Why did the Royal Society in 1771 believe that a continent further south than Australia should exist?
Why did the Royal Society in 1771 believe that a continent further south than Australia should exist?
In reading the wikipedia article on Captain Cook's 2nd voyage, I noticed the
comment:
Despite this evidence to the contrary, Alexander Dalrymple and others of the Royal Society still believed that a massive southern continent should exist.
[p. 182 of Hough, Richard (1994). Captain James Cook. Hodder and Stoughton. ISBN 0-340-82556-1]
What was the reason for this belief by the Royal Society? Had there been uncomfirmed sightings previously, or was this belief predicated on theoretical predictions?
Don't be confused by names - The Terra Australis of the time referred to modern Antarctica, not Australia. Cook had circumnavigated New Zealand and charted the east coast of Australia on his first voyage, already establishing that the landmass of modern Australia was of continental size. My question is about (contemporary evidence for) the belief in an additional continental mass further south, that would later prove to be modern Antarctica.
Ahhh, the title is much better now. Before I thought you were talking about Australia.
– Zebrafish
Aug 20 at 16:12
Now that you are on Wikipedia, the articles Terra Australis and History of Antarctica contain more information on the belief that unknown landmasses should exist in the (extreme) south.
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Aug 20 at 21:07
1 Answer
1
The claim was made by Alexander Dalrymple in his book An Account of the Discoveries Made in The South Pacifick Ocean, Previous to 1764 (An ebook version is available from Google Books).
Dalrymple's belief was based primarily on his translations of Spanish documents captured in the Philippines in 1762, in particular, those describing Luis Vaez de Torres' account of a voyage south of New Guinea. He supplemented the information in those translations with records of Dutch explorations.
These described sightings of land which, when plotted on a chart, convinced him that they must be parts of a massive continent in the southern latitudes.
Dalrymple initially published his research in two volumes. The first was primarily his translations of the captured Spanish records (which includes the chart), and the second contained the Dutch voyages. Copies of these volumes can be viewed and/or downloaded as pdf files from archive.org:
So they saw Australia and massively overestimated it's size? Or did I get the wrong idea from your answer?
– Sumyrda
Aug 20 at 6:00
Didn't the Dutch discover Australia like over 150 years earlier? In 1606 they navigated the west coast. I'm sure the Dutch and the British talked to each other about such matters, or didn't they?
– Zebrafish
Aug 20 at 9:30
@Zebrafish: Don't be confused by names - The Terra Australis of the time referred to modern Antarctica, not Australia.
– Pieter Geerkens
Aug 20 at 10:28
@Sumyrda It depends which part of Europe you're thinking of. The whole continent, extending to the Urals, is indeed bigger than Australia. But Australia is a bit more than 50% larger than the EU or what one might call "western and central Europe".
– David Richerby
Aug 20 at 11:27
@Trilarion They are plotted on the chart in the first of the 2 volumes on archive.org linked in the answer.
– sempaiscuba♦
Aug 20 at 16:02
By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.
A little more context might be helpful, here. Antarctica and Australia are pretty big, so it's unclear whether you're asking "Why did the Royal Society believe this thing which turned out to be true all along?" (which feels like an unusual question, especially since you only mention evidence against it) or "Why did they believe this false thing?" (which invites answers along the lines of, "Well, Australia and Antarctica are pretty big).
– David Richerby
Aug 20 at 11:23