1000-year-old coins found in Northern Territory may rewrite Australian history.

reply to post by Spider879


Interesting stuff! I hope someone will be allowed to do the research, and reveal the results. It seems that, too often, such discoveries are covered up, because they disturb the status quo, or some such nonsense. Wouldn't it be great if studying history meant for truth, and not to make this or that group happy?

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with any other such discoveries? I have read tidbits about stuff in Australia being covered up before, but it's difficult getting good info without buying a book.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Spider879

 

Interesting stuff! I hope someone will be allowed to do the research, and reveal the results. It seems that, too often, such discoveries are covered up, because they disturb the status quo, or some such nonsense. Wouldn't it be great if studying history meant for truth, and not to make this or that group happy?

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with any other such discoveries? I have read tidbits about stuff in Australia being covered up before, but it's difficult getting good info without buying a book.

Yes but academia all but put those on ignore so the presumption is that they are all fakes whether that's true or not,but this find drew the attention of an Australian scientist Ian McIntosh, currently Professor of Anthropology at Indiana University in the US,so that alone gave it some academic creds.

This is very synchronistic! I was just reading about both the "European" version of Austrailian history vs. the natives point of view (think The People's History of the United Sates pov instead of "real" history beginning when we showed up). The history of the "Aboriginals" is, according to some sources I've read, 50,000 years old (at least). They have "songlines" that stretch back at least 10,000 years (as far as we know) that geologists have confirmed - they speak of times when what is now desert had lakes, etc., and the land forms were different. Now That's oral history!

243 years ago, James Cook "claimed" this land which he stated wasn't owned by anyone (?!?!?) for the British Crown. In the history of the Songlines, this is less than a breath between the notes. It is very parallel to our US history of conquest and the current status of the Native American tribes.

The riddle of the coins is intriguing, to say the least, but we do know that around 1400 the Chinese visited Austraila (a Ming statue was found) and it wasn't until the early 1600's that the first Europeans made contact with Australia. It was then that the official "colonization" and tribal extinction efforts/land wars began. Source: Aboriginal Time Line

But these coins may have been in possession of someone who shipwrecked (or something) much later than 1000 years ago - more evidence is needed to make any conclusions from this, imo.

peace,
AB

The First Australians were trading with the Chinese/Malakans/and other Indo-Nesians for 1000s of years.

There have been 2000yo greek and roman coins found 2 feet under the soil while plowing grain fields, over the past 100+ years on the Eastern coast.

There are Egyptian Glyphs carved into granite at certain east coastal areas, that tell of the shipwreck of the grandson of Kufu, on their adventure to strange lands in search of gold and treasures.

I think we underestimate the seafaring of ancients, not to mention the time periods we are talking.
I would think it was not unusual in ancient times for explorers to leave home for years on end, eventually returning with wonders.
The Romans undertook vast expeditions to find rare and exotic Animals and humans for the "Games".

"Time concept" was different back then, compared to our "Now" culture.

African coins(thousand years old) taken to australia by the brits back in time?

These were found in 1944. The research began in 1979. And the media found out about it in 2013.

This is slow-motion

Although interesting find. From nearby there were found also coins from Dutch East-India Company ( 1602-1798), then the likeliest explanation is that these were together, which means these came after Australia was discovered by Cook.

But there can also be other reasons for it, who knows, what well find out?

Thanks for interesting post.

Those saying that the coins on a beach prove nothing and that they could of washed up on the beach.

Silly to think this because how do these coins stay together?

now logic tells me that someone bought them here possibly, but why?

Originally posted by rickymouse
Whatever the elite decided to give value to by collecting, that is what became valuable. In my world, an oil painting by a good artist is worth the same no matter what his name.

It's not so much that the "elite" determine what is valuable and what isn't. It's the market. It's what a lot of people value. And people generally value things that inform them of their own heritage or culture, because people are always trying to define themselves in the world, both as individuals but also as part of a larger group of humanity. Some little carving of a fish god on a whale bone from some distant island would be a curiosity, but it wouldn't tell me anything about what my people were up to.

The value of something is what somebody is willing to pay for it. Whether it's a pyramid in Belize or a vintage Incredible Hulk lunch box.

Originally posted by amraks
now logic tells me that someone bought them here possibly, but why?

Possibly made a pitstop on their oceanic adventure/voyage to loot and plunder the wealth of other nations but they themselves got robbed/mugged down under and some of the coins were remnants from the incident? just a WAG.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Ya know, the whole "discovered" thing is really stupid.

If white folks stumble on land that has nonwhite folks living on it, that land has already been discovered, regardless of the late arrival of Western civilization. Thus, I guarantee that Cook didn't discover anything.

I feel the same way. People argue back and forth about "Columbus discovered North America." - "No he didn't, it was actually the vikings."

Both are wrong. Mongolians discovered North America, and later became what we now refer to as Native Americans.

Originally posted by Dumbass
I always wondered who discovered Europe.

Technically, Middle Eastern people.

White people evolved from Middle Eastern people (currently believed to have been from the Persia region) who traveled across the Caucasus mountains into Europe (hence the term 'Caucasian').

The only reason we are "white" now is because of the colder climates and lack of sunlight in Europe. After thousands and thousands of years the original dark skin gradually turned white. Less melatonin was required to protect the skin from sunlight, so it gradually faded away. Also, white skin evolved the ability to absorb vitamin D much more efficiently due to that lack of sunlight. So the little sun exposure they did get in the colder winter months was processed by the body much more efficiently.

I actually laugh when I see white racists who insult Arabs, because they probably have no idea that those are their closest ancestors LOL, and if they didn't make that trek over the Caucasus mountains there would have been no Europe, and that mouthy redneck would never have existed.

reply to post by Spider879


There are so many possibilities here that it's kind of a pointless story from the perspective of this being "evidence" of anything.

1. We have to trust the word of the person who found them.
2. They could have been placed there at any point in that 1000 years, from the day of their minting to the day the man found them.
3. They could have been deposited there by shipwreck, by debris or by other means. In a thousand years, if archaeologists discover Japanese coins in Alaska, does that mean it's Japanese territory or that a Japanese culture lives there now? No.

It's interesting as an "in other news" story, but without much more supporting evidence it actually proves nothing.

Originally posted by Rocker2013
reply to post by Spider879

 

There are so many possibilities here that it's kind of a pointless story from the perspective of this being "evidence" of anything.

1. We have to trust the word of the person who found them.
2. They could have been placed there at any point in that 1000 years, from the day of their minting to the day the man found them.
3. They could have been deposited there by shipwreck, by debris or by other means. In a thousand years, if archaeologists discover Japanese coins in Alaska, does that mean it's Japanese territory or that a Japanese culture lives there now? No.

It's interesting as an "in other news" story, but without much more supporting evidence it actually proves nothing.

Well that's one of reasons they are planning an expedition in July so the investigation is still ongoing .

There is a lot of plastic you can find on deserted island beaches. I guess this means there used to be plastic manufacturers ON these islands if you go by the logic of this thread.

Typically stuff on a beach washes up their FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE

Pictures of some of the coins:

www.britishmuseum.org...

The article: www.britishmuseum.org...

Some more info: sourceofthenews.com...

Of the 9 coins four were easily traced back to Europe from as early as the 1600′s coins. It likely they were transported to Australian shores by sailors working on a Dutch East India Company that had once dominated the spice trade in Asia or maybe they arrived on rocky fishing boats venturing south from what is today Indonesia.

Yet the remaining five were a mystery until a group of British experts traced the copper coins to East Africa where the Sultan of Kilwa controlled the most powerful ports of the generation and spearheaded trade routes during his reign in 950 AD.

reply to post by stormcell


Well then if the old coins were found with the new coins then logic dictates that the old coins were left by person who left the new coins.

James Cook did not really say "terra nullius"... well he did actually, but it was because an Aborigine had stuffed a spear up where the sun never shines, and what Cook actually meant was that he had no feeling from the Arass down, and that it was misinterpreted.

Well, it's a better story than believing that us Brits, stole Australia from the Aborigines without 'consultation' at least there was some interaction, although not likely the first.

reply to post by stormcell


www.britishmuseum.org...

Thanks for the link,I expected the coins to be in worst shape according to the map the coins were found approx midway on the island 2mls?? ls that where he found them originally or where he buried them for later recovery.sourceofthenews.com...

Originally posted by smurfy
James Cook did not really say "terra nullius"... well he did actually, but it was because an Aborigine had stuffed a spear up where the sun never shines, and what Cook actually meant was that he had no feeling from the Arass down, and that it was misinterpreted.

Well, it's a better story than believing that us Brits, stole Australia from the Aborigines without 'consultation' at least there was some interaction, although not likely the first.

You don't steal land... You only visit it once and say it's yours... If any local would file a complain, then there could be a possibility that it's owned by someone else

reply to post by Spider879

Thanks I could have made the title 1000 yr old African coins Discovered in Australia but that would take away from the fun I believe the writer was going for...

...not to mention revealing your secret agenda to prove to the world that Africans painted the Mona Lisa, formulated the theory of relativity and landed on the Moon.

All the same, an interesting curiosity. Most likely the coins found their way to the Wessel Islands as part of some eighteenth-century pirate's hoard. From your link:

When Isenberg discovered the copper coins he also found four coins that originated from the Dutch East India Company - with one dating back to 1690 raising memories of those early Dutch seafarers that stepped on Australian shores well before Cook.