All dates are as in Cook’s Journal and are, therefore, Ship’s time.
Note regarding proper names and names of places Cook visited on this and subsequent journeys. Names have often changed since Cook’s explorations. An unbracketed name is the one given by Cook, on first use, and a modern equivalent follows in brackets, if there is one, or a native one still in use. Modern usage will usually be the form for subsequent entries.
Updated: 30 November 1996
Abundant history so badly need in Australia.
Hi guys, I'm actually after a copy (PDF) of Cook's report to the British Government after his first voyage to Australia. Does anyone know where I can get a copy? Can you reply to my email address please?
Remember that Cook wrote his journal in "ship time" which is 12 hours ahead of civil time. So when Cook wrote about events taking place at 4pm on 22 August 1770, these were the same events which Banks recorded as taking place on the afternoon of 21 August 1770.
Surely, after more than 245 years, we've clarified that Cook et al "took possession" on Tuesday the 21st of August (as per Banks' and Parkinson's records) but Cook WROTE ABOUT these events on the following day (along with details of the morning after and up unto midday of the 22nd when 'Possession Island' is in his sights after departure.)Is there any doubt that these events took place on the 21st?
Allen, in response to your second series of questions -To my knowledge there were no formal Admiralty or Parliamentary Laws defining the process for claiming possession of new lands. Custom and tradition required the first "discovers" to set up some permanent mark of their visit including names and dates. Cook did what his instructions required of him where he found a country "uninhabited". It is the interpretation of the latter word which is often the subject of debate. I can understand Cook thinking that the land was uninhabited as there were no signs of settlements or cultivations, as undertaken by the islanders at Tahiti or New Zealand. Professor Robert Miller of Arizona State University has written articles on the "Doctrine of Discovery" and has analysed how possession ceremonies were undertaken by different nations. I think that you will find his papers make interesting reading.
Allen, when Captain Cook performed the ceremony of possession on 22 August 1770, he was referring to the whole of the east coast which he had sailed along from the most southerly latitude of 38 degrees - see Cook's Journal for 19 April 1770.I believe that the reference to the Latitude of 43 degrees 39 minutes, is derived from Cook's second voyage of discovery (1772-1775). During the course of this expedition, Captain Furneaux, in the companion vessel Adventure, sent men ashore on the most southerly point of Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) at a Latitude of 43 degrees 38 minutes, thus extending the claim made by Cook to the more southerly latitude.I have not seen any references as to how far Cook's possession of the East Coast extended inland.
I have many qusetions bout Cooks first voyage along the Cost of the " New South Wales1. Am I correct in saying he only considered latitude in his claims for Gt Britain. some 38 degrees. Cook talks of claims of land for rivers flowing east. East coast and Pacific ocean islands. The only reference I can find so far to longtitude is that of Lord Sydney on 12 October 1876 in the first commision to Govener Phillip . It talks of lontitude of 135 from Greenwich. So even if this was valid (which I cant see how) this would put it in a line from Darwin. He also makes reference to a latitude of 43 degrees 39 minutes.How did we get from 38 degrees to 43? Cook did not claim the difference for Great Britain? Similarly what about the west of longtitude 135 degrees this was not done in 1770 by Cook? Did the admiltary just make the claims from england? If this was so then what due process was observed or was it just a stoke of a pen? Seems to me back in Gt Britain other people than Cook just made up what the y wanted as they went along. No proper admiralty law process of the day was followed in land claims by the british for New South Wales.2. I cannot see where Cook made a positive statement of the land being Terra Nullius, or even considered the land as uninhabited other than when he made a claim for Gt Britain at possesion Island. He makes refernce to jhis other clims along the way but where is teh documentary evidence of these claims and following of Admiltary or even acts of parlimentary process? Have I missed something? Was the first reference in 1828 court case and declaration by Bourke in 1835. What are the 1770 references and interpretation of Terra Nullius in Gt Britain? What are the refernces to no inhabitance or soverigns in Cooks logs?The view of assumption of no one ocupying the land is not borne out by the evidence. E.G. If this was so then then how did his men discover the word Kangourous? Cook and others acknowledge the existance of people on
Captain Cook met Tupaia in Tahiti, not on Huahine. Tupaia was in the service of Tutuha who had successfully battled Amo and Purea's army and was now greeting Cook as the reigning Chief. (Wallis, before Cook, had known Tupaia as Purea's adviser.) Tupaia left Tahiti as a supernumerary, a guest of Banks, on the Endeavour with Cook. I read Joan Druett's book, Tupaia: Captain Cook's Polynesian Navigator. It was hard to put down. An excellent read.
27 October 1728 cook was born in marton.
It has come to our attention that spam mailers (senders of bulk unsolicited e-mail) have been forging their mail with this domain as the point of origin. As a matter of policy, we do not send out e-mail from our domain name. If you have received an email that appears to be from "@CaptainCookSociety.com" it was forged and sent without our consent, knowledge, or the use of our servers.
1755 - 1757
1772 - 1779