By Steven & Evan Strong

23/08/2024

Originally our trip down to Gosford and Sydney was supposed to be about attending and speaking at an Australia Day gathering at Kariong to protest about the explosions and considerable damage created in and around the site where there are hundreds of engraved hieroglyphs. Unfortunately, due to ever-present fact that the Original organisation responsible for the desecration of this sacred site along with their proposal to subdivide into seventy residential blocks nearby, was not agreeable and quite hostile to such a protest, it was understandably and reluctantly called off. It had been made clear to the organisers that if the meeting was held there would be repercussions and allegations that the meeting was disrespectful and proof of racism. So, with our plane tickets already purchased with no chance of a refund, it was decided that since Plan A had to shelved, we had to come up with an alternative plan of action.

                First up, we decided to put together a video interviewing all the main players/protagonists who were trying to protect the site. Each of the six people approached were filmed and this was released earlier this year. Yes, to an extent it was an exercise in preaching to the converted, but after representatives of the Darkinjung Lands Council had publicly stated that they intended to destroy all the glyphs which they claimed was merely “graffiti,” and that the incredibly sacred Grandmother Tree was bogus and simply a dishonest “tourist attraction,” doing or saying nothing was not an option. But as we purchased tickets that had a return flight three days after arriving, we had time left over after the video and decided to analyse some more recent metal artefacts and then go down to Sydney to investigate two sites.

                Once the filming was complete, we made our way to another location on the Central Coast which was primarily a shop where people could buy and sell second-hand goods. Our colleague Ros Mulder had relationship with the owners where they would analyse artefacts with a very expensive electronic machine that could and identify the metallic elements and compounds found in rings and jewellery. I had two intriguing metal objects to analyse and itemise and one of them was found beside the same walls at Kariong with engravings that looked so Egyptian.

                Both metal objects were found in Australia, and that of itself contradicts an essential notion that underpins so much of what was assumed to be the case before the British Invasion fleet dropped anchor in Sydney Harbour. It is claimed that before Europeans turned up uninvited, all of the Original tribes of Australia only ever had a stone, bone and stick toolkit, and because of the limited capacities of such a rudimentary technology, any form of metal could never be the property of any pre-Cook resident of Australia.

Zinc and a Crystal

Before discussing the analysis of the metal object we had analysed, we need to briefly supply some background setting, then make a comparison to other earlier read outs.

When highly respected Original Elder Aunty Minnie Mace picked up a clump of congealed dirt, she only did this because the Guardian Spirits of the site instructed her to do so. To begin with it was just a thick ball of dirt, and once she returned home, she spent close to half an hour carefully removing the thick crust of soil. Aunty Minnie Mace had no idea or premonition as to what was inside or that anything was even there beyond more dirt. That so much compacted soil acted as a protective coat is indicative of a considerable age, running into many centuries and possibly much longer. That it was found in such a remote location which has never been settled or farmed only adds to the mathematics and inconvenient questions.

                In what only multiplies the scope of this metal object is that an analysis of what Aunty Minnie Mace was directed to reclaim was conducted by the Environmental Analysis Laboratory at Southern Cross University and found to contain 73% Aluminium, 3% Copper and despite a series of follow-up tests the 24% was never identified. Whatever it is it does not register of any Earth-bound Periodic Table. Unknown to us at the time, the appearance of such a gap was not such a rare occurrence as we had a ring, which we believe to be Lemurian, which was analysed electronically six months later and just under 42% of the total content did not have any element nominated. Not long after another Atlantean ring’s analysis was conducted which had just under 1% of the final read out was also unable to be sourced.  

Before this crystal and metal was analysed, we already had one clear unresolved inconsistency that was an issue in relation to how these objects were made. If found in a continent that supposedly never had metal forged or melted until recent times, why was a crystal embedded into the metal? How was this done and for what purpose? What is not under question is that the first-time crystals and metal were co-joined in any form on this planet is a recent event, it only occurred during the last one hundred years.

                The read out of elements (zinc, iron and copper) is in keeping with the collection of elements found in both the Atlantean and Lemurian artefacts, but there are some dramatic quantitative variations on that norm. The highest zinc reading in the other rings and assorted objects is at 35%, this small piece of metal has a zinc reading of 98.19%, along with much smaller amounts of copper 0.180% and iron 0.876%. The first problem, and there are a few, is that in total this alloy adds up to 99.246%, which means 0.754% of this compound is unaccounted for. This is the fourth artefact that has an element that cannot be identified or matched to any listing in the Periodic Table. Three of these readings are electronic, while the Southern Cross University analysis was done through removing a piece of metal and chemically identifying it, so claiming the machinery is constantly faulty is not applicable.

Equally the alloys of today that contain zinc and copper invariably have copper as the main element, never the other way around. As intriguing as these read outs are, the second analysis of a ring with the markings of Atlas also had a mysterious unidentified result to mull over. The four elements nominated and tallied left plenty of room for conjecture as the total percentage was 99.817%. To begin with, the copper/zinc reading of 99.55%, is nigh on an exact repetition of the amount found in all three Atlantean rings, which at first glance would seem to confer it is indeed a fourth Atlantean ring. However, there are not five, or in some Lemurian cases six other elements present. Granted, just as it is with the other Atlantean rings, the two other elements are somewhat ‘homeopathic’ in disposition, with an iron reading of 0.133% and a tin reading of 0.134%, but there is no nickel or lead present as is the case with all artefacts sourced from Atlantis or Lemuria. The first issue relates to the scientific fact that the two smaller elements differ by only one thousandth of one percent. That other ancient metal objects also have the same elements sharing identical percentages to two decimal points lends weight to the possibility that this repetition is not coincidental but by design. What is even more intriguing is the total percentage is 99.817% which means 0.183% of what this compound is made of once again, for the fifth time, remains unidentified. What this chemistry clearly proves is that despite a common base compound of copper and zinc, what remains does not belong to either category. And what is the most important fact that just will not go away is that if these five omissions are not registered on the Earthly Periodic Table, then outside being sourced from somewhere else other than this planet, what other explanation is there?

That being the case, it could seem that this exotic chemistry rules out either ancient locality on this planet as the source, but there is a third factor at play here.  Both, Jillian who was literally summoned to the shop selling this ring, and our off-word Alien guide and advisor, Mezreth, independently of each other nominated a decidedly different ancestry and antiquity. Mezreth is adamant that when examining the recognised elements this ring is a meld of both ancient locations and is far older than the other three rings from Atlantis, and equally, also older by a considerable timing than any Lemurian artefact. He said it is close to one million years old and was made to inaugurate and strengthen ties between the tribes from Atlantis and Lemuria. But here is the major point of divergence, in that neither place existed as we understand it now, this happened during the times when both tribes were living a very low technology nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It was meant to bind the two tribes together in forging peaceful relations between both groups. He said it was the only time when “East met West” and the entire planet lived in accord, harmony and open trust.

That would explain why the tin was present, which is purely a Lemurian additive and why the copper/zinc conglomerate was identical in percentages to what came later in Atlantis. It is clearly a cross-cultural mixture sourced from two locations with the subtle addition of an off-word metallic contribution. More importantly, its function and role is still present, and we are assured that further on this ring has an elemental role as a catalyst in binding the planet and its inhabitants into one homogeneous peaceful movement and lifestyle. Having stated that this ring is a fundamental part of the planet’s future, Mezreth did hedge his prediction with one caveat, which was something Jillian picked up on. Because this Atlantean ring suffered the same fate as Atlantis Rings 1 and 3, in being cut with a section missing and a sinister form of magic introduced, there is still an unknown factor to overcome. Jillian sensed the presence of this malevolent energy but did feel the overriding positive qualities and energy in this ring would prevail, and Mezreth despite being a little more cryptic and obscure, did basically agree with Jillian’s reading of what lay deep within.

Back on Sandstone Country

With both artefacts analysed and our interviews complete, it was time to make our way down to Sydney with the intention of examining two sites. We rarely investigate sites in Sydney, further up in and around Gosford has always been our main focus, but with prompting from Harries Carroll (a lifesaver from Bondi and often featured in the long-running TV show “Bondi Rescue”) and an Original Elder Smacka Whyman, there were two sites we promised we would look at.

Steven with Harries at the Spanish Engraving site

Picture Credit: Author Unknown, Lawrence Hargrave, 1890, Photograph, 1890, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hargrave_c1890_250@72dpi.jpg (Rights: See page for author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons).    

We had read a fair bit about the discovery by Lawrence Hargrave of what he claimed to be Spanish engravings made in the 1500’s. He was a person of considerable prominence who was so well known and respected his portrait appeared on the Australian twenty dollar note from 1966 to 1994, and we did know his continual championing of this site did him no favours and attracted a fair bit criticism. But despite the negative reactions he stood firm in his belief that the site was genuine and had clear ramifications, which included a serious revision of some supposed historical facts and, in particular, called into question which colonial power actually ‘discovered’ Australia first.

Picture Credit: Lawerence Hargrave, Spanish Proclamation at Bondi Engravings, 1914, Diagram, 1914, 6, https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-362881815 (From: “Lope de Vega”, amendment dated 23 February 1914 [In continuation of previous publications contained in the Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales, Vols, xliix, xliv, 1909, 1910.]  Sydney: Frederick W White, Printer, 341 KENT Street. 1911. [Fig. 2.] & [Rights: Out of Copyright].

                Among many pursuits, Hargrave was “experimenting with heavier-than-air flight before Wilbur Wright, and earning his niche in history in this field.”(1) When addressing the validity of the engravings of two Spanish boats and the letters alongside, Hargrave was adamant that he could “exclude the possibility of it being the work of an idle black or convict.”(2) Paying attention to the symbol of the cross, he noted that it was “the sacred symbol of victory, or intended conquest by Spain … It was emblazoned on many of the sails of the Spanish Armada … the motto, We conquer by this sign … Who conquered? BA and ZA.“ Who is BA? We in the Santa Barbara. Who is ZA? We in the Santa y Zabel. What id we conquer? W … (The initial of the name given to this conquered place). How much of it? All.”(3) “Hargrave believed the letterings to be ancient Spanish ‘doodles’ (a form of Latin shorthand used during the 15^th, 16^th and 17^th centuries).”(4) For any assuming that these two boats were actually British in make and design, Hargrave was quick to dismiss this mistaken assumption because “the great shear of the poop deck of B antedates the English occupation. These engravings “predate the British style and shape of ships in a variety of ways. The topgallant and royal forecastle of C was an impossible feature in Captain Cook’s time.” What also was missing in all British ships was “the careful omission of a rudder and the downward sheer of the poop deck of C shows she was steered with some sort of sweep.”(5)

Picture Credit: Lawerence Hargrave, Ship Comparisons, 1914, Diagram, 1914, 7, https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-362881815 (From: “Lope de Vega”, amendment dated 23 February 1914 [In continuation of previous publications contained in the Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales, Vols, xliix, xliv, 1909, 1910.]  Sydney: Frederick W White, Printer, 341 Kent Street. 1911. [Fig. 3.] A: Model of the Columbus ship Santa Maria donated by H.M. the King of Spain, B: Santa Isobel, C: Santa Barbara) & (Rights: Out of Copyright).

                Despite his rigorous comparisons and research, along with his undoubted intellect and stature, Hargrave was either ignored or ridiculed. The “Royal Society’s council declines to hear me …. Mitchell Library declines to preserve … Australian Museum tells me the few things I say about Spain are all rubbish,” and the Historical Society offered an alternative involving “the industry of certain intelligent convicts is being accountable for things I render reasons for being Spanish.”(6) A fascinating rebuttal, but it is lacking in the names of these supposed “intelligent convicts,”(7) nor do they present a written admission or plausible motivation by any such convict.

                What Hargrave did concede was that “it is better to be always in a minority of one and state your views as plainly as your ability allows than to have the support of the majority who do not know of the things you attempted to portray.”(8) But even so amongst all the critiques and derision, many did not so readily dismiss what Hargrave had found. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald in 1923 penned by K. Wallace Crabb, stated that “it has been ably proven in brilliant treatises by the late Cardinal Moran, Lawrence Har-greaves, other historians and Norman Lindsay, that Spanish navigators landed in Australia in the 16^th century.”(9)
    

                To begin, with we had no idea where these supposed engravings were outside it was close to Harries’ workplace at Bondi Beach. Our rationale was unless Harries could find it, there was little point in us looking. It did not take long for him to find the engravings; in fact, it was in such an open and accessible position, anyone could. It was at the top of headland to the immediate north of Bondi Beach and being the only flat rock shelf surrounded by a golf course it is probably the easiest access of any archaeological site we have examined. It does have Spanish writing and the outline of a Spanish boat that was sailing the open seas during the sixteenth century. It was also clear that earlier on the engravings were fenced off, but nearly all of the metal posts are gone and once that happened no attempt was made to repair or replace.

                The standard response is that yes, it looks Spanish but is a fake and was engraved into rock well after Cook dropped anchor by someone with mischievous intent. That common response is an easy way out to ignore and discredit any inconvenient archaeology found in Australia, but one could ask in this case, whether a disgruntled academic or highly educated convict, why bother? What purpose or reason inspired this hypothetical graffitist? Moreover, as this had to be created, if a fake, some time before Hargave stumbled upon this engraving in 1912, how many people in Australia were familiar with the structure and shape of sixteenth century Spanish sailing ships over one-hundred and twenty years ago, outside a few academics? That being an undeniable truth, what would an academic gain by creating this fake engraving? If by some chance the academic was responsible and was found out while chipping into the rock in a very public and open location, the loss of employment and credibility is the most likely outcome. That prospect alone seems a great incentive not to deceive and mislead as neither an inflow of money nor notoriety is achievable.

Why did Mainstream Academia Turn on such a Respected Scholar?

To understand why literally every approved institution and academic dismissed Hargrave work as amateurish we need to factor into these denials the content found within the “brilliant treatises”(10) lauded in the Sydney Morning Herald over a decade after Hargrave came upon this site.

                The year Hargrave came upon this site, 1912, was two years after Cardinal Moran died, and for any who may think he was a person of little importance, hundreds of thousands attended his funeral in Sydney, which is a figure that makes up more than half the total population in Sydney. Moran, along with highly respected journalist and archaeologist Frederic Slater, were jointly responsible for creating this “brilliant treatise” which was inspired by the journal of a Spanish captain by the name of de Quito. He was the commander-in-chief of three Spanish ships tasked with the brief of sailing to Indonesia and further into the Pacific Ocean. Second-in-command was Albert Torres, who was so modest and unassuming he named the water between Indonesia and Australia Torres Strait.

                According to de Quito’s journal his boat was separated from the other two by a huge storm which pushed his boat south. He took refuge in a harbour that he claimed could take anchorage for one thousand boats in a location that was much larger than Europe. He named this land The Holy Ghost of Australia and claimed the entire continent on behalf of two parties: The Holy Catholic Roman Empire and Spain. He gave a detailed description of the surrounding land, and Moran and Slater were utterly emphatic the place described was Port Curtis found on the northern coast of Queensland. What is fascinating and confirming is that first British report remarked on the fact the harbour was so large it could accommodate one thousand boats. What is even more of an issue is that Torres and de Quito were openly antagonistic towards each other, and when Torres arrived back in Spain six months before de Quito he spent some time denigrating his command and competency. He did not dispute he did take harbour but insisted it was at a small insignificant island and that there was no such massive a landmass anywhere in the Pacific, which is clearly untrue. When factoring the geographical fact that no Pacific Island has a cove or harbour of the gigantic dimension observed by de Quito and his observations were repeated three centuries further on by the British, the chances he did take refuge at Port Curtis increase markedly.

                Slater found at Port Curtis artefacts he believed to be Spanish, and all the excerpts from de Quito’s diary along with Slater’s archaeological investigations at Port Curtis, formed the base of the paper some called “brilliant.”(11) When Cardinal Moran died Slater picked up the Spanish baton championing their presence and declaration of the land being dedicated to the Catholic Church and Spain. Then amongst of this inconvenient and unwelcome talk of the Spanish as the first colonial power to claim this land on behalf of two non-British parties, out comes one of the most important academics in the land confirming through a second site in Sydney everything written and researched in this earlier treatise.

                It is only to be expected that all the institutions would refuse to even look or openly ridicule Hargrave, they had to. No matter how lame or improbable their critiques were is irrelevant, simply because if this theory was even marginally entertained it calls into question whether the British had any legal right to claim or occupy a continent de Quito and his crew formally dedicated and lived on for fifty-four days. We openly admit that while in residence de Quito made some irrational choices, he proclaimed himself the King of the Holy Ghost of Australia, and all of his crew were given the titles of duke. But when it comes to a huge section of work describing the geography, geology and flora, every observation is ticked off at Port Curtis. Not only did he observe two rivers converging into this bay, as it does at Port Curtis, but went to provide descriptions of rock outcrops and their position, which even included marble.

                With that background of archaeology and politics of a young country with distinct protestant complexion, an extremely popular archbishop, a highly credentialed archaeologist/journalist and others openly accepting that the British were not the first to colonise this country, Hargrave was literally throwing petrol onto fire. All he could realistically expect is a wall of silence or abuse from every official circle. And clearly that is exactly what he got. Hargrave may well have been between 1966 and 1994 one of the most recognised historical faces in Australia, but from the time he started his campaign to acknowledge the truth of a Spanish presence and claim of ownership hundreds of years before Cook, his face and his research was persona non-grata. Slater suffered the same fate in the late 1930’s, Cardinal Moran was dead and buried and if those in control had their way all this talk of Spain was to be ignored, ridiculed and hopefully as the years pass, such talk would never be raised or discussed in polite circles, or anywhere else.

An Apology an Omission and Final Observation.

Next up was to be some time on country with Smacka, but being our first article in months due to a collection of priorities and distractions, the section on Hargrave kept getting larger due to the addition of some research by Evan, so much so that if we continued this report, it will be far too big. The next article will pick up that which was reshuffled, but for now the two metal objects and Harries’ rediscovery of Hargrave Spanish engravings is enough to digest.

                In total, we have two metal objects in a country where they should not be, from which both contain metals that cannot be identified, and followed that up with non-British archaeology the experts will not look at and insist they never will. When an ostrich is under attack or feels threatened it will bury its head in a hole, look the other way and hope that which distresses will go away. It seems there are many highly educated ostriches who frequent the same hole and have the final say, alas they only know one response or reply: no.

REFERENCES & NOTES:  

(1): Kenneth Gordon McIntyre, 1977, The Secret Discovery of Australia: Portuguese Ventures 200 Years before Captain Cook, (Souvenir Press [Australia] Pty Ltd: Medindie, S.A.), 290. 

(2): Lawerence Hargrave, “Lope de Vega” (Pamphlet, Sydney, New South Wales, 1914), 8, https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-362881815 ([In continuation of previous publications contained in the Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales, Vols, xliix, xliv, 1909, 1910.]  Frederick W White, Printer, 341 Kent Street).

(3): Ibid.

(4): Stephen Yarrow, “North Bondi Rock Carvings,” Pocket Oz: Pocket Guide to Sydney, accessed September 4, 2023, http://visitsydneyaustralia.com.au/north-bondi-carvings.html.

(5): Lawerence Hargrave, “Lope de Vega,” 7–8 ([In continuation of previous publications contained in the Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales, Vols, xliix, xliv, 1909, 1910.]  Frederick W White, Printer, 341 Kent Street). (See: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article15273520).

(6): Ibid, 7.       

(7): Ibid.

(8): Ibid.

(9): K. Wallace-Crabbe, “DE VEGA FINDS AUSTRALIA,” Herald, August 4, 1923, 13 (See: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article243809241).

(10): Ibid.

(11): Ibid.

About The Author