In 1642, Abel Tasman’s carpenter planted a flag on the east coast of what’s now known as Tasmania, claiming “said land”. This happened at the end of a stay in a bay.
When we had come close inshore in a small inlet which bore west-south-west of the ships the surf ran so high that we could not get near the shore without running the risk of having our pinnace dashed to pieces. We then ordered the carpenter aforesaid to swim to the shore alone with the pole and the flag, and kept by the wind with our pinnace; we made him plant the said pole with the flag at top into the earth, about the centre of the bay near four tall trees easily recognisable and standing in the form of a crescent, exactly before the one standing lowest. This tree is burnt in just above the ground, and in reality taller than the other three, but it seems to be shorter because it stands lower on the sloping ground; at top, projecting from the crown, it shows two long dry branches, so symmetrically set with dry sprigs and twigs that they look like the large antlers of a stag; by the side of these dry branches, slightly lower down, there is another bough which is quite green and leaved all round, whose twigs, owing to their regular proportion, wonderfully embellish the said bough and make it look like the upper part of a larding-pin. Our master carpenter, having in the sight of myself, Abel Jansz Tasman, Skipper Gerrit Jansz, and Subcargo Abraham Coomans, performed the work entrusted to him, we pulled with our pinnace as near the shore as we ventured to do; the carpenter aforesaid thereupon swam back to the pinnace through the surf. This work having been duly executed we pulled back to the ships, leaving the above-mentioned as a memorial for those who shall come after us, and for the natives of this country, who did not show themselves, though we suspect some of them were at no great distance and closely watching our proceedings.
https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600571h.html
(Hint: search text for “carpenter” to find it)
Tasman had voyage instructions (see appendix E in link) to only plant the flag under two different scenarios; 1. with the permission of the sovereigns – in which case the names of the sovereigns need to be recorded. or 2. in the absence of a sovereign.
All continents and islands, which you shall discover, touch at and set foot on, you will take possession of on behalf of Their High Mightinesses the States General of the United-Provinces, the which in uninhabited regions or in such countries as have no sovereign, may be done by erecting a memorial-stone or by planting our Prince-flag in sign of actual occupation, seeing that such lands justly belong to the discoverer and first occupier; but in populated regions or in such as have undoubted lards, the consent of the people or the king will be required before you can enter into possession of them, the which you should try to obtain by friendly persuasion’ and by presenting them with some small tree planted in a little earth, by erecting some stone structure in conjunction with the people, or by setting up the Prince-flag in commemoration of their voluntary assent or submission; all which occurrences you will carefully note in your Journal, mentioning by name such persons as have been present at them, that such record may in future be of service to our republic.
As Tasman did not record any names of persons from “Tasmania”, the implication is that he has claimed a land with no sovereign.
In the same voyage, Tasman continued on to Aotearoa/Staatenlandt/New Zealand. There, he interacted with Maori chiefs (diplomatic recognition). By doing this, he recognised them as sovereigns. Note that Tasman did not plant a Prince flag there.
So – Tasman planted the flag in “Tasmania”, but not in “New Zealand”. This means – the Dutch recognise Maori diplomatically but not the natives of Tasmania.
This is the basis of terra nullius in Australia. But the story goes on…
Onto Tasman’s second voyage…
Later in 1644, Tasman went on a second voyage up in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The voyage had a specific goal to find out if New Guinea is connected (geographically contiguous) with Van Diemen’s Land. This basically meant – verifying if what we now call the “Torres Strait” existed.
Verifying the contiguity of New Guinea with Van Diemen’s Land (+Eendrachtsland +mainland Australia) was also one of the goals of the previous 1644 voyage, but that didn’t happen – making this second voyage necessary.
Map showing the rough route of Tasman’s two voyages. I blurred some of the uncharted coastlines just to give an appreciation that they were unknown at the time.
Tasman went around from Caep Valsch (on south coast of PNG), followed the coast into the Gulf of Carpentaria – and reportedly – completely missed the Torres Strait. He had ONE JOB – and he failed… or, did he? I think he did find the Torres Strait, but the Dutch just pretended it wasn’t there.
There’s a good strategic reason for the Dutch to pretend the Torres Strait was not there, and it is to do with the principle of contiguity. If all these lands are contiguous, the 1642 flag planting in “Tasmania” would count for all the way to west Papua. So it makes things much simpler. If the land is openly publicised to other European powers as not being one single land, it creates a higher burden on the Dutch for defending each separate land from other European claims. It would mean the Dutch would have to go to each of the lands, claim them, and make treaties or settlements. It is much easier and for only a small increase in risk to just blur some lines on a chart. Note also that Abel Tasman missed the Bass Strait (separating Tasmania from mainland Australia), and he also missed the Cook Strait (separating New Zealand north and south islands).
Note that Tasman’s instructions on his first voyage were to keep following any coastlines found – but he abruptly exited Tasmania just one day’s sailing before he would have found the Bass Strait. I don’t think it’s stretch at all to say the Bass Strait, Torres straits and Cook straits in NZ were probably deliberately covered-up.
After going in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Tasman went on to mark what is now Melville Island (near Darwin) on his chart as Van Diemen’s Land. This implies that Tasman thinks it is part of (joined with, contiguous with) Tasmania/Van Diemen’s Land. It gives the impression that you can walk from Tasmania to Darwin and onto Melville Island. And that is the impression if you look at many old charts of New Holland. You can even walk from Tasmania to West Papua – all the lands form a contiguous land mass with “mainland Australia”.
So the geographical understanding at this time can be described as follows (I will use modern names to make it easier);
West Papua, Papua New Guinea, mainland Australia and Tasmania are one single connected land mass called “New Holland”. It is (initially) a terra nullius – because of Tasman’s actions in context of instructions when claiming with the Princes flag.
New Zealand is a separate land in the Pacific with diplomatically recognised sovereigns.
The Treaty
The Dutch then do a treaty with the Sultanate of Tidore. The Sultanate of Tidore has territory on the coasts of West Papua.
So – Under the geographical understanding at the time – this means the Dutch now have treaty with natives of New Holland (because West Papua is thought to be connected to “mainland” New Holland).
After the treaty, terra nullius on this large, contiguous landmass of “New Holland” is (temporarily) undone. There are natives of New Holland, and the Dutch have a treaty with some of them.
Other European colonial powers then basically stay away from the whole area for nearly 150 years… Why? Because they think the Dutch have a rock-solid discovery claim of that area. It is stitched-up with Tasman’s Prince flag, with lots of maps, and with the Tidore treaty.
Under international law – ~150 years of other European powers staying away and not challenging the Dutch is significant because the basis of claims of sovereignty are based on self-claim and on peer recognition of that claim. The 150 years, unchallenged, is a strong sign of peer recognition. Dutch are basically sovereign over New Holland…
This time period – of Europeans staying away from Dutch New Holland – ends with Cook’s first voyage in 1770.
This is because the British found a new WEAKNESS in the Dutch claim.
The catalyst: The British found Luís Vaz de Torres’s voyage account during the 1762-1764 occupation of Manila. They read the Spanish naval archives and in there, they found the Torres Strait.
The existence of the Torres Strait means that the land that the Dutch have treaty over (West Papua) is NOT geographically contiguous with the large “continental” New Holland.
It means two things:
1. the Dutch can’t use the Tidore treaty to boost their claim over “continental” New Holland – the very large land mass…
2. the large land mass reverts back to Tasman’s 1642 terra nullius claim, because the Tidore treaty and any diplomatic relations with european powers (Dutch) happened on a different, geographically separate land.
“Mainland” New Holland just became up-for-grabs!
The British send out Cook specifically to claim discovery over areas of the “continental” New Holland that lie east of parts already charted by the Dutch. The British can do this – because they are now in-the-know that the Dutch don’t have a treaty anywhere on that “land”.
Terra Nullius – WHY DID THE MAORI GET A TREATY, AND WE DIDN’T?
As Abel Tasman in 1642 had already basically declared the mega-land (Tasmania+mainland Australia) as having no sovereign, the British piggy-backed on that implied declaration, and also treated that land as having no local sovereign.
This is in contrast to New Zealand – where the British went to some lengths to secure a treaty – even helping the Maori prepare by formalising their sovereignty through declaring independence, and designing the Maori flag etc.
The British found the Bass Strait during Cook’s second voyage. The proof of this is in Tobias Furneaux’s chart – IT IS A FRAUDULANT, COMPOSITE CHART.
But by the time of the First Fleet, the British still pretended NOT to know about the Bass Strait. They wanted to claim the big prize – “mainland Australia” without having to recognise sovereign Aboriginal nations. By pretending NOT to know about the Bass Strait – means they can still piggyback on Tasman’s implied claim of there being no sovereign (in Tasmania), and apply it to the mainland. The British waited until AFTER Port Jackson was settled before pretending to find the Bass Strait.
Footnote: the 141 E Border
The British (or maybe it was Queensland… it’s complicated) later in 1883 also annexed an eastern portion of New Guinea. This was a preemptive response to what I think (*explained more here*) was a manufactured threat that the Germans were about to annex it themselves. Queensland attempted to annex the east part, with a western border of longitude 141 degrees east.
Now here is a map of the extent of the Sultanate of Tidore:
According to this map (eyeballing), the eastern extremity of the Sultanate of Tidore was at about 141 degrees east. So, in turn that is also be the eastern extremity that the Dutch had treaty over.
The current border between Indonesian province of West Papua and Papua New Guinea roughly lies along this line, but it now has a small a zig-zag in it.
141 degrees east is also the eastern border of South Australia, also has a little zig-zag because of a “surveying error”. 141 was also, the initial eastern border of the Colony of Queensland.
Interesting, isn’t it?
Thinking Sovereignty 
One thought on “Dutch claim over New Holland and geographical contiguity”