Loudmouth's post -

Loudmouth to Minotaur

You airily suggest ... As to decrees that originated in Britain, well they were summarily ignored in the reality of the Australian experience. "

Loudmouth - I also await Minotaur's response to your post?

Hmm, let's see...Phillip was given instruction that Aborigines' lives and livelihoods were to be protected and friendly relations with them encouraged. Didn't take long to ignore that and orders were given to kidnap Aborigines and kidnap they did. Perhaps kidnapping was part of developing 'friendly relations'...or was part of protecting Aborigines?

As to 'protecting' livelihoods, well that was summarily ignored as resources were plundered and lands stolen (often forcibly) from those who were the rightful custodians. Ahh, but that was ok though as it was done to protect the lives and livelihoods of the invaders. Ignore your orders people, we need the land and resources more than those 'savages'.

I wonder if 'protecting' Aborigines included not unleashing disease upon them. Ahh, nope...smallpox, arguably deliberately released, wreaked havoc among the Eora population in 1789.

It is notable that when John Bowen was sent to Tasmania to establish a colony in 1803 he was not given instructions regarding Aboriginal people. Experience had shown that any decrees could/would be ignored. We now know that almost an entire population of around 7000 Aboriginal Tasmanian people were virtually wiped out in less than three decades of European occupation. I suppose it could be argued that the decree of martial law that allowed the 'legal' killing of Aborigines was at least obeyed.

Only the naive or historically blind would state that 'good' relations were a feature of European invasion and decrees to protect Aborigines were adhered to.

Hi Minotaur,

Okay, you got me there - allowing squatters to move out and grab land would have been in conflict with the instructions to maintain friendly relations.

No, I don't think there is conclusive evidence that smallpox was deliberately spread: there seems to have been an epidemic spreading down the NSW coast from the North, just as there was later in about 1828, from The Gulf down to the western rivers and down the Darling and Murray. And another epidemic down the WA coast before settlement.

7000 people in Tasmania ? I hardly think so. 2000 maybe, and maybe only 1000. It's nota very big island, and much of it was and still is uninhabitable.

Joe

Care to back up your comments about your alleged low population of Tasmanian Aborigines Joe? I've never seen anyone but you claim such low figures.

Hi Minotaur,

The environment of Tasmania is not particularly friendly for hunting and gathering. Half the state, it seems, has always been uninhabitable. On the other hand, it would not, perhaps ever, have suffered droughts. My understanding is that the Indigenous people there did not eat shellfish, a major component in any other coastal diet. I could be wrong :)

Across Australia, if we ignored droughts, populations would have varied around half a million, or about one person for every fifteen square kilometres. Because of droughts, I suspect it would have been a lot less, i.e. each person required, on average, more space than fifteen sq. km. - much less along rivers, much more in deserts.

Although it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, and very roughly, I would suggest that the population of Tasmania in 1800 might have been a couple of thousand. Sealers/whalers would have taken a steady supply of women (and some men) from Tasmania's northern coast, across to all the island groups across southern Australia, and the SW corner of New Zealand, and perhaps elsewhere.

Out of a population of a couple of thousand, there would have been only a few hundred young women. The removal of many of them would have caused major disruptions to population maintenance. Of course, diseases for which people had no immunity would have killed many people, as they were doing across the world until penicillin and streptomycin: like other populations, the Tasmanian Indigenous population would have needed very high birth rates to maintain itself, and with many women gone, that would have become impossible.

If you have evidence of other ways by which the population was reduced, for which there is evidence, please share them.

Cheers,

Joe

Umm, Joe, I'm a Tasmanian Aboriginal historian (in Tasmania) and can tell you first-hand that your statement that 'half the state' has been uninhabitable is simply false. Upon the arrival of the invaders in 1803 there were people inhabiting almost every area of the state. The Europeans recorded nine seperate nations and their territories covered every part of Tasmania. Naturally the 'boundaries' of each nation were not 'fixed' as we know them as today and there was a lot of seasonal movement for many (although not all). The Tasmanians practiced 'fire-stick' farming and knew how to manage the resources found all over the island. And they ate plenty of shellfish, what do you think coastal middens consist of? They may not have eaten scale-fish though...well, after about 3000 years ago anyway (although that is highly debatable and one that still goes on).

The archaeologist Rhys Jones, who did much of the ground-breaking work into pre-European Aboriginal Tasmania, estimated that there was a population of 5000 (and stated it was a conservative estimate). More recent work by Plomley, using more up to date information, calculated that the population was approximately 6000. That correlates with George Augustus Robinson's estimates of 6000 - 8000. Two colonial estimates put the number as high as 10 000. Historians Henry Reynolds and Nicholas Clements put the number at 7000 and most historians accept the 7000 figure. I'll stick with those who have done the research.

Clements' research into the Black War verified almost 1000 Aborigines died in the conflict with Europeans. You can add to that those deaths not recorded and even a conservative estimate could arguably double the 1000. Interesting that you note the effect of whalers and sealers Joe and there's little doubt that they had a devastating effect on the Aborigines of the north eastern Tasmania. Notably, Aunty Patsy Cameron (and I use the term Aunty as I know her and it is the respectful way to refer to an elder) played down the destructive role of the whalers/sealers in her book Grease and Ochre. I do not agree with her findings.