the last ice age, they eventually forgot about it and thought Tasmania was the entire world.

I had read (from prehistorians) that the humans had possibly arrived to Australia by accident. The ocean currents made the trip difficult if not almost impossible. I don't know if they are correct but that might explain the isolation. Indonesia (and Southeast Asia in general) is just right there, very close. And yet Australia was isolated.

It's all a bit unclear, but the best bet is that however they arrived, it was probably during a period of much lower sea levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia

Cheers, Neilster