TASMAN'S VOYAGE OF 1644 71 



I am inclined to believe that Tasman actually saw the inlet which 

 he named the Arnhem, and that he named it in commemoration 

 of the last appearance of that yacht on the " New Guinea " coast. 



In an inlet in 16 47' (Heeres), Tasman believed himself to have 

 recognised Carstenszoon's STATEN REVIER. The modern land map 

 shows a mouth of the Gilbert River falling into the Gulf in 16 45', 

 and it may be assumed that this is the inlet mistaken by Tasman 

 for Carstenszoon's Staten Revier. There is, however, as is argued 

 elsewhere, every ground for believing that CARSTENSZOON'S STATEN 

 REVIER was ACCIDENT INLET, another mouth of the Gilbert, in 

 17 13'. However, seeing that the note in the chart "specially 

 prepared " for Tasman's use laid down 17 as the limit of previous 

 discovery, he was compelled to recognise, SHORT OF THAT LATITUDE, 

 some inlet or other as that which was the " Pera's " and " Aernem's " 

 furthest south, and which Carstenszoon named the STATEN REVIER. 

 That note itself was incorrect, Carstenszoon's diary giving the 

 latitude as 17 8', while 17 13' is probably more accurate. That 

 Tasman accepted the authority of the note is an additional proof, 

 if such were required, that he was not in possession of Carstens- 

 zoon's diary or chart. 



The foregoing attempt to follow Tasman, with the assistance 

 of modern charts, along the coast previously described by 

 Carstenszoon leads to the conclusion that while he might very well, 

 in following the instructions laid down for his guidance, have passed 

 rapidly over the already-described region and commenced opera- 

 tions where Carstenszoon left off, he adopted the alternative 

 course of spending a considerable amount of time in verifying 

 Carstenszoon's information. That his success was indifferent is 

 probably attributable to the imperfection of the chart with 

 which he was supplied. 



It must be remembered that we have not the chart which 

 accompanied Tasman's instructions, and that there are good 

 grounds for the belief that it gave only an imperfect, second-hand 

 delineation of Carstenszoon's discoveries ; that Tasman, apparently, 

 was not furnished with Carstenszoon's diary or chart ; and that 

 we have not Tasman's account of his own voyage and have to rely 

 on a small-scale chart on which he laid down his discoveries, 

 identifications and observations. (SEE MAP M.) 



Free at last, and with an absolutely untouched stretch of coast 

 before him, I am inclined to think that Tasman found that he had 

 already spent too much time in verifying Carstenszoon's data, and 

 that he had to hurry over what should have been the most important 

 part of his task. It may be truthfully said in excuse for him that 

 the whole world presents but few stretches of coast less picturesque 

 than that on which he was now entering. It may well be imagined 

 that he was content, in the first place, by a cursory observation, to 



