Hubbry Logo
Black WarBlack WarMain
Open search
Black War
Community hub
Black War
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Black War
Black War
from Wikipedia

Black War
Part of the Australian frontier wars

An 1833 painting of Aboriginal Tasmanians attacking John Allen's Milton Farm near Great Swanport
DateMid-1820s–1832
Location
Result British Victory
Territorial
changes
British Empire controls Tasmania
Belligerents
British Empire Aboriginal Tasmanians
Casualties and losses
Dead: 219
Wounded: 218
Total: 437[1]
600–900 dead

The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832 that precipitated the near-extermination of the indigenous population. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died.[2][3]

When a British penal settlement was established in Tasmania (then called Van Diemen's Land) in 1803, the Aboriginal population was 3,000 to 7,000 people.[4] Until the 1820s, the British and Aboriginal people coexisted with only sporadic violence, often caused by settlers kidnapping Aboriginal women and children. Conflict intensified from 1824, as Aboriginal warriors resisted the rapid expansion of British settlement over their land. In 1828, the British declared martial law and in 1830 they unsuccessfully attempted to force hostile Aboriginal nations from the settled districts in a military operation called "the Black Line". In a series of "Friendly Missions" in 1830 and 1831, George Augustus Robinson and his Aboriginal negotiators secured the surrender of the Aboriginal belligerents. Martial law was revoked in January 1832.[5]

Almost all of the remaining Aboriginal people were removed from mainland Tasmania from 1832 to 1835, and the 220 survivors were eventually relocated to the Wybalenna Aboriginal Mission on Flinders Island. Infectious diseases and a low birth rate cut the Aboriginal population at Wybalenna to 46 when the mission was closed in 1847.[6]

The frequent mass killings and near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians are regarded by some contemporary historians as genocide.[7] Others, however, argue that the colonial authorities did not intend to destroy the Aboriginal population.[8]

Etymology

[edit]

The terms "Black War" and "Black Line" were coined by journalist Henry Melville in 1835.[9][10] In the early 21st century, historian Lyndall Ryan has argued that the conflict should be known as the "Tasmanian War". She has also called for a public memorial to be commissioned to honour the dead on both sides of the war.[11]

Early conflict

[edit]

Although commercial sealing on Van Diemen's Land had begun in late 1798, the first significant European presence on the island came in September 1803 with the establishment of a small British military outpost at Risdon Cove on the Derwent River near present-day Hobart.[12][13]

Natives on the Ouse River, Van Diemen's Land by John Glover, 1838

The British had several hostile encounters with Aboriginal clans over the next five months, with shots fired and an Aboriginal boy abducted. David Collins arrived as the colony's first lieutenant governor in February 1804 with instructions from London that any acts of violence against the Aboriginal people were to be punished. But he failed to publish those instructions, leaving an unclear legal framework for dealing with any violent conflict.[14]

On 3 May 1804, soldiers, settlers and convicts from Risdon Cove fired on a hunting party of 100 to 300 Aboriginal people. The British commanding officer stated that he thought the Aboriginal group was hostile. Witnesses to the massacre stated that between three and 50 Aboriginal men, women and children had died. [15][16][17]

By 1806, the British had founded two main penal settlements on the sites of modern Hobart and Launceston.[18] Violence increased during a drought in 1806–7 as tribes in the south of the island killed or wounded several colonists in six incidents mostly sparked by competition for game. There were only three hostile encounters recorded in the northern settlements before 1819, although John Oxley stated in 1810 that convict bushrangers inflicted "many atrocious cruelties" on Aboriginal people which led to Aboriginal attacks on solitary white hunters.[19]

The Tasmanian settlements grew slowly up to 1815, with the population reaching 1,933 people that year. Growth was mainly through the arrival of 600 colonists from Norfolk Island between 1805 and 1813, and 149 male convicts from England in 1812. Former convicts and the Norfolk Islander settlers were given small grants of land. By 1814,12,700 hectares (31,000 acres) of land was under cultivation, with 5,000 cattle and 38,000 sheep. Conflict with Aboriginal people increased, mainly due to sporadic murders and colonists hunting game and kidnapping Aboriginal women and children for domestic work and sexual purposes.[20][21][22]

Between 1815 and 1830, the colony expanded rapidly. The British population grew from 2,000 to 24,000, the number of sheep increased to 680,000 and cattle to 100,000. The settled districts—mainly in the midlands, eastern coast and northwestern region of the island—accounted for almost 30 per cent of its land area.[23][24] The expansion of the colony over Aboriginal hunting grounds led to increased conflict which, according to Nicholas Clements, developed into an Aboriginal resistance movement.[25][26][27] Aboriginal attacks on colonists averaged 1.7 per year over the 1803–1823 period, but increased to 18 per year over 1824–1826.[24]

Particularly from the late 1820s, the Aboriginal people were also driven by hunger to plunder settlers' homes for food as their hunting grounds shrank, native game disappeared, and the dangers of hunting on open ground grew.[28]

Clements states that the main reasons for frontier violence against Aboriginal people were revenge, killing for sport, sexual desire for women and children, and suppression of the native threat. Male colonists outnumbered females six to one in 1822 and Clements argues that a "voracious appetite" for Aboriginal women was the most important immediate trigger for the Black War. However, after 1828 settler violence was mainly motivated by fear of Aboriginal attacks and a growing conviction among those on the frontier that extermination of the Aboriginal population was the only means by which peace could be secured.[29]

Crisis years (1825–1831)

[edit]

From 1825 to 1828, the number of Aboriginal attacks on colonists and their property more than doubled each year. Clements states that although the colonists knew they were fighting a war, "this was not a conventional war, and the enemy could not be combated by conventional means. The blacks were not one people, but rather a number of disparate tribes. They had no home base and no recognisable command structure."[30]

Tasmanian tribes at the time of first European contact

George Arthur, governor of the colony since May 1824, had issued a proclamation on his arrival that placed Aboriginal people under the protection of British law and threatened prosecution for anyone who murdered them. Two Aboriginal men were hanged in September 1826 for the murder of three colonists and Arthur hoped that this would deter further attacks on colonists. But between September and November 1826 six more colonists were murdered, taking the number of colonists killed in the conflict to 36 since 1823. The Colonial Times newspaper advocated the removal of all Aboriginal people from the settled districts to an island in the Bass Strait, warning: "if not, they will be hunted down like wild beasts, and destroyed!"[31][32]

On 29 November 1826, Arthur issued a notice authorising settlers to treat hostile Aboriginal groups as open enemies and to use arms to force them from the settled districts. He also deployed additional soldiers and police to these areas. The Colonial Times saw this as a declaration of war on Aboriginal people in the settled districts.[33][34] Historian Lyndall Ryan argues that Arthur intended to force the surrender of the hostile Aboriginal tribes.[35] Clements states that the November proclamation failed to clarify when it was legal for settlers to kill Aboriginal people.[36]

Over the summer of 1826–27, warriors from the Big River, Oyster Bay and North Midlands nations killed a number of stock-keepers on farms. The colonists responded with reprisal raids, in which many Aboriginal people were killed.[37] On 8 December 1826, a group led by Kickerterpoller threatened a farm overseer at Bank Hill farm at Orielton, near Richmond; the following day soldiers from the 40th Regiment killed 14 Oyster Bay people and captured another nine, including Kickerterpoller.[38]

In April 1827, two shepherds were killed at a farm at Mount Augusta, south of Launceston, and a pursuit party launched a reprisal attack at dawn on an Aboriginal camp, killing up to 40 Aboriginal men, women and children.[39] In May 1827, a group of Oyster Bay Aboriginal people killed a stock-keeper at Great Swanport near Swansea. A pursuit party of soldiers, police and civilians later attacked an Aboriginal camp killing at least six people.[40][41]

Samuel Calvert's depiction of Aboriginals attacking a shepherds' hut as released in The Illustrated Melbourne Post

In June 1827, at least 80 to 100 members of the Pallittorre clan from the North nation were killed in reprisals for the killing of three stockmen.[42][43] From December 1826 to July 1827, at least 140 Aboriginal people were killed,[43] and Ryan suggests that the figure might be over 200 for their killing of 15 colonists.[44]

In September 1827, Arthur appointed another 26 field police and deployed another 55 soldiers into the settled districts to deal with the rising conflict. Between September 1827 and the following March, at least 70 Aboriginal attacks were reported on the frontier, taking the lives of 20 colonists. By March 1828 the death toll in the settled districts for the 16 months since Arthur's November 1826 official notice had risen to 43 colonists and up to 350 Aboriginal people.[45]

Although Arthur received reports that Aboriginal people were more interested in plundering huts for food than in killing colonists, settlers also reported Aboriginal warriors shouting, "Go away, go away!", burning crops and huts, and stating that they intended to kill every white man on the island.[46] Clements states that much of the Aboriginal violence in the early stages of the war was targeted revenge for killings and abductions by the colonists, but that the arson and killing of livestock were clearly acts of resistance.[47]

Arthur reported to the Colonial Office secretary in London that the Aboriginal people "already complain that the white people have taken possession of their country, encroached upon their hunting grounds, and destroyed their natural food, the kangaroo".[48] In January 1828, he proposed settling the Aboriginal people "in some remote quarter of the island, which should be reserved strictly for them, and to supply them with food and clothing, and afford them protection ... on condition of their confining themselves peaceably to certain limits". His preferred location for the reserve was Tasmania's north-east coast and he suggested they remain there "until their habits shall become more civilised".[49]

On 19 April 1828, Arthur issued a "Proclamation Separating the Aborigines from the White Inhabitants". The proclamation aimed to remove Aboriginal Tasmanians from the settled districts of eastern, central and north-western Tasmania as a precursor to negotiations with them for a reserve in the north-east region which was largely uncolonised and was traditionally visited by many Aboriginal groups for its abundant native game and other foods.[50][51] The proclamation authorised colonists to use violence to expel Aboriginal people from the settled districts in defined circumstances. However, the restrictions on violence were unclear and difficult to enforce and the settled districts were not well defined.[52][53] Historian James Boyce states that in practice: "Any Aborigine could now be legally killed for doing no more than crossing an unmarked border that the government did not even bother to define."[54]

Arthur admitted that the British were "the first aggressors" but thought continued violence could only be prevented by enforcing the ban on Aboriginal people entering the settled areas.[55] He deployed almost 300 troops from the 40th and 57th Regiments at 14 military posts along the frontier and within the settled districts. This measure appeared to deter Aboriginal attacks. Through the winter of 1828, few Aboriginal people appeared in the settled districts, and those that did were driven back by military parties. Among them were at least 16 Oyster Bay people who were killed in July at their encampment in the Eastern Tiers by a detachment of the 40th Regiment.[56][57]

Martial law (November 1828)

[edit]
Proclamation board labelled "Governor Davey's Proclamation" painted in Van Diemen's Land about 1830, in the time of Governor Arthur. Nailed to trees, proclamation boards were designed to show Aboriginal people the benefits of living in peace with colonists under an idealised equal British justice.

Violence escalated from August to October 1828, with the Oyster Bay, Big River, Ben Lomond and Northern peoples launching raids on stock huts during which 15 colonists were killed in 39 attacks. From early October, Oyster Bay warriors also began killing white women and children. On 1 November, Arthur declared martial law against the Aboriginal people in the settled districts, who were now "open enemies of the King". Arthur's move was effectively a declaration of war. Soldiers were authorised to arrest any Aboriginal person in the settled districts without warrant and to shoot those who resisted.[58][59] However, the proclamation also stated:

... that the actual use of arms be in no case resorted to, if the Natives can by other means be induced or compelled to retire into the places and portions of this Island herein before excepted from the operation of Martial Law; that bloodshed be checked, as much as possible; that any Tribes which may surrender themselves up, shall be treated with every degree of humanity; and that defenceless women and children be invariably spared.[53]

Martial law would remain in force for more than three years, the longest period in Australian history.[58] Although the proclamation authorised only the military to shoot Aboriginal people in the settled districts on sight, in practice other colonists did so with impunity.[60][61] Only one colonist was ever prosecuted for killing an Aboriginal person.[62]

About 500 Aboriginal people from five clan groups were still operating in the settled districts when martial law was declared and Arthur's first action was to encourage civilian parties to capture them. On 7 November, a party operating from Richmond captured Umarrah — a leader of the North Midlands nation — and four others including his wife and a child. Umarrah remained defiant and was jailed for over a year.[63]

Arthur established military patrols from the 39th, 40th and 63rd Regiments that scoured the settled districts for Aboriginal people, whom they should capture or shoot. By March 1829, about 400 troops were deployed in the settled districts and about 200 soldiers patrolled the area in 23 parties of eight to 10 men. Patrols usually included convict police who were familiar with the area and sometimes included Aboriginal guides from outside the settled areas. Settlers also formed patrols whose official role was to capture Aboriginal people.[64]

The main tactic of the military and settler patrols was to execute dawn raids on Aboriginal camps and there are many reported massacres of six or more Aboriginal people in these raids. The patrols reportedly killed 60 Aboriginal people and captured from 20 to 30 in the two years from November 1828. Ryan, however, estimates the Aboriginal death toll was at least 200 by March 1830.[65][66]

Samuel Thomas Gill's depiction of a night-time punitive raid on an Aboriginal camp

In the first six months of 1829, the Oyster Bay people killed eight convict workers in the Pitt Water district. This was followed by a lull in fighting before a wave of attacks in the spring and summer. Overall, 33 colonists were kill in 1829 compared with 27 the previous year.[67][68]

In mid-1829 Arthur estimated that there were 2,000 Aboriginal people in the colony. Other estimates by the colonists ranged from 500 to 5,000. Settlers reported that the Oyster Bay people were moving in considerably smaller groups, but sightings of the Big River people in groups of 100 or more continued. It is likely that the massacres, privation and a falling birth rate had reduced the Aboriginal population to under 1,000 and that less than 300 remained in southeastern Tasmania.[69][70]

Arthur also pursued conciliation. In March 1829, he established an Aboriginal mission on Bruny Island in the hope it would attract Aboriginal people from the settled districts. He also commissioned "proclamation boards" with drawings meant to show Aboriginal people the benefits of living peacefully with the colonists under an ideal British justice in which whites would be hanged for killing blacks and blacks hanged for killing whites.[71]

Violence, however, did not abate. There were 60 Aboriginal attacks on colonists from November 1829 to March 1830, most of them in the Clyde, Oatlands and Richmond police districts. Settlers reported arson attacks on buildings and crops which threatened the viability of their farms. In late 1829, one police magistrate informed Arthur that he needed three times his allocation of soldiers to protect local settlers. In February 1830, settlers and the press launched a campaign for increased military protection on the frontier and the removal of hostile tribes to the Bass Strait islands.[72][73]

The predominant mood among colonists on the frontier was fear and panic mixed with anger and a desire for revenge. Although by the end of 1829 the number of Aboriginal people in the war zone had greatly diminished, this was not widely known and the threat that the remaining hostile Aboriginal groups posed to frontier farms was real.[74]

In November 1829, Arthur established an Aborigines Committee to inquire into the causes of the Aboriginal violence and make policy recommendations. The following February, he introduced a bounty of £5 for every captured Aboriginal adult and £2 for each child. He also sought the help of other colonies in increasing the military presence in Van Diemen's Land but without success.[72]

The Aborigines Committee

[edit]
Archdeacon William Broughton, who headed the Aborigines Committee

In March 1830, Arthur appointed Anglican Archdeacon William Broughton as chairman of the seven-man Aborigines Committee inquiring into the conflict. Since the declaration of martial law in November 1828 there had been 120 Aboriginal attacks on colonists, resulting in about 50 colonists dead and over 60 wounded.[75] The inquiry was conducted in the context of a further escalation in hostilities: in February there were 30 separate incidents in which seven Europeans were killed.[76]

Among submissions it received were suggestions to set up decoy huts containing poisoned flour and sugar, that Aboriginal people be rooted out with bloodhounds and that Māori warriors be brought to Tasmania to capture the Aboriginal people for removal to New Zealand as slaves. Settlers and soldiers gave evidence of killings and atrocities on both sides, but the committee was also told that despite the attacks, some settlers believed very few Aboriginal people now remained in the settled districts.[77]

In its report, published in March 1830, the committee stated that the Aboriginal people had lost their sense of superiority of white men, no longer feared British guns, and were now on a systematic plan of attacking the colonists and their possessions. The committee's report supported the bounty system, recommended more mounted police, and urged settlers to remain well armed and alert.[78][79]

Arthur forwarded their report to Secretary of State for War and the Colonies Sir George Murray, blaming convicts for mistreating the Aboriginal people but adding, "it is increasingly apparent the Aboriginal natives of this colony are, and have ever been, a most treacherous race; and that the kindness and humanity which they have always experienced from the free settlers has not tended to civilize them to any degree."[76] Murray stated in response that the Aboriginal people could become extinct in the near future and that any British conduct with that aim would "leave an indelible stain upon the character of the British Government."[80]

Arthur accepted most of the committee's recommendations but only deployed a small number of additional mounted police due to the expense and a shortage of horses in the colony. He also advised London that an increase in the convict population in remote frontier areas would help protect settlers and asked that all convict transport ships be diverted to Van Diemen's Land.[81][82]

The war continued. In April, the military and colonists killed at least 12 Big River and Pallittorre people in separate encounters.[43] From April to early August, there were 22 Aboriginal attacks in the Clyde district in which three colonists were killed and nine wounded. Arthur, however, had heard that two of his emissaries, George Augustus Robinson and Captain Welsh, had established friendly contacts with Aboriginal groups outside the settled districts. On 19 August, he issued a notice informing settlers of this success and advising them not to harm or capture any non-hostile Aboriginal person in search of food. He also warned settlers that the bounty would not be paid to colonists who captured friendly Aboriginal people and that anyone killing them would be prosecuted.[83]

Following the killing of a prominent settler on 22 August, a group of settlers wrote to Arthur protesting against his change in policy. The Aborigines Committee and Executive Council also advised him that stronger measures were required to subdue the hostile Oyster Bay and Big River nations.[84] In response, Arthur extended martial law to the whole of Van Diemen's Land on 1 October.[85] He also ordered every able-bodied male colonist to assemble on 7 October at one of seven designated places to join a massive drive to sweep the hostile Aboriginal people from the settled districts in a military campaign which became known as the Black Line.[84][86] The news was greeted enthusiastically by the colonist press. The Hobart Town Courier said that it doubted settlers would need persuading "to accomplish the one grand and glorious object now before them".[87]

Northwestern conflict

[edit]

The Aboriginal people of northwestern Tasmania had sporadic and sometimes violent encounters with the British before the region was colonised in 1826. The colonists were servants of the Van Diemen's Land Company which had been granted land for grazing sheep and cattle. An escalating cycle of violence broke out in 1827 after company shepherds killed an Aboriginal man and abducted Aboriginal women for sex. A shepherd was speared and more than 100 sheep killed in retribution, and colonists responded with a dawn attack on an Aboriginal campsite, killing 12. The conflict led to the Cape Grim massacre of 10 February 1828 in which shepherds armed with muskets ambushed up to 30 Aboriginal people as they collected shellfish at the foot of a cliff.[88][89]

On 21 August 1829, four company servants killed an Aboriginal woman at Emu Bay, near present-day Burnie. An investigation was launched but no one was prosecuted. Three company men were fatally speared in July and October 1831 and there were heavy losses inflicted on sheep and oxen. There were 16 recorded acts of violence against Aboriginal people in the conflict, but the number of Aboriginal deaths is unknown. Company employees stated that they believed killing Aboriginal people was justified to protect livestock.[89][88]

The population of the northwestern clans fell from an estimated 400-700 at the time of colonisation to about 100 by 1835. The population of the neighbouring northern Aboriginal people fell from 400 in 1826 to fewer than 60 by mid-1830. Violence in the northwest ceased in 1834 but resumed between September 1839 and February 1842 when Aboriginal people made at least 18 attacks on company men and property.[88][90][89]

Military strategy and tactics

[edit]

Aboriginal warriors conducted a guerrilla war against the British.[91][92] They mostly used three weapons: spears, rocks and waddies. They almost always attacked during the day in war parties of 10 to 20 men. Although they favoured ambushes and hit-and-run raids against isolated shepherds and settler huts, sieges of huts for up to a day were not uncommon. Warriors often lit fires or used women to lure colonists out of their huts and into an ambush. They quickly learned that muskets could only be fired about once every 30 seconds, so they often encouraged colonists to fire then closed in for an attack. War parties would sometimes divide into separate diversionary and main attack groups and then disperse after an attack to make pursuit more difficult. Attacks on livestock and arson of buildings and crops were also common but were not used systematically as a major war strategy.[93]

The main British military response involved official pursuit parties and roving parties. Pursuit parties mostly consisted of soldiers and convicts whose task was to track down Aboriginal groups presumed to be responsible for a particular attack. They were usually in the field for 12 to 48 hours. Roving parties were groups of soldiers, convicts and authorised civilians who patrolled the frontier for 12 to 18 days at a time with the aim of dispersing hostile Aboriginal groups. The main tactic of the official parties was to attack at night after campfires had revealed the position of the Aboriginal groups. Although their instructions were to capture hostile Aboriginal people where possible, in practice a successful ambush of a campsite almost always led to lethal violence. The main weapons used in ambushes were the Brown Bess musket, bayonets and clubs.[94]

Vigilante groups mainly consisted of convicts but settlers and their employees were often involved. They generally used the same weapons and tactics as the official parties but probably inflicted more deaths on Aboriginal groups.[95]

Black Line, October–November 1830

[edit]

The Black Line of October to November 1830 consisted of 2,200 men: about 550 soldiers, 738 convict servants and 912 civilians.[96] Arthur, who maintained overall control, placed Major Sholto Douglas of the 63rd Regiment in command of the forces.[97] Separated into three divisions and aided by Aboriginal guides, they formed a staggered front more than 300 km long that began pushing south and east across the Settled Districts from 7 October. The intention was to form a pincer movement to push members of four of the nine Aboriginal nations across the Forestier Peninsula to East Bay Neck and into the Tasman Peninsula, which Arthur intended to declare an Aboriginal reserve.[98][99][100]

The campaign was hampered by severe weather, difficult terrain, inadequate maps and poor supply lines. Although two of the divisions met in mid-October, the difficult terrain soon resulted in the cordon being broken, leaving many wide gaps through which the Aboriginal people were able to easily pass. Many of the colonists, by then barefoot and their clothes tattered, deserted the line and returned home. The campaign's single success was a dawn ambush on 25 October in which two Aboriginal people were captured and two killed. The Black Line was disbanded on 26 November.[101]

When the Black Line commenced, about 300 members of the hostile Big River, Oyster Bay, Ben Lomond and North Midlands nations were still alive and about 100 to 200 of these were within the line's field of operations. They launched at least 50 attacks on colonists—both in front of and behind the line—during the campaign, often plundering huts for food.[102][103]

Surrender and removal

[edit]

Surrender in the settled districts

[edit]

Following the Black Line campaign, there were probably only about 100 hostile Aboriginal people in the settled districts, although the colonists believed the figure was at least 500. Hopes of peace rose over the summer of 1830-31 as Aboriginal attacks fell to a low level. The Colonial Times newspaper speculated that their enemy had either been wiped out or frightened into inaction. However, there was a new wave of attacks in late January and March in which several colonists were killed, and many men on the frontier refused to go out to work.[104]

In February 1831, the Aborigines Committee issued a report recommending that settlers should remain vigilant and that parties of armed men should be stationed in the most remote stock huts. In response, up to 150 stock huts were turned into ambush locations, military posts were established on native migratory routes and new barracks were built at Spring Bay, Richmond and Break O'Day Plains. There was an increased military presence at farms, and military parties of 50 to 90 men sometimes went out in pursuit of hostile Aboriginal groups.[105]

George Augustus Robinson

The committee, however, also endorsed the government's attempts to conciliate the hostile Aboriginal clans. In March 1829, George Augustus Robinson had been appointed the head of the Aboriginal Mission on Bruny Island where about 20 survivors of the southeastern Aboriginal people were accommodated. From January to September 1830, Robinson and 19 Aboriginal negotiators had carried out a "Friendly Mission" to establish contacts with the Aboriginal clans of southwestern, western and northwestern Tasmania. In October that year, he reported to Arthur that his mission had been a partial success and the governor authorised him to seek conciliation with the northeastern clans.[106]

By January 1831, Robinson's party had contacted more than fifty Aboriginal people and had moved them temporarily to Swan Island in Bass Strait. Those moved to the island included the resistance leader Mannalargenna, whose group had killed a number of colonists.[107] In February, Arthur appointed Robinson to head an Aboriginal Establishment on the Furneaux Islands and authorised him to negotiate the surrender of the remaining Big River and Oyster Bay people. In March, the 53 Aboriginal Tasmanians under Robinson's care were transferred to a settlement on Gun Carriage Island (now Vansittart Island).[108][109]

Montpelliatta

In June, Robinson and a party of Aboriginal negotiators set off to locate a resistance group led by Umarrah which had conducted a series of raids killing several colonists.[110] The public mood, however, swung further against Arthur's conciliatory approach after an Aboriginal group led by Montpelliatta conducted further raids in the Great Western Tiers culminating in the death of two prominent settlers in August. The Launceston Advertiser declared that only "utter annihilation" could subdue the Aboriginal people.[111]

Several weeks later, an Aboriginal group robbed huts at Great Swansea and, in late October, 100 armed settlers formed a cordon across the narrow part of Freycinet Peninsula in an attempt to capture several dozen Aboriginal people who had entered the peninsula. The cordon was abandoned four days later after the Aboriginal people slipped through and escaped at night.[111]

Robinson's efforts at conciliation were more successful. In September, he and Mannalargenna persuaded Umarrah and his group to suspend hostilities. The following month, Robinson and Mannalargenna met Arthur to discuss the terms of a surrender. Robinson, Mannalargenna and Umarrah then set off for the interior to locate and negotiate with the remaining hostile Big River and Oyster Bay groups. On 31 December, they made contact with a party of 26 Big River and Oyster Bay people led by Montpelliatta and Tongerlongeter. Umarrah's wife, Woolaytopinnyer, persuaded them to surrender.[112]

Tongerlongeter

Robinson led the 26 Aboriginal people to Hobart where they surrendered to governor Arthur on 7 January 1832. Ten days later, the groups led by Montpelliatta, Tongerlongeter and Umarrah were sent to Flinders island where the Aboriginal Establishment had been relocated the previous November.[113][114]

The December surrender effectively ended the Black War, and martial law was revoked in January 1832.[5] There had been 70 Aboriginal attacks on colonists in 1831, in which 33 colonists were killed or wounded.[115][116] But the number of attacks had been well below the 250 recorded in 1830, and it was now clear that the remnants of the hostile Aboriginal clans had been exhausted, hungry and desperate throughout 1831.[117]

There were no further reports of Aboriginal attacks in the eastern settled districts from December 1831, although isolated acts of violence continued in the north until 1834 and in the northwest until 1842. The death toll from 1832 to 1834 was ten colonists and 40 Aboriginal people.[118][5]

Removal of western Aboriginal nations

[edit]

Arthur authorised Robinson to negotiate the surrender of the remaining southwestern and western Aboriginal clans and their removal to Flinders Island, believing that this would be the only way of saving them from extermination at the hands of settlers while providing them with the benefits of British civilisation and Christianity. In February 1832, Robinson and his Aboriginal negotiators embarked on the first of several expeditions to the west and north-west of Tasmania. His party persuaded several small groups to seek refuge on Flinders Island, warning them that they faced violent hostility without protection.[119][120]

However, after a hostile encounter with a group of 29 Tarkiner people at Arthur River in September, Robinson resolved to use force if necessary to secure the removal of the remaining Aboriginal people. Hunter Island, at Tasmania's northwestern tip, and penal stations in Macquarie Harbour, on the western coast, were used to hold captured Aboriginal people until their transfer to Flinders Island, but many succumbed quickly to disease and the mortality rate reached 75 percent.[121][122]

Aftermath

[edit]

By early 1835 almost 300 people had surrendered to Robinson,[120] who reported to the colonial secretary that the entire Aboriginal population had been removed to Flinders Island. However, a family was discovered near Cradle Mountain in 1836 and they eventually surrendered in 1842. Aboriginal women also continued to live with sealers on the Bass Strait islands and small Aboriginal groups remained in the Great Western Tiers.[123]

In February 1833, the Aboriginal Establishment was moved to a more suitable location on Flinders Island and renamed Wybalenna. Children attended school, men were expected to work in the garden, build roads, erect fences and shear sheep, while women were required to cook, wash clothes, sew and attend evening school. All were expected to attend Scripture classes and wear European clothes and many were given European names. However, convicts were assigned to do most of the labour and the Aboriginal people were free to roam the island where they hunted and gathered food and performed traditional ceremonies.[124] Despite the presence of a resident doctor, a high rate of respiratory disease cut the population from about 220 in 1833 to 46 in 1847.[125]

Population and death toll

[edit]

Deaths

[edit]
Phase Aboriginal people

killed (est.)

Colonists

killed

Total
Nov 1823—Nov 1826 80 40 120
Dec 1826—Oct 1828 408 61 469
Nov 1828—Jan 1832

(martial law)

350 90 440
Feb 1832—Aug 1834 40 10 50
Total 878 201 1079
Source: Ryan (2012). p. 143

Historians acknowledge that recorded killings in the Black War are minimum figures because most killings of Aboriginal people went unreported.[126] Nevertheless, Clements concludes that even if only reported deaths are considered, annual deaths per head of population were over 600 per 10,000, making the Black War one of the deadliest in history.[127]

Ryan, based on a contemporary newspaper estimate, states that there were 1,200 Aboriginal people in the settled districts in 1826. She estimates that 838 Aboriginal people were killed in eastern Tasmania from November 1823 to January 1832 and that 40 more were killed in the following period to August 1834.[128]

Clements states that the recorded Aboriginal death toll in the conflict was 260.[127] He estimates, however, that only 100 Aboriginal people survived the eastern conflict from a pre-war population of 1,000, and he therefore concludes that 900 died from 1824 to 1831. He surmises that about one-third may have died through internecine conflict, disease and natural deaths, leaving an estimated 600 deaths from frontier violence. However, he states: "The true figure might be as low as 400 or as high as 1,000."[129] Johnson and McFarlane argue that at least 400 Aboriginal deaths in the northwestern conflict should be added to this figure, giving over 1,000 Aboriginal deaths in the conflict across Tasmania.[130]

Ryan states that there were 191 recorded deaths of colonists in the conflict from November 1823 to January 1834, and another 10 deaths after this.[128] Clements, who studied a wider range of sources, states that there were 450 casualties among colonists, including 219 recorded deaths, in the eastern conflict from 1824 to 1831. However, the number killed or wounded was probably under-reported due to administrative inefficiency and because the colonists did not want to discourage British investment in, and emigration to, the colony.[131]

Aboriginal population decline

[edit]

Estimates of Tasmania's Aboriginal population in 1803, the year of British settlement, range from 3,000 to 7,000. Lydall Ryan, citing studies by N.J.B Plomley, Rhys Jones, Colin Pardoe and Harry Lourandos, reaches a figure of 7,000 spread throughout the island's nine nations.[132] Nicholas Clements, however, also citing Plomley, Jones and others, estimates the population at 3,000 to 4,000.[133] Johnson and McFarlane state that the consensus figure is 4,500 to 5,000.[134]

Historians also disagree over the extent and causes of Aboriginal population decline before the Black War. Ryan argues that the population of some clans near the two main British settlements probably declined from 1803 to 1807 due to settler violence, although other clans possibly prospered from the introduction of hunting dogs.[135] She states that by 1819 the Aboriginal and British population reached parity with about 5,000 of each, although among the colonists men outnumbered women four to one. At that stage both population groups enjoyed good health, with infectious diseases not taking hold until the late 1820s. She therefore concludes that settler violence was the main cause of Aboriginal population decline before the Black War.[136]

Clements, however, believes that frontier violence does not explain population decline in the first 20 years of British settlement as there were few colonists in the interior. He argues that reduced fertility caused by venereal diseases was probably a significant cause of early population decline. He also states that although the health of the Aboriginal population was generally good, at least one southern Aboriginal clan was decimated by other introduced diseases before the Black War.[137]

Boyce also argues that the impact of violence and disease on the Aboriginal population was moderate up to 1816 and that there is no evidence of low numbers of children and elderly people nor critically low numbers of women.[138] Johnson and McFarlane, however, argue that kidnapping of Aboriginal women by sealers was a key factor in the population decline of Aboriginal clans in the northern and southern coastal regions.[139]

Historiography

[edit]

Conflict and depopulation

[edit]

Writing in 2002, Keith Windschuttle argued that the Aboriginal population in 1803 was only about 2,000, that only 118 Aboriginal people were killed in the conflict with British settlers, and that the conflict was an outbreak of criminality rather than a war.[140][141][142] His arguments have been challenged by numerous authors including James Boyce,[143] Henry Reynolds,[144] Lyndall Ryan[141] and Nicholas Clements[145] who conclude that the conflict was an Aboriginal war of liberation in which 600 to 900 Aboriginal Tasmanians were killed.

Geoffrey Blainey and Josephine Flood argue that although Aboriginal deaths in the conflict were devastating, the major cause of Aboriginal depopulation was disease.[146][147] Ryan and Boyce, however, argue that the Aboriginal death rate from disease was low before 1820 and that Aboriginal Tasmanians were more likely to die from disease after they had surrendered to the British.[148][149]

Academic discussion of genocide

[edit]

The near-destruction of Tasmania's Aboriginal population[150] has been described as an act of genocide by historians and genocide scholars including Robert Hughes, James Boyce, Lyndall Ryan, Tom Lawson, Mohamed Adhikari, Benjamin Madley, Ashley Riley Sousa, Rebe Taylor, and Tony Barta.[151][152] The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide[153] and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history".[154] However, other historians – including Henry Reynolds, Richard Broome, and Nicholas Clements – do not agree that the colonial authorities pursued a policy of destroying the Indigenous population, although they do acknowledge that some settlers supported extermination.[155][156]

Boyce has claimed that the April 1828 "Proclamation Separating the Aborigines from the White Inhabitants" sanctioned force against Aboriginal people "for no other reason than that they were Aboriginal". However, as Reynolds, Broome and Clements point out, there was open warfare at the time.[155][156] Boyce describes the decision to remove all Aboriginal Tasmanians after 1832—by which time they had given up their fight against white colonists—as an extreme policy position. He concludes: "The colonial government from 1832 to 1838 ethnically cleansed the western half of Van Diemen's Land and then callously left the exiled people to their fate."[157]

As early as 1852 John West's History of Tasmania portrayed the obliteration of Tasmania's Aboriginal people as an example of "systematic massacre"[158] and in the 1979 High Court case of Coe v Commonwealth of Australia, judge Lionel Murphy observed that Aboriginal people did not give up their land peacefully and that they were killed or forcibly removed from their land "in what amounted to attempted (and in Tasmania almost complete) genocide".[159]

Historian Henry Reynolds says that there was a widespread call from settlers during the frontier wars for the "extirpation" or "extermination" of the Aboriginal people.[160] But he has contended that the British government acted as a source of restraint on settlers' actions. Reynolds says there is no evidence the British government deliberately planned the wholesale destruction of indigenous Tasmanians—a November 1830 letter to Arthur by Sir George Murray warned that the extinction of the race would leave "an indelible stain upon the character of the British Government"[80]—and therefore what eventuated does not meet the definition of genocide codified in the 1948 United Nations convention. He says that Arthur was determined to defeat the Aboriginal people and take their land, but believes that there is little evidence that he had aims beyond that objective and wished to destroy the Tasmanian race.[161] In contrast to Reynolds' argument, historian Lyndall Ryan, based on a sample of massacres taking place in the Meander River region in June 1827, concludes that massacres of Aboriginal Tasmanians by white settlers were likely part of an organised process and were sanctioned by government authorities.[162]

Clements accepts Reynolds' argument but also exonerates the colonists themselves of the charge of genocide. He says that, unlike genocidal determinations by Nazis against Jews in World War II, Hutus against Tutsis in Rwanda and Ottomans against Armenians in present-day Turkey which were carried out for ideological reasons, Tasmanian settlers participated in violence largely out of revenge and self-preservation. He adds: "Even those who were motivated by sex or morbid thrillseeking lacked any ideological impetus to exterminate the natives." He also argues that while genocides are inflicted on defeated, captive or otherwise vulnerable minorities, Tasmanian natives appeared as a "capable and terrifying enemy" to colonists and were killed in the context of a war in which both sides killed noncombatants.[163]

Lawson, in a critique of Reynolds' stand, argues that genocide was the inevitable outcome of a set of British policies to colonise Van Diemen's Land.[164] He says that the British government endorsed the use of partitioning and "absolute force" against Tasmanians, approved Robinson's "Friendly Mission" and colluded in transforming that mission into a campaign of ethnic cleansing from 1832. He says that once on Flinders Island, the indigenous peoples were taught to both farm land like Europeans and worship God like Europeans and concludes: "The campaign of transformation enacted on Flinders Island amounted to cultural genocide."[165]

Writing in 2023, historian Rebe Taylor points to the arguments of Windschuttle as being a minority opinion among historians who generally accept the Black War as a case of genocide.[166]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
The Black War was a protracted guerrilla conflict in (modern ) from roughly 1824 to 1832, in which indigenous Aboriginal groups conducted raids against British settlers encroaching on their lands, killing over 200 colonists including women and children, while settlers retaliated with organized hunts, bounties, and military expeditions that killed an estimated 600 or more Aborigines. This asymmetric violence, driven by competition over territory and resources amid rapid colonial expansion, accelerated the indigenous population's decline from several thousand to fewer than 200 full-blooded survivors by 1835, with subsequent removals to offshore islands leading to their effective as a distinct group by the 1870s. The war's origins lay in the intensification of settlement after 1820, as pastoralists cleared forests and displaced bands, prompting organized Aboriginal resistance under leaders like Tongerlongeter, who targeted isolated huts and stockmen in hit-and-run tactics. Colonial authorities responded with in 1826, authorizing lethal force against "hostile" tribes, and later the Black Line—a massive cordon of over 2,000 troops and civilians in aimed at corralling remnants onto the , though it largely failed and captured few. Quaker conciliator George Augustus Robinson's diplomatic efforts from 1829 onward persuaded many survivors to surrender under promises of protection, but exile to proved deadly due to disease, malnutrition, and cultural disruption, with the last full-blooded Tasmanian dying in 1876. Historiographical debates center on casualty figures and intent, with early accounts inflating losses and some modern scholars estimating up to 450 colonial deaths including unrecorded incidents, while Aboriginal fatalities from direct conflict are conservatively placed above , though total demographic collapse involved confounding factors like introduced diseases and from prior disruptions. Revisionist analyses, drawing on primary records like muster rolls and trial documents, challenge claims of systematic massacres by highlighting evidentiary gaps in high-end estimates propagated in academia, underscoring the need for scrutiny of sources prone to narrative-driven . The conflict's legacy includes Tasmania's unique status as the site of Australia's most documented frontier war, revealing patterns of mutual savagery in resource scarcity but ultimate indigenous defeat through superior colonial firepower and organization.

Historical Context and Etymology

Pre-Colonial Aboriginal

The Aboriginal inhabitants of , isolated from following the formation of approximately 10,000 years ago, trace their ancestry to Pleistocene migrants who arrived over 40,000 years prior. Archaeological sites, including Warreen Cave in the southwest, yield evidence of continuous occupation dating to at least 34,000 years ago, with tools and hearths indicating adaptation to a cool, variable climate during the . Tasmanian Aboriginal society comprised small, kin-based bands organized into roughly nine distinct language groups, each confined to territories demarcated by natural features such as mountain ranges, river valleys, and coastal zones. These groups maintained semi-nomadic lifestyles, aggregating for ceremonies and resource-rich seasons while dispersing to exploit localized sources. Social structures emphasized reciprocal ties, with evidence from ethnographic analogies and practices suggesting egalitarian norms without centralized authority or hereditary chiefs. Subsistence relied on , gathering, and in an environment lacking domesticable or animals. Coastal bands harvested seals, seabirds, , and using spears and reed watercraft, while inland groups pursued , wallabies, , and emus with fire drives and stone-tipped weapons. Plant foods included roots, fruits, and ferns, with seasonal migrations ensuring access to eggs, grubs, and waterfowl. Controlled burning shaped vegetation for easier and promoted regrowth, demonstrating ecological suited to Tasmania's rugged and limited . Technological adaptations featured unground stone tools like scrapers, hand axes, and blades for processing hides and wood, alongside points hafted to spears for hunting. Bark domed huts provided shelter, and served multiple purposes from cooking to landscape modification. Prolonged isolation led to divergence from mainland practices, including the absence of boomerangs, bows, , and advanced tools, reflecting resource constraints and small population sizes rather than inherent inferiority. Cultural practices centered on oral traditions, spiritual connections to land and ancestors, and communal rituals involving , , and body decoration. Rock shelters preserve hand stencils and geometric engravings—circles, dots, and lines—likely symbolic of totemic or significance. Burials in coastal dunes or suspended in tree forks, sometimes flexed with , point to rituals honoring the dead. The nine language families, mutually unintelligible and distinct from continental Aboriginal tongues, underscore deep regional variation sustained by geographic barriers.

Initial European Settlement (1803–1824)

The British government authorized the establishment of a penal settlement in Van Diemen's Land in 1803 to preempt potential French colonization and extend control from New South Wales. On 3 September 1803, Lieutenant John Bowen arrived at Risdon Cove on the Derwent River with 49 settlers, comprising New South Wales Corps personnel, convicts, and civilians aboard HMS Porpoise and the transport Calcutta; this marked the first permanent European presence on the island. The outpost focused on basic provisioning through farming and sealing, with initial structures including huts, a storehouse, and defensive positions amid a landscape suited for agriculture but challenged by unfamiliar terrain and limited supplies. In February 1804, Lieutenant-Governor David Collins relocated the primary settlement from Risdon Cove to the more sheltered Sullivan's Cove, founding Hobart Town on 20 February with approximately 263 people, including convicts evacuated from the failed Port Phillip colony. Collins, drawing on his experience as judge-advocate in New South Wales, emphasized order through convict labor for infrastructure like wharves and gardens, while a northern outpost at York Town was established by Colonel William Paterson in late 1804 with detachments from Port Jackson. These efforts laid the foundation for administrative separation from New South Wales, with Van Diemen's Land functioning as a dependency until 1825; by the early 1820s, land grants to free settlers and military officers spurred pastoral expansion, increasing the European population to several thousand through convict transports and voluntary migration. Early interactions between Europeans and Tasmanian Aboriginals from 1803 to 1824 involved a mix of and isolated , with no systematic conflict yet evident. Peaceful exchanges occurred frequently, as Aboriginal groups traded kangaroo meat, baskets, and labor for European goods like , , , and dogs, particularly around sealing stations in the Furneaux Islands from 1798 onward. The first documented violent clash took place on 3 May 1804 at Risdon Cove, when a large Aboriginal hunting party pursuing kangaroos approached the camp; settler James Moore ordered a and fire, killing or wounding an undetermined number, though accounts differ on whether the group posed an immediate threat. Subsequent incidents included an Aboriginal attempt on 12 November 1804 to dislodge a sergeant at York Town, met with fire killing one and wounding another, and a 1805 attack by Aboriginals on sealers at Great Oyster Bay that destroyed 2,000 pelts; by the 1810s, declining sealing led some European sealers to coerce Aboriginal women for labor, straining relations further. These episodes remained sporadic amid ongoing , with settlement confined largely to coastal areas until inland grants accelerated encroachment by 1824.

Origins of the Term "Black War"

The term "Black War" arose among British colonists in during the late 1820s and early 1830s to characterize the systematic raids and killings by Aboriginal groups in response to land dispossession and settlement expansion. The adjective "Black" derived from the prevalent colonial descriptor for dark-skinned Tasmanian Aboriginal people, employed in official dispatches, settler correspondence, and newspapers to denote the indigenous antagonists in the conflict. This framed the as a racialized war rather than sporadic clashes, aligning with Lieutenant-Governor George Arthur's 1828 proclamation of against "the Black Natives." Contemporary print records, including reports in the Hobart Town Gazette and Colonial Times, alluded to the hostilities in terms that prefigured the consolidated label, though exact phrasing as "Black War" solidified in retrospective accounts amid the peak escalation around 1830. By the mid-19th century, the term gained historiographic traction; John West's The History of Tasmania (1852) explicitly identified 1830 as "the year of the ," portraying it as a pivotal campaign of colonial defense. James Bonwick's The Last of the Tasmanians; or, The Black War of (1870) further canonized the phrase, drawing on eyewitness testimonies and archival evidence to depict the conflict's scale and brutality from a viewpoint. While modern scholarship, such as Clements' analysis, affirms the term's roots in colonial —reflecting a of organized Aboriginal resistance—the label has faced critique for minimizing agency in initiating displacement and , potentially understating pre-1825 provocations like kidnappings and seizures. Nonetheless, primary sources from the era, including government inquiries, substantiate its contemporaneous application without evidence of invention by later revisionists.

Causes and Early Escalation

Resource Competition and Cultural Clashes

European settlement in , commencing in 1803 at Risdon Cove, rapidly expanded agricultural and pastoral activities that directly competed with Tasmanian Aboriginal hunting grounds. By the mid-1820s, the introduction of nearly 1 million sheep onto prime grazing lands displaced native game animals such as , which formed a staple of the Aboriginal diet, leading to for indigenous groups. The European population surged from fewer than 3,000 in 1803 to approximately 23,500 by 1830, intensifying pressure on finite resources like freshwater sources and coastal seal colonies, where early sealers from 1798 onward overhunted populations and disrupted Aboriginal access. Tasmanian Aborigines, estimated at up to 15,000 individuals across nine nations prior to , maintained a nomadic lifestyle, seasonally migrating to exploit resources without fixed territorial boundaries or permanent structures. This contrasted sharply with European practices of enclosing land for private farming and grazing, which Aborigines interpreted as communal territories rather than owned property, resulting in frequent incursions onto settler holdings to procure food. Such differences fueled mutual perceptions of violation: settlers viewed Aboriginal on cleared lands as theft and threat, while Aborigines experienced the fencing and livestock as barriers to survival, exacerbating tensions from initial encounters like the 1804 Risdon Cove clash over a hunting party. Cultural incompatibilities extended to social norms, with European sealers and kidnapping Aboriginal women for labor and companionship from the late , disrupting systems and provoking retaliatory raids. Aboriginal groups, organized in bands with fluid territories, lacked the hierarchical authority to negotiate cessions, leading to escalated violence as pastoral expansion encroached on inland regions by 1824. These clashes, rooted in irreconcilable resource demands and land-use paradigms, transitioned sporadic disputes into systematic conflict, with Aboriginal numbers dwindling below 2,000 by around 1818 due to combined effects of dispossession and introduced diseases.

Initial Violent Encounters

The first recorded violent encounter between British settlers and Tasmanian Aborigines occurred on 3 May 1804 at Risdon Cove, the initial site of the established in late 1803. A group of approximately 200–500 Aborigines approached the settlement, prompting soldiers under Lieutenant William Paterson to open fire in perceived after warnings were ignored and the group advanced aggressively. Official reports, including those from Paterson and an inquiry by David Collins, documented three Aboriginal deaths and several wounded, with no settler casualties; however, surgeon Jacob Mountgarret's later testimony claimed up to 100 killed, many dumped in the river to conceal the scale. Revisionist analyses, drawing on primary dispatches and eyewitness discrepancies, argue Mountgarret's inflated figures lack corroboration and reflect post-event exaggeration, emphasizing the incident as a defensive response to an unprovoked mass approach rather than a premeditated . Sporadic clashes followed in the ensuing years, driven primarily by resource competition as settlers hunted and cleared land, depleting Aboriginal food supplies, alongside opportunistic assaults by convicts and sealers on Aboriginal women. In March 1805, Aborigines retaliated against sealers at Oyster Bay by destroying stockpiled kangaroo skins, signaling early resistance to economic encroachment. By 1807–1810, isolated killings emerged, such as convicts spearing or shooting Aborigines in reprisal for perceived thefts or intrusions near camps, though documented cases remained few—averaging under two per year—and often unpunished due to the remote setting. Aboriginal groups occasionally speared lone sealers or stock-keepers, as in an 1810 incident near the Derwent River, but these were typically small-scale and tied to kidnappings of women by Europeans, which disrupted tribal structures and prompted revenge raids. Through the 1810s to 1824, violence remained intermittent and localized, concentrated in coastal and sealing areas like the Furneaux Islands and Port Davey, where hybrid communities formed amid mutual hostilities. For example, in April 1820 at Port Davey, Aborigines attacked a seaman, likely in for prior settler injuries to their kin. Settler expansion inland was limited, constraining large-scale conflict, but patterns of mutual predation—Europeans killing Aborigines over stock protection, and vice versa in ambushes—foreshadowed escalation, with underreporting common as colonial authorities prioritized discipline over policing. Overall, these encounters involved dozens rather than hundreds, reflecting opportunistic rather than organized warfare until territorial pressures intensified post-1824.

Patterns of Aboriginal Raids on Settlers

Aboriginal raids on during the Black War typically targeted isolated rural properties, stock huts, and vulnerable individuals such as shepherds and laborers, employing surprise attacks to maximize lethality and disruption. These operations involved groups of 10 to 50 warriors armed primarily with spears and woadras (clubs), approaching undetected through to overwhelm small parties or lone workers during daylight hours, as nocturnal assaults were avoided due to cultural fears of spirits. The raids aimed to kill occupants, plunder food and tools, and destroy infrastructure by fire, with patterns showing a focus on eliminating presence to reclaim land and resources rather than mere theft. In 1824, records indicate 12 such assaults resulting in 12 European deaths and one wounding, primarily against sealers and early s in remote areas like Cape Portland. By 1828, assaults escalated to 126 documented incidents, claiming 33 lives including women and children, often in the expanding settled districts of eastern and southeastern . Frequency surged with colonial expansion, from approximately 20 attacks in 1824 to 259 in 1830, inflicting 223 fatalities and 226 woundings overall, alongside the spearing of thousands of and torching of dozens of . These guerrilla-style operations exploited terrain familiarity for ambushes, followed routes predictable enough for some settlers to anticipate, and concentrated in hotspots like the and coastal fringes where lone workers were most exposed. The cumulative toll terrorized the colonial population, prompting fortified homesteads and communal defenses as raids systematically undermined frontier outposts.

Peak Conflict Phase (1825–1831)

Guerrilla Tactics and Regional Hotspots

Tasmanian Aboriginal groups employed characterized by small-scale, surprise attacks on isolated farms and huts, leveraging intimate knowledge of the to launch raids and evade pursuit. Warriors utilized , decoys, flanking maneuvers, and pincer movements to surround targets, often killing occupants, plundering resources, and setting structures ablaze before withdrawing rapidly into . These operations occurred primarily during daylight hours, aligning with cultural practices that avoided nighttime combat, and inflicted significant casualties despite the Aborigines' numerical disadvantage, with fewer than 300 remaining in settled districts by 1830. Attack frequency escalated during the peak phase, recording 137 assaults in , 152 in 1829, and 204 in 1830, often targeting vulnerable outstations and stockmen to disrupt colonial expansion. Leaders such as Tongerlongeter of the Oyster Bay nation coordinated these efforts with disciplined strategy, emphasizing of livestock and infrastructure to maximize disruption while minimizing direct confrontation with organized colonial forces. Intense conflict concentrated in the settled districts' pastoral frontiers, particularly the Midlands, southeast Tasmania, and East Coast regions associated with the Oyster Bay, Big River, North Midlands, and Ben Lomond nations. Hotspots included areas south of a line from Waterloo Point eastward to Lake Echo westward, where rapid land clearance heightened resource competition and raids on farms. Further resistance occurred in the Central Plateau as a retreat zone and the Freycinet Peninsula during a 1831 foray, though most reported violence emanated from southern and midland pastoral zones rather than northern Tamar areas. Between September 1827 and March 1828 alone, 70 such attacks unfolded across these frontiers, underscoring their role as focal points of sustained Aboriginal retaliation.

Colonial Countermeasures and Martial Law

In the mid-1820s, as Aboriginal raids intensified in settled districts, Lieutenant-Governor George Arthur authorized the formation of field police units to patrol frontiers and expel resistant groups from pastoral lands. A government notice in November 1826 empowered magistrates to deploy military detachments and field police for this purpose, marking an escalation from ad hoc settler defenses to organized state-sanctioned operations aimed at securing expanding settlements. These measures reflected colonial priorities of protecting livestock and human assets amid documented losses, with field police often comprising convicts incentivized by promises of leniency or land grants. By early 1828, issued a on 15 April demarcating settled areas and prohibiting all Aboriginal entry, framing it as a safeguard against "repeated and wanton barbarous murders" while ostensibly protecting natives from settler violence. This was followed on 1 November 1828 by a declaration of specifically targeting hostile Aboriginal clans, such as the Mairemener people, which suspended civil protections and legalized lethal force against them in designated zones. The policy, justified by Arthur as a response to guerrilla-style attacks that had killed over 150 colonists since , effectively treated resistant Aborigines as outlaws, enabling summary executions without trial. Under , roving parties—semi-official armed bands of soldiers, convicts, and civilians—were dispatched to hunt and capture or kill resisters, often operating for weeks with government rations and minimal oversight. These groups, led by figures like in 1829, contributed to a documented rise in Aboriginal casualties, though records from colonial dispatches indicate uneven effectiveness against mobile guerrilla tactics. Rewards for live captures, up to £5 per adult, further incentivized participation, prioritizing relocation over extermination in official despite frequent lethal outcomes in ambushes and reprisals. Such countermeasures intensified the conflict's asymmetry, bolstering settler confidence but straining resources and prompting later inquiries into their proportionality.

Government Inquiries and Failed Conciliation Efforts

In late 1828, amid escalating frontier violence, Lieutenant-Governor declared against on November 1, while simultaneously pursuing inquiries into the causes and extent of attacks on settlers through reports from magistrates and field officers. These inquiries, documented in colonial dispatches, highlighted the guerrilla nature of Aboriginal raids and the limitations of policing isolated farms, informing Arthur's dual strategy of repression and negotiation. To address the crisis without total reliance on force, Arthur appointed George Augustus Robinson as Conciliator to the Aborigines on March 30, 1829, tasking him with persuading resistant groups to relocate to protected settlements. Robinson, a self-taught Methodist preacher, conducted expeditions across Tasmania's interior from 1829 to 1834, using Aboriginal interpreters from coastal groups to negotiate with inland bands; he secured the surrender of approximately 200 individuals by early 1832, including key figures from eastern tribes. However, these efforts largely failed to engage western and northwestern warriors, such as those led by Tongerlongeter, who evaded capture and intensified raids, killing over 50 settlers in 1829 alone. Conciliation's shortcomings became evident by mid-1830, as ongoing hostilities—documented in settler petitions and official returns showing 108 colonial deaths between and —demonstrated that could not neutralize mobile resistance groups exploiting terrain advantages. Arthur's government, informed by Robinson's field reports and local inquiries, shifted toward coercive measures, culminating in the Black Line operation, which captured only two individuals despite mobilizing 2,200 troops and civilians. This failure underscored the incompatibility of conciliatory policies with sustained Aboriginal defiance rooted in territorial defense, prompting full-scale relocation by 1835.

Major Military Operations

The Black Line Campaign (1830)

The Black Line Campaign was a large-scale initiated by Lieutenant-Governor in to forcibly relocate from settled districts in eastern to the , where they could be captured or contained. , facing escalating violence, mobilized approximately 2,200 participants—including 541 troops, 700 convicts, and the remainder settlers—comprising about 10% of the colony's adult male population, to form a human cordon stretching roughly 170 miles from the Derwent River near northward to areas near Lake . The operation commenced on , 1830, and lasted about one week, with participants advancing eastward in a coordinated sweep to drive Aboriginal groups toward the peninsula's confines. Arthur's rationale stemmed from prior failed conciliation efforts and mounting settler casualties, viewing the line as a decisive measure to end guerrilla-style raids by separating Aboriginal bands from pastoral lands; he personally commanded elements of the force, emphasizing disciplined formation to prevent evasion. Logistical challenges included supplying the extended line across rugged terrain, with participants armed primarily with muskets and organized into companies under military oversight, though convicts posed discipline issues. Aboriginal Tasmanians, familiar with the landscape, largely evaded the cordon by slipping through gaps or hiding in forested areas, exploiting the line's slow movement and incomplete coverage. The campaign yielded minimal direct results, capturing only two Aboriginal individuals—a man and a boy—while inflicting no confirmed Aboriginal casualties during the sweep itself, though it generated widespread fear among remaining bands. No colonial deaths occurred in combat, but the effort strained resources, costing the equivalent of thousands of pounds in wages, provisions, and lost labor, disrupting agricultural output. Historians assess it as a tactical due to underestimation of Aboriginal mobility and overreliance on mass formation over targeted pursuits, yet it indirectly pressured some groups toward surrender by demonstrating colonial resolve and accelerating displacement from eastern regions. defended the operation in dispatches to as necessary for colonial security, though critics within the colony decried its expense and ineffectiveness.

Pursuits and Punitive Expeditions

Following the failure of the Black Line campaign in late 1830, Lieutenant-Governor George Arthur authorized the formation of roving parties to systematically pursue and capture or eliminate Aboriginal groups still conducting raids in settled districts of . These small, mobile units—typically comprising five armed convicts overseen by a , , or civilian leader—were equipped with rations and instructed to operate in remote bush areas for extended periods, targeting encampments and dispersing warriors to restore settler security. , proclaimed in November 1828, empowered these parties to shoot resisters on sight while prioritizing live captures for relocation, though indicate far more fatalities than surrenders due to armed confrontations. Prominent leaders included Gilbert Robertson, a district constable who conducted multiple expeditions from 1828 onward, capturing notable figures such as the warrior Eumarrah in December 1828 after a skirmish that left him wounded; Robertson later proposed and executed sweeps of southeastern districts, claiming to have subdued groups through a combination of tracking and negotiation. , drawing on experience from , led punitive forays including an attack on a people's camp in early September 1829, where several Aboriginals were killed or dispersed, and participated in post-Line pursuits around 1830 that contributed to isolating remnant bands. Other commanders, such as Jorgen Jorgensen and Thomas Anstey, oversaw operations in the midlands, with parties often incorporating Aboriginal trackers from mainland colonies to exploit local knowledge gaps. These expeditions focused on hotspots like the Eastern Tiers and settled frontiers, employing scouts and ambushes to counter Aboriginal guerrilla mobility. Outcomes varied, with roving parties credited for approximately 70 captures between 1830 and 1834, many of whom were transported to offshore islands like Flinders for containment, though official dispatches and settler testimonies emphasize dozens of killings in clashes, such as reported engagements yielding 20-30 deaths per major pursuit. Critics among contemporaries, including himself, deemed the parties inefficient due to the terrain's challenges and Aboriginal evasion tactics, yet they incrementally reduced raids by driving groups into less habitable western and northern wildernesses, facilitating settler expansion. By mid-1832, intensified pursuits had neutralized most eastern threats, transitioning the conflict toward systematic removals rather than open warfare.

Resolution and Forced Relocation

Captures and Surrenders in Settled Areas

Following the Black Line campaign of 1830, which yielded only two documented captures of , the estimated 100 to 200 remaining hostile individuals in Van Diemen's Land's settled districts faced intensified pressure from colonial patrols and conciliation efforts, prompting a series of surrenders rather than further captures. These events reflected the exhaustion of resistant groups like the Big River and Oyster Bay nations after years of and displacement, with many opting to submit under the influence of George Augustus Robinson's negotiations, which emphasized protection in exchange for cessation of hostilities. In December 1831, survivors of the Big River and Oyster Bay nations, having conducted only 57 recorded attacks that year amid dwindling resources and winter retreats to high country, surrendered to Robinson's party, marking a significant reduction in organized resistance within settled areas. Less than a month later, an additional Oyster Bay clan followed suit, contributing to the gradual pacification of the districts. The pivotal surrender occurred on January 7, 1832, when a group of 26 , led by the warriors Montpelliatta and Tongerlongeter and representing remnants of the Oyster Bay-Big River clans, marched into and formally submitted to Lieutenant-Governor in a public ceremony attended by colonists. This event, the largest single surrender in the settled districts, effectively ended open conflict there, as it encompassed key resistant figures who had evaded capture for years; ten days prior, Robinson had secured an initial group of similar origins. , in place since 1828, was revoked shortly thereafter on January 10, 1832, signaling the colonial government's view that the Aboriginal threat in populated regions had been neutralized. While bounties incentivized civilian captures throughout the 1820s—offering rewards for live or dead Aboriginal individuals—post-1830 surrenders outnumbered such forcible takings in settled areas, with the latter limited by the dispersal of groups and Robinson's non-violent approach, which prioritized negotiation over pursuit. By early 1832, all known Aboriginal clans in the settled districts had either surrendered or been removed, facilitating the relocation of approximately 200 individuals to supervised settlements like Wybalenna on .

Systematic Removal of Remaining Groups

continued his "friendly missions" into remote western and northwestern from 1832 to 1834, aiming to locate and relocate the last independent Aboriginal bands evading colonial forces. Accompanied by Aboriginal interpreters such as , Robinson negotiated with surviving groups, persuading approximately 50 individuals who had fled settled districts to surrender between December 1830 and February 1835, while broader efforts accounted for around 200 additional relocations. These operations targeted resistant leaders and their followers, including Big River and Oyster Bay peoples encountered in central during late 1831 expeditions. The systematic process involved Robinson's unarmed approaches, leveraging promises of and provisions to induce compliance, though underlying stemmed from ongoing colonial expansion and violence that had rendered mainland survival untenable for remaining groups. By early 1835, these efforts had effectively cleared Tasmania's mainland of autonomous Aboriginal populations, with the relocated individuals—totaling roughly 134 to 200—transported to the Wybalenna settlement on for segregation from settlers. This relocation policy, framed by authorities as humanitarian , marked the culmination of colonial strategies to resolve frontier conflict through enforced exile.

Short-Term Aftermath for Both Populations

Following the systematic captures and relocations concluding around , approximately 200 surviving Tasmanian Aboriginal individuals from the settled districts were transported to the Wybalenna Aboriginal Establishment on , where they faced immediate hardships including inadequate housing, limited food supplies, and exposure to novel European diseases to which they had minimal immunity. Respiratory illnesses such as , , and accounted for over half of recorded deaths in early institutional settings like Wybalenna, compounded by and psychological distress from displacement and loss of traditional lands. Infant mortality rates approached 100% in the settlement's initial years, with low birth rates reflecting disrupted social structures and health declines, reducing the relocated population from around 200 in the early 1830s to fewer than 100 by the late 1830s. For British settlers and convicts, the war's end brought swift restoration of security in rural areas, as Aboriginal guerrilla raids—responsible for 223 colonial deaths and 226 woundings between 1824 and 1831—ceased entirely after the final captures, allowing farmers to reduce armed patrols and expand sheep grazing without pervasive fear of livestock losses or property destruction. Economically, the conflict had previously inflicted widespread disruption, with war parties torching dozens of homesteads, plundering hundreds of homes, and killing thousands of sheep and cattle, but post-1832 normalcy enabled recovery in the colony's pastoral economy, supported by ongoing immigration that offset the high per capita settler death toll (exceeding Australia's World War II rate). The Black Line operation's £30,000 expense—half the colony's annual revenue—imposed a short-term fiscal burden, diverting convict labor from productive work, yet the ensuing peace facilitated land clearance and agricultural output growth unhindered by martial law measures in place since 1828. Socially, communities grappled with collective trauma from the pervasive violence, which affected nearly every settler family through personal losses or vigilance demands, though official inquiries and the conflict's resolution shifted focus toward internal colonial administration rather than frontier defense.

Casualties and Population Dynamics

Documented Colonial Deaths

Historians Nicholas Clements, drawing on colonial newspapers, government dispatches, and settler testimonies, documents 223 British colonists killed by during the Black War from to , with an additional 226 wounded. These fatalities occurred amid over 1,000 recorded attacks, primarily targeting isolated rural workers. The death rate among colonists in affected areas reached approximately 48 per 10,000 annually, exceeding rates in contemporaneous European conflicts. Most victims were male convicts employed as shepherds, stockmen, or laborers on remote properties, vulnerable due to their solitary positions and lack of firearms. Attacks typically involved small groups of Aboriginal warriors using spears, waddies, or clubs in sudden ambushes on huts or while tending , reflecting guerrilla tactics adapted to the colonists' expansion into traditional hunting grounds. Few free settlers or women were killed, as they resided in more fortified homesteads near settlements. Documented incidents peaked between 1827 and 1829, with over 60 colonists slain in that span amid 70 reported assaults. Colonial records, including coroners' inquests and Hobart Gazette notices, provide primary evidence for these figures, though underreporting of minor harassments or non-fatal injuries may exist. No large-scale massacres of colonists occurred; the 13 verified group killings accounted for a minority, with most deaths involving one or two victims per event.

Aboriginal Death Toll Estimates

Estimates of the number of Aboriginal deaths directly caused by colonial during the Black War (approximately ) range from around 120 to over 800, reflecting debates over the reliability of primary records versus inferences of unreported massacres. Historian , in his archival review of colonial documents, government dispatches, and settler testimonies, calculated a total of 118 Aboriginal fatalities from interpersonal between and , arguing that higher figures previously cited by academics lacked corroborative from contemporary sources and often relied on or post-hoc extrapolations. This figure aligns with documented incidents, where colonial authorities recorded specific killings but noted challenges in verification due to setting, yet Windschuttle contends that the relative symmetry in reported —around 200–250 settler deaths—undermines claims of systematic extermination campaigns yielding disproportionate Aboriginal losses. In contrast, historians such as Lyndall Ryan have proposed significantly higher tolls, estimating over 1,000 Aboriginal deaths across from colonial incursions between 1803 and 1837, with approximately 838 attributed to the core Black War phase in eastern settled districts from late 1823 to early 1832. Ryan's figures derive from a geospatial mapping project cross-referencing newspapers, diaries, and official reports to identify sites, positing that many killings went unrecorded to evade or , though critics argue this method incorporates speculative multipliers absent direct eyewitness or forensic substantiation. Similarly, Nicholas Clements, in his analysis of the war's settled-zone dynamics, suggests that more than 600 of roughly 1,000 Aboriginal people in conflict areas succumbed to colonial-inflicted wounds, emphasizing retaliatory raids and punitive expeditions as primary mechanisms. These divergent estimates highlight source credibility issues: lower counts prioritize verifiable primary evidence like muster rolls and coronial inquests, which systematically undercounted Aboriginal victims due to jurisdictional biases but also constrain inflation; higher ones incorporate oral traditions and demographic modeling, potentially amplifying biases toward narratives of intentional destruction amid academic pressures to frame colonial expansion as genocidal. Empirical reassessments stress that while violence contributed, the full Aboriginal —from an estimated 2,000–6,000 pre-1803 to fewer than 200 by —primarily stemmed from epidemics (e.g., a 1829 outbreak), nutritional collapse from habitat loss, and reduced birth rates, with direct warfare accounting for a minority of fatalities per record-based analyses. No consensus exists, but recent favors cautious aggregation of documented cases over broad attributions to maintain causal fidelity.

Broader Causes of Decline: Disease, Displacement, and Fertility Impacts

Introduced s played a significant role in the demographic collapse of Tasmanian Aboriginal populations during and after the Black War period. European settlers and sealers brought pathogens such as , , , and , to which Aboriginal people had no prior exposure or immunity, leading to high mortality rates. Respiratory infections and venereal diseases were particularly devastating in confined settlements like Wybalenna on , where outbreaks contributed to excess morbidity and deaths among relocated groups from the late 1830s onward. The precise impact remains partially undocumented due to limited contemporary records, but these epidemics compounded direct conflict losses by affecting entire communities, including non-combatants. Displacement from traditional territories further accelerated by disrupting access to food resources and cultural practices essential for survival. Rapid colonial expansion from onward confined Aboriginal groups to marginal lands, reducing hunting grounds for , seals, and native plants, which led to widespread and starvation in the and . This territorial loss forced reliance on sporadic settler provisions or scavenging, exacerbating vulnerability to environmental hardships and diseases, as groups could no longer maintain seasonal migrations or social networks for resource sharing. In coastal areas, abduction of women by sealers fragmented family units and further hindered community resilience. Fertility rates among surviving Aboriginal populations were severely impacted by these factors, contributing to a low natural increase even absent ongoing violence. Sexually transmitted diseases introduced via contact with Europeans caused , miscarriages, and high , with economic historian N.G. Butlin estimating that venereal infections significantly depressed reproduction from the early 1800s. Social disruptions, including the separation of sexes in relocations and practices among sealers' communities where female Aboriginal partners were encouraged to practice on mixed-descent children, further suppressed birth rates. At Wybalenna, the Aboriginal population fell from around 200 in the 1830s to 46 by 1847, attributable in part to these combined fertility constraints alongside disease and inadequate conditions.

Tactical and Strategic Analysis

Aboriginal Resistance Methods

conducted resistance through against British colonists during the Black War from 1823 to 1831, leveraging intimate knowledge of the terrain for mobility and evasion. Small war parties, often numbering under 30 by the later stages, targeted isolated shepherds, stockmen, and farmsteads encroaching on traditional lands. Primarily armed with traditional weapons such as spears, they avoided direct confrontations with organized military forces, instead employing hit-and-run ambushes to exploit numerical inferiority among settlers. Under leaders like Tongerlongeter of the Oyster Bay nation, resistance involved inter-tribal alliances, notably with the Big River people under Montpelliatta, enabling coordinated multi-location strikes and signaling for synchronization. Tactics encompassed to identify vulnerabilities, decoys to lure pursuers, flanking and pincer maneuvers to encircle targets, and rapid retreats into remote areas like the Central Plateau or Freycinet Peninsula. War parties surrounded huts during daylight—adhering to cultural taboos against night attacks—speared occupants, plundered supplies, and set structures and crops ablaze before vanishing, minimizing exposure to retaliation. Sabotage extended to livestock, with thousands of sheep and cattle speared to disrupt colonial economies. These methods proved effective in asymmetric terms, recording 137 attacks in 1828, 152 in 1829, and 204 in 1830, resulting in at least 182 colonial deaths and 176 woundings from 1823 to 1831, alongside widespread property destruction. Tactics evolved annually in response to colonial adaptations, sustaining pressure until systematic removals and captures curtailed organized resistance by 1832. Despite heavy Aboriginal losses from reprisals, the approach terrorized settlers, forcing farm abandonments and prompting desperate measures like in 1828 and the Black Line cordon of 1830, which mobilized 2,200 participants but yielded minimal results.

Colonial Advantages and Adaptations

The British colonists in held decisive technological superiority through the use of firearms, including muskets and pistols, which enabled ranged engagements far beyond the reach of Aboriginal spears and clubs, allowing small groups of to repel larger attacks without close-quarters . This advantage was compounded by access to , which provided superior mobility for pursuit and across Tasmania's varied , contrasting with the Aboriginal reliance on foot travel and limiting their evasion in open or settled areas. Numerically, by the late , the colonial population exceeded 20,000, including convicts, free , and , dwarfing the estimated 4,000-6,000 fragmented into small, mobile bands. Organizationally, the colonists benefited from a centralized colonial administration under Governor George Arthur, backed by British military detachments such as the 63rd Regiment, which enforced declared on November 15, 1828, granting legal sanction for aggressive countermeasures against Aboriginal raids. This structure facilitated coordinated responses, unlike the decentralized Aboriginal clans lacking formal command hierarchies. Early settler defenses included fortified stock huts and farmhouses, often with elevated platforms for sentries, reducing vulnerability to nocturnal ambushes that characterized much of the conflict from 1824 onward. To counter Aboriginal guerrilla tactics—hit-and-run raids exploiting terrain familiarity—colonists adapted by forming roving parties in late , small armed units of 5-12 volunteers, soldiers, or provisioned for 12-18 days to proactively hunt and disperse bands in remote districts. These parties, numbering up to 20 across the colony by 1830, emphasized mobility with horses and firearms for tracking, though logistical challenges like supply lines and desertions hampered efficiency. The most ambitious adaptation was the Black Line operation launched on October 7, 1830, mobilizing 2,200 troops, police, and civilians into a 300-kilometer human cordon stretching from to Lake , advancing southward over six days to herd remaining eastern Aboriginal groups toward the . Though it captured only two individuals and allowed most to slip through gaps, the maneuver demonstrated scaled-up , including pre-positioned supplies and signaling via gunfire, shifting from reactive defense to systematic territorial control. These measures, while resource-intensive, leveraged colonial industrial capacity for ammunition and provisions, ultimately eroding Aboriginal operational freedom by 1831.

Contemporary and Historical Interpretations

Settler Perspectives on Necessity and Self-Defense

Settlers in viewed the escalating violence during the Black War as a direct threat to their lives, livelihoods, and the viability of colonial expansion, framing their responses as essential acts of self-preservation against unceasing guerrilla-style raids. Isolated outstations and farms were prime targets, where unarmed or lightly armed stock-keepers faced sudden assaults involving spears, waddies, and fire, resulting in dozens of documented killings between 1824 and 1828 alone. These attacks, often involving the driving off of and destruction of , instilled widespread terror among the dispersed settler population, as recounted in contemporary diaries and correspondence expressing acute fear for personal safety and economic ruin. In response to mounting casualties and failed conciliatory efforts, settlers petitioned Lieutenant-Governor George Arthur for authorization to pursue and repel Aboriginal groups proactively, arguing that passive defense was insufficient against mobile war parties that struck and retreated into rugged terrain. Arthur's Proclamation of Demarcation on April 15, 1828, barred Aboriginal entry into settled districts, explicitly citing their perpetration of "repeated and wanton barbarous murders" on colonists as justification for exclusionary measures to safeguard settler communities. This was followed by the declaration of on November 1, 1828, which classified hostile Aboriginals as "open enemies" and empowered settlers to use lethal force not only in immediate but also to suppress threats, reflecting the perceived necessity of offensive countermeasures to restore security. Contemporary settler rhetoric emphasized as the "first law of ," underscoring the belief that colonial survival demanded resolute action against what they described as predatory incursions incompatible with civilized settlement. Historian Clements highlights how this pervasive anxiety—encompassing fears of , abduction, and economic —shaped a where restraint was seen as suicidal, leading to the formation of volunteer associations for coordinated patrols and retaliation. While some settlers advocated for total extirpation, the dominant perspective positioned the conflict as a regrettable but unavoidable defense of hearth and against existential peril, rather than unprovoked .

Modern Academic Debates on Intent and Classification

Historians remain divided on whether colonial actions in the Black War reflected a deliberate intent to exterminate the Tasmanian Aboriginal population or constituted reactive warfare against sustained guerrilla attacks. Scholars like Henry Reynolds and Lyndall Ryan have classified the conflict as genocidal, inferring intent from the scale of violence, including settler massacres and the 1830 Black Line operation, which they argue aimed to eradicate resistance and facilitate total dispossession. These interpretations often draw on broader settler-colonial frameworks, positing that land acquisition inherently required Aboriginal elimination, with estimates of 600–1,000 Aboriginal deaths from direct violence supporting claims of systematic destruction. Revisionist analyses, notably Keith Windschuttle's archival re-examination, reject genocidal intent, arguing that primary records show no explicit policy of group annihilation but rather declarations in 1828 responding to over 1,500 documented Aboriginal attacks that killed 212 colonists by 1831. Windschuttle documents approximately 120 Aboriginal deaths from colonial-inflicted violence, attributing higher overall primarily to introduced diseases and rather than orchestrated killings, and critiques earlier for inflating figures through unreliable secondary sources or unverified oral accounts. This perspective classifies the Black War as mutual frontier hostilities, with Aboriginal tactics resembling tribal raiding rather than organized warfare, and emphasizes Governor George Arthur's dual policies of military suppression alongside protective proclamations and the appointment of as conciliator in 1829 to relocate rather than destroy survivors. Recent works, such as Nicholas Clements' 2014 study, bridge some divides by portraying the conflict as a protracted guerrilla fueled by cycles of , territorial , and — with both sides committing atrocities—but lacking evidence of premeditated extermination by colonists, who sought primarily to secure farms amid escalating mutual fear. Clements' tally aligns closer to Windschuttle's violence estimates (around 400 Aboriginal combat deaths) while acknowledging underreporting, yet stresses causal factors like diseases (e.g., outbreaks killing up to 50% in some groups) over intentional policy. These debates highlight tensions in applying the 1948 UN retrospectively, where specific intent (dolus specialis) requires direct proof beyond outcomes; proponents infer it from patterns, while skeptics demand explicit orders, noting Arthur's shift to capture-and-relocate tactics that preserved a remnant population on . Institutional historiographical trends, often aligned with postcolonial paradigms, favor classifications, yet empirical reassessments underscore primary evidence of responses to Aboriginal initiative in hostilities—e.g., coordinated raids on isolated huts from 1824 onward—over top-down extermination blueprints, with no surviving directives akin to those in other historical s. This scrutiny reveals potential over-reliance on interpretive narratives in earlier works, prompting calls for source-critical rigor amid acknowledgments that academic incentives may amplify victimhood framings at the expense of balanced casualty accounting.

Genocide Label: Evidence For and Against

The applicability of the label to the Black War hinges on the 1948 Genocide Convention's requirement of specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic or racial group through killings, serious harm, destructive conditions, birth prevention, or child transfers. Proponents argue that colonial policies and actions demonstrate such intent, given the near-total eradication of Tasmania's full-blooded Aboriginal population, estimated at 5,000–7,000 in , reduced to under 200 by through coordinated violence and displacement. George Arthur's 1828 declaration of against Aboriginal groups, framing them as outlaw enemies, and the 1830 Black Line—a mobilization of over 2,200 and troops to corral resisting tribes for removal—exemplify organized efforts to eliminate independent Aboriginal presence on settled lands, resulting in documented captures but also at least three confirmed deaths during operations. Historians like Henry Reynolds and Lyndall Ryan interpret these as with genocidal undertones, citing settler bounties, widespread reprisal killings, and the exile of survivors to , where conditions led to further decline, with only two full-blooded individuals remaining by 1871. Opposing views contend that the evidence fails to establish central genocidal intent, portraying the conflict as escalated frontier warfare driven by mutual raids rather than a premeditated extermination campaign. Archival tallies by Keith Windschuttle document only 118 Aboriginal deaths from colonial violence between 1803 and 1831, averaging about four per year, with many occurring in documented skirmishes or self-defense against attacks that killed at least 112 settlers. The Black Line, targeting specific hostile bands like the Oyster Bay and Big River tribes, aimed at relocation and protection rather than mass killing, aligning with Arthur's concurrent proclamations urging humane treatment and fearing settler excesses would "extirpate" Aboriginals without official sanction. George Augustus Robinson's "Friendly Mission," which successfully negotiated the surrender of over 200 Aboriginals between 1830 and 1834 through conciliation rather than force, underscores governmental preference for preservation and segregation over destruction. Substantial pre-war population losses—potentially 50–90% by the 1820s—from introduced diseases like influenza and pneumonia, compounded by infertility from venereal infections and cultural disruptions, indicate broader causal factors beyond intentional violence. Critics of the genocide classification, including Windschuttle, argue that applying the term retroactively conflates war casualties, disease impacts, and displacement with deliberate group annihilation, especially absent explicit policy directives for total eradication and given legal equality under British law, which prosecuted some settler killings. The debate reflects ongoing historiographical tensions, with empirical reassessments emphasizing primary records over aggregated estimates, while broader interpretations invoke settler colonialism's as implicitly genocidal. Recent scholarship acknowledges Aboriginal agency in prolonged guerrilla resistance but questions whether defensive colonial adaptations equate to the Convention's threshold, particularly as official inquiries post-1830 prioritized humanitarian relocation amid fears of uncontrolled .

Empirical Reassessments in Recent Scholarship

In the early , Keith Windschuttle's detailed archival analysis of primary colonial prompted a reevaluation of during the Black War, identifying only 118 documented Aboriginal deaths attributable to colonists between 1824 and 1831, with the majority occurring in contexts of against attacks on . This approach prioritized verifiable eyewitness accounts, reports, and , excluding speculative or hearsay claims prevalent in earlier , thereby challenging narratives that extrapolated high death tolls from incomplete or biased secondary sources. Windschuttle's highlighted how previous estimates, often derived from 19th-century journalistic exaggerations or post-hoc Aboriginal oral traditions, lacked forensic rigor and contributed to inflated figures without proportional of systematic extermination. Responding to such critiques, Lyndall Ryan's ongoing research, including her 2012 monograph and contributions to massacre databases, incorporated spatial mapping and from diaries, muster rolls, and indigenous testimonies to argue for over 1,000 total deaths in the conflict, with a significant portion of Aboriginal fatalities linked to unreported skirmishes and reprisals. However, this expansive evidentiary standard has faced scrutiny for including with partial or probabilistic documentation, potentially amplifying counts beyond what primary sources alone substantiate, as evidenced by discrepancies in specific incidents like the 1827 River where multiple accounts conflict on casualty numbers. Ryan's framework, while innovative in using digital tools for , reflects a broader academic tendency to infer intent and scale from indirect indicators, which empirical purists contend risks conflating correlation with causation amid systemic underreporting of colonial vulnerabilities. Nicholas Clements' 2014 study synthesized these debates through a focus on participant motivations and logistics, estimating that of approximately 1,000 Aboriginal people in the active war zone, more than 600 were killed by colonists amid a protracted guerrilla campaign characterized by mutual terror and attrition. Clements' reassessment, drawing on troop movements, supply records, and psychological factors like fear-driven escalation, posits a higher toll than Windschuttle's but attributes many deaths to opportunistic clashes rather than premeditated massacres, underscoring how environmental pressures and intensified the cycle without evidence of centralized genocidal policy. This work represents a middle ground in recent scholarship, emphasizing quantifiable military dynamics—such as the deployment of over 2,300 personnel in the Black Line operation—while cautioning against overreliance on ideologically charged interpretations that downplay Aboriginal agency in initiating hostilities.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.