Greetings,
Been offline a few days, sorry for the delay in replying.
Tinpan, you have made a number of statements that deserve answers. For one, you pointed out that the boomerangs found among the possessions of King Tut were not of the type that is made to return to you when thrown, which you seem to think is "proof" that it could not be related to Australia. I suggest that you look into Australian boomerangs, because most of the aboriginal types are not designed or intended to return when thrown either, in fact one type is not even meant to be thrown it is a hand-held weapon.
Your statement that I know nothing of Australian history is your opinion. You don't really know what I may have learned of Australia's history, especially based on an internet forum discussion. You obviously did not bother to look at the other maps at the Australia national online library, which include several others which predate Captain Cook.
This idea that people could not cross oceans in ancient times is ridiculous if you only stop to think about it. Just consider a single point - that virtually every land that is habitable on Earth, when first discovered by European explorers in the 'age of discovery' was found to be already occupied by human beings! Even remote Easter Island, which is more than 1000 miles from
any other land in any direction,was discovered to have a large population on it when first "found". Did these human beings spring out of the dirt? Of course not. Human beings have been capable of crossing the seas for millenia.
One need only look at the navigational skills of the Polynesians to see how so-called "primitive" peoples were able to cross the wide Pacific, which is far vaster than the Atlantic. If people were not capable of crossing oceans, how then can we explain the people of Madagascar? The people there are of Indian descent, not African, even though Madagascar is considerably closer to Africa than to India. Tinpan mentioned New Zealand, well even remote New Zealand was "discovered" to be already occupied by the Maori people. Did these people "walk" to New Zealand by some imaginery land bridge?
The lost colony of Roanoke is one of the great mysteries of America. Virginia Dare, the first white colonist born in America, is a question mark. Recent DNA tests showed that some of the colonists could have intermarried with local tribes and been absorbed by the population over time. The family name "Dare" has been identified with the family name "Dial" which is apparently what the name evolved into. When we can look at this example of what happens with a colony that is planted but not "fed" with more colonists to grow the colony (they are absorbed by the larger native population) we can see then what must have happened with other attempted colonies in earlier times, such as the Norse of Vinland and west Greenland, the Welsh of Madoc's group (the Mandan tribe is thought by some to be the descendants of this group) as well as earlier groups of Greeks, Chinese, Africans, Phoenicians, Celts etc. Unless the motherland kept feeding in more and more colonists to a colony, the colony would disappear into the local population over time.
Yes Tinpan my purpose
is to sell books, as well as to attempt to give credit where due, and hopefully get our history books corrected. The historians have got a great deal RIGHT, my biggest problem with the accepted version of history is the Isolation idea, which is just wrong. I think we are 'big boys and girls' - big enough to be able to see the whole picture, even if it is not one of whole continents in utter isolation for thousands of years. Australia is not the focus of my own research and project, but in researching the matter I did find evidence of some kind of knowledge of the southern continent as well as some kind of limited visits, which might have been utterly accidental. I would like to suggest that you do a bit of research into the matter if it interests you - even if your purpose is to DIS-prove it:
http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptaustralia.html
"
There is approx 2 hrs drive North of Sydney, in Gosford, a rocky outcrop that contains c. 250 Egyptian hieroglyphics, etched into 2 opposing wall surface
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~classblu/egypt/egypt.htm
I can not
prove that the Smithsonian has disposed of artifacts, but China did keep the Gobi mummies covered up for decades, and that is a matter of fact. If you think that archaeology and history are not subjects which get "covered up" just look at the situation in the Middle East - where factions are using ancient artifacts to prove claims to lands, and it has led to bloodshed, so perhaps some of the coverups are for the purpose of keeping the peace. I don't excuse the coverups, to me, history is history, warts and all, but this is the mindset among some circles. Then too, it is a fact that nearly all museums have to dispose of excess stocks of artifacts, and sometimes these are simply sold at auctions, sometimes they are tossed in the trash (hopefully this doesn't happen too often, but it does happen especially with "anomalous" artifacts). So it only stands to reason that the Smithsonian must have become over-stocked with artifacts over time and had to dispose of some quantity.
Good luck and good hunting to you,I hope you find the treasures that you seek. Thank you all for the interesting posts!
Oroblanco
PS, my comment was no more a personal attack than any of yours, in fact my comment was much less a personal attack than some of yours. 
![:-\](https://www.treasurenet.com/smilies/undecided.gif "Undecided :-\")
(which I did see on TV...which I don't feel I need to prove my claim...I know what I saw with my own two eyes and heard with my own two ears.)
8)
