"TASMANIA'S PALAEO- ABORIGINAL POPULATION PRIOR TO 1772 CE"
Barry H. Brimfield 2014 (C/- 17 Mowbray Street, Mowbray 7248, Email: [email protected] Fax: 03 6326 3778
"CONTENTS"
1. Introduction 3 - 4 2. Maps 5 3. Figures 6 4. Abbreviations 7 - 8 5. Glossary 9 - 11 6. Explanations 12 7. Area Conversions 13 8. Calculations & Measurements 14 - 20 9. The Late Pleistocene 21 - 22 10. Holocene Occupied Area 23 11. Environments 24 - 29 12. Occupied Area (recent) 30 - 34 Area occupied to population (Jones (299). 33 - 34 13. Productivity 35 - 56 Dry sclerophyll & Coastal Heath (high productivity). 35 - 36 Within the "Homelands". 36 - 40 Re: Map 3. 40 - 43 Explaining Figure 9. 43 - 47 Should we say eleven not nine "Tribes"? 48 Assets & Liabilities. 48 - 52 Final Comparisons. 52 - 55 Period of Stress. 55 - 56 14. Carrying Capacity 57 - 68 Exploitable Land Area. 59 - 60 Jones (299). 60 - 61 Occupied Area. 61 - 63 Productive Area (Terrestrial). 64 - 66 Inland or Coastal People. 66 - 68 15. Comparisons with Mainland Australia 69 - 73 Victoria. 70 - 73 16. Doubtful Data 74 - 75 17. A Chronological Guide. 76 - 77 18. Reported Numbers 78 - 88 Maritime Explorers (1772 - 1802). 78 - 80 The First Twenty Years (1803 - 1823). 80 - 83 The Last Years (1824 - 1834) 83 - 84 Summary. 85 - 86 Killings. 86 - 88 19. Distant Fires 89 20. Hut Evidence 90 21. Social Structure. 91 - 94 22. Tribal/People Population 95 - 97 Map Comparisons of Jones and Ryan. 96 - 97 23. Complications. 98 - 99 24. Site Density. 100 25. Opinions & Estimates 101 - 103
1
26. Anthropological Suggestions 104 - 109 Total Population. 104 - 105 Band Numbers & their Populations. 105 - 108 Conclusions. 108 "The Nine People". 108 - 109 A Perplexity! 109 27. Genetic Considerations 110 28. Today's Tasmanian Aborigines Opinions. 111 - 113 29. Conclusions 114 - 121 But What if Over 4,500? 117 - 118 With a "Final Conclusion". 119 - 122 The Analysis of Individual People 120 Carrying Capacity 121
References 122 - 124
2
1. "Introduction"
The purpose of this study is to try to establish what the pre-European Aboriginal population was numerically.
Pre-European is before physical contact, that is before the French Explorer Captain Nicholas Marion du Fresne made landfall on the 7th March, 1772 in North Bay (the far north east corner of the Greater Tasman Peninsula). It is here that this first encounter between "blacks" and "whites", because of a misunderstanding, resulted regretfully in the first Tasmanian Aborigine being fatally wounded.
The Question of how many Aborigines were living prior to the British Invasion in 1803 is like so many other subjects connected to today's Tasmanian Aborigines a very heated one. However it is not how many were living in 1803 but as said how many before European contact in 1772, because evidence exists of a devastating epidemic of respiratory disease prior to 1803, at least in the south.
Although I had made a preliminary research it was a letter by Michael Mansell (Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre) to the Launceston "Examiner Newspaper" on the 26th January, 2013 that ignited my desire to prepare this research paper, why? Well because Michael believes at least 10,000 was the population (see section 28 in this work).
My preliminary study based on Rhys Jones and N.J.B. Plomley's research seemed to suggest about 4,000 was possibly nearer the mark but it could be up to 5,500, even 6,000, a figure sometimes contemplated it needed more than a cursory thought to try and clarify the question, if it was at all possible.
Actually it is impossible to be exact, we can only surmise, without a census we must rely on circumstantial evidence, even opinions, as long as they are based on reasonable supposition. Such thoughts can have a foundation in material such as;
Considering their environment - vegetation, altitude, coasts, etc.
Trying to establish the economic resources, (fresh water was not a significant consideration because of the season time tables), with area occupied. From the above we have a basis to look at the carrying capacity of the land, a crucial indicator to population.
The social structure that we believe existed contributes additional data, and comparisons with other foraging people studied, e.g. Australian mainland, by Anthropologists.
Tasmania being an island has limits both in area and what food resources were available to a foraging people, the two crucial elements of population size. The utilisation of the suggested "nine tribes", originating in its present form by Rhys Jones and echoed by practically everyone else who has any contribution to the history of the Palaeo-Tasmanians, complicates the discussion but allows for a more analystic approach to the investigation.
3
The complication is that each of "The Nine" lived in distinct and quite unique environments but the single culture they all enjoyed was one of considerable amount of sophisticated annual sharing of resources, some having a large supply of seasonal assets while others had within their territories certain liabilities. The need in this study is to try and establish the impact on each "tribe" and how this effected their individual population, subsequently - hopefully - allowing thoughts to establish a total Tasmanian population.
The research of Jones, Plomley and Ryan, especially Jones, are the foundations of this work. My use of numerical quantities and percentages is considerable as seen in the list of 3. "Figures".
As well we may find clues in the ethnological records such as George Augustus Robinson (12). A specifically valuable source of data in many ways but in this case very limited, because although we find a considerable amount about the peoples numbers within areas, what we are actually looking at is nothing more than the remnants in the last days of their Palaeo-culture. If 4,000 is used for their population then more than 90% of the Aborigines were already dead!
Lesser volume of material exists prior to GAR of 1829, actually it extends back to 1772 and up to 1802, the period of Maritime Exploration by the French and English, mainly the former.
Even this has its limitations being confined to the south east and within short periods, but at least it does give an idea of possible numbers and social structure.
The next, 1803 to 1828 is from British Settlement to the start of GAR's involvement. It is limited in little contact for the first approximate twenty years due to lack of interest by the invaders and a general avoidance by the Aborigines of them, as well as a very limited area of operation, mainly the two midlands, Central East Coast and smaller adjoining areas.
By the time of about 1820 the British were "unofficially" more interested in eradicating the Aboriginal people than counting their numbers, any data must be said to be questionable on reported large numbers.
However although we can complain about the limits of our information it is all we have, but the need for caution is obvious and any statement of fact on populations is pure nonsense. Even so this should not stop attempts to try and arrive at a possible population number. It is this that Anthropologists like Jones and Plomley have led the way for serious thought.
The task is obvious a difficult one and no doubt whatever the conclusion it will be disagreed with, especially as it is a part of a "political football", but it needs attention, hopefully those that will disagree will not only say, "that's wrong"!, but will be gracious enough to put forward a reasonable argument with evidence - not just an opinion - to prove their case. If that happens I will be more than satisfied it has been worthwhile.
4
2. "Maps"
Page 1. Vegetation - Late Holocene (125:31) Mainly). 25
2. Combination Maps of Map 1. And 5. 29
3. Suggestive Economic Value Areas. 42
4. Tasmanian "Bands". 93
5. Supposed "Tribal" boundaries, Mainly (90). 97
6. Jones' Map (299:327) in comparison to (90) 97 and for study purposes as Copyright exists.
5
3. "Figures"
Page 1. Total area occupied. 17
2. Percentage area occupied. 17
3. Coastal areas. 18
4. The Nine Areas (inland). 19
5. The Nine Areas (coastal). 20
6. Percentage of vegetation areas. 26
7. Square kilometres of vegetation areas. 28
8. Dry sclerophyll and coastal heath (so-called "good land"). 37
9. Productive land percentages. 44
10. Terrestrial production to population. 46
11. Population - combination of "good land" and coast. 53
11A. Coast, inland percentage utilisation. 55
12. Carrying capacity (total land area) (Rhys Jones). 62
13. Carry capacity (coastal) (Rhys Jones). 63
14. Comparable carrying capacities, K2 per person. 64
15. Carrying capability examples (productive area only). 64
16. People counted. 85
17. Number of bands. 109
18. Considering Jones' figures. 117
19. Final comparison. 119
6
4. "Abbreviations Used"
The following list applies to all my works and are abbreviations used.
A.S.L. Above sea level (the present).
B.C.E. Before the Christian era (formerly just B.C.).
B.P. Before the present (1950)
B.S.L. Below sea level (the present).
C. Circa = about E.g. c. 8,120 BP = About 8,120 before the present.
Cal. Calibrated.
CR Protected by “Copyright” and not to be reproduced etc for my publications.
C.14 Radio Carbon Dating E.g. c.14 9,120 + 200 B.P.
G.A.R. George Augustus Robinson.
Is. Island.
K2. Square kilometres.
KM Kilometres.
Kyg Thousands of years ago. E.g. 10 kyg = ten thousand years ago.
L.G.M. Last Glacial Maximum (C. 20 - 18,000 B.P.).
M Metres e.g. 100 M.
P.G.M. Post Glacial Maximum (C. 6 - 3,500 B.P.).
P.P.S. Palawa Pleistocene Speakers.
S.L. Sea Level.
T.S.W.F.T. Tidal Stone Wall Fish Traps.
YA. Years ago.
(12) Reference – consult “References” in each work. E.g. (12) = Friendly Mission.
(12:20/7/31) As above but the date in that work.
(12:21) As above but denotes the page number in a work.
7
Area Abbreviations.
CP Central Plateau LEC Lower East Coast M Midlands MEC Middle East Coast MWC Middle West Coast N North NC North Coast NE North East NM Northern Midlands NW North West S South SC South Coast SE South East SM Southern Midlands SW South West UEC Upper East Coast UWC Upper West Coast.
"Tribe/People" Abbreviations.
NW North West SW South West SE South East OB Oyster Bay BR Big River N North NM Northern Midlands BL Ben Lomond NE North East
8
5. "Glossary"
Aborigine Indigenous (original) human population of a territory.
Anthropology The study of humans.
Bands A social structure comprising about 40 individuals made up of family groups (hearth groups). In Tasmania a "Band" had its own name.
Bio Mass The amount of energy contained in a particular environment. Economic value.
Carrying Capacity (My usage:) Area required for a single person to survive on. (See Also "Population Density").
Coastal Heath Vegetation subjected to wind and salt on infertile soil (rich in fauna).
Custodians Those who claim an area as their own "Homeland", a sacred right.
Economy The means to make a living.
Environment The natural set of circumstances "man" lives in.
Ethnological Information obtained, and recorded, from eye witness observations.
Extended families Probably the oldest social structure comprising about 12 individuals, the family plus some additional close relatives.
Fire-stick farming The system of burning the vegetation for deliberate purposes, that is to generate fresh shoots and thus attract animals. (Term originally created by Rhys Jones).
Foraging areas Areas of hunting and/or gathering.
Furneaux area The Eastern end of Bass Strait comprising the Furneaux Archipelago in the Holocene and the "Oasis" in the Pleistocene.
"Good Land" A rather crude term used here to describe areas inland of higher economic value.
Hearth Group A family comprising up to 7 - 8 persons directly related.
Hinterland The area along the coast but inland from the coast and dunes up to about a kilometre.
Holocene Geological period immediately after the Pleistocene from 10,000 BP to the present.
9
Homeland See "Traditional Land" and "Custodians".
Indigenous The original people of a land.
Lacustral Estuary and coastal swamp.
Linguistics The study of language.
Littoral Pertaining to the sea shore, coast.
Marsupials Animals that give birth to young but feed them in their mother's pouches.
Midlands The two distinct inland, northern and southern, areas in the Eastern half of Tasmania comprising rich grass lands set in a sparse sclerophyll forest, created by fire-sticking.
Molluscs Shellfish. A soft bodied, unsegmented animal contained in a shell.
Moorland Non-forest, montane vegetation of shrubs, swamp, bogs and fell.
Nomadic Culture based on continual movement for economic survival.
Open forest Lightly wooded area of sparse trees and shrubs with grassy areas.
Palaeo-Tasmanians The Aboriginal people who had a "Stone-Age" culture.
People A term used mainly instead of "Tribes" by me but could refer to "Bands" sometimes.
Pleistocene The geological period immediately prior to the Holocene from 10,000 B.P. to at least 40,000 in respect to the Tasmanian Aborigines.
Population density (My usage:) How many people can live on a single square kilometre (See also "Carrying Capacity").
Productive area My term used for foraging area that yielded average to excessive return.
Rainforest A thick assemblage of vegetation induced by heavy continual rain fall.
Rock ledges See "Rock Platforms"
Rock platforms Flattish rock outcrops that protrude from the tidal zone into the sea. A major source of molluscs either adhering to the rocks or for diving from to obtain deeper molluscs like abalone.
10
Roving parties Groups of European on horse-back, armed to hunt down the Aborigines.
Scleorophyll Plants with hard or stiff leaves.
Sedentary Remain in one area.
Sedgeland Lowland hommock sedge, moor shrub and wet shrub.
Semi-sedentary Remaining in one area for a period of the year, not one or two nights.
Settled districts That area occupied by the Colonial Settlers.
Shell fish See "Molluscs".
Social Structure The organisation of everyday life into population numbers.
Socia-Linguistic Terminology for people that share a common culture, Groups but more importantly a common speech - language, who live in a geographical area.
Tasmanian Name for the present day descendants of the Palaeo- Aboriginal Tasmanians.
Temperate A rainforest that exists in a cold, low humidity area. Rainforest
Terrestrial Living on land.
Traditional land That area claimed by a group of Aborigines as their custodian land to exploit and to share with others in return for reciprocal rights to their land. The land of their ancestors.
Transient In between, to go through.
Tribe A group of "Bands" with a common language, a name, customs, and alliances - not suggested in Tasmania, see "People".
Wet sclerophyll A rainforest consisting of sclerophyll species.
11
6. "Explanations"
To assist the reader it is necessary to clarify some items.
Tasmania means the island of Tasmania and its offshore islands, but excludes its North East islands from Port Dalrymple East to Cape Portland South to Bicheno, as well as the Furneaux Group. The only other exclusion is King Island in the West Bassiana area, this is because in 1772 all were uninhabited. Map*5 shows suggested area occupied although some areas marked "unoccupied" did have "roads" (walking tracks) for transient reasons, marked "T".
Tribes/Peoples the reader will find that although sometimes "Nine Tribes" are mentioned, this is an entrenched system of population division used by most historians and anthropologists. Since geographically the division has some merit I have utilised it but preferring the term "peoples" to "tribes". On occasions one or the other will be mentioned.
Finally
1) Reproduction from references is done for discussion purposes. 2) Some duplication of data will occur because this is a collection of papers. Importantly 3) All discussion is meant with the utmost respect to all Aboriginal people living or dead.
12
7. "Area Conversions"
The most important reference in this work is that of Rhys Jones, an appendix on Tasmanian Tribes within Norman B. Tindale's "Aboriginal Tribes of Australia", 1974 (299:319 - 354). His work shows imperial measurements, miles and square miles with some metric data.
Other works such as Lyndall Ryan, "The Aboriginal Tasmanians", 1981 (90) which I have referred to often, is in metric, kilometres and square kilometres.
To assist the reader the following conversion was used for imperial into metric. I have only used metric in this work.
Mentioned miles x 1.61 = Kilometres (KM) Mentioned square miles x 2.59 = Square kilometres (K2).
A slight variation or a rounding off to the nearest 100 square kilometres or 10 kilometres is often made having no effect on the overall position.
13
8. "Calculations and Measurements Used"
As the reader progresses through this "maze of mathematical debris" it is necessary, if for no other reason than to try and make sense out of it all the easiest way. So the following will hopefully fulfil this obligation.
Both totals and percentages have been employed with divisions in such subjects as area, vegetation, economic factors, "peoples" and their populations. Perhaps I could call it a "minefield of confusion" but I wont!
To begin with "five vegetations" (125:31) are referred to, and "Nine Tribes" I call "peoples" with "homelands" having two distinct but complementary economic resources "Terrestrial" (land) and "Littoral" (coastal).
The "Homelands" are divided up into basically "productive" and "poor" but sometimes with a subdivision of each. It is "productive" with its "less productive" that is analysed as often "one" with an explanation that the two main vegetations within them, "dry sclerophyll" and "coastal heath", cannot be regarded as comparably identical.
Population estimates are convenient numbers used for analysing subject matter as are the "Nine Peoples", both based on mainly Jones (299) but using Ryan's map (90).
The following list will obviously be duplicated in various ways in sections of this work, but as I explain it is a composite reference tool to assist at the beginning.
All figures are approximate, rounded off, suggestions. Sometimes a little more exact such as the use of 45,000 and 45,300 for inhabited areas and 4,050 or 4,000 for population.
Area
Mainland Tasmania (not King and Furneaux Is) 65,242 K2 Less Uninhabited 19,942 (30%) With inhabited ("Homelands") 45,300 (70%) (Rounded off to 65,000, 20,000 and 45,000 often).
Vegetation
*Dry sclerophyll 29,500 (65%) Rainforest 9,500 (21%) Sedgeland 3,400 ( 7%) Moorland 1,200 ( 3%) *Coastal Heath 1,700 ( 4%) 45,300 100%
(*Total 31,200 K2).
14
"Peoples" (Area Occupied)
Homelands (299) Vegetation NW 3,400 7.5 1,000 3.2 SW 2,800 6.2 ------SE 3,100 6.8 1,500 4.8 OB 8,500 18.8 8,400 26.9 BR 7,800 17.2 5.500 17.6 N 4,700 10.4 1.400 4.5 NM 6,700 14.8 6,600 21.2 BL 2,600 5.7 2,500 8.0 NE 5,700 __ 12.6 4,300 13.8 45,300K2 100% 31,200K2 100%
*Vegetation, dry sclerophyl and coastal heath, as mentioned, especially the former, cannot be all regarded as "productive". Instead of 31,200 K2 I have suggested 28,500 K2 as follows: For some "people" including sedgeland (NW) and grasslands in rainforest (N).
Productive Vegetation (Terrestrial)
NW 1,400 4.8 SW ------SE 500 1.6 OB 7,200 25.1 BR 3,600 12.7 N 3,200 11.2 NM 6,700 23.8 BL 1,800 6.4 NE 4,100 14.4 28,500K2 100%
With the Terrestrial above now the Littoral; Coastal Area
NW 300 20.7 SW 220 15.2 SE 250 17.2 OB 300 20.7 BR ------N 100 6.9 NM 60 4.1 BL ------NE 220 15.2 1,450km 100%
15
Suggested Population of;
If% 4,050 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 NW 12.3 500 553 615 676 738 SW 8.7 350 392 435 479 522 SE 12.3 500 553 615 676 738 OB 19.8 800 892 990 1,090 1,188 BR 9.9 400 446 495 545 594 N 7.4 300 333 370 407 444 NM 12.3 500 553 615 676 738 BL 5.0 200 225 250 275 300 NE 12.3 500 553 615 676 738 100%
The percentages are Jones' suggestions, that is his higher populations converted into %. The 4,500, 5,000, 5,500 and 6,000 are comparisons. Plomley's thoughts on 5,500 as well as Cosgrove's of 6,000 being of special interest.
Armed with all these it is hoped the reader will be assisted in tracing my research as it progresses.
Since we are utilising "Nine" peoples some consideration should be made to averages which allow for some comparisons, although limited in application, in population figures.
Average Suggested Occupied Territory (45,300 K2) c, 5,000 K2 Suggested Productive Territory (28,500 K2) c, 3,200 K2 If Population 4,000 c, 440 If Population 6,000 c, 670
Such use of averages does little to enhance any attempt to establish area divisions because contrasts in territories suggested are so great that the "Nine" must have considerable variation in area and population, let alone my persistent insistence about doubting the "Nines" existence as separate identities whether we call them "Tribes", "Clans" or now "Nations". So it is included more of an interest than anything else.
Having already nominated which set of measurements I will use for Tasmania it is only right that I give an explanation on how I arrived at them. Even this is complex, however I will try to make it as simple as possible.
The three researches referred to are; Jones 1974 (299), Ryan 1982 (90) and Plomley c. 1991 (224). Note: Ryan obtained much of her data from Jones. The following explains their opinions;
16
Figure 1. Total Area Occupied TotalAreaT (-) King & (-) Unoccupied (=) Occupied Ref: Furneaux Sq.Miles K2 Sq.Miles K2 Sq.Miles K2 Sq.Miles K2 Jones 26,000 67,340 (In unoccupied) 8,500 22,015 17,500 45,325 33% 67% Ryan ------67,800 (Not Quoted) (No 23,490 (Calculated) 44,310 quote) 34% 66%
Plomley 26,383 68,332 ----- 3,090 ------10,250 ----- 54,992 5% 15% 80% My ----- 68,332 ----- 3,090 ----- 19,942 ----- 45,300 Usage 5% 29% 66%
The calculations we must use is for Island Tasmania and its occupied off shore islands. This excludes King and the Furneaux Group.
This now gives us,
Figure 2. Percentage Area Occupied
Island Tasmania (-) Unoccupied Occupied Area Ref: K2 % K2 % K2 % Note: I have used 3,090 for King & Furneaux Jones 64,250 100 18,925 29 45,325 71 Ryan 64,710 100 20,400 32 44,310 68 Plomley 65,242 100 10,250 16 54,992 84 "My Usage" 65,242 100 19,942 30 45,300 70
Excluding "My Usage" it is Plomley that is significantly different and this is because he only suggests that dense forest was uninhabitable (224:12) where as Jones and Ryan include large areas of sedgeland (see Map 1). Discussions under the heading "13 Productivity" will follow, explaining further .
For the sake of convenience I will round-off some future figures.
But it is not just the total area of Island Tasmania but its coast that is a crucial economic element of their culture and the next table is in line with the previous two.
"Coastal Area"
(i.e. Termed in kilometres but actually square kilometres that is inland - "The Hinterland" - extending to a kilometre).
17
Figure 3. Coastal Areas
Coast Remarks Ref: Miles Kilom. Jones 1,500 2,415 Re: Jones. His individual "Tribes" are 1,615 miles, i.e. 2,600 km, not 2,560 as he wrote, but near enough. He also wrote "Coastline including off shore islands - " so would not include King and Furneaux, so why such Ryan ----- 1,450 a difference to Ryan and Plomley? But it is; Re: Ryan that is confusing because she wrote that the coast was 1,450 (90:14), then her individual Plomley 900 1,449 "Tribes" are more or less identical to Jones, 2,603 km! This suggests she accepted Plomley's total and never checked Jones' "Tribes". My Usage ----- 1,450 Re: Plomley. His 1,449 km came from "Tasmanian Year Book, No. 1 - 1967:" (224:11).
Some of this information will be repeated when discussing other subjects related to "population", so it is that the following figures No. four and five have duplications but detailing the nine individual "Tribes"/ people.
18
Figure 4. "The Nine Areas" (Inland)
People Jones (299) Ryan (90) My Utilisation NW 3,400 K2 Jones showed 2,000 K2 3,400 K2 3,400 K2 (1,300 Sq incorrectly. Miles) SW 2,800 2,860 2,800 (1,100) SE 3,100 Shown as 300 incorrectly. 3,100 3,100 (1,200) OB 8,500 Perhaps BR and OB should be 7,800 8,500 (3,300) reversed as his Map (Map 2) suggests. BR 7,800 Shown as 7,500 incorrectly. 8,100 No measurement so based 7,800 Ryan's map (Map 1) suggests area to (3,000) on her suggestions c. 450 north west used but more likely people at 18 K2 average. "unoccupied", hence my use of Jones. N 4,700 Shown as 4,500 incorrectly. 4,700 4,700 (1,800) NM 6,700 Shown as 6,500 incorrectly. 6,750 6,700 (2,600) BL 2,600 Shown as 2,500 incorrectly. 2,600 Shown as 260 2,600 (1,000) NE 5,700 Shown as 5,500 incorrectly. 5,000 5,700 (2,200) Total: 45,300 (17,500 x 2.59) 44,310 45,300 (17,500 (299:326) Rounds off Unoccupied 22,000 Jones only had it in Sq Miles. 23,490 No measurement so 20,000 (8,500) (299:326). calculated by me. Total: 67,300 67,800 (90:14). I believe includes 65,300 Tasmania plus off shore isles, not (26,000) (299:326). the state of Tas, i.e. with King and Furneaux. Bass Strait Islands.
Note: Although I have noted Jones' as "incorrect" for BR, N, NM, BL and NE it is only that he understandably rounded-off to the nearest 500.
19
Figure 5. "The Nine Areas" (Coastal)
People Jones (299) Ryan (90) My Utilisation NW 550 km 550 km Is this from Jones? 300 km All these seven measurements are (340 miles) based on approximate calculations SW 450 km 450 km Is this from Jones? 220 km obtained by estimating their coasts. (280 miles) SE 550 km 555 km Why not 550? 250 km (345 miles) OB 520 km Shown as 500. 515 km Why not 520? 300 km (320 miles) BR ----- (Seasonal use of others coasts). ------N 110 km Shown as 100. 113 km Why not 110? 100 km (70 miles) NM 160 km 160 km Is this from Jones? 60 km The inclusion of Tamar Estuary is (100 miles) very limited in projected use. BL ----- (Seasonal use of others coasts). ------NE 260 km Shown as 250. 260 km Is this from Jones? 220 km (160 miles) Total: 2,600 (X 1.61 = 2,600) 2,603 But Ryan stated a total of 1,450 km (1,615 miles) Km 1,450 (90:14). Seems she used Jones for individuals then Plomley? For total. Unoccupied No suggestion. No suggestion. A considerable area especially the littoral. Total: 2,600 km Suggests used kilometres for 1,450 As suggested above 1,450 km See also (224:11) Plomley. (1,615 miles) miles in error ? km (90:14).
20
9. "The Late Pleistocene"
Although the intent is to try and arrive at a possible population pre-European intrusion a short note on their 40,000 plus culture is warranted.
The first Palaeo-people coming from the north west via the King Oasis about <40 kyg comprised small groups of extended families. It was a very harsh environment with a biomass that prohibited large populations.
Their economy was it seems one that relied on coastal resources which included the immediate hinterland of low coastal plains some wooded but further inland saw a vast dry featureless plain - a desert like landscape.
But as they drifted south along and through what is now an inundated coastal plain, they penetrated up the vast river systems of the south west and found nestled within these valleys below glaciers and ice mantles a unique network of grassy micro- habitants, moist and forming a patchwork within the periglacial thicker vegetation inhabited by a sedentary resource - wallabies and some wombat. (246).
Elsewhere in Tasmania the resources were either very poor or scattered unevenly across the landscape being unpredictable precipitation (246) such as rain shadow areas with chilling winds, an unstable eco system.
Outside the river valley system of the south west the population was sparse.
The south west obviously held the bulk of the Palaeo-Tasmanian population and we can only guess at its size, perhaps gauging it very roughly on a Late Holocene population in Tasmania, of about 4,500 individuals we could suggest that the Late Pleistocene in Tasmania as a whole may have been as little as 1,000 and of that 200 may have been in the south west - as I said it is a guess.
It is suggested that "______people flocked to the exposed south west _____" for its resources and to seek shelter from the chilling winds in the associated river valleys limestone caves, caverns and rock shelters (quoted from Ian Gilligan by Anna Salleh, ABC Science Online - News in Science - Ice Age Australians Sheltered in caves - 24/9/2007).
As has also been researched, the hunters spent it seems the year in the area, summer in the higher altitudes c. 400m (above sea level of today) and the rest of year, the colder months, in lower altitudes c. 140 and below (244). But Gilligan explains that no actual evidence exists of living on the coast in the milder months (during the ice age) there would have been abundant food in the form of fur seals and mutton birds (can we be sure about mutton birds? - my note).
Any evidence on the coast is likely to have been destroyed by the rising seas.
The question of population is further pursued by Gilligan;
"The only real evidence we have for Tasmanian Aboriginal people during the ice age is in that very coldest, windiest south west corner ______".
21
and
"______But not in other parts of the island" - he is referring to ice age stone tools in rock shelters and caves researched - he seems to be suggesting only the south west was inhabited!
But other archaeological sites do exist; c. 33,850 B.P. "Parmerpar Meethaner" Upper Forth River in the central north, c. 30,840 "ORS7" Shelter, Shannon River, south of Central Highlands in the South Midlands, c. 22,750 "Cave Bay Cave" Hunter (Group) far north west, c. 21,890 "Mannalargenna's" Cave Furneaux area - East Bassiana c. 20,560 "Beeton Shelter" Furneaux area - East Bassiana c. 17,000 "King" (Island) West Bassiana.
There is no doubt that by far the greatest amount of sites and concentration of habiting was in the south west but not confined to it.
After 18 kyg in the south west an increase evidence of utilisation of sites and the occupation of new sites infers a population increase, this lasted till after 15 kyg, then at 13 kyg when the eco system was destroyed by spread of forests ending the wallabies grazing grounds and the hunters economy.
According to Taylor (236) three separate peoples (he calls them "Speakers") "invaded" the previous "Palawa" peoples territories, absorbing, replacing or destroying them, this occurred between c. 17 to 13 kyg (or possibly c. 15 to 11 kyg) the changing conditions, warmer and more precipitation, permitting the people to cross the Bassian harsh environment. This period is within the range of the south west's intensification and obviously ushers in a time in the north and east of increased population.
After c. 13 kyg with the abandonment of the river caves in the south west the people were forced onto a more coastal environment, which suggests a need for a smaller population. The west, mainly south west, would yield its suggested concentration of humanity to the eastern areas of Tasmania. With the opening up of further midlands and finally Central Plateau in the Holocene period a further population increase is suggested.
22
10. "Holocene Occupied Area"
The Pleistocene came to an end geologically at 10,000 B.P., although the latest research suggests this is more of an entrenched date of convenience.
The period that follows is the Holocene, being divided into three phases, early, middle and late. The late phase applies to the subject under discussion, that is immediately prior to 1772 C.E.
Fluctuations in environments such as sea levels, precipitation and vegetation occurred over the 10,000 period and saw the Palaeo-Tasmanians adjusting to survive. Population would have reacted to these events possibly sometimes reducing at other times increasing.
Sea levels rose about 8,000 years ago to isolate a small population on Flinders Island just the same possibly on King Island previously about 14,000, while areas like the Central Plateau may have encouraged exploitation about 5,000, when areas of the Midlands started being more intensifiedly used, perhaps even earlier. Visits to offshore islands taking place from at least 3,000 B.P.
Probably by 2,000 B.P. the eco-social pattern that was found by the Europeans had been established and its population more or less stabilised.
Accepting Taylor's (236) beliefs based on linguistics, and the known changes to Tasmania's environments, with inter-band conflict no doubt having some effects on population numbers, but to what extent is impossible to know. Perhaps it was not so much as an overall population fluctuation but disappearance of some "people" to be replaced numerically by others or the creation of a "new people", so little loss or gain in Tasmania's population figure. Interestingly the one area, according to Taylor, that retained its original population to the very end was the Tasman Peninsula (actually the Tasman and Forestier Peninsulas) of the south east.
There is some suggestion (236) that inter-people conflict that encouraged the penetration of new territory, such as the Upper Huon in the south west, may have been continuing up to the visitations of Europeans with possible small population increases.
Lourandos explains (234:327) that the period of maximum population both dispersal and growth occurred especially in the period 4,000 - 3,000 B.P. to the recent, this applies to all of Australia, which includes Tasmania. The significant increase of site numbers c. 3,000 - 2,000 B.P. in the North West of Tasmania suggests this population increase, at least in this area (234:260).
Even up to c. 570 B.P. new areas such as Maatsuyker Island in the far south (116:38) were being exploited, and although each area of Tasmania varied as regards when basically its full potential more or less had been finally opened up for exploitation, by 1,000 B.P. mainland Tasmania had reached its full potential with vast areas as seen of no real use.
What restrained any continuance to expansion is explained in the following "Environments" and "Occupied Area" sections.
23
11. "Environments"
Tasmania's land mass is relatively small in comparison to her northern "big sister" Australia, but considering her size she is extremely complex.
Being an island it boasts two major environments, Terrestrial (land) and Littoral (by the shore).
Within these two are micro-environments of higher altitudes (foraging up to about 1,200 metres the tree line is c. 1,300 m) to offshore islands, some mere rocks (but as I said I am excluding the Furneaux Group, North Eastern Islands and King being uninhabited in 1772 C.E.). Additionally we have lakes, lagoons, rich estuaries and coastal and riverine wetlands. All these had eatable resources that allowed for a rich foraging culture to flourish utilising basically a nomadic seasonal sharing system.
Because Tasmania lies in a temperate zone (colder with a low humidity), but open to prevailing westerly storms, it enjoys a substantial rainfall. However this is more confined to the western half where a complex series of mountain ranges shields the eastern half from most of the impacting weather.
The western and eastern halves are distinctly different in vegetation and the following explains the relationship between the people and the environments of their "homelands".
Generally speaking it is the terrestrial vegetation (not ignoring the littoral) that is used when considering nomadic cultures especially population estimates. This is because vegetation attracts foraging whether it be plants or animals, and represents the total land mass area available.
The value of types of vegetation vary significantly from being rich to poor, even no resources. However the taxa-grouping together of plants - can be very complex, some small others large, all within a major type of vegetation. This creates too much complexity when considering human populations.
Therefore to try and keep the discussion to an acceptable one I will only consider the five principle vegetation groups sourced from (125:31), see Map 1 in this work created from it.
These groups are together with areas and percentages;
Dry sclerophyll forest 29,385 K2 45% Rainforest 22,202 34% Sedgeland 10,448 16% Coastal Heath 1,959 3% Moorland 1,306 2%
c. 65,300K2 100%
24
25
Simply the eastern half is dry sclerophyll and the west rainforest, sedge and some moor all creations of a high precipitation although much of the sedgeland in the south west is fire induced by lightning. This brings us to the need to explain the impact on the vegetation by humans using fire-sticks (brands, torches).
The western half had some of its sedge created or at least maintained by human activity especially in the areas inland from Sandy Cape situated in the mid-upper west coast up to c. 20 km inland. Other areas of this vegetation suggest island-like grasslands set in the less hospitable sedge.
Within the inland north west these same island-like grasslands, created by fire- sticking, are relatively common like those at Hampshire - Surrey Hills, set instead amongst the temperate and wet sclerophyll rainforests.
Most of the area above 1,200 metres was too inhospitable, but from 1,000 to 1,200, principally the Central Plateau Lake Country, was heavily inhabited in the summery period. The vegetation is about equally divided into dry sclerophyll rich in marsupials and the extremely poor moorland, this too was utilised, not for economic reasons but ritual. Non economic pursuits are not considered in population discussions.
What we have now is an approximate percentage calculation based on Map 2 showing each peoples probable vegetation environments.
"Good areas" (high economic return) are within most of the dry sclerophyll forests (c. 45%) and coastal heath (c. 3%) but with provisos that some sedgeland for instance, as said, was more productive than suggested, as well as the fire created islands of grass amongst the rainforest, (see Map 3, under 13. "Productivity").
Figure 6. "Percentage of Vegetation Areas"
"People" Dry Rain Sedgeland Moorland Coastal Island Sclerophyll Forest Heath Grasslands NW ----- 40 32 ----- 28 Limited SW ----- 27 73 ------Limited? SE 49 48 ----- 3 ------OB 99 1 ------BR 70 15 3 12 ----- Limited N 30 67 ----- 3 ----- Extensive NM 96 1 ------3 ----- BL 97 ------3 ------NE 65 25 ------10 Limited Unoccupied ----- 65 34 1 ------Total% 45 34 16 2 3 Subjective
26
What exactly is Tasmania's five major vegetation zones looked like on a distribution map is not known, but Map 1, although shows a recent creation does never the less give us a reasonable idea of the landscape in 1800.
Accepting that, I must still explain some of the limitations; 1) Small pockets of island-like grasslands created by fire, either natural or human made, such as existed within the rainforests around Hampshire and Surrey Hills of the inland north west, are not shown, yet they were extremely important, Map 3 gives some idea of the area. 2) An overall lack of understanding fire-sticking by the Aborigines has to have some effect on the boundaries of some vegetation shown. Burnt areas, if left, return to pre-fire conditions quickly. 3) European impact - clearing vegetation - has little impact on the map as this has been taken into consideration, that is not shown. 4) We cannot rely completely on just classifying for example sclerophyll forest as all "good land", it varies. The sclerophyll of the two Midlands is much better than that of the Tamar Valley or Eastern Highlands. 5) So in 4) it is not just vegetation but landscape, soil, terrain and even altitude that contributes to the value of the land. 6) The sedgeland is generally "poor" but some still managed to support areas with wallaby and wombat. Finally 7) Offshore islands sometimes contributed more resources than the adjacent mainland areas although with the same vegetation, North Bruny and Robbins Islands are examples.
Utilising Figure 6 percentages the following Figure 7 shows suggestively what the square kilometre may have been;
27
Fig 7. "Square Kilometre of Vegetation Areas".
"Peoples" Scler. Forest Rain Forest Sedge. Moor. Coastal (Dry) Heath NW ----- 1,360 1,088 ----- 952 (3,400 K2) SW ----- 756 2,044 ------(2,800) SE 1,519 1,488 ----- 93 ----- (3,100) OB 8,415 85 ------(8,500) BR 5,460 1,170 234 936 ----- (7,800) N 1,410 3,149 ----- 141 ----- (4,700) NM 6,432 67 ------201 (6,700) BL 2,522 ------78 ----- (2,600) NE 3,705 1,425 ------570 (5,700) (45,300) 29,463 9,500 3,366 1,248 1,723 Unoccupied ----- 12,805 6,698 197 ----- (19,700) (65,000) 29,463 22,305 10,064 1,445 1,723 Total:
28
29
12. "Unoccupied Areas"
As seen it is suggested that c. 45,000 K2 of Tasmania's mainland c. 65,000 K2 was occupied or should I say included in "Tribal Land", foraged over. But this is a generalisation and included areas of rainforest such as that in the "north' and "north eastern" peoples territories that were not or could not be utilised. Additionally although Tasmania has a coast lines of c. 1,450 km vast lengths exist that did not yield any littoral resources.
Trying to establish what was occupied exactly is an impossible task requiring a micro-study of each environment, now in many ways changed by European activities.
So it is a generalisation based on vegetation, colonial exploration, early records and sometimes archaeological studies., but mostly from the work and suggestions of Jones (299) and Ryan (90) including their maps (see my Maps 5 and 6). As seen sometimes it has been necessary to question the "tribal" boundaries in these maps. Perhaps it could be said that delving into these boundaries defeats the purpose of an overall study of Tasmania, but the intent is one of trying to obtain the nearest exact conclusion possible, still appreciating the obvious pitfalls in such an exercise, hopefully the smaller the areas investigated the more precise the total picture will be.
The "area used" by the Tasmanian Aborigines to forage over can be divided into various categories;
1) Offshore islands (not in the north east) that had seasonal seal and mutton birds in great quantities. 2) Coasts that supplied marine foods, molluscs, crustaceans. 3) The Coastal hinterland that extended about a kilometre inland, with its marsupials, seasonal birds eggs obtained from estuaries, lagoons, wetlands and flood plains. 4) Inland grasslands with marsupials and emus, forests with possums as well as lagoons and lakes having marsh birds, finally, 5) Highlands, as in 4) but on the Central Plateau Cider Gum Juice.
The subject is more complex than that with some being easily accessed while other require a trip through extremely poor or valueless areas as already mentioned. Some non-eatable raw material like ochre necessitated such trips.
Peoples utilising the inland north west as a "homeland" required the easiest way to reach the coasts for annual get-togethers, to feast on seal and mutton bird as well as their social necessities. This was achieved by a network of "roads", walking tracks, through rainforests and sedgeland some kept open by fire-sticking. Although "used" it was not inhabited - it was there and had to be cross - a transient area.
30
It should be mentioned that as the Palaeo-Tasmanians were on a progression - if ever so slow - as shown by archaeology, to new foraging areas, it is possible that some small fringe areas or the usage of some fire created grasslands could have also taken place, but the population may have only increased slightly yet steadily, perhaps a few percent over a long period. Such an area is suggested in the upper reaches of the Huon River where perhaps a band of below average size probably had expanded to.
Additionally I should emphasise that although some areas on Map 2, such as the north and north east mentioned, are shown as occupied, that is not unoccupied, in actual fact they too had areas that were really only transient, such as sections of the Eastern Tiers around some river valleys in the "Oyster Bay" area. Even within their area some small zones were never utilised, obviously after being originally explored by their ancestors who deemed them worthless.
Consulting Map 4 "Tasmanian Bands" (See 21 "Social Structure") the reader will note that it is suggested that there were a couple of bands within the "unoccupied" area. Their inclusion is based on some evidence while maps 5 and 6 (see 22 "Tribal/People Population") on other thoughts using available material. It could be said that either opinion has merit, it's just that the material is limited. Not everything can be exact in mapping areas of occupation however it has little or no effect on suggested population numbers.
Any "small band", possibly way under a suggested 40 individuals, may have been nothing more than a couple of extended families with close attachments to a larger group, perhaps we could say a "sub-band" but I refrain from actually saying so.
How much of Palaeo-Tasmania was not utilised is of course open to debate, anything from 15 to 30% is suggested, I prefer 30% as seen.
Ryan's latest work (371) shows the "north west" and "south west" people now occupying the whole of her previously unoccupied area (90). However when consulting (371) the various tribal allotted square kilometres occupied, they have remained the same as her earlier work (90), (although now the south west is 3,000, the same as Jones, instead of 2,860 as in (90)). Ryan's (371) "Total Tribal Areas" being 44,900 K2. If including the unoccupied area of (90) it would be the 65,000.
As seen to try and establish what area was not occupied, i.e. not foraged over, it is necessary not only to rely on vegetation maps that show impenetrable rain forest, economically poor moor and sedge that suggests possibly no occupation, as well as geographical, altitudes of high mountains and deep gorges/river valleys of obvious no foraging value, but also explorers report on what evidence they may have come across that revealed occupation. Additionally Archaeological surveys recording artefacts scatter - very little would otherwise exist - can be utilised.
31
It is not practical in the discussion, as said to try and map out micro areas as it is not only pointless but impossible. We have to make the study one of generalisation, however if we have relatively large areas that are practical to show on a distribution map we should, such as I have suggested on Map 3 (see 13. "Productivity").
It should also be mentioned that a near 50/50 division based on vegetation exists, west and east.
The "west" is very open to the stormy prevailing westerly conditions that come up from Antarctica via the Southern and Indian Oceans. The high mountain ranges cause extreme precipitation and enable thick rain forest to grow in areas like the deep river valleys. Sedge and moor dominate large areas as well (Map 1).
This caused a concentration of human population along the coast especially in the winter months from about May to August, with a semi-sedentary existence, holding up in their well constructed huts usually in village groups.
The littoral foods, especially crayfish and abalone were particularly prominent in selected accessible areas but still hazardous to collect, while the seasonal seal and mutton bird existed in huge numbers in the far north west. Terrestrial resources were to a great extent confined to the inland areas near Sandy cape and Cape Grim areas in the north and the island-like fire created grasslands of the inland north amongst the otherwise uninhabited rainforest.
Because of these restrictions the human population was considerably smaller in the west (see 14 "Carrying Capacity").
The eastern half was protected by the higher mountain terrain to the west. The east, although having huge Ben Lomond and smaller mountains, is relatively flat terrain with the vast midlands of dry sclerophyll being the predominant vegetation of all the east. The high Central Plateau is a link to the west but culturally eastern within the single Tasmanian culture.
A more nomadic economy, with extensive high quality stone for artefacts, the eastern people had great terrestrial resources at their disposal, much more than the western. This larger foraging area mean a larger population.
Various ways exist at looking at population numbers in the nine areas of combined homelands. Areas of greater productivity which I believe is a better indicator than just the homeland area, and thus population density.
There can be no doubt that a considerable amount of variation will occur within each of the "nine" because of resources and seasonal exploitation, often outside their own
32
domain, however it is the overall total Tasmanian scene that ultimately will be the single factor hopefully revealed.
Area Occupied to Population (Jones (299)
An exercise necessarily pursued is that of comparing each of Jones' (299) "Nine Tribes" in respect of territory occupied to population. These are;
NW 7.5% of land to 12.3% Population SW 6.2 8.7 SE 6.8 12.3 OB 18.8 19.8 BR 17.2 9.9 N 10.4 7.4 NM 14.8 12.3 BL 5.7 5.0 and NE 12.6% to 12.3%
How Jones arrived at area territory is relatively clear (he only mentions square area, I calculated from that the percentage), but his populations are not known (again using his numbers I calculated percentages). Thus what I write now is only based on his writings not anything else.
If the "Nine" had equal areas and populations the average would be 11%, this is of little use considering no average would be expected for all nine, but it will be used in comparisons.
Three of the "nine", NW, SW and SE have greater populations to area, especially the NW and SE. The former because of its vast season resources the latter having a rich littoral area. The SW is deceptive because they had a poor terrestrial area and spent a large percentage (calculated at 58%) away from their homelands, utilising both NW and SE by arrangement.
One land-bound people the BR and another who had a relatively poor area (but with great quantities of ochre), the N, had large areas of land in comparison to population. Both people could not utilised large areas because of vegetation and snow conditions, but had access to other peoples land.
The OB and NE had well balanced comparisons and although the BL did also they were sort of an enigma situated in a rather unique geographical situation, around a huge mountain area with thick scrub. A distinct group with relationships that may suggest some turbulence.
33
The final people, NM, because of the Tamar Valley's relative poorness, had otherwise a near perfect ratio of area to population using Jones' figures, but perhaps the OB and NE could be said to represent such a ratio.
34
13. "Productivity"
The economic value of the land, that is the return for effort, dictates population numbers. If we look at Tasmanian as a whole we have a suggestion of less complexity than actually existed. However a study of the "Nine People" shows how misleading such a supposition is. Of course it has the disadvantage of creating an illusion that they were independent of each other, indeed as I have remarked the question of "nine" separate groups is itself open to serious debate, the question of the existence of "bands" of much smaller populations is not, these "bands" were the only named social group.
The Tasmanian culture (a single identity) was sophisticated in its organisation with a complexity of sharing resources whether it be food or raw material. I have explained it is eatable resources that I am considering to try and establish if Jones' suggestions for population are reasonable, however occasionally "ochre" will be remarked upon.
Since vegetation is such an important factor in the subject I will consider that first. Under 11. "Environments" I have already suggested areas supposedly in the "Nine Peoples" domain, however here it is the important "dry sclerophyll" and "coastal heath" that I will further discuss.
Dry Sclerophyll & Coastal Heath (High Productivity)
Consulting Map 1 "Vegetation" there is no visible variations within it to suggest how productive the dry sclerophyll is. Map 3 is an attempt to rectify the situation. The dry sclerophyll within Map 3 is divided up into "very" productive "lesser", "poor" even "little or no value" but some areas are suggested as "transient" that is a limited necessity use because they are geographically situated requiring a fast movement through them to gain access to productive areas.
The dry sclerophyll forest is the most important vegetation block within Tasmania re: human resources; practically all this vegetation is in the eastern half c. 45% of the island with about 70% of its human population utilising it.
However the utilisation in Palaeo-Terms is a little misleading because some of the forest was very thick scrub, some in non-productive terrain while others on very poor soil, even some actually pockets of wet sclerophyll - rain forest, hence my above division of it.
It was not the forest that was so economical, although the popular possums inhabited some trees, but the grasslands, that grew amongst the trees, this attracting macropods and emu. Some was naturally produced by lightning strikes but most such as the two midlands, was the result of human enterprise using fire-sticks (Rhys Jones' "fire-stick farming"). This "artefact" was employed from the coast, producing coastal heath regeneration, to the Central Highlands.
35
Some areas of the dry sclerophyll were not subjected to such enterprising activities either because they were too difficult to burn or because they were within non- economic environments. Large areas of the Tamar Valley and Eastern Highlands as well as west of D'Entrecasteaux Channel are examples of poor dry sclerophyll.
Although only seven of the nine "peoples" had dry sclerophyll vegetation and three had coastal heath the following Table 8 includes all nine with the SW being the only group without either of the dry sclerophyll or coastal heath.
An explanation on the headings used in Figure 8 pre-empts it. It is then followed with a brief explanation about the information within it.
Note: The combined dry sclerophyll is 29,463 K2, and coastal heath 1,723, is rounded off to 31,200 but actually 31,186K2.
Within the "Homelands" The explanation about the headings in the following Figure 8;
(A) "Homelands" (Suggested "Occupied Land") This is the square kilometres (K2) of land and its percentage total area of occupied Tasmania, according to Jones (299). E.g. The "North West people" had 3,400 K2, being 7.5% of 45,300 K2.
(B) Dry Sclerophyll - Coastal Heath Vegetation In Occupied Land (A). The square kilometres of that occupied land for each "people" and its percentage of the total occupied land. E.g. The NW people had c 1,000 K2, being 2.2% of 45,300 K2.
(C) Dry Sclerophyll - Coastal Heath as a Proportion of "Homeland". The square kilometres of that "Homeland" of each people, but this time the percentage as applied to the peoples individual holding. E.g. The NW people having c. 1000 K2 is 28% of their "Homeland" of 3,400 K2.
A mean estimated population (D) is in section (A), being based on suggested Tasmanian population of 4,050 individuals, utilising Jones' suggested populations for each of the supposed "Nine Tribes", as in 8. "Calculations and Measurements used" in this work. Only the percentage is shown in (A) column (D).
E.g The NW "Tribe" at 500 people being 12.3% of the total Tasmanian population.
36
Figure 8. ("Dry Sclerophyll Forest" (DSF) & "Coastal Heath" (CH)).
(A) "Homeland" (299) (B) DSF & CH (As part of (C) DSF & CH. 45,300) (As part of "Homeland") People Area K2 (D) Population Occ. Land K2 % K2 % % % NW 3,400 12.3 7.5 1,000 2.2 1,000 28 SW 2,800 8.7 6.2 ------SE 3,100 12.3 6.8 1,500 3.3 1,500 49 OB 8,500 19.8 18.8 8,400 18.5 8,400 99 BR 7,800 9.9 17.2 5,500 12.2 5,500 70 N 4,700 7.4 10.4 1,400 3.1 1,400 30 NM 6,700 12.3 14.8 6,600 14.6 6,600 99 BL 2,600 5.0 5.7 2,500 5.5 2,500 97 NE 5,700 12.3 12.6 4,300 9.5 4,300 75 Total: 45,300 K2 100% 100% 31,200 K2 c 69% 31,200 K2 -----
37
The North West (NW) The 2.2% is only coastal heath which was extremely rich in macropods and wombat. Although we are only specifying the dry sclerophyll and heath if we are to discuss productivity in the area we should include the sedgeland from the Pieman River north to about the coastal heath, especially inland from Sandy Cape, being particularly rich in macropods and wombat, the latter Figure 9 "Productive Land Percentages" includes this.
The littoral contribution is very prominent especially in seasonal terms i.e. seal and mutton bird.
The South West (SW) As seen the area was devoid of the sclerophyll and heath.
A prominent coastal economy, seal, sea birds, crayfish and abalone never the less pockets of terrestrial foods existed like wombat in the north, just south of Macquarie Harbour, marsh birds, and wallaby as well as wombat around Port Davey and Louisa Bay. Native figs were prominent around some lower reaches.
The South East (SE) The 3.3% for this area is represented by hunting grounds for wallaby especially on North Bruny. Although sclerophyll forest existed the southern section of the area was very thick, more a wet sclerophyll, the north (Hobart to New Norfolk) was much clearer due to successful fire sticking as was areas around Kingston in the south.
The area too was greatly reliant on sea food, oyster and mussel being prominent.
Oyster Bay (OB) The 18.5% reflects the richness of the hunting grounds around Swansea as far as Apslawn and to Triabunna in the south on the coast's hinterland as well as those to the west of the Eastern Tiers, Pittwater to the south with its Coal River and further north the Oatlands districts.
Big River (BR) Here we have 12.2% not as high as their "Great Friends", the Oyster Bay, but instead of a bountiful coastal hinterland they had the Central Plateau country, as well as vast areas of the Southern Midlands that included the incredibly rich Ouse (or Big River as it was originally known) districts and Lake Echo.
North (N) The "North" only had 3.1% of Tasmanian's flora good land and this was mainly confined to the eastern third, the Mersey River and Port Sorell districts. This too is a little misleading because within its rain forest, mainly the western section, the network of rich hunting grounds existed, these were it seems islands of grasslands created by fire-sticking, so attracting large numbers of wallaby and wombat with a reasonable number of emu.
These "islands" were so rich that it attracted the attention of "The Van Dieman's Land Company" to invade them for grazing.
The areas are loosely grouped as the Hampshire and Surrey Hills.
38
Like the far north west these hunting grounds were seasonal as much of Tasmania was. A major contributor to the difficulty in trying to establish an estimate of population based on individual areas data.
Northern Midlands (NM) With the Northern Midlands being the largest and best hunting ground there is no wonder that the percentage is so high, 14.6%.
Additionally they had the coastal heath, admittedly not much, having a small coast line, possibly an inheritance of the Pleistocene when it may be that people concentrated along a greater Tamar River (in length not breadth possibly).
Interestingly the only blight on their Holocene territory was the Tamar Valley and its surrounding districts which although sclerophyll was poor in soil and landscape in comparison to the adjoining Midlands, this is echoed in European pastoral settlement. Whereas the Midlands had extensive fire-sticking the Tamar was only partly so treated.
Ben Lomond (BL) Surprisingly 5.5% is applied to this area, surprisingly because the area is rugged with a huge mountain, its namesake, "Ben Lomond". It is the so-called Fingal Valley with the South Esk River, it's sort of southern boundary that was really an extension of the Northern Midlands, rich in marsupials.
This leaves the North East (NE) The area had 9.5% of Tasmania's "good areas", a large area of rich coastal heath and a hinterland of vast coastal plains in the North.
To the south this rich area continued but was not quite as good, while the far west was poorer, the central south being rain forest.
Although rich its area was smaller than the Oyster Bay, Big River and Northern Midlands and surprisingly its people never exploited the off-shore islands for seal and mutton birds.
As detailed one can see the traps in relying on such an exercise as using high return terrestrial areas without considering other factors such as marine resources and seasonal foods as well as social activities.
Never the less it is a worthy exercise if for no other reason than to emphasise the complexity of Tasmania's Palaeo-culture.
Further considerations of the overall economies is contained in 14. "Carrying Capacity".
However, before ending this section which is only considering the overall value of dry sclerophyll and coastal heath, not suggestions of a subdivision of the landscape into productivity, should we consider the latter? I believe we should and what follows is an attempt to do just that.
39
At this point it is necessary to emphasise that both Jones (299) and Ryan (90), who utilised Jones as a reference, suggested as seen what each "Tribe's" area was and how many called it their "homeland", and although making reference to the value economically, it was not emphasised that the varying of the lands productivity should be considered. Since the research was a generalisation it is understandable.
I have made a number of suggestions so far to show that I believe more should be done to consider importance of trying to separate the "homelands" into various productivity zones. My Map 3 "suggested economic value areas" is an attempt at this and shows how complex the subject is. Superimposing Ryan's suggested "tribal" boundaries is intended to assist in understanding the problems imposed on such a study.
Before continuing on the subject of trying to gauge the various productive land percentages, (which will be seen in Figure 9), I will show contrasts between using suggested "homeland areas" and "productive lands only" within the homelands. The population of 4,000 is used as a convenient possibility only.
Total "Homelands" 45,300 K2 (4,000 people) If "Nine Tribes" 5,033 K2 average (444 in each) If 80 "Bands" 566 K2 average (50 in each).
And so if 4,000 people 11.32 K2 per person.
However if we can suggest that we use only areas that are very to lesser productive, that is excluding poor and little or no value, we have;
Total "Productive Land" 28,500 K2 If "Nine Tribes" 3,166 K2 average With 80 "Bands" 356 K2 average
Again with 4,000 people 7.12 K2 per person.
The argument could be, "should we disregard valueless or very poor economic land?" Obviously I suggest we should because not only are they of no (eatable) value but also because if we include them in a "homeland" we are distorting the population density, this is discussed further under section 14, "Carry Capacity". The above two at this point clearly shows how this effects calculations. The inclusion of useless land increases the area suggested as needed for a person to survive on.
Regretfully such an exercise cannot give us a population number, which is what we are searching for, unless we suggest a specific carrying capacity like 10 K2 , then we would have using the above, 4,530 and 2,850 people.
Map 3 With Map 3 I divided the area into equal small squares that numbered c. 550 for the "Occupied Land" so forming a grid. I then went about counting the number of squares, including partial ones, to estimate how many full squares existed in each suggested area of each peoples territory based on the four values of productivity, then calculating the percentage of each.
40
The "Unoccupied Land" on Map 3 was not included.
An example of this rather crude exercise is;
The North West people having: 17 very productive, 5 poor and 18 of no value, equalling 40 squares, Since the total for Tasmania was c. 550 squares the percentage for 17 is c. 3%, 5 is c. 1% and 18 is c. 3%, or 7% for Tasmania.
As admitted, this is a pretty crude statistical exercise of approximate estimates. Such "data" is open to criticism - but it is only an exercise!
Regretfully this work does not take into consideration;
1) We cannot be positive that the "Nine People" existed, 2) Nor if they did that the boundaries are correct, 3) Seasonal economic strategies not considered, nor 4) Social annual customs let alone 5) That coastal values were not the same, and 6) Exactly what were the sharing arrangements between peoples. 7) Only "homelands" considered.
I have no intention of trying to calculate each peoples coast into the same economic value of the "land", although a rough count on a map of rock outcrops at the tidal area may prove useful.
41
42
Large areas of land, such as those of Ryan's "Big River" people, who had their north west and south west all but useless, I suggest shows a misleading concept to try and gauge population, although their north west may have because of its geographical position caused them to use it to obtain access to the "north west" peoples shared resources, seasonal mutton birding and ochre, its other value was virtually nil, in other words if it was not in a strategic position it would have not been visited at all.
It is at this point that I must explain, (as I will again under 22 "Tribal/People positions", sub-title "Map Comparison of Jones and Ryan"), that although It appears that Ryan utilised Jones "Tribal" square kilometre occupied measurements (7,800 Jones to 8,000 - 8,100 Ryan) but modified them as seen slightly, by 200 - 300 K2, she did not utilise his map (see my Map 6) but utilised a similar one (see my Map 5), but the BR boundaries are very different, so much that Ryan cannot use Jones' measurements to compare with her map. Actually my Map 3 is much more in line with Jones' map as I have disregarded the vast areas of the north west and south west in Ryan's.
The "value of the land occupied" in Fig. 9 balances with "occupied" land percentages based on Jones' research.
Although the percentages refer to that applying to the said total occupied land in Tasmania it is interesting to include here the percentage of productive (including "very") land in each peoples homeland. Bracketed is "very productive".
The NW 44% (44%) OB 85% (37%), NM 100% (60%), SW ----- (------) BR 47% (35%) BL 66% (nil), SE 15% (15%) N. 70% (50%) NE 70% (38%)
Another interesting comparison is of four people who Jones suggested had the same percentage populations, the NW, SE, NM and the NE. Three are at the extremes of Tasmania's natural triangular shape each at the points, with the NM close to the centre of the land mass.
Occupied land ranges from 7 to 13% for the three and the NM 15%. Coasts 15 to 21% and NM only 4%. This is mentioned only to emphasise the variation of possible groups of people within the single culture.
Explaining Figure 9 The "homelands" comprising "people", "population" and "occupied land" are self explanatory, except to say the 100% area is 45,300 K2 or the inhabited area suggested by Jones as are all the percentages under "homelands".
The "value of the land" is my suggestions based on the 45,300 K2. The "very productive" 36% and "of lesser productive" 27% total 63% of 45,300 K2 being 28,500 K2.
This suggests 37% of Jones' "occupied land" was poor to no value, not worth considering as economic important.
43
Figure 9 "Productive Land Percentages"
"Homelands" Value of Land Occupied
Population Occupied Very Lesser Poor No Total People Prod Prod Value NW 12.3 7.5 3 ----- 1 3 7 SW 8.7 6.2 ------5 1 6 SE 12.3 6.8 1 ----- 5 1 7 OB 19.8 18.8 7 9 ----- 3 19 BR 9.9 17.2 6 2 3 6 17 N 7.4 10.4 5 2 ----- 3 10 NM 12.3 14.8 9 6 ------15 BL 5.0 5.7 ----- 4 ----- 2 6 NE 12.3 12.6 5 4 ----- 4 13
Total: 100% 100% 36% 27% 14% 23% 100% 4,050 45,300 16,300 12,200 6,300 10,500 45,300 28,500 (63%) 16,800 (37%)
The notion behind all this is to see if we can obtain a reasonable balance of land area utilised and actual population. Relying on just a square kilometre comparison is as shown not good enough, it is the foraging value.
The most significant weakness in such an exercise, besides lack of detailed cultural activity and the fact we are using a suggested population and boundary, is that we are not considering the littoral nor non-eatable resources that could have had still an economic benefit such as an exchange of ochre mining for foraging rights.
Figure 8 was purely suggesting only a consideration of so-called possible "good land", sclerophyll forest plus coastal heath, not the possibility of some usage of the s0-called poorer vegetation in some areas. It is only about two specific vegetations not all foraging and although useful in the overall discussion it is not the ultimate tool in this study of population.
The overall suggestions are based on foraging over 45,300 K2; sclerophyll forest and coastal heath exist on 69% of the area, but with a very productive area of c. 36% (c. 16,300 K2) and a limited foraging value covering c. 27% (c. 12,200 K2), a total of 63% (c. 28,500 K2), thus 37% of little or no use. Further if one compares Figure 8 to Figure 9 it will be seen that the two have differing percentages of two crucial groups and should be explained in case the reader becomes confused.
Figure 8 represents only suggested approximate measurements of the "dry sclerophyll forest" together with "coastal heath", these are 31,200 K2 or 69% of the total vegetation types discussed, as in Map 2.
44
However the types in Map 2 do not always correspond to the two productive (very and lesser) areas in Map 3 being only 28,500 K2 or 63% of the total vegetation types. A further comparison of the two broken down into "peoples" are;
Fig 8 (Dry Scler & CH) Fig 9 (Productive Land) NW 2.2 3.0 SW ------SE 3.3 1.0 OB 18.5 16.0 BR 12.2 8.0 N 3.1 7.0 NM 14.6 15.0 BL 5.5 4.0 NE 9.5 9.0 69% 63%
The utilisation of the suggested "tribal boundaries" (Map 5) while being useful is a generalisation and causes some confusion regarding areas actually used to forage in. Specifically the "Big River" allotted area which no doubt is far too large (Ryan using Jones' K2 but not his map) having large areas of mountainous terrain that although having dry sclerophyll forest it was of little or no value.
I would suggest the following explanations for the confusions between Fig 8 and 9.
NW Some sedge should be added to Fig 8. SW Reasonably in order. SE With so much sclerophyll being very thick Fig. 8 should be substantially reduced. OB The Eastern Highlands would reduce Fig. 8. BR As explained too much sclerophyll in useless terrain. N Fig. 8 should have more representation of "Island Grass Lands". NM Reasonably in order overall. Tamar poorer than the rich Midlands. BL Mountain sclerophyll and thick forest should reduce Fig. 8. NE Reasonably in order.
Obviously there is a danger in just accepting a specific vegetation as inference of good foraging value.
If we are to utilise only the suggested productive areas of Tasmania's terrestrial edible resources, disregarding the littoral and as an exercise separate within this data the "Nine Peoples" we have the following;
(Utilising the 28,500 K2 figure and a 4,000 population).
45
Figure 10. "Terrestrial Productivity to Population"
K2 Being c. % So population Comparison (299) NW 1,400 5 200 500
SW ------350
SE 500 2 80 500
OB 7,200 25 1,000 800
BR 3,600 13 520 400
N 3,200 11 440 300
NM 6,700 24 960 500?
BL 1,800 6 240 200
NE 4,100 14 560 500 ______Totals: 28,500 100 4,000 4,050
Although the SW is shown as "nil" it must be stressed that a very limited hunting area in comparison to area occupied actually existed. The above is no more than representation of "Productive Land" not area occupied.
Figure 10 is no more than an exercise of comparisons without being able to assist in actually arriving at a population.
Obviously this demands comments especially the useful comparison between Jones' (299) figures and the result of the exercise regarding population.
Each "people" require comments about them;
North West Not considering their littoral resources which were extensive and being more or less confined to coastal plains causes a misconception about the carrying capacity of their homeland and population numbers. The 200 population is far too low.
South West As with the north west their reliance on littoral resources especially in the area of seals, crayfish and abalone, creates an even more misconception with their dependency being near total.
46
South East Although some terrestrial resources existed they were insignificant in comparison to the vast estuarian and embayment areas, again thus the littoral is not accounted for. Having 80 is obviously wrong!
Oyster Bay Although at 25% these people had the best of two worlds with vast resources of land and sea foods, the suggestion of 1,000 maybe reasonable.
Big River So similar to their "friends" the Oyster Bay, whom they shared with, the difference of 520 people is reasonable. Actually it seems that the "Oyster Bay" and "Big River" were ancestral brothers not just friend - perhaps one people? This could explain the suggestion that the Big River were probably more than Jones suggested, based on archaeological scatter, that is the scatter represents the two peoples not just the Big River.
North Again archaeological research has suggested a higher population than probably 300 so perhaps 440 is nearer the mark. Considering the area especially its poor littoral anything over this would I suggest be extreme.
Northern Midlands Jones (299) had serious doubts about his 500 and thought perhaps they should be nearer the Oyster Bay of 800, so 960 may be nearer the mark although I would hesitate. Their littoral area was relatively poor but the terrestrial was huge and probably the best in Tasmania.
Ben Lomond and North East Both seem to be of little difference in the two calculations.
A summary would suggest that where we can probably feel confident about some people there are serious questions of others being under-estimated in population. Using only the productive terrestrial high-lights the importance of the littoral.
The Oyster Bay, Big River and North all may have had slightly larger populations but it is the Northern Midlands that indeed has I believe been grossly underestimated. Overall this may result in a reasonable thought that using 4,000 (4,050) is incorrect, and subsequently we could suggest Plomley's (211:10) 5,500 is not far off the mark!
47
Should We Say Eleven Not Nine Tribes?
If we are to generalise as an exercise, that a "tribe" could be approximately 500 individuals and to accept that "tribes" existed then is it necessary to further suggest that perhaps instead of "Nine Tribes" in Tasmania there could have been more?
This train of thought has been created by the suggestion that there may have been up to 5,500 people (even 6,500) or some "Eleven Tribes". However we cannot justify 500 unless we are suggesting an average.
Additionally is it possible that two of the suggested "Nine" may have had each another "tribe". These two contenders being the "Oyster Bay" and "Northern Midlands".
The former have been in a way already earmarked for such a possibility by Ryan (90), a Southern and Northern division. Both the OB and NM have suggested populations over the 500, and Jones hesitated in his estimate of a lower number for the NM thinking that perhaps they had a similar population to the OB.
If the NM did have a separation it could have been the Tamar Valley plus the Norfolk Plains South of Launceston or as it may be put the North Northern Midlands. Roth (6) made some hints of this.
It is pure speculation but if we had only "bands" we would not even consider these thoughts.
Assets and Liabilities
Even if I do not agree with the belief of "Nine Tribes" (now called "Nations" by Ryan (371), there is no doubt that as a geographical division of Tasmania they can be useful. One such use is a convenience on what assets they had to contribute to population size. Each were different and within such a small area as Tasmania, having been isolated for more than 10,000 years from mainland Australia, makes them overall quite unique.
These area distinctions could be used as trade-offs, bargaining tools, economic asset to obtain agreements to access others territories. These arrangements were factors in population numbers, without such assets the population in some areas would have not been as large as supposed.
As a balance their liabilities should be taken into consideration as well as assets in order to appreciate the significance of each of the "Nine". The following is just that yet limited to the main considerations. I have followed it with a summary of suggestions on how these affected population numbers, however it is pointed out now that although percentage wise (see Figure 11) varies from "people" to "people" the sharing of resources and this enabling of social necessities had a balancing effect to create a sophisticated culture.
48
Assets Liabilities
North Western
Vast areas of seasonal mutton bird Very limited areas of macropods (wallaby). and seal. Very little ochre. Abalone and crayfish, birds, Hostile weather conditions. wallaby, pademelon, Seasonal trade-offs.
South Western
Great quantities of crayfish. Main marsupial seems to be wombat. Native figs. Extremely hostile weather conditions. Far south - seals. High seas Some ochre. No real trade-offs.
South Eastern
Vast quantities of oyster, mussels, birds. Not rich in ochre. Access by water-craft to rich Large areas of wet sclerophyll rain forest. islands. Areas of large macropods.
Oyster Bay
Vast areas of molluscs, especially Not rich in ochre. Oyster, as well as possums, Can suffer from droughts. vast areas of large macropods, emu, as well as seasonal birds/eggs. Large open cut stone quarries. Ease of access, easy fire-sticked Pleasant weather usually. Extense usable foraging coast. "Big River People" relationships.
Big River
Summer retreat to highlands, Need to avoid much of their land in Fresh water lakes, winter. "Cider" gumtrees. No coast. Vast quantities of large macropods. Not rich in ochre. Emus, possums in large areas, Large open-cut stone quarries, Ease of access mostly, some fire-sticking possible. "Oyster Bay People" relationship. Access to North, North West and Northern Midlands.
49
North
Fire-sticked grasslands in rainforest. Limited and poor coast. Huge amounts of ochre in Few kangaroos. various areas. Thick, precipitous rainforest. Wallaby, emu and wombat in grasslands.Difficult access to most areas. Far north east (Port Sorell) rich Need to avoid inland in winter. in water fowl. Difficult to impossible to fire-stick. Trade of ochre access important.
Northern Midlands
A vast hunting ground for Very poor coast, limited area. Large macropods, emu, possum. Except for lower West Tamar, poor Large lagoons. in ochre. Tamar Valley compensated by North Midlands. Northern Midlands ease of movement, fire-sticking. Strategically positioned to other people. Open-cut stone quarries. Limited estuarine oysters.
Ben Lomond
Rich South Esk River with No coast. macropods, possum. Great need for friendly relationships. Access to Northern Midlands. Vast area of thick scrub, mountainous terrain. Substantial wet environment. No ochre or stone in quantity. Limits population.
North East
Vast coast but north limited. Culturally did not exploit Furneaux Rich hinterland. area or rich off-shore islands. Macropods, emu, wombat etc Poorer relationships suggested with Economically an all year round NM and OB even BR. one. Limited ochre. Some seal in upper East Coast. Stone material limitation, mainly for smaller tools. East of movement. A "comfortable" environment.
Additions to the above listings is the following notes on each of the people explaining briefly the effects of each situation.
50
Note: Any reference to "Tradable Resources" refers to large amounts and desired by others.
North Western This vast area although mainly confined to coastal foraging had the enormous asset of seasonal food, mutton bird and seal that not only enable its own population to survive in above average numbers but allowed their surplus assets to trade for other raw material, ochre.
South Western No tradable resources so reliant on good relationships with the NW and SE (such as Bruny Island).
South Eastern A grouping of in some-ways distinct bands that seem to have had some unique customs, e.g. disposal of the dead, degrees of "ferocity", living in quite opposite environments, rainforest to coastal plains. Perhaps supportive of my view that although "bands" existed, "tribes" did not.
No need for trade-offs with other "tribes", except ochre with the SW in exchange for foraging on Bruny?
Like the NW the SE was self sufficient.
Oyster Bay Well balanced economy but with enough resources to share with mainly the BR but also with NM and BL.
Social "needs" and the BR having cider gums seems prominent. I believe the relationship with the BR went further, perhaps back to settlement of the Central Plateau areas by peoples from the OB.
Big River A central geographical position enabled relationships in a N. NW, and Eastern direction using their cider gum and foraging land to gain access to ochre. The eastern relationship was explained in the Oyster Bay section here.
Having vast lakes of fresh water and a pleasant summer environment with extensive marsupial populations enabled trade-offs.
North As seen if not for wealth in ochre the N would have possible less of a population, it is difficult to say, but they had little else to use to gain access to seasonal foods. Except for the SW it was the poorest foraging area, even the coast was poor, of little interest to others.
Northern Midlands They may have been poor in coast resources, although some oyster beds existed in the Western Estuary of the Tamar, they did have the richest kangaroo, with wallaby and emu hunting grounds, a bargaining tool for privileges even if not essential.
51
Ben Lomond A rather unique grouping that had only a small area dominated by rather a useless huge mountain area.
Population was controlled it suggests by this situation especially having no coast, so reliant on good relationships with OB and NM. Interestingly those that survived to go to Flinders Island were considering estimate population, quite large and with an attitude that is recorded as aggressive to others.
North East A basically self-sufficient area that had less friendly relationships with the N and perhaps with OB sometimes.
Lack of ochre in quantity may have created trade-offs with the N. otherwise desired little economically. Little evidence of sharing except with some Ben Lomond bands.
Resources so sufficient they did not even bother going to the Furneaux area or off- shore islands.
Final Comparisons All these complexities ultimately are designed to try and establish if we can reasonably suggest if Jones' thoughts can be regarded as accurate enough considering the circumstances.
Jones' occupied land can be calibrated from his square kilometres into percentages, see (A) on Figure 11.
Using Ryan's Map (my Map 5) after trying to establish the approximate area of productive land, suggesting 28,500 K2, I calculated each of the "Nine Peoples" possible percentage, see (B).
Utilising Plomley's information on length of Tasmania's coast, but using Jones' calibrated percentages for each "Peoples" I arrive at (C).
Combining (B) and (C) but dividing the total by two because there are two distinct resources, the use of inland and coast was about equal, I arrived at percentages I compared with (D) being percentage of population, using 4,050 (299).
Each "people" had distinct economies and this is reflected in the following, however utilising the exercise there is mostly a reasonable comparison between economic areas and population.
It is far from perfect but does suggest Jones' thoughts were reasonable. However it could be said it is his percentage of each not the number of people. If the population total was larger the percentages may have been the same.
52
Figure 11. "Combination of Good Land and Coast"
(A) (B) (C) (B) & (C) (D) People % of Occupied % of % of Coast Combo of % of Land Productive Prod L & Population Land Coast ÷ 2 (299) 45,300 K2 28,500 K2 1,450 KM 4,050 NW 7.5 4.8 20.7 12.7 12.3 SW 6.2 Nil 15.2 7.6 8.7 SE 6.8 1.6 17.2 9.4 12.3 OB 18.8 25.1 20.7 22.9 19.8 BR 17.2 12.7 nil 6.3 9.9 N 10.4 11.2 6.9 9.1 7.4 NM 14.8 23.8 4.1 14.0 12.3 BL 5.7 6.4 Nil 3.2 5.0 NE 12.6 14.4 15.2 14.8 12.3 % 100 100 100 100 100
This exercise would suggest some conclusions primary, although not always, it is not area occupied but its productivity, with the additional suggestion of how productive each area was.
A summary of each individual "peoples" based on Figure 11 follows.
North West With such suppositions we have an area that is greatly reliant on littoral resources about 80% of the time.
South West This area likewise is greatly one of littoral reliance only more so, more or less 100%. The small amount of terrestrial foraging being too little to show up in this exercise.
South East The area is rich in lacustral, estuary and bay, mainly the D'Entrecasteaux Channel, Huon and Derwent Rivers. The reliance on such resources is very significant. The population shows how rich the area was.
Oyster Bay A well balanced comparison of factors terrestrial and littoral. The slightly more productive land may reflect the Eastern Highlands less contribution to resources.
Big River I believe utilising Ryan's Map showing their suggested territory distorts. The 17.2% of occupied land is Jones' and is at loggerheads with her. Perhaps, correctly, it should be said I should not use her map. If so this would have to slightly alter the other eight's percentages of productive land.
The lack of coast is also misleading as it does not reflect the agreed use of their friends, the OB, coasts.
53
North This is also a distorted picture. Their coast was poor, 6.9% in area is correct, its productivity is not so, except for near and around Port Sorell. Additionally although occupied land and productive land are very similar it is the extremely rich "Island Grasslands" amongst the useless rain forest that compensates with evidence (12:898) that even in winter it was utilised, however at this time, July 1834, it may have been a defensive retreat due to the Van Dieman's Land Co. intrusion.
Northern Midlands Well balanced, but practically reliant on terrestrial resources which they were extremely rich in, c. 60% of their land. The 12.3% population is very questionable with suggestions it could be much highly, if so this would distort the other eight's percentages.
Ben Lomond A small and unique grouping, well balanced with access to coasts by arrangements.
North East Again well balanced. The coast is slightly distorted I believe as the terrestrial was richer in comparison.
The NE having extensive well balanced duel environments, long coast and large areas of grasslands that were extensively burnt.
Non -Edible Resources I explained that my study was one utilising food resource data but a short note on other resources will not go astray. As seen the North (N) people had a great asset of this kind and since their own territory was reasonably large, about 10%, it was generally not as productive, a relatively poor coast and an inland of considerable hostile environments. But with the ochre at their disposal they had a bargaining tool to reach agreed arrangements with the north west mainly to forage on their extensive food supplies. While other people had various edible resources to use as trade-offs, no one else could be compared with the N.
Although the culture in Tasmania was sophisticated in a Palaeolithic sense its material wants were few and well catered for using required minerals and flora. Any fauna material e.g. hides, bone was also adequate.
Another interesting exercise is to try and establish what percentage of a year did the "Nine People" spend on the coast and inland. To assist in such an undertaking I have mainly used Ryan (90), a work that has relied considerably on Jones' research. Other references have been used by me as a supplement.
54
Figure 11A "Coast, Inland Percentage Utilisation" Coast % Inland % NW 83 17 SW 83 17 SE 83 17 OB 31 69 BR 25 75 N 54 46 NM 25 75 BL 25 75 NE 58 42
Note: Although working to the nearest single percentage it must be emphasised that there is no way we can with any certainty say the above is correct. perhaps instead of for example 83 and 17% I could have used 80 and 20% but no harm is done as long as the reader appreciates the short comings of the exercise.
What it does suggest is the western halves reliance on the coast, mainly littoral. The N which was also a part of the western half suggests a greater use of the inland (grasslands).
Utilising these calculations in Figure 11A (Totals ÷ 9 for each) we have a suggested area usage of;
52% coast and 48% inland,
A near enough 50/50 balance. This additionally suggests that utilising a combination of coastal km and inland K2 divided by 2 as in Figure 11 is reasonable although obviously as seen in Figure 11A it is misleading to use a 50/50 for each of the "Nine People".
If we are to accept this exercise Tasmania as a whole was extremely well balanced in annual resources available. It also shows how sophisticated the Palaeo-Tasmanian culture was.
I must emphasise that "lengths of coasts" is just as misleading as inland area of "occupied land". It is the return that is important. Suggesting that all coasts are the same comparing length to economic return cannot be justified. A more reasonable approximate suggestion is that of the three major coast lines, that form a rough triangular shape, it is the north that is prominently poor in comparison to the other two. The subject is more complex than that and requires a deep study outside the subject of just "population".
Period of Stress As shown Palaeo Holocene Tasmania had periods of great quantities of foods, these seasonal resources were mainly seal, mutton bird and marsh birds with their eggs, the role emu's played is not clear but could have been substantial.
55
But while the period from late August to early March was enjoyed it has been suggested that a "period of stress" being winter, about late May to early August occurred, about 8 to 10 weeks. It is this period that saw a concentration of people on all coasts to live off molluscs and some crabs while those in the western half had great quantities of abalone (molluscs) and crayfish, in the south west having additionally native figs at certain times.
The periods in between the above saw terrestrial exploitation of marsupials which were generally in good numbers. Area to area and people to people varied somewhat and the above is no more than a generalisation.
Although I feel that a "period of stress" is not proven there is no doubt that the poorest (not necessarily just "poor") period dictated population size. Gluts of a seasonal nature are not permanents. So it could be said the "winter" was a population controller, but not significantly stressful. In the south west, an area that was and still is very hostile it is suggested that although it was possibly of greater stress it is a belief that it's impact has been exaggerated (116:106).
56
14. "Carrying Capacity"
Although I have entitled this section "Carrying Capacity" the term "population density" so often used by Anthropologists could be utilised.
These two terms require a little explanation being somewhat different. I suggest that we interpret them as;
"Carrying Capacity" How much area does a single person need?
E.g. using 3,400 K2 with a population of 500 people we have 6.8 K2 (i.e. 500 divided into 3,400).
"Population Density" How many people can live on a single square kilometre?
E.g. using the above we have .14 people (i.e. 3,400 divided into 500).
Rhys Jones (299) was the first Anthropologist to suggest not only a hypothesis on the subject for Tasmania as a whole but also made a division based on his "Nine Tribes". Later I will explain how he arrived at his suggested conclusions.
Jones was only too aware of the pit-falls of making conclusions as he did but it was a good starting point. Whether his suggestions should have significant alterations today is debatable.
In the quest to try and suggest what seems to be a reasonable conclusion about Palaeo-Tasmania's possible human population prior to 1772 ce the subject of "carrying capacity" is it seems crucial, but Lourandos (234:15) explains that the difficulty in measuring it as well as other things, as a concept is questioned. Keeping this in mind I will continue.
Every land-mass including its sea-shore has its own unique economic value with the potential to allow humans to survive within it. The question is how useful is the given area and how many people can it support? The previous sections in this work, "Environments", "Occupied Area" and "Productivity" are factors in trying to enable an answer to be achieved.
Indeed, Tasmania is unique being an isolated island, with a human culture, for over 10,000 years, adapting to changing environments utilising both land and coastal resources in a sophisticated system of seasonal exploitation. Jones appreciated this complexity enough to divide his suggested carrying capacity for both land and coasts, (terrestrial and littoral),arriving at not only suggestions for each but for each of his "Nine Tribes" land and coasts, (Figure 12 and 13).
Even if the "tribes" are disputed as a social identity they are still valuable as a geographical one.
57
The individual study of smaller areas allows for a finer analysis which hopefully when correlated gives a more precise total Tasmanian figure, but the need to only take into consideration, what I have called "Productive Land", is still I believe absolutely necessary.
Of course the study of "Nine" individuals only gives us data for confinement within a designated area not the sharing of each other's resources where as a single Tasmanian study has no need to consider the implications of sharing.
Thus it is necessary to only establish the "Productive Area" for each, suggesting various scenarios, of possible square kilometres per person and not considering agreed sharing of each other's lands, (see Figure 15).
Jones' suggestions for land and coasts can be seen in the following Figures 12 and 13 with my thoughts on comparing Jones to my Productivity (Figure 14).
It may be suggested that my thoughts are nothing more than an exercise to justify a set of pre-conceived figures. Although it was not my intent it is true that I have using Jones' suggested populations and Ryan's "Tribal Boundaries" tried to arrive at conclusions to see if they are justified. I am not trying to prove them right!
The truth is we cannot guarantee that Jones and Ryan are correct. The research data is just not available to supply us with a precise picture. Even ignoring the division into "Tribes", only working on the state as a single identity, but utilising the five vegetation categories, which in themselves pose the problem of how intensely they were exploited and not ignoring the coastal resources, we are hampered by the total populations suggested - the very subject we are trying to come up with an answer for.
Playing with numbers is one thing, arriving at a reasonable conclusion is another. I mention all this to emphasise that what follows is no more than an attempt to arrive at some possibly acceptable conclusion without prejudice. Obviously this is of great concern to me, I hope I am not over emphasising.
Although some of the following may be repetitive it is included to refresh the readers understanding.
Like all hunter gathering (foraging) societies population numbers were greatly affected and controlled by the food resources available within an area.
Any given number of people will have;
Large food resource - smaller territory or Small food resource - larger territory
This does not take into consideration trading non-food resource like ochre that enables the "owner" the power to utilise other's foraging areas for equivalent exchange, - another emphasis!
Nor does it take into consideration that a large area may have a specific concentration of a resource, or only at a seasonal period, that causes heavy grouping
58 of humans in a small area, even attracting others outside the homeland of those possessing the resource.
Seasonal exploitation was complex and somewhat sophisticated utilising resources to their fullest potential. Each band had its own timetable with some sometimes preferring to "stay at home", circumstances could change so the system was flexible. But population control demanded social get-togethers and could fit in neatly with economic considerations of a seasonal nature.
The existence of large populations in relatively poor terrestrial environments may reflect not so much use of the land as being in the area to exploit sea resources. Coasts may be long but the resources are usually confined to small areas along it. An example is a coast with a very extensive beach-line many kilometres long but having both ends large areas of tidal rock outcrops and platforms. The beach lacks any molluscs but the intertidal rocks can have advantages. A large return within a limited area.
The lengths of beaches with no littoral resources and the number of rock outcrops vary greatly from area to area, even sea cliffs can add to non-resource areas, so much that we cannot say each people's coastal foraging is the same when considering carrying capacity.
The type of resource available together with their abundance or otherwise greatly dictated what area was exploited and at what time. It was complex, a system that was flexible, one that had been modified previously, even changed as circumstances dictated - it was then indeed "sophisticated".
Geographic population patterns were complex when considering density (335:10). Especially if we consider the huge time period of over 40,000 years with all its climatic changes that created and destroyed foraging areas - rising sea levels, vegetation spread caused by temperature and rainfall increases as well as their success in the use of "fire-sticking".
Exploitable Land Area
Considering island Tasmania's size, although its food resources were "generally rich and diverse" (234:74), the human population of foragers could not be expected to be large, actually the food resources ranged between small and large, all to do with how much of the islands area was useful. Under the heading 13 "Productivity" this has been discussed. I suggested that about 63% of the "Occupied Land" was productive, within this term the area was c. 28,500 K2, leaving c. 16,500 with some use, or explaining it another way;
Mainland Tasmania c. 65,000 K2 (being 100%) Less unoccupied c, 20,000 (30%) Gives occupied c. 45,000 (70%)
Of which, Productive c. 28,500 (44%) Still usable but very c. 16,500 (26%) limited c. 45,000 (70%)
59
Although c. 31,200 K2 is dry sclerophyll and coastal heath, as suggested the 28,500 excludes some areas of dry sclerophyll but includes some sedgeland and grasslands set amongst rain forest whether temperate or wet sclerophyll.
This 28,500 would give, working on 4,000 people , 7.12 K2 per person whereas 45,300 11.32 K2 in carry capacity.
Jones (299)
As explained it is Jones who is the first person to try and suggest what the populations were for the "Nine People" thus providing a Tasmanian population.
Jones' qualifications speak for themselves - obviously I hold him in the highest respect - but how did he arrive at his suggestions? Jones explains his sources (299:325) as;
1. The accounts of Maritime Explorers and Colonial observers from : 1772 - 1876 (1772 - 1802 "good information on the size and composition of local groups (in the South East) - "), the rest including information from surviving Aborigines of limited use. Jones was well aware of the restricted nature of his primary sources. 2. G.A. Robinson's journals (1829 - 1834), a great deal of useful information. And 3. Archaeological evidence, number and area of sites suggesting time deposited and frequency etc.
A combination of data that suggested a social structure of families (hearth groups) that made up "bands" and possibly "tribes" or linguistic groups - a subject of extensive discussion, but not here.
Jones also referred to earlier researchers (299:321) and their suggestions; J. Milligan (1859 ce) c, 2,000 people(50 - 250 people in 20 tribes/subtribes) J. Backhouse Walker (1898 ce) c, 2,000 people (c. 30 people in a community of a "sub-tribe" and a larger group - "tribe" - that included several "sub-tribes". Two distinct social units).
A. R. Radcliffe - Brown (1930 ce) c, 2,000 - 3,000 people.
Jones explained that Brown's suggestions gave;
One person per 10.5 square miles (299:322) this is 27.2 K2. But no mention was made on what the total area was based on.
I have calculated;
2,000 people, at 1 person per 27.2 K2 is 54,400 K2 3,000 people, at 1 person per 27.2 K2 is 81,600 K2 Or 2,500 people, at 1 person per 27.2 K2 is 68,000 K2
So using the mean average of 68,000 and since all of the "State of Tasmania: is 68,332 this must be the figure used. This cannot apply! Because it includes Bass Strait's Islands and the other uninhabited areas.
60
Moving on ! A final summary is made by Jones (299:330); suggests; 3,000 - 5,000 people, (so average is 4,000) made up of 700 - 1,000 Families (Hearth Groups),(so average is 850), that comprised 70 - 85 "Bands", (average 78), which possibly made up of 9 Tribes (peoples).
Using above we have an average social structure of; 4,000 people, 4.7 per "Hearth Group" and 51 people per "Band".
Since I have used Jones (299) as a basis for my investigations it is necessary for me to explain that there are a number of confusions - errors - in his calculations. I would prefer not to include this note but I am only too aware that anyone checking my work will find reasons to ask questions, especially if they too consider Jones (299).
I have spent a considerable amount of time on this and I intend only to list the most important items that effect "Carrying Capacity" although some are pertinent to other sections of the subject "population".
1. Jones used "Imperial" measurements so there is a need to convert his work into metric (299:326). 2. The first point seems simple enough except where Jones did include metric, that is in his individual "tribe" data, some were wrong. 3. Some totals were wrong, e.g. total occupied land 17,500 sq. miles, this is 45,300 K2 but his individuals are 44,100 K2, not a lot, only 1,200 K2. But 4. His coastline is 1,500 miles (299:326), individually 1,610 miles and 2,560 km. Actually 1,500 miles is 2,415 km. Not a huge difference except the coast is 1,450 km not 2,415.
The following Figures 12 and 13 are based on Jones' work with necessary adjustments already mentioned. The complexity of including imperial measurements and comparable equivalent metric ones is because Jones (299) mentions both (a time when a change from imperial to metric in Australia was happening). I will where possible try to keep to metric.
Although referring to Jones' I have sub-titled it "Occupied Area" to be followed by "Productive Area" (Terrestrial).
Occupied Area
The following is a necessary study of Jones' initial work suggestions. Normally I have utilised 4,050 as the total population but Jones (299:326) although individually adds his "Nine People" as 4,050. He rounded it off to 4,000, I will use 4,050, only because my work to date has been subject to it.
61
Occupied Area.
Figure 12 "Carrying Capacity"
Square Miles Conversion (nearest 100) People Population Sq. Miles Sq M per Sq KM Actual K2 K2 per person person NW 500 1,300 2.9 3,300 3,400 7.5 Actual 2.6 (used Actual 6.8 2,000 too) SW 350 1,100 5.2 2,800 2,800 13.5 Actual 3.1 Actual 8.0 SE 500 1,200 2.9 3,000 3,100 7.5 Actual 2.4 (used 300 Actual 6.2 too) OB 800 3,300 5.5 8,500 8,500 14.2 Actual 4.1 Actual 10.6 BR 400 3,000 10.0 7,500 7,800 25.9 Actual 7.5 Actual 19.5 N 300 1,800 9.0 4,500 4,700 23.3 Actual 6.0 Actual 15.7 NM 500 2,600 6.5 6,500 6,700 16.8 Actual 5.2 Actual 13.4 BL 200 1,000 6.7 2,500 2,600 17.3 Actual 5.0 Actual 13.0 NE 500 2,200 5.3 5,500 5,700 13.7 Actual 4.4 Actual 11.4 4,050 17,500 5.8 44,100 45,300 15.0 Total: Actual 4.4 Actual 11.2
"Actual" - meaning utilising Jones' "Population" and "Square Miles" to arrive at the correct calculation. "Actual" is not Jones' calculation.
As can be seen there is a considerable difference in (299) and "Actual" figures, obviously I will use the "Actual".
This suggests that since the average is;
One person needs c. 11 square kilometres to survive, then those below that have a richer terrestrial base, with less reliance on the coasts - littoral - resources, but this does not exclude them from utilising coasts for reasons other than economic.
Those above 11 square kilometres suggest a poorer terrestrial base so more reliance on the coasts. Put another way this means that since a person has to have a small foraging area then the territory has a greater density of terrestrial resources.
However just utilising terrestrial or littoral data for each people can give a false impression. A rather misleading area is the "Northern Midlands" (NM). While about two thirds of its area is probably with the average of 11, it is the poor terrestrial Tamar Valley which drags its overall value down to 13. Actually the Northern
62
Midlands was so rich it is highly probable that it contributed twice the population as that sustained in the Tamar.
The "Big River" people (BR) are very poor in their terrestrial value and can be explained that although its southern zone and some of its higher altitudes can have great economic value it also has a large area of moor and seasonal - winter-land that was not favoured with an intense utilisation.
The complexities of Palaeo-Tasmanian culture is not just that simple but it does explain some important points.
It is necessary to continue, but now the "Coastal" Figures.
Figure 13 "Carrying Capacity - Coastal"
Miles Kilometres People Population Miles Miles Kilometres KM per Actual Actual per person KM per person person NW 500 340 .8 550 1.1 300 .6 Actual .7 SW 350 280 1.4 450 1.3 220 .6 Actual .8 SE 500 340 .9 550 1.1 250 .5 Actual .7 OB 800 320 .5 520 .6 300 .4 Actual .4 BR 400 ------N 300 70 .4 110 .4 100 .3 Actual .2 NM 500 100 .3 160 .3 60 .1 Actual .2 BL 200 ------NE 500 160 .4 260 .5 220 .4 Actual .3 4,050 1,610 .5 2,600 .64 1,450 .35 Total: Actual .4 (To the nearest ten).
As seen on remark 4), regarding Jones, the mileage of 1,610/1,500 is incorrect hence the above. I am at a loss to understand this except to suggest Jones got confused with kilometres (1,450) and suggested miles (1,500).
63
Productive Area (Terrestrial)
As seen Jones utilised what he calculated was the "Homeland" of each "Tribe" within a total area inhabited of 45,300 K2. This included a considerable area of what I suggested was poor to useless land, some utilised casually when possible or not at all. Again I have instead tried within limitations to utilise productive area calculations. Having Jones' Carrying Capacity data I will now compare it with my suggestions.
Figure 14 "Comparable Carrying Capacities, K2 Per Person"
Population "Jones" Productive Area K2 PP Area K2 PP NW 500 3,400 6.8 1,400 2.8 SW 350 2,800 8.0 ------SE 500 3,100 6.2 500 1.0 OB 800 8,500 10.6 7,200 9.0 BR 400 7.800 19.5 3,600 9.0 N 300 4,700 15.7 3,200 10.7 NM 500 6,700 13.4 6,700 13.4 BL 200 2,600 13.0 1,800 9.0 NE 500 5,700 11.4 4,100 8.2 TAS 4,050 45,300 11.2 28.500 7.0
(K2 PP = Square kilometres per person).
As another exercise if we consider the "Productive Area" of only c. 28,500 K2 for the whole of Tasmania, being terrestrial areas for the "Nine People", and using four different "Carrying Capacities" we have;
Figure 15. "Carrying Capacity Examples" (Productive Areas Only)
Populations. Square Kilometres (K2) Per Peron People K2 Area 5 K2 6 K2 7 K2 10 K2 NW 1,400 280 227 194 136 SW ------SE 500 100 75 65 45 OB 7,200 1,440 1,207 1,034 724 BR 3,600 720 603 517 362 N 3,200 640 528 453 317 NM 6,700 1,340 1,130 969 678 BL 1,800 360 300 257 180 NE 4,100 820 680 583 408 28,500 K2 5,700 4,750 4,072 2,850
Obviously the NW, SW and SE do not reflect the true population potential of their areas being reliant principally on littoral resources.
64
Of interest if we accept Michael Mansell's 10,000 population, we would have only 2.85 K2 per person, additionally instead of 28,500 K2 we work on 45,300 K2 the calculation is 4.53 K2 per person.
Suggestions by some in Europe is that to survive in a Palaeolithic culture each person would require about 10 square kilometres. Translating this proposition into the various divisions of a social structure, it infers;
For a "Tribe", i.e. 500 people require 5,000 K2 For a "Band", i.e. 40 people require 400 K2 For an "Extended Family" 12 people require 120 K2 And a "Hearth Group" 7 people require 70 K2
The suggested "Homelands" in Tasmania is 45,300 giving us a population of 4,530.
Considering this and consulting Figure 14 in this work, the suggestions of 11.2 square kilometres neatly fits into the synopsis. However if we use only so-called "Productive Areas" we have only the 7. Using a "general thought" on the European Palaeolithic scene suggests problems.
The importance in utilising suggested data from the nine people, not just an overall total seems to be validated, but what we have only considered is the terrestrial factor although it includes all the dry land, or non-sea, meaning up to the high tide mark, and since the "coast" includes the one kilometre of Hinterland we have somewhat of a duplication, requiring only the sea-foods to be considered.
However this is not serious in any mathematic considerations.
Let me explain the resources;
"Terrestrial Resources"
1) We have what I will call "Inland Areas", principally terrestrial resources, but with some areas like the Northern Midlands having large lagoons and swamps that had water fowl with eggs.
"Littoral Resources" 2) The "Hinterland", that section immediately above the high tide line and beach dunes extending some distance up to a kilometre inland, including river estuaries and wetlands with rich resources like those in 1).
Finally we have; 3) The "Littoral Area", the intertidal zone and that that extends to a depth of about three to five metres, perhaps a little deeper depending on the human divers - their women - capacity.
Actually we generally have only two divisions, "Inland" and "Coast", the latter comprises 2) and 3) as well as smaller islands that are off-shore having mutton bird, and other sea birds and seal.
65
Larger islands like Bruny, Maria, Hunter, Robbins and Three Hummock are too large in area (c. 362 - 85 K2) to be confined to one of the two instead being micro-examples of Tasmania itself. "Bruny" was large enough to have its own "band", others like "Maria" and "Robbins" it seems had also band territory extending onto the Tasmanian Mainland.
But these figures only reflect a confinement of their "homeland" not an annual routine which was one of the complimentary sharing with other peoples.
Each "band" had its own territory as we know and although similar in activities to each other there were differences that saw some not always venturing outside their area. How many and who will never be known but we could suggest something like;
"Peoples" % of time in "Homeland" Time Being (Generally) NW 80% Not summer by some SW 42 Autumn - winter SE 80 Not summer OB 68 Autumn to spring BR 25 Summer (part of spring) N 75 Not late spring - early summer NM 68 Not summer BL 25 Summer NE 80 Not summer
Total: 60%
How such figures were arrived at was utilising in part data from Ryan (90) that mapped out periods during the year when each "people" ventured away from their homelands.
Of course these are only suggested thoughts, not known facts! Interesting but of little use in trying to establish Tasmania's total population.
If we were to accept this % in the "homeland", and serious questioning is obvious, then we have to ask;
1) Does this reflect the richness of their homeland, that is no great need to move outside their domain by some? 2) Is this evidence that supports the argument that we have no "tribes" of nine peoples because economically there were some that had to spend considerable time foraging outside their domain? 3) Does this suggest in Tasmania the best social structure was not large groups - tribes, - but instead smaller bands?
Overall 60% state-wide could be said to be reasonable.
The various discussions so far, and they will continue, utilising suggestions of "nine peoples" to aid us in trying to obtain a reasonable population figure for Tasmania as a whole, only complicates the discussion and could be argued is it really worth while, considering that they may not have existed. Although valid I will still utilise what I can from the "nine" discussions to try and satisfy the subject question.
66
Inland or Coastal People
Although this maybe in some ways rather repetitive it is interesting to include this brief section.
Plomley (224:11-12) refers to "Inland" and "Coastal" Tribes (my Bands). I repeat with all respect that I cannot agree with this conclusion any more than I can accept other divisional terms like "Maritime", "Rainforest" or "Island" even "High-Country" unless it is applied as a reference to the area they claimed as a "Homeland". These could be;
NW Principally coastal with islands seasonal exploited. SW Principally coastal near rivers (with foraging along northern coasts). SE Coastal, island and estuary foraging mainly. OB Diverse, coastal, inland (and seasonal high country arrangements). BR Diverse, inland, high country (and seasonal coastal arrangements). N Rainforest island grasslands (with West Coast arrangements). NM Principally midland grasslands. BL Rainforest around mountain, grassland (and coastal arrangements). NE Principally coast plains.
These brief summaries do little to emphasise the complexities of the Palaeo- Tasmanian's culture but it gives an idea of the need for economic arrangements away from their "Homelands". Although some had little or no coasts, no-one was disadvantaged or excluded from access to coasts, it was all sharing, reciprocal arrangements although individual conflicts occurred often as the ethnological evidence shows.
As seen in the suggested "Time at Home" section, the annual foraging in the different environments varied significantly between people. The wintery months of June to August traditionally saw more time on the coast generally, but it could be said this applied to the eastern half, and although the west also "held up" during these less hospitable months, it was in the rest of the year that they still had a general tendency to exploit still the coast or a short distance inland, even if when away from "Home".
This is why trying to calculate individual "peoples" density on the coasts is a misleading exercise in Tasmania. The best we can do is take the whole coast length and using the suggested population come up with a rough estimate.
However even here we have factors that will distort the picture. Not all coasts as already explained had the same foraging value, for instance we can have;
1) Geographically some areas have long beaches, large estuaries, bays etc, so in calculating coastal length are these included? 2) Weather conditions cause less usable time in foraging, e.g. south west. 3) Some are more sheltered with greater potential for foraging - richer. 4) The environments value can effect population numbers. 5) Some people had a richer coast so that more time was spent on them, perhaps usable coast was greater than inland being rainforest, mountains etc, such as The Channel District.
67
6) Just the opposite may have existed, some hinterlands and inland areas attracted greater foraging - Middle East Coast. 7) Some areas had rich off-shore islands that were exploited. Small islets sometimes had vastly more resources for their size than the nearby mainland coasts - seal, mutton bird. Have these been considered in calculations? 8) What is also extremely important is the foraging value of these coasts, that is some had no foraging areas such as; a) No rock outcrops within the total zone for molluscs. b) No suitable areas to dive into deeper water for sub-littoral resources. c) Long stretches of beautiful beaches that extend great distances out into the sea. d) Cliffs that protrude vertically out of the sea. e) No access because of thick vegetation to the water's edge. f) Areas that are just the opposite to the above with large usable bays, rock outcrops, estuaries such as those in the south east.
Great variations occur from area to area and must be taken into consideration, but how, it is just too complex, the overall suggested population using the various coasts may give some reasonable idea and that is what is quoted. But all the above should not be forgotten as possible factors for each.
Again, coastal exploitation, if we exclude hunting areas such as coastal heath and lacustral areas is to do with littoral resources and their value, that is, what was available. Such resources varied greatly, some areas, even individual places, were extremely rich like Little Swanport (oysters), while others like much of the North Coast was relatively poor.
68
15. "Comparisons with Mainland Australia"
In mainland Australia carrying capacity was relative to geographic territory size with higher rainfall meaning smaller human occupation territory and the drier areas having a larger one (335:10). In other words more productive the smaller the required foraging area for a standard population whether it be a suggested c. 40 for a "band" or c. 500 for a "tribe". Although this is also true for Tasmania the rainfall factor was not a major one, hence my emphasis on vegetation as I believe it is the prime factor in Tasmania.
Again in Australia, generally higher populations lived near coasts, in arid/semi arid areas along or adjacent to major rivers (335:10). However in Tasmania being a relatively small area, half of which was mountainous, closed rainforest with deep valleys or very poor foraging sedge and moorland, it was somewhat different.
Never the less we should make what comparisons we can between the two areas because of their close ties geographically and culturally, especially Victoria, Tasmania's closest neighbour and one time connected landform.
Before such a comparison a repeat, in some ways, of Tasmania using Ryan (90) and Jones (299) is practical.
Utilising Ryan (90:14) it is necessary to refer to the data she sourced from Jones' paper in 1971, I have utilised Jones' 1974 work (299). Ryan wrote that within Tasmania's 67,800 K2 the population density was
One person per to 13 to 23 K2.
Such a calculation cannot be used for immediately prior to 1772 ce because as seen it includes King Island and the Furneaux Group of about 3,000 K2. At this point I must refer to my 8. "Calculations and Measurements Used" where I explained that the state of Tasmania is 68,332 K2, the 3,000 just mentioned is 3,090. Also the huge "Unoccupied" area within the map in Ryan's work (90:15) is not excluded by her, being I suggest c. 20,000 K2 (this should include significant areas she includes on her map as part of the BR peoples "Homelands").
If we did use the 67,800 K2 and a population as 4,050 we have c. 17 K2 per person, the above 13 to 23 K2 (using only the two variables) is 18 K2. As seen utilising Jones' (299) his "Homelands" are 45,300 K2 not 67,800 and individual "Tribes" average 15 K2 but when calculating them I found it is 11.2 K2.
My suggestions considering not "tribal" areas but "productive" types of areas reduces the square kilometres to 28,500 and carrying capacity to 7 K2.
The coastal component of Tasmania's population study used by Ryan is a "Rich Coastal Belt" (90:14);
Of 1,450 km with a population density of one to two people per square kilometre.
69
This would give a population of only 1,450 to 2,900 not 4,050 which suggests not all the people visited the coast! As seen because of confusion over Jones' kilometres and miles, the actual calculation is .35 km per person or c. 3 people per square kilometres for 4,050 people.
Ryan goes on further to say that this is a comparable situation to the high population densities of the rich coastal and riverine regions of Australia and North America (90:14). Actually using my calculations Tasmania would have to be better. Indeed any suggested population over the 4,050 would only increase Tasmania's economic base.
But this can have its own perplexing problems. Some understandable comments comparing the Tasmanian's to American Indian cultures have been made but these were not Palaeolithic (to use a European terminology), indeed in comparison the cultures of the Americas were much more complex - sophisticated societies than anything in Australia with totally different economies.
Practically all the world's "Stone Age Cultures" are lost to us so we are forced to rely on any evidence that can be sourced from observations made in the field by those who came in contact with intact, or nearly intact, Palaeo-people outside Tasmania.
The studies by Australian Anthropologists in the early twentieth century of desert dwellers is extensive but the environments totally different to that of Tasmania.
The nearest comparison that can be utilised in our study is that of South Western Victoria and is included in these notes under the heading "Victoria" that follows.
In Europe the thought that some suggest a "Palaeolithic" (hunter, gatherer, fishing) foraging society would require 10 square kilometres per person is an interesting one.
Victoria Tasmania's closest territory is Victoria, the area from which the Tasmanian Aborigines originated (last geographic pre-entry).
Victoria's palaeo-culture although different had much in common with Tasmania, but that state is much larger having vast areas of desert in its north west which suggests a square kilometre smaller population, but it is far more complex with a rich river system including the Murray and other zones with potentially larger populations per kilometre. So any comparison between the two states must be tempered with this in mind.
An estimate on population in 1788 is 15,000 (224:15). Having 34 "Tribes" which averages 440 people and said to be just on the Australian average (224:15).
Coast wise we have c. 1730 km with 12 "tribes" giving an average 144 persons (224:15). This quote seems to suggest a "coastal tribe" position with a small hinterland and if so is not comparable to Tasmania where the "people's", bands or tribes, had a seasonal utilisation over a year that generally did not see them confined to the coast and a small hinterland. Lourandos (234:325) in making a comparison between Tasmania and South Western Victoria explains that Tasmania's "Socio-economic relations appear to have been
70 generally closer to the "immediate-return", (that is obtaining what was needed for immediate use) type of system____", a more mobile society, were as South Western Victoria had a "delayed - return" system (one of additional future use), system, being more semi-sedentary with constructed fixed facilities so more durable, and used over longer terms, such as weirs and the like.
The subsequent result being a lower population density in Tasmania's using the "immediate return" system.
Lourandos explained that South West Victoria had a rich environment with an estimate population of c. 3,000 - 4,000 (234:35). This also suggested that the inland had; 2.5 - 3.3 K2 per person (234:37).
Jones' suggestions for Tasmania over 45,300 K2 was 11.2 K2 per person, a significant difference that further would suggest that Victoria was in its inland three to four more times productive.
If one uses "productive" thoughts for Tasmania, being 28,500 K2 with 7 K2 per person, we have two to three times more productivity for Victoria's South West.
As seen in 14. "Carrying Capacity" section on "Jones' (299)" and following "Occupied Area" Jones' calculations have been modified because of some mathematical confusions within (299), these modifications are used in the following. References are made to the "Nine Tribes".
North West Tasmania; Lourandos refers to the "North West" as having 5 - 10 K2 per person (234:37), Jones is 6.8 (or just 7 for rounding off), basically the same.
The "North" which had strong connections with the "North West" and is often treated as a geographical quarter is not included in these calculations, if it was we would have 11 K2. Regretfully the "North" had also strong associations with the "Northern Midlands" that complicates the exercise even more so. The use of the "Nine" again I must say is probably not the way to go but does emphasise yet again the complexity of Aboriginal eco-society relationships in Tasmania.
North East Tasmania; Lourandos and Jones did not carry out archaeological research in this area of the quarter of Tasmania. However as seen Jones (299) did make suggestions on population and carry capacity. A problem exists as to who of the "nine" we include within the North Eastern Tasmania Geographical Quarter?
The North East people obviously but should we include the "Northern Midlands" and "Ben Lomond"? If we did then we have 12.6 K2 (i.e. NM 13.4, BL 13.0, NE 11.4 = 37.8÷3).
South East Tasmania; This quarter has its own problems. Lourando's work in the area was within the realm of the "Oyster Bay" people but as we know the relationship with the "Big River" necessitates their inclusion.
71
It must be stressed that both the southern "Northern Midlands" and "Ben Lomond" utilised this area but are not included here.
Lourandos suggested (234:37) 11 - 14 K2 and Jones (299) has 15 K2 but whereas Lourandos mentions only "South East", Jones has "Big River" 19.5 and "Oyster Bay" 10.6 (Total 30.1 ÷ 2 = 15).
South West Tasmania; Just mentioned "South East" did not include the "Tribe" called by Jones, and others, the "South East". Their relationship was more akin to the South West yet contact existed, often hostile but not always, with the "Big River" and "Oyster Bay". So it is that I will include them as a part of the South West Quadrant.
Jones suggested the "South West" as 8.0 and "South East" as 6.2, total average being 7.1 K2.
Summary;
The following will help to understand this complexity.
Geographical Quarters K2 to A Average K2 to a person ("Tribes") (299) Person for each quadrant
North West 11.2 (NW 6.8 N 15.7) South West 7.1 (SE 6.2 SW 8.0) North East 12.6 (NE 11.4 NM 13.4 BL 13.0) South East 15.0 (OB 10.6 BR 19.5)
A further inclusion could be;
Western half 9.1 K2 Eastern half 13.8 K2
Tasmania being 11.5 K2 (Actually 11.2)
Coastal Comparisons Lourandos suggests one South West Victoria population density (234:37) of a coastal nature being 1.4 - 2.5 K2 per person. Again referring to Jones (299), he suggested for Tasmania .35 K2 (see my Fig. 13). This suggests that Tasmania's coast was four to seven times more productive.
72
Taking everything into consideration, appreciating that differences in the two areas resources, culture and environment are not exactly the same, we have a richer inland Victoria, with Tasmania's coastal resources significantly greater. However over a twelve month period about half of the time was actually spent foraging on the coast and its hinterland, although this varied somewhat from people to people.
An Explanation. References are made (234:37) to;
Tasmania - North West (coastal) 5 - 10 K2 per person. This is based on Jones (299:326) or as Lourandos puts it (after Jones 1974:326). The reason I mention this is because of the information contained in my Fig. 12 and 13 under "People NW".
The above by Lourandos, is (coastal) meaning not just the littoral (coast line) but a "Coastal People". The 5 - 10 K2 shows this as Fig. 12 has Jones' converted measurements to 7.5 K2 (actually is 6.8 K2 but of little significance). Using the coast only it is .6 km (Fig 13).
Thus my above statement that Tasmania's coast (NW) was four to seven times more productive would be wrong. The Victorian 1.4 - 2.5 K2 should refer to Tasmanian's (NW) 5 - 10 K2 not .35 being only the coast line!
The intent of this study is Tasmania's population not the complexities of comparing South West Victoria to Tasmania to try and explain why the differences in population density. However, since reference is made to Harry Lourandos' important publication (234) I should include here additional information contained in his work.
Since coastal South West Victoria was more than three times in population density to North West Tasmania, Lourandos suggests that a "______relatively more complex socio-economic relations were at work in South West Victoria" (234:74). Additionally the less complexity of social relationships in Tasmania made fewer demands on productivity and these social-cultural developments occurred in different ways that cannot be just explained away as solely due to the physical environment changing (234:279).
The differences were conscious developed cultural decisions over a period of time, that varied from area to area, with contributions in making these decisions coming from environments.
Lourandos in his concluding chapter 10 (234:325) explains that comparing Tasmania to mainland Australia, Tasmania's population sizes and densities were significantly lower than in regions of comparable environments like South Western Victoria. Explaining further that Tasmania's economies were broad-based, that is not confined to a limited choice, no concentration on a specific resource, a more mobile society with a system of "immediate return" i.e. food obtained within a short time of a day or so without the undertaking of constructing longer - term usable artefacts to obtain a specific food or larger return, that allowed longer stays to exploit it, a society with lower population density.
73
16. "Doubtful Data"
The only census undertaken by the British of the indigenous Tasmanian population was during their gathering in exile on Flinders Island in the 1830's. These counts are useless in our pursuit to try and calculate what their numbers were prior to 1772 ce.
A list of early population "opinions and estimates" will follow later but how are such suppositions formed and what are the liabilities surrounding them?
Hiscock (335:138) warns that the early reports are unreliable, the smallness of the original population and many suggestions formed during a period of rapid European expansion that was decimating the population playing a significant role.
A number of other suggested reasons for being careful about accepting opinions are exemplified with the following;
1) The culture was basically nomadic, divided into small groups, with seasonal activities. Observed numbers would fluctuate. 2) Sightings confined in time and space. Lack of knowledge outside this area of observation. 3) Pre-sighting disruption of an unknown type, e.g. impact of disease on the population. 4) Duplication of sightings of the same people at different times and places. 5) Incorrect counting, lack of skills. 6) Bad recording. 7) Memory loss when later recalling. 8) Population under continual stress, reducing numbers. 9) Calculations in the field at a distance. 10) Suggestions based on number of or intensity of fires. 11) Concentration of discovered huts at various places. 12) Second hand reports. 13) Presumptions. 14) Use of terms ie. "mobs", "many", suggesting numbers, but how many? 15) Using counts of visits by natives to settlements to suggest populations. 16) Bragging by those killing Aborigines, lies, even kept secret suggestions. 17) Lack of Anthropological skills when observing.
These are enough to show how careful we must be in accepting recorded information, but I will include a couple of others;
18) Reports of high numbers to encourage more troop presence or to hide killings being defensive. 19) Fraud, stealing by servants blaming large number of natives.
The lack of a division of gender and age groups in most reports does not allow for a consideration whether the count represents a male hunting group or a number of families on the move. Additionally it was the norm for the women and children to remain hidden for protection so those counted may have been warriors thus distorting the possible population total.
74
The French observations up to 1802 are without a doubt the best we have even if limited in time and space with some known duplication of meeting the same persons. However the later recordings may be tainted by possible previously introduced disease so reducing the original numbers, but at least we have some suggestions that have possibilities of group numbers.
Regretfully as time progressed and more of the island was investigated it also meant that the original population would continue to be disrupted and reduced, so any counts became less reliable. Whole bands, even in remote areas, had gone by the time Robinson entered the scene in 1829, thus rendering even his information of little use.
75
17. "A Chronological Guide"
As seen in the "Introduction" it is before the 7th March, 1772 that we are focusing on as the time period in our quest to try and gauge what the Aboriginal total population was. After then due to physical contact the possibility of a reduction of that population is it seems at least in the south east, if not including the south west, highly probable. Beyond that geographical boundary we can conclude it is unlikely that the consequences were repeated until possibly c. 1820, even later in some areas.
The probable cause of death being disease, most likely respiratory. Up to 1804 during some 32 years, violent deaths i.e. shootings were rare, at least one, during the first encounter, perhaps a couple more being later death from injuries.
Although the following discussions include the period of the 1830's they are all but useless in trying the answer our question. Indeed as seen after 1772 we have suggestions of a disrupting of populations, but it is more likely after 1792-3 with the extensive "friendly meetings" with various Aborigines that epidemical disease probably took place.
After 1803 we see the beginning of bloodshed, but mostly from 1824 in the south and 1826 in the north.
Obviously then a chronological guide from 1772 to the 1830's is of little use but it is included as an aid in understanding the periods of reported sightings by explorers and settlers.
1772 - 1792/3 Up to D'Entrecasteaux arrival. Suggests the period is still one of "full population". Disease unlikely to have any effect.
1792 - 1803/4 Up to the time of the British Invasion. Suggested period of disease in the southern areas, may have been continuous.
1804 - 1823 From beach head military depots to start of pastoral expansion. Little effect but expanding into open hostilities.
1824 - 1831 Great pastoral expansion - warfare!
1831 - 1842 Remnant bands only exist.
On the question of disease, the spread may have, because of the peoples life-style, proceeded north. Those in smaller bands in rain-forest environments probably suffered more being especially vulnerable. Reports by those like Robinson (12) suggest this. These people may have had band numbers of about 30 even 20, it is impossible to know.
The people furtherest away from the south, like the north east, having a limited or no exposure, probably did not suffer as much if at all, and the impact of the raiding "Sealers" would not really commence until c. 1816, the full impact it seems being c. 1829, more likely post 1827.
76
It would seem that observations by explorers in the north east up to c. 1816 may be said to be reliable, but I hesitate because perhaps those recording may have erred in their calculations.
In this regard I will mention that literacy in the early colonial period was far from universal. While the "upper classes" of various professions were reasonably educated to "count numbers" can we say that about others? It is an impossible question to answer but never the less it makes one wonder. Terms like "mobs", "hordes" or "lots" show rough estimates and do not qualify as accurate counts, perhaps this was the best some people could do, but to be fair why try and count them, the terms were adequate.
For what it is worth, lists of a considerable amount of reported sighting will follow.
77
18. "Reported Numbers"
Maritime Exploration (1772 - 1802) Although a number of visits were made by the British in this period it is the French, D'Entrecasteaux (1792 - 1793) (223) and Baudin (1802) (86), that have left us with the greatest amount of information.
Basically the observations cover only the south east quadrant from near Recherche Bay in the far south, anti-clockwise to Great Oyster Bay on the mid-East Coast. The heaviest concentration of recording being in the D'Entrecasteaux Channel ("The Channel") Districts.
As individual reporting by various members of the expedition have been researched, duplication of meetings has to be considered which will confuse how many counts/estimates actually should be included in the following list.
"The Channel" had annually much more use than other coastal areas, and counts there may reflect a reasonable idea of population groups, especially possible band numbers of c. 40 - 50 individuals.
Date Locality No's Remarks Ref: Mar 1772 Marion Bay 40 Men (first contact - conflict 208:31 (LEC.) - first Aboriginal death). Mar 1772 Marion Bay >300 Men, women, few children. 86:166 Suggestions of bands of 50 - 60 people. Jan 1777 Bruny Island >40 Men, women, children. 90:51, (SE) 86:166 Aug/Sept Bruny Island c 20 Men, women, children. 86:166 1788 July 1789 Maria Island 14 + Men, women. Others 86:166 (MEC) concealed. Feb 1792 Bruny Island 24 Men, women, a child. 86:166 (SE) Apr/May Recherche Bay, c. 8 With 14 living places. 86:166 1792 (SC). Jan/Feb Blackman's Lagoon 48 Men, women, children. 223:280, 1793 (SC). 285. Feb 1793 Recherche Bay, 42 Men, women, children. 223:289 (SC). Feb 1793 Observation Point, 40 Men, women, children. 223:161 (SE). 1798 Port Dalrymple, Few Men. 235:2 (NC). Dec 1798 Derwent River. 3 1 man, 2 women, 7 - 8 huts. 90:57 (SE). Jan 1802 Partridge Is. 55 Men, women, children. 86:54 (SE). 1802 Maria Is. 30 - 26 Men, women, children. (MEC). 86:92 1802 (MEC) <22 Men, women, children. 86:108 Jan 1802 Recherche Bay 5 - 6 Around a fire. 86:38 (SC).
78
Jan 1802 Standaway Bay 15 - 20 86:38 Bruny Is. (SE). Jan 1802 Pt. Cygnet, East Shore 2 86:43 (SE). Jan 1802 Sandrock Bay 9 Family of 5 plus others. 86:43 (SE). Jan 1802 South Bruny, West side 50 + Men, women, children. 86:41 (SE). Jan 1802 Great Taylor Bay, c. 30 86:42 North side, (SE). Jan 1802 Kinghorne Pt and 2 In a boat. 86:44 Mainland (SE). Jan 1802 North West Bay River ---- 8 shelters (50? people). 86:45 (SE). Jan 1802 Near Limestone Hill ---- 14 sheltes (100 ? people). 86:46 (SE). Jan 1802 Barnes Bay, North 7 Men. 86:47 Bruny (SE). Jan 1802 Dennes Point, Bruny 4 - 5 In a boat. 86:48 (SE). Jan 1802 Dennes Point, Bruny 7 Men (women etc. In bush 86:48 (SE). hidden). Jan 1802 Dennes Point, Bruny A party 86:49 (SE). Feb 1802 Derwent River ----- 14 huts (100 ? people). 86 (SE). Feb 1802 Dennes Point, Bruny 17 4 men, 2 women, 11 86:49 (SE). children. Feb 1802 Dennes Point, Bruny 20 Women. 86:49 (SE). Feb 1802 Dennes Point, Bruny 2 Women. 86:50 (SE). Feb 1802 Snug Pt, North West ---- Natives. 86:51 Bay (SE). Feb 1802 Snug Pt, North West 20 10 men, 10 women, child 86:52 Bay (SE). Feb 1802 Dennes-Piersons Pts. 5 In a canoe 86:52 (SE). Feb 1802 North West Bay, Bruny A few 86:53 (SE). Feb 1802 Stinking Creek, Maria 20 Men, women, children. 86:76 Is. (MEC). Feb 1802 Oyster Bay, (MEC). 14 Men. 86:77
Rhys Jones in his 1974 ce. work mentioned his belief that,
"The Society they were observing (i.e. 1772 - 1802) was intact ______" (299:319).
The question of possible if not probable disease may put Jones' suggestion in some degree of doubt.
79
We cannot say if it was Baudin or some other visitor that brought in the devastating illness testified to by Robinson (306:244) and later by Bonwick (255:85 (B39), but looking at the numbers recorded by Baudin (86) it may suggest it was prior to 1802 and I have suggested possibly, if not probably, by D'Entrecasteaux in 1792/3. His records do show a significant difference in numbers to Baudins.
The recorded number of people by Maritime Explorers suggest that small hunting groups of men, families, possibly extended families or a single band which include men, women and their children were encountered, only once in 1772 were a substantial group of people recorded, some 300, possibly seven bands, and considering that conflict had taken place perhaps it was a show of strength, but it is more suggestive that bands had come together for a cultural reason since families were present.
Whatever the reasons for the numbers recorded, they were relatively low especially when one considers that the area (generally) observed was one where suggestions are that the local population did not move away from the coast for any great time or distance.
The First Twenty Years (1803 - 1823) This is the period from the first settlement (at Risdon Cove) to the beginnings of the so-called "Black War". The area of the "Settled Districts" is the population concentrations of Hobart (1804) and Launceston (1806), their surrounding districts, which includes the Tamar Valley north of Launceston and more so the Northern and Southern Midlands.
Outside the districts was limited contact especially the Western half. However acts by "Sealers" after c. 1810 along the North and East Coasts did see considerable physical contact but no real information on populations, which is to be expected.
What information we do have is very limited and serious doubts on large counts may hide a true intent by the reporter to exaggerate for an alternative reason such as hiding a crime or obtaining government assistance to eradicate the natives.
How capable some people were at basic counting is always questionable especially if agitated by a supposed threat of numbers of people, some armed and with the thought "how many hidden from view?". As time goes by the recalled numbers always increase.
Date Locality No's Remarks Ref: Feb 1804 Risdon Cove area. SE. 17 Men. 317:107 May 1804 Risdon Cove area. SE. 100? "Risdon Incident". Some B39 estimates up to 500 - 600. June 1804 Huon District. SE. 120 - c. 20 families. 317:110 140? 1804 Pipe-Clay Lagoon. SE. 17 170:5 Nov 1804 George Town. N. 80 85:45 Nov 1804 George Town. N. Large Same as 80. First native 85:45 party killed in North. Dec 1804 W. of York Town. N 200 85:47 Dec 1804 Western Arm. N 40 85:47
80
1805 York Town c. 16 85:47 1806 Browns River, Kingston 300 A seaman's report. Thought 225:83 SE. to be an exaggeration. 6:164 1806 Up Tamar R. N c. 50 Attacked, both men 85:46-47 wounded. Feb 1807 Frederick Henry Bay, 60 211:55 SE Oct 1807 ? Browns River, SE 250 - Mostly women and 317:10 300 children. Aug 1814 South Arm, SE 36 317:135 Aug 1816 New Norfolk, SM 20 211:56 Oct 1816 Saltpan Plains, 50 211 Tunbridge , NM Nov 1818 Grindstone Bay, MEC. c. 20 317:141 1818 Oyster Bay, MEC 500 225:84 Jan 1819 Near MacQuarie 25 - 30 Old people, women, 206:11-12 Harbour. MWC children (Capt. King) Mar 1819 MacQuarie River, 200 On two separate 225:83 NM occassions? 1819 ? 200 Robert Jones reported. 6:164 1820 Derwent, SE 300 On "Old Man" reported. 6:164 May 1823 Swansea area MEC 7 On Amos property. 366:189 Dec 1823 Swansea area MEC "Mob" On Amos property. 366:189
During 1815 and 1816 Captain James Kelly made an exploratory trip around Tasmania, a clock-wise route from and back to Hobart, Bass and Flinders trip was anti-clockwise from and to North Eastern Tasmania.
A number of sightings and actual contacts took place and although by this time some impact had possibly reduced populations it was more I suggest one of the introduced illnesses of the French prior to 1803 that had the most impact and that may have been, more or less, confined to the South. This means that perhaps outside that area his observation of population may reflect what they were in about 1803. Perhaps 50 to 200 may represent a band to a group of bands and the lesser figures a hearth group or foraging party that had separated from the band to exploit a less productive area.
Date Locality No's Remarks Ref: 12/1815 Recherche Bay. Large 170:7 (S) body. 12/1815 Louisa Bay area. Large Men, women and children. 170:7 (SC) body. 12/1815 South of Low Rocky 2 170:8 Point (SW) 1/1816 Piemans River 6 170:9 (MWC) 1/1816 Cape Grim area 50 170:10 (NW) 1/1816 Cape Portland area 50 + Men + 170:13 (NE)
81
1/1816 North of Eddystone Large A number of associations 170:14 Point (UEC) body over some days with up to 26+ 300 people. c. 200 1/1816 St Patricks Head Small 170:17 (UEC) party. 1/1816 Schouten Island Large 170:17 (MEC) number. 1/1816 Maria Island Several. 170:17 (MEC)
The numbers, especially on the North East area, had not yet had the full impact of European intrusion. About 1820 saw the real start in the reduction in population.
Without a doubt the first important book on and titled "The Aboriginal Tasmanians" in the modern period, is by Lyndall Ryan, 1982 (90), although Plomley's "Friendly Mission" (12) as a work on Tasmanian Anthropology in 1966 (12) must stand as a unique publication in many ways let alone Rhys Jones' appendix in Tindale's publication on Tasmanian Tribes (299) was the first work on that subject being 1974 (1971 originally). Both Plomley and Jones being references for Ryan.
The reason I mention Ryan specifically is because of a statement she made;
"By 1818 the Aboriginal population of Van Dieman's Land (Tasmania) had fallen from an estimated 4,000 to somewhere below 2,000 _____" (90:79), _____ She excludes disease as a cause.
How she could make this statement, not a suggestion, seems debatable and in my yet to be completed work "The Northern Midlands People (their Destruction)" (B59) I discuss the pros and cons.
As seen Ryan's estimate on the pre-European contact is based on the research of Jones and Plomley. The reported numbers of Aborigines up to 1820 (Ryan seems to suggest so few deaths from 1818 to 1820 that it would not affect her 1818 estimate) being observed is of little use in trying to confirm her beliefs one way or the other.
However in 2012 Ryan in her up-dated book of 1982 now entitled, "Tasmanian Aborigines - A history Since 1803" (371) revises her original belief that by 1818 the population of 1803, c. 4,000, was below 2,000, to ;
"By the end of 1819 - (it) had fallen from an estimated 7,000 to about 5,000 _____" (371:71)
This still suggests within 17 years 2,000 had died.
Although Ryan does not specifically mention her source of the 7,000, she does refer to the following in her book;
Robinson, 1829 (6:163) 8,000 - 6,000, James Kelly, 1815 (371:364 N28) 7,000,
82
Others in her (371) are below 7,000 (Plomley, 1993 (215) > 6,000, Jones, 1974 (299) 5,000 - 3,000. See section 25 "Opinions and Estimates" and 26, "Anthropological Suggestions".
Relying on Robinson and Kelly for 7,000 is not something I would suggest as being acceptable.
Ryan (371 xx) also suggests that 8,000 - 6,000 was probable, hence her 7,000.
The Last Years (1824 - 1834) Whereas the first twenty years may be in some ways reliable, but with a great deal of caution suggested, the next ten is far from useful in our pursuit being the period of known hostilities and much killing.
I have created two separate lists of recorded sightings, the first is of non-hostile activities the other counts of attacking Aborigines, possibly males.
I would suggest that considering the number brought in by Robinson from 1830 large numbers recorded then until 1834 are highly questionable and support suggestions that previously reports are also questionable, at least from 1824 even 1820.
One interesting point worth mentioning is the frequency of the 300 figure, going back as far as 1806 right up to 1834. Is this just a "popular use" of a term? In other words "___oh! There was 300!, if a "getting together" of bands, this may suggest some six to eight and may be unlikely. But we cannot be sure!
The last friendly visits by "town" or "tame Aborigines" occurred on the 10th November, 1824, to Hobart by 66, and in December the same year by c. 200 to Launceston. In a rather sullen mood the Hobart group after being forced away left four days later (366:187), the Launceston visitors were fired on and one of their women abused, they too moved on, to attack, in a reprisal, properties near the Lake and Macquarie Rivers. (211:59).
"Non-Hostile Reports"
Date Locality No's Remarks Ref: Mar 1824 (SM) "a Sutherland's Property 366:188 number" Nov 1824 Hobart Town (SE) 66 Last friendly visit there. 366:187 Dec 1824 (SM). 31 Last friendly visit there. 366:187 Dec 1824 Near Launceston c. 200 A "Tame Mob" - last 211:59 (NM). friendly visit. Late 1824 Near New Harbour (S) "Large 170:20 body" 1825 Ben Lomond Tier. (NE) 250 366:198 1825 Birches Bay (SE) 160 225:83 Sept 1825 Port Dalrymple (NM) 200 - Travel in gangs. 366:190 300 Mar 1826 Mayfield (MEC) 80 - 100 A "Tame Mob", spoke 316:55 English.
83
Mar 1827 Near Sandy Cape 20 Plus some children. 206:9 (MWC) Mar 1826 Norfolk Range, (UWC) c. 20 89:71 Mar 1828 Vale of Rasselas, (SW) Great Hunting. 89:31 many. 1829 Ellenthorpe (NM) 300 225:83 Jan 1829 Duck River, (NW). "Several 89:106 Bands" 1829 Ellenthorpe (NM) 300 Overestimate. 225:84 1830 Tamar area. (N). 300 - Mr. Curr. 225:83 400 c. Oct 1830 North East c. 300 GAR. Doubted this. 12:444 N88 < Nov 1830 North East 75 72 men, 3 women, no 12:439 children. GAR's suggestion. N51 Mar 1832 Coal River (SE). 500 317:36 Jan 1834 Norfolk Plains ? (NM) c. 300 Reiby to GAR. 12:834 ? ? 300 Mr. Sams (under Sherriff). 225:83 ? S? 400 "Old Dutton" 225:83
In the "summary" to follow included in Figure 16 is a count column "1824 - 1834 Attacks". I have not done a list of the 104 incidents as I have for the other columns of people counted because it would be of little value. The value of any list Post 1823, even 1820, is questionable for many reasons as seen.
The numbers may in an unknown way include band remnants from various areas, were women and children in hiding and not counted?
Some of the numbers must be exaggerations! Who is going to count while under threat especially an enemy so skilled in hiding and quickly moving around the scene of activity?
Another point is that most of people had been killed by 1827 especially those in the Northern Midlands.
From 1829 the reports of large numbers are extremely suspect, the only band that could boast anything like full membership was that around Sandy Cape in the upper West Coast and that had a number of other band people amongst it. This was the period of Robinson's "Friendly Mission" (12).
84
Summary The following is a rough summary of the various figures. Counts like "great many" or "large bodies" could mean over 50 but since ambiguous they have not been included.
Figure 16. People Counted
Counts 1772 - 1802 1803 - 1823 1824 - 1834 1824 - 1834 Total: Attacks 2 - 5 9 1 ----- 7 17 5 - 10 4 4 ----- 11 19 10 - 15 3 ------8 11 15 - 20 6 5 1 15 27 20 - 30 ------9 9 30 - 40 5 3 1 9 18 40 - 50 3 ------11 14 50 - 60 1 5 ----- 6 12 60 - 100 ----- 7 3 10 20 100 - 150 ----- 1 ----- 7 8 150 - 200 ------2 9 11 200 - 300 1 7 6 1 15 400 - 500 ----- 1 4 1 6 Total: 32 34 17 104 187
Far from being scientific, we have;
Perhaps A hearth group or two, even an extended family. 47 ` (2 - 15 people) Perhaps a band or two 68 (15 - 50 people) Perhaps a few bands 40 (50 - 150 people) And finally, a large gathering of bands. 32 (150 - 500 people).
With the repeated caution of so much room for error, I will not read too much into any of this. However the 1772 - 1802 is particularly important and considering the interest shown, especially by the French, there is some sort of suggestion that what they came across were either family (hearth) groups and single bands, nine of the 32 episodes are counts within the 30 to 55 groupings. From 1803 - 1823 eight of the 34 occur.
The large 200 - 500, (this last figure of 500 is I believe very suspect), counts for 1803 up to 1807 may reflect a population still relatively intact but the sightings are only three. Those of a similar size in the settled districts do leave me with a certain amount of apprehension, as do any Northern Midlands reports of 1824 - 1834, I am of the mind that some pastoralists there made wild estimates for ulterior motives!
Any recorded number of people less than c. 40 are more than likely accurate or very close to the actual number, remembering though that it is more than likely that it was a recounting and not necessarily recorded on the spot or shortly after in a journal or report, and even then we cannot ignore the possibility of an estimate. Odd numbers
85 like 17 suggest accurate recording but others like 20, more likely say 40, look like a rounding off.
I have more confidence in the use of "many"? We cannot say how many but at least it is not an exaggeration.
Memory distortion, exaggeration for political use or as an excuse to explain killings even to hide acts of non-Aboriginals may have sometimes played their part and more than likely did.
Killings May historians have recounted the conflicts between the invading British and the defending Aborigines, some accidental, some during undeclared war activities and many pure murders, this in the following list is not ventured into by me, it is not the subject of this work. Its inclusion is to give an already somewhat confused set of data another view regarding Aboriginal population.
It is unreliable because it gives estimates, personal opinions as well as the obvious possibilities of exaggerating numbers to justify the injuries to the Aborigines or reducing numbers to hide crimes, especially the killing of women and children as well as obviously elderly people. Battles are between fighting men not "civilians", which brings up another problem! Are the reports only about "warriors"? I doubt it, but we do not know.
The importance of how many people killed in "massacres" that more or less destroyed the Palaeo-Tasmanians is an understandable subject often raised by the present Tasmanian Aboriginal people and just recently the subject of a letter to the editor (Examiner Newspaper, 26th January, 2013) by Michael Mansell. His argument being in his opinion more than 9,000 people were killed by deliberate acts of extermination than by diseases introduced accidentally. Mansell puts the population at 10,000 c. 1803.
I will avoid in this paper getting too involved in the argument about who did what as said except to say that we have a division of killings;
1772 - 1803 Incidents caused by misunderstandings.
1804 - 1817 Aboriginal general tolerance of intruders, mostly avoidance. Isolated conflicts.
1817 - 1820 A generalise drift towards hostilities due to expansion of settlers.
1820 - 1824 Expansion causing severe impact, open hostilities.
1824 - 1830 All out conflict, war, massacres.
(Above varied from area to area).
The attached is a summary of the documented more prominent events, it is not comprehensive, there were no doubt many others as evident in decline in numbers.
86
In 1828 (to 1830) the "Bounty Five" (a legalisation of the previous "roving parties") introduced by the government during "a state of emergency" (not declared war) is said to have accounted for about 60 killed with only 20 captured (90:102), in itself a small number which reflects on how depleted the Aborigines had become. No doubt others were killed but not reported.
"Killings"
Date Locality Area Numbers (Injured) Ref: 5/3/1772 North Bay, Tasman LEC Range from many 12:22 Peninsula bands along the coast 12:38-39 to large number. (One, possibly several killed). 3/5/1804 Risdon Cove. SE 500 - 600 (seems Part 211:54 exaggerated) (suggestions of many - 100's but more likely 3 - 6 + injuries). 11/1804 York Town. N 80 (one killed). 90:76 1816 - 1830 Coasts (North and East). N & E (Many killed and abducted by "Sealers"). 12/1824 Patterson's Plains. NM 200 (Fired upon - 13:67 unknown casualties). 1825 Under Ben Lomond Tier. NE 250 (Unknown killed). 366:198 1826 Western Marshes. N Dolly Dalrymple (half- 371:171 caste) killed 14 of 160? 4/1826 Dromedary area. SM 30 (several wounded). 90:117 11/1826 Abyssinian area. SM Group (2 shot). 90:117 1827 Blackman's River. NM Unknown, but few left 371:95-6 soon after (>300 waddies collected). 1827 Around SE 40 (14 killed, 10 366:199 Richmond/Pittwater. captured). 1827 Probably Fingal Valley. NE Unknown (2 killed). 366:198 1827 Mt. Victory (Cape Grim NW "Whole Tribe" (30 12:176 Massacre). killed). 12/4/1827 Mt. Augustus, near NM Up to possibly 40, but 371:90 Campbell Town. likely 17. (Part). 5/1827 Sally's Peak, near SM Considerable number. 371:91 Buckland. 6/1827 Laycock (Liffey) Falls. N 30? 371:94-5 6/1827 Dairy Plains, Western N A number - 10 killed? 90:139 Marshes. 6/1827 Quamby Bluff/Brook. N ----- 371:94-5 Over 14 days during 4 night-raids 100 killed. 371:171 12/1827 Brumby Ck/Lake R. N "Whole Tribe" (several 211:63 shot). 1828 Bullock Hunting Ground, NM 4 men, 9 women and a 371:99 Tamar Valley. child. 1828 Miles Opening. SM 17 (7 plus another 10). 371:99 7/1828 Eastern Tiers. SM 16+. 371:103 11/1828 Great Swanport. MEC 22. 371:68
87
12/1828 Tooms Lake area. SM c. 20 - 30 (several, 10 366:199-200 killed). 10/1828 Jordan's River Lagoon. SM 16+ (16 killed). ----- 1/1829 St. Paul's River. BL 9. 371:108 2/1829 West Tamar. NM 7. 371:109 6/1829 Richmond area SM Large group (8 - 10 366:200 (Pittwater). wounded). 1829 Possibly near Ben NM? 60 - 70 (15 dead or 366:200-1 Lomond. dying). 1829 Hampshire Hills. NW (Various killings). 90:137 1/1829 Moulting Lagoon. OB 13+ (10 killed, 3 90:102 captured). 3/1829 Eastern Marshes SM 6+ (5 killed, 1 90:102 (Stonehenge area). captured). < 1830 The Retreat. NW (19 shot). 12:197-8 < 1830 Upper Reaches Emu NW (Mass slaughters). 366:198 River. <1830 Upper Reaches Jordan SM (Mass Slaughters). 366:198 River.
88
19. "Distant Fires"
On many occasions reports are known of fires on the coasts, an example is that of Baudin (86:99), on 1st April, 1802, all along the North Coast, Cape Portland to Port Dalrymple, many fires were seen often noting natives. Just down the East Coast is the famous "Bay of Fires", the very name testifying to the scene. It was not just the North East but nearly everywhere, especially in the South East where it was so intense that the ships had to weigh up anchor to move off to cooler air for fear of the rigging becoming ignited.
This sometimes suggested a large population but in itself is misleading as it takes only one person to start such fires let alone just a possibility sometimes of a lightning strike. Sighting individual fires is another matter.
An example of exaggeration is found in Robinson's journals, 1st October, 1830 (12:222), a ship's captain reported 700 Aborigines near Cape Portland in the far North East. Fires were mentioned suggesting Aboriginal enterprise, and the crew over reacted (12:437, N27). Actually only a small party (12:240 N179), no more than 40 - 50 (12:437, N27) existed.
Plomley (86:168) also warns that reliance on reports of large numbers or area of fire as an indicator of population is misleading.
89
20. "Hut Evidence"
Depending on the area and the type of shelter/dwelling employed we can make an approximate estimate of occupation numbers in some areas.
The western half of Tasmania requires more substantial shelters than the west. In the west well made relatively large domed shaped huts often in clusters or villages existed, especially the South West Coast where the culture required a semi-sedentary lifestyle in the winter period. The east being sheltered from the westerly weather usually, but not always, only required crude windbreaks - "lean-tos".
Being larger it may be that the west housed extended families, possibly up to twelve individuals. The "hearth groups" or family, the basic social-group, was about seven, that is as the general rule-of-thumb the number who could comfortably sit around a fire - of course this depends on the size of the fire! A windbreak had such a fire in front of it so six hearths/windbreaks possibly 42 people, a "band" size is suggested in that case. A hut village of four structures being about 48 people, perhaps less.
This possible guide to population has problems one being that some structures could be older than associated ones even less used etc. The data is very limited and is of little real use in our study.
90
21. "Social Structure"
The following is only suggestive based on sometimes rounded-off figures.
I believe there was a two-tiered social structure;
"Hearth Group" (Families) & "Bands" (Group of families)
(The complexities of opinions and arguments I will not venture into here).
Additionally, "social-linguistic" groupings existed, but "tribes" I do not accept, however there is some good reason to utilise geographical boundaries for grouping "peoples", these are the "tribes" suggested by Jones and it seem generally accepted by all, except perhaps only Taylor (236) and myself (B40).
A suggestive number of individuals for the various sections of the social structure being;
"Hearth Groups" 7 - 8 persons. "Bands" c. 40 individuals (5 - 6 "Hearth Groups") "Peoples" c. 500 people (c. 12 "Bands" ?).
Another grouping is "Extended Families", some 12 individuals that probably existed prior to "bands" and may have still existed in Tasmania under the alternative title "Small Bands". After 1803/4 it may have been more prominent in areas diminished of numbers. Prior to then perhaps those who claimed their "homeland" rainforest areas.
Working on a total Tasmanian population of 4,000 or 4,500 we have;
4,000 4,500 (Population Average "Hearth Groups" numbering 533 600 7 - 8 "Bands" 100 113 40 "People" 8 9 500)
Jones (299:330) suggested;
3,000 5,000 (Population Average "Hearth Groups" numbering 700 1,000 4.2 - 5 "Bands" 70 85 43 - 59 "Tribes" (People) 9 9 333 - 555)
Overall this does not assist us in trying to estimate the total population especially when we are working on pre conceived totals, but it does give us an idea of the organisation, that is with so much uncertainty there is the need for an average set of suggestions.
One possible piece of assistance is the question of how many "bands" may have been accounted for, this is a possibility because it was the "bands" that were named, not the so-called "tribes" which on mainland Australia were. This in itself I suggest, gives support to my beliefs that "tribes" did not exist.
91
Regretfully it was not until Robinson 1829 - 1830's when most of the people had been already killed and their social structure in tatters that the recording began.
Utilising Plomley's incredible research (224) a total of named "tribes", (Plomley preferred "tribes" to "bands"), 57 are known (224:12). Plomley also continued, making calculations on what he refers to as;
"The estimate of population used by most students at present is one of 4,000 to 6,000 persons".
Tribes Average No. of Persons Per Tribe, 50. 70 100 57 2,850 3,990 5,700 68 3,400 4,760 6,800 79 3,950 5,530 7,900
Jones suggested, as seen, 70 to 85 "bands" (299:325), so if we work on 85 with 50 people we have 4,250. Of course some "bands" were probably smaller as explained, others could be larger.
Leakey, Richard E, explains that in Africa a foraging band comprises about 30 individuals (216:99 - 101). He regards this number "30" as one of those "magic numbers" of hunter-gathering life styles. If 4,000 this would be 133 bands.
Interestingly we are told that "camps" rarely exceeded 30 or 40 individuals in Tasmania (226:265).
Leakey further explains that the effects of a larger or smaller number of individuals;
If more = Work effort has to be increased in order to collect enough food,
and
If fewer Social structure weakened (216:99).
Of course that is Africa and such comparisons must be done with great caution. Not all cultures are the same. Perhaps with Tasmania's resources 40 individuals was more the case but as seen can we really apply this for all of Tasmania?
Another "magic number" may be 500 individuals as a population significantly less than that is not viable in the long run (221:228), that is having direct/indirect physical contact. On mainland Australia c. 500 is an average "tribe" (88A:216).
The following Map 4 is mostly the suggestions of Plomley with some suggestions from me based on Plomley's data, sometimes.
92
93
The system produced the means to have the highest population possible, indeed Plomley's opinion (86:118) was;
"______(It) seems to show fairly clearly that the Tasmanian population was an active breeding group; and not only were they a biologically normal population, but they were a mentally active people".
There can be no doubt he was right!
The population met with in 1792-3 can be said to be unaffected by any outside influences, that is not having been reduced, after this even up to 1802 when Baudin's expedition dropped anchor in the same general area we cannot say this still applied. Therefore, but still appreciating the many pitfalls that exist, we can at least look at a possible population for an immediate area. On two occasions the D'Entrecasteaux second expedition of February 1793 in the Recherche Bay area met the following groups of people that may point to this "possible population" i.e. a "band".
42 comprising 7 men, 8 women, 27 children and adolescents, a few days later.
48 of which 10 men, 14 women, 12 boys and 12 girls.
A suggested division of the 48 into age groups is recorded;
Men 70 - 80 2 Women 50 - 60 4 50 - 60 2 30 - 40 6 30 - 45 4 18 - 25 4 15 - 20 2
The children suggested as 4 to 10 years old as a majority.
94
22. "Tribal/People Population"
Estimates of "Tribal" population have their foundation in Rhys Jones' suggestions. I have utilised his 1974 work (299) but Lyndall Ryan (90) refers to his earlier seminar paper, Department of Prehistory, RSPS, ANU, in March, 1971 (90:288) entitled "Tasmanian Tribes".
Ryan quotes Jones (90:14); (299) Estimated mean population of each tribe 350 and 470 (340 - 450) The smallest c. 250 (c. 175 average) The largest c. 700 (c. 700 average)
(Bracketed numbers above as seen is from (299) and is included out of interest).
Additionally of interest only is a comparison of (299) and (90)
(299) (90) NW 400 - 500 (average 450) 400 - 600 (average 500) SW 200 - 350 (average 275) 200 - 300 (average 250) SE 400 - 500 (average 450) 490 - 560 (average 525) OB 600 - 800 (average 700) 700 - 800 (average 750) BR 300 - 400 (average 350) 300 - 400 (average 350) N 200 - 300 (average 250) 200 - 300 (average 250) NM 400 - 500? (average 450) 300 - 400 (average 350) BL 150 - 200 (average 175) 150 - 200 (average 175) NE 400 - 500 (average 450) 400 - 500 (average 450) 3,050 - 4,050 3,550 3,140 - 4,060 3,600
There are two suggestions in Ryan's book (90) for population of the BR 400 - 500 (90:26) quoting (12:22) and 300 - 400 (90:114).
Jones suggested NM could be much more hence the "?", perhaps same as OB.
The difference between Jones and Ryan are insignificant.
I will continue to utilise the higher estimate of each "people" as it was my initial thoughts that the population prior to 1772 ce was possibly c. 4,000.
NW 500 N 300 SW 350 NM 500 SE 500 BL 200 OB 800 NE 500 BR 400 4,050
Although a pre-conceived opinion I am not setting out to prove the 4,000 is correct but more to see if it is valid. Without pre-empting the "conclusion", 5,500 - 6,000 may be the total population not 4,000!
The use of Ryan's map (No 5 here) and Jones (No. 6) is to show their opinions on the possible "Tribal" boundaries. Obvious differences exist especially the "Big River
95 people". I suggest Jones' lack of a vast North West and South West for inclusion in their territory is more likely than Ryan's inclusion.
Map Comparisons of Jones and Ryan
Ryan (90) utilised as a reference Jones' (299) calculations re: the "Tribes" but whereas Jones' Map (my No. 6) was very approximate utilising straight lines, Ryan's (my No. 5) was more detailed following it seems geographical contours. However Ryan utilised practically the same measurements for Jones' "Tribes". The following shows Jones (299) Ryan (90) and Ryan's recent work (371). All are square kilometres K2).
Jones (299) Ryan (90) Ryan (371) NW 3,400 3,400 3,400 SW 2,800 2,860 3,000 SE 3,100 3,100 3,500 OB 8,500 7,800 8,500 BR 7,800 8,100 * 8,000 N 4,700 4,700 4,500 NM 6,700 6,750 6,500 BL 2,600 2,600 2,500 NE 5,700 5,000 5,000 45,300 44,310 44,900
*Not quoted in her book, but possible got OB and BR confused, so I suppose 8,100 based on her c. 450 population at 18 K2.
The fact that some of Ryan's figures are slightly different to Jones' when "rounded off" is acceptable, the overall is only 400 K2, hardly significant.
It is the BR that is a problem as comparing Maps 5 and 6 there is a significant difference. Although 7,800 to 8,000 is minute the map areas are not.
This difference will affect any calculations if we use Jones' calculations but also use Ryan's map which is what I have done already in this work. My confusions in using these conflicting sources of data is something I must apologise for.
However, as seen Ryan's figures for the BR - 8,100 (90) and 8,000 (371) - are nearly the same as Jones' 7,800, so it is not the area measurement that poses a problem but her maps.
The differences in Ryan's maps in her books (90) and (371) for the west, now not having any "unoccupied" land but still using the same square kilometres for the NW and SW, is far more confusing. This was noticed prior to my notes and remarked on. I have continued to use her (90) map not (371).
96
97
23. "Complications"
In these notes I have mentioned, even briefly discussed, problems on what is Tasmania's area but more so the area foraged. But there are others. Since this work is about population for the whole of Tasmania not how many "bands", whether "tribes" existed etc, I have tried to confine my thoughts to that, however I cannot just totally ignore some things that need a little clarification so I will devote this section to just that starting with;
1). Inland/Coastal "Peoples"
Some works, especially Plomley (224), mention
"Inland" Tribes and "Coastal" Tribes.
I must explain that these terminologies separating groups of "bands" into one or the other economically cannot be substantiated. Geographically there is substance in the suggestion. Trying to analyse the "bands" is all but impossible as the exact number, territory occupied and annual activities are unknown, although limited data is available for some. We are therefore compelled to refer to the so-called "tribes" or "people" as I suggest. Regretfully Plomley refers to "tribes" when actually meaning "bands" - more confusion!
Two distinct "peoples", the "Ben Lomond" and the "Big River" had territories that were "land locked" i.e. no coasts (lakes are not coasts so I will not include them). Another, the "Northern Midlands" had a minute coast but did have the Tamar River Estuary, all the others - six had substantial coasts with huge differences, for example the "South East" had a channel district and large island, Bruny, rich in coastal and bay resources while others like the "North" had a poor coast hemmed in by a very thick rainforest.
Over the millennium a well established seasonal economy was organised within and outside each peoples territories. Social and political arrangements were incorporated into these organisations. Each "people" had their own way of organisation, too complex to elaborate on here, but I would emphasise that because of these "inter- people" arrangements it is not possible to divide them into "inland" or "coastal" people, even geographically, with perhaps the exception of the "Ben Lomond" and "Big River" , it is misleading, more importantly we are here considering so-called "tribes" with huge areas that I suggest did not exist!
2). Territorial Sizes.
So it is that the use of "tribes" complicates the picture if we try to estimate each's population based on a single type of territory. None of the nine have the same territory size, coast line, vegetation or weather conditions, rainfall or numerical social gatherings. Some have off-shore islands, some vast resources of seasonal food, ochre even stone for tools, while some have marine others have grasslands with still others huge fresh water lakes let alone cider-gums for enjoyment.
98
The system was one of sharing by arrangement over a year with the essential benefit of inter-marriage and other social activities some at ceremonial even sacred places. A rich society is obvious.
3). A Total Tasmanian Population.
With such confusing factors the separation into "tribes" (peoples) to try and arrive at what was the population in Tasmania immediately prior to European contact is I suggest near impossible, too many factors within the nine suggested territorial boundaries are unknown, confusing and overlap, better to try and calculate a single population than nine that are then added up to obtain the single overall one.
However because the work of Jones, Ryan, Plomley and others made suggestions, an attempt to establish the nine populations, and also looking at the single option should be contemplated and has been, as seen, carried out over various headings within the composite work.
99
24. "Site Density"
At first thought an increase in sites suggests an increase in population which in turn is suggestive of a possible advancement in society. Improved environmental conditions, enabling expansion because of increased biomass, - more foods and reliability of obtaining it, - increased human population meaning more evidence of living in areas, that is more sites. This will mean an increase in social contacts and trade arrangements, a richer culture.
An example in Tasmania is that about 3,000 years ago more coastal middens become evident and particularly in the last thousand years of Palaeo-culture (335:138). This is based on archaeological excavations yielding absolute dates, that is on the number of sites going back to c. 6,500 - 6,000 B.P., the time when the present sea level was reached.
Of course some coastal middens could go back to c. 8,000 if the living site was high enough above present sea level to survive, as with Rocky Cape and any higher sea level than today's also necessitated the same altitude in site preservation.
A caution is expressed that just because there may be an increase in the number of sites for any period this does not have to mean proof of a population increase. It is also pointed out that perhaps there was change in activities that meant spending less time in any one area, moving on to the next, less sedentary more nomadic. Evidence at a site of the quantity of artefact material left could possibly support this (335:229 - 230).
It is believed that Pleistocene Tasmanians were few in numbers than those of the Late Holocene. Regretfully because of the passage of time, the change in landscapes especially sea levels and wet forest expansion very few sites exist. The inland south west being the exception with the preserved living floors containing thousands of artefacts in a relatively small area over some 27,000 years. The conclusion is that it was a selective highly utilised area, so used by probably few people, but many more than other areas of Tasmania of the time, who had to be more mobile, covering a larger area to sustain themselves and with a much less stable and reliable food supply.
100
25. "Opinions and Estimates"
Researching this part of the subject we have three distinct periods of anthropological studies;
1). 1815 - 1899 Early pre-qualified Anthropologists, Historians, "Scholars", "Antiquarians:" and writers.
2). 1899 - 1974 H. Ling Roth (6) I believe was the first "real Anthropologist" in Tasmania, followed by academics who within limitations of scientific research relied on the pre 1899 period for knowledge.
3). 1974 till now Actually the first real archaeology took place in 1965 with the arrival of Rhys Jones and Harry Lourandos. 1974 is the time that Jones' suggested Estimates on Tasmanian population (299:319 - 354).
The 1815 to 1974 periods utilised information in respected writers publications and they in turn on reports from early colonialists and their own conclusions. As will be seen in the following list the estimates are incredibly varied.
As the period is pre controlled researched anthropology it is pointless going into any discussion on how the various writers formed their opinions, except to say that they are unqualified opinions based on memory and limited experience. Those who were academic relying on un-academic personal opinions.
For the sake of numeric's the highest population is placed first and so-on;
Nearly 20,000 Melville (c. 1833) (6:163), (225:83)
15,000 - 10/8,000 Calder (1875) using G.A.R. (24:24 - 25)
Supposed 10,000 William Williamson (Dec. 1820) (366:99)
8,000 - 6,000 Robinson (1829) (6:163), (193:155) Calder (quoting G.A.R.?) (6:164)
At least 7,000 Calder (1875) (24:24 - 25) c. 7,000 Hugh Hull (Clerk of the Tasmanian (6:164), (225:83 - 84) Council) (1815) and some "Good Authorities".
7,000 James Kelly (1815 - 16) (317:364 N 28) 7,000 "Official Estimate" in 1818, (219:76), (219:224 N98) N. G. Butlin (far too high!).
5,000 James Kelly (1830) (371:115).
101
5,000 - 1,500 Various opinions (up to 1858) (6:163), (279:410)
3,000 - 2,000 Jorgenson (c. 1830) (317:73) 3,000 - 2,000 Radcliffe - Brown A.R. (1930) (299:322) 2,000 Walker, J.B. (1898) (321:367), (299:321)
2,000 Gov. Arthur (1829) (193:155)
2,000 or less Joseph Milligan (1858) (6:163), (299:321)
1,000 - 700 Backhouse (1843) (6:163)
660 - 500 Walker, G.W. (1897) (6:164)
600 In 1831 some settlers though this number existed still in the wild (193:155) - it was not so!
A few comments are worthy of inclusion on these opinions.
While the highest suggestion of 20,000 is not it seems regarded by anyone as correct, not so, 10,000 as will be seen under "Today's Tasmanian Aborigines Opinions".
The next suggestions are those of George Augustus Robinson (GAR) c. 1829 > and although he has left the greatest amount of ethnological information his knowledge of potential original population is negligible, the people were already destroyed except for a couple of hundred. However what he has left behind is some information that allows an estimate to be better formed using bands known in what areas - not perfect but something.
Interestingly the next estimate is c. 7,000, apparently;
"Old settlers (had) not much belief in his (Hugh Hull) figures as to early times _____" (225:84).
Indeed in (219) this figure is also regarded as too high (219:76), (219:224 Note 98).
The figure of c. 2,000 seems to be probably a belief held for the "Settled Districts" which would include principally the two midlands but fringe areas such as the Tamar and Fingal Valleys not the whole of Tasmania.
The subject of the "Settled Districts" makes me return to the figure of 10,000. In December, 1820 Williamson wrote;
"The blacks are supposed to be about 10,000 in numbers but they have been driven mostly into the interior" (366:99).
This figure which is an exaggeration without foundation even suggests that the vast majority of the Aboriginal peoples had been in the settled districts. At this time of 1820 very little was known of the areas outside the midlands so no opinion could be formed on anything.
102
Williamson's comments suggest a violent physical eradication but other evidence suggests more of any uneasy co-existence even sometimes friendly, that is up to 1824, in the Northern Midlands, it was not until 1822 that the first European associated with farming was killed, the only previous death of a European was an escaped convict at George Town in 1819 according to Plomley (211). This may suggest a population decimated by other causes - disease or one of a slow but continual attrition, perhaps a combination?
The subject of the destruction of the Northern Midlands people is covered under another paper (B59).
103
26. Anthropological Suggestions"
Total Population
Rhys Jones is the true "Pioneer of Tasmanian Archaeology" (233:339), indeed Norman B. Tindale in his 1974 forward (299) referred to him, "as the leading worker in the field of Archaeology______".
Jones inaugurated true archaeology into Tasmania about 1965. In 1971 he made suggested population estimates based on Ethnographic Information (88A:195), early British Settlers and Government Employees (335:138).
However Hiscock explains that this information was produced during a period of rapid population decline and with nineteenth preconceptions about the Tasmanians (335:138), further;
"Theories built on the supposed small size of the Tasmanian population Should be doubted because the population estimates are clearly untrustworthy" (335:138).
So what was Jones' suggested population for the Palaeo-Tasmanians?
In 1971 he suggested 3,000 - 5,000, then in 1974 3,000 - 4,000 but explained in 1974 (299:328-9);
"In my present detailed calculations, taking each tribe in turn, I have deliberately erred on the conservative side".
But continuing
"I still feel that 3,000 - 5,000 is the most reasonable estimate for the original population".
This then would suggest that Jones has an average estimate of 4,000.
Another publication (233:339) in 1999 quotes Jones with a total population of "around 4,000 - 6,000" (an average of 5,000). This may be another revision or an error and is included here in case the reader researches and becomes confused. Actually Plomley also mentions 4,000 - 6,000 and perhaps 5,500 being closer to the mark (211:10).
Jones also believed that the period 1772 - 1802 was one that;
"The society they (Maritime Explorers) were observing was intact ____" (299:319).
But considering Bonwick (225:85) I believe this was not necessarily so (B39:42) at least in 1802.
"Mr Robert Clark - (wrote to Bonwick) - quoted; I have gleaned from some of the Aborigines, now in their graves, that they were more numerous than the white people are aware of, but their numbers were very much thinned
104
by a sudden attack of disease which was general among the entire population previous to the arrival of the English. Entire tribes of the natives having been swept off in the course of one or two days illness". (225:85).
Later epidemics show how they impacted on the vulnerable Aboriginal population. Their isolation from Australia was 14,000 to 10,500 years but actually as a people they had been isolated from the world for at least 40,000 years in Tasmania, possibly 60,000 as a part of Australia.
Ryan (90:14) quoting Jones' suggestions of 3,000 - 4,000 made her contributions, (I have already mentioned that Ryan has recently revised her figure to 7,000, even 8,000). I have using Ryan's individual estimates for each of her "nine" people calculated a combination total of ;
3,140/3,240 ------4,060/4,160 (90:14-44)
As explained I have principally utilised Jones, Plomley and Ryan, (archaeologist, anthropologist and an historian) as a foundation for research but not ignoring more recent opinions as can be seen in "Conclusions".
I do not therefore intend to go into deep discussions on all opinions but will on occasion make references to historians important contribution when deemed necessary.
The following is a list of prominent authors since 1966 on their quotations of others or of their own opinions about suggested total Tasmanian Aboriginal population in 1772 ce.
I have put them in sequence according to their numerical suggestions, the largest first.
Of specific importance is Professor Richard Cosgrove's reported remarks in the Launceston's Examiner Newspaper of 28th April, 2014;
"______He was certain the Aboriginal population before European contact was considerably higher than the 3,000 - 5,000 Previously suggested ______".
The 3,000 - 5,000 being obviously Rhys Jones.
105
Author: Date: Ref: Opinion: Note: D. Davies 1973 321:366 15,000 No reference on opinion. (Anthropologist). L. Ryan 2012 371:xx 8,000 - 6,000 Suggests probably. (Historian). N.B. Butlin 1993 321:366 In 1818, 7,000 (219:224 N98) Far too (Econ. Historian). high. H. Reynolds 1995 219:4 7,000 - 5,000 But (219:52) c. 4,000 (Historian). N.J.B. Plomley 1992 211:10 6,000 - 4,000 Realistically c. 5,500 (Anthropologist). 224:12 H. Reynolds 2013 370:133 6,000 - 3,000 Various opinions (Historian). sighted. M. Roe 1998 321:366 6,000 Ref: only (321). (Historian). R. Cosgrove 2013 Newspaper Higher than (I suggest the most (Archaeologist). 5,000 important view to date). R. Jones 1971 299:326 5,000 - 3,000 (Archaeologist). J. Flood 1983 88A:195 5,000 - 3,000 Quotes Jones. (Archaeologist). H. Lourandos 1997 234:36 5,000 - 3,000 Quotes Jones. (Archaeologist). R. Jones 1974 299:328 - 9 4,000 - 3,000 Conservatively (Archaeologist). (299:325). L. Robson 1983 85:17 4,000 - 3,000 Using Jones. (Historian). G. Calder 2010 317:14 4,000 - 3,000 Re: Jones, largely (Historian). accepted. K. Windschuttle 2002 321:364 2,000 > Referred to claims (Historian). 369, 371, 385 6,000 - 4,000 and 7,000 - 4,000. J. Boyce 2008 - 10 366:99 (See 29, "Today's Tasmanian Aborigines (Historian). Opinions").
Band Numbers and Their Populations
I will now consider Plomley's suggestions. To begin with he made a separation into "coastal" and "inland" tribes, that is what I and some others refer to as "bands", it matters little here but I cannot concede that a division such as "coastal" and "inland" is appropriate in the discussion of Tasmanian Economic Structure as I have already said. The culture was basically nomadic with some variations on lengths of stay during their seasonal eco-social way of life, sharing by arrangements resources. Some had a coastal homeland but it included varying inland areas as well. So I will now quote an overall combination without divisions. I apologise for some repetition.
Bands: People: If 50 70 100 57 2,850 3,990 5,700 68 3,400 4,760 6,800 79 3,950 5,530 7.900 (224:12) if 100 5,000 7,000 10,000
106
As previously explained "______calculations are little more than playing with figures ______" (224:12) and I believe he would include the above.
Plomley identified some 57 bands, obviously there was more , how many is the problem. If we accept the population was 4,000 and if the band average was 40 this means 100 bands, so nearly 43% were unaccounted for. We know that by c. 1829 ce many people were band-wise defunct (12).
Large numbers of very rich territory are blanks on band maps, Plomley himself admits that "inland tribes" information is scarce with areas like the Midlands being settled early by Europeans (224:9). This specific area probably had a large number of bands, Plomley states this (224:11) but also commented that other areas like within rainforests had fewer in comparison to area.
The rainforest dwellers although only utilising their homeland for a part of the year may because of smaller numbers been more vulnerable to disease disappearing before Robinson arrived.
West of the Huon there were a larger number of bands than we know about, being told that a number were defunct (24) (224).
Jones' suggestions are of course extremely important but there are at least three references on his work that are a little confusing but result in a near enough final suggestion of all three.
First, Jones himself in 1974 estimated 70 - 80 bands with a total population of 3,000 to 5,000, this is a range of 43 to 62 people in each band. The mean average is;
75 bands with 53 people giving a total population of 3,975. (299:326).
The next are quotes of Jones' suggestions;
In 1982 (90:14), 70 - 85 bands with 40 - 50 people giving 2,800 to 4,250 as a total population, the mean average is;
77 bands with 45 people giving a total population of 3,465.
Finally in 1999 (233), 70 - 85 bands with 30 - 80 people giving 2,100 to 6,800, again a mean average of;
77 bands with 55 people, total population is 4,235.
Overall 76 bands x 51 people = 3,876 (or c. 4,000).
107
Conclusions.
Only utilising Jones and Plomley because of the their Anthropological knowledge, it would seem we have;
"Mean Averages" Jones (1971 - 4), 76 bands with 53 people Being 4,000, But a possible maximum of c. 5,000.
Plomley (1992), 137 bands with 40 people Being 5,500 people, And a maximum of c. 6,000 is made.
However, the Historian, Ryan in her recent publication (371) explains that there are suggestions that some of the "Nine Tribes" actually five of them have had more recent investigations since Jones, and the following is suggested;
SW, (371:37) A higher population (116:43 - 50) 1984 Archaeological,
OB, (371:17) Higher minimum (320) 1991 Archaeological,
BR, (371:26) A higher population (203:43-4) 1984 Archaeological,
N (371:24) Closer to 600 (not 300) ("Contested 2001 Historian research. Places etc").
NM (371:29) Much higher population (207:37) 1990 Archaeological overall and Ryan suggests 300 killed. 1820 - 1830 of the 500? Suggested maximum of Jones.
"The Nine People"
A further suggestion, or is it a "play with numbers", is trying to put a number on how many bands each of the nine geographical people had.
108
The following is self explanatory.
Figure 17. Number of Bands People Population If 30 people 40 50 per band NW 500 17 12 - 13 10 SW 350 12 9 7 SE 500 17 12 - 13 10 OB 800 26 20 16 BR 400 13 10 8 N 300 10 8 6 NM 500 17 12 - 13 10 BL 200 7 5 4 NE 500 17 12 - 13 10 Total: 4,050 135 bands 101 80 Average (÷ 9) Bands 15 11 9
A Perplexity!
The decision to divide Tasmania into "nine" units referred to as "tribe" even just "peoples" (but without acceptable proof that they existed) having distinct designated boundaries causes considerable confusion if we are to analyse "occupied land" and "coasts" within these boundaries. Even more confusing is to then suggest "occupied land" should be replaced by so-called "productive land", in the quest to try and establish what each of the "nines" population was.
Factors that confuse are;
1) Sharing of areas during a year cycle. 2) How long away, or if you like, how long spent in their "homeland". 3) Those with no "productive land" (actually only the SW) require a mathematic consideration as only using their coast will be prejudicial. 4) Likewise those, being BR and BL, with no coasts also is misleading.
The BR and OB especially had a very close relationship as a socio-linguistic group, strong in numbers in comparison to others and shared each other's "homelands". Perhaps they should be regarded as one?
If we disregard the "nine" all this disappears, now having a single unit of calculations.
It must be pointed out that this list does not assist in any way the question as to what the population was prior to 1772 ce, although the estimates for each of the peoples population has been formulated on presumptions of occupied territory area and suggestions of the average square kilometres per person, a factor in population numbers is a presumption and average. These concerns are repeated nearly in all subjects discussed so the reader is not misled.
109
27. "Genetic Considerations"
Colin Pardoe's studies of Crania, (the bones enclosing the brain, the "skull"), from Tasmania taking into consideration a population suggested size of 4,000 - 6,000 shows a less than expected degree of genetic drift (the comparison of genetic material in humans to try and establish relationships over time and space) between Tasmanian's and the Australian mainlands Aboriginal people. The complexities of the subject are not meant to be included in these notes but the importance re: population numbers in Tasmania is that Pardoe believes;
1) That the Tasmanian population may have been larger. Or 2) A relatively high degree of intermarriage occurred between Tasmania's territorial groups (233:339), that is the "Bands".
Biological evidence suggests that around the time of Tasmania's separation - that is the complete cutting of the corridor - from Australia about < 10,500 BP or earlier up to 14,000, the Tasmanian population was possibly much larger. The evidence being the lack of biological divergence due to genetic drift. This is based on a suggested population of c. 5,000 (at the time of European intrusion) being isolated for c. 10,500 plus years but there is an alternate proposition, that a natural population increase from the time of first Aboriginal settlement c. 40,000 BP was quite large at c. 10,500 but then for some undeclared reason it declined in more recent times, when is not mentioned understandably (88A:195).
The full onset of an El Niño from c. 4,000 to 2,000 BP is argued (335:141) for economic change in Australia including Tasmania - drier conditions. This is in itself a subject worthy of discussion but not here, I have in other subject papers suggested that where Australia suffered, Tasmania may have been in many areas actually benefitted, now rainforests could be again penetrated with the use of fire-sticking, entering the Central Plateau and with the thought of an increase in population started visiting the islands with their vast resources of seal and mutton bird. But not in the far North East especially not the Furneaux Group which actually saw a marooned population expire.
110
28. "Today's Tasmanian Aborigines Opinions"
The information, due to circumstances, that I possess is limited and care must be taken as I am quoting "Letters to the Editor", of the Launceston "Examiner Newspaper". However, no retraction in any form that I could find has occurred so I believe it has been correctly printed from the original letter.
I have not contacted the writer to enquire where the information came from, a reference, because I believe such action would be suggested as insulting or the like, for which I can assure anyone that would not be the intention.
The letter of the 26th January, 2013, titled "Disease Not Killer", was written by Michael Mansell of the "Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre", I believe in Launceston. I quote;
"______There is no evidence that disease caused the deaths Of more than 9,000 Tasmanian Aborigines during the first 30 years of invasion".
Mr. Mansell is it seems is referring to the period 1803/4 to 1833/4. Obviously it is the population of 9,000 + we are here interested in and Mr. Mansell goes on to explain;
"A conservative figure would put the group's, (that is from Granville Harbour, mid West Coast North to include the North West Coast as far as about Wynyard), population at more than 1,000 as settlers at the time estimated the total Aboriginal population at 10,000 (James Joyce)".
Mr. Mansell is relying on information obtained from "settlers" about 1822 (he refers to the time Robinson took the remnants of the West Coast peoples from Macquarie Harbour (that is 1833) less 11 years (he quotes).
I find it incredible that he would accept the words of the "invader" considering these "settlers" as he calls them, had little or no knowledge, and little interest except trying to get the Government to provide more protective soldiers, within their own area being the Midlands, Swansea area, East Coast and the South East. In 1822 the Van Dieman's Land Company of the North West had not impacted, this would be 1826 onwards.
Settlers opinions in 1822, even later, would be as suggested absolutely useless in trying to establish Tasmania's Palaeo-population. Mr. Mansell quoted "James Joyce" as seen, but he was only quoting the settlers and as seen in "Opinions and Estimates" their estimates are unreliable.
Additionally I consulted the reference, "James Joyce" and found that although this author exists he was an Irish writer, the actual person, I believe, Mansell is quoting is "James Boyce" (this could be a printing error not Mansell's).
The book, an excellent history, is titled "Van Dieman's Land", published by Black Inc. Melbourne 2008. (366).
Boyce explains that in 1818 the official estimates of the Aboriginal population was 7,000.
111
At this time the first initial wave of pastoralists (c. 1817 - 1820) had just started to penetrate the two Midlands properly, the occupation was more or less from Port Dalrymple South in a narrow (c 15 - 20 km wide) near straight line to Hobart, thinly populated with practically no knowledge outside the area. True, coastal explorations had taken place, but with the Aborigines having principally a nomadic foraging economy exploiting large quantities of seasonal foods, any sighting are misleading in trying to judge populations.
One of these explorers was James Kelly who had circumnavigated (clock-wise) Tasmania and fell in with a number of Aborigines, this was in 1815 - 1816 (170). From two to about 200 were estimated, the largest on the Upper East Coast, people who had associations with "Sealers" and it seems some "bushrangers" but these two never left estimates of population, how could they!
It seems that Kelly's opinions on population had contributed to the official estimates which was consistent with prevailing opinions included the official census. The census of 1818 believed the Aboriginal population to be twice of the whites, they being 3,240, so 7,000 was "suggested" (366:99), but no census was made or could have been carried out.
Many settlers - people living in very small areas of personal knowledge - believed they were even more. An example is that of a settler called William Williamson in December, 1820;
"The blacks are supposed to be about 10,000 in numbers but they have been driven mostly into the interior" (366:99 - 100).
A couple of points should be mentioned about this, firstly the word "supposed" that is an assumption without fact, not knowledge, the next is "driven into the interior". In 1820 it was a time in the Midland that the Aborigines generally regarded the pastoralists and all "whites" as trespassers - friendly days were to finish. It is also a period in the Northern Midlands that it seems the native population may have been significantly reduced, whether by disease, like the common cold or by deliberate acts of pastoralists to eradicate the people, we cannot be sure, but all-out "warfare" did not commence until c. 1826. It is however suggestive that prior to then, avoidance being away from the settled districts may have been practiced. If not seen how can you arrive at a figure, especially in the thousands?
Most of this seems to support Mansell in his quote of Boyce's;
"____ Estimated the total Aboriginal population at 10,000 ______".
But he failed to mention Boyle's immediate note after this (366:100);
"There was no basis for such estimates ______."
This is a serious omission in Mansell's argument which effects its credibility!
A word on the "official census" that is the "official count of population", where the government could easily count its own people it was utterly impossible to count the Aborigines, it was all supposition based on personal opinions.
112
Boyce explains that the census does indicate that the British believed that they were outnumbered, seeing no evidence of any significant decline in Aboriginal numbers (366:100), but this was taken in the confined occupied area of the two Midlands and any reports of large numbers of Aborigines by invading pastoralists only too eager to rid themselves of those who previously occupied the land may have been an attempt to obtain more armed protection or even the right to "defend themselves" with roving parties and kill the Aborigines.
It is not Mansell's argument about killings I am concerned with but his writing of what the Aboriginal population was in pre-British invasion times.
Finally, as seen the present Tasmanian Aboriginal people rely on the "opinions" of writers, either non-Aboriginal or to a greater extent I believe those in their community who have studied history, but their references are the same as anyone else's.
Present day Aboriginal people have no "handed-down" evidence of their ancestors population numbers, if they do have any such information they would no doubt use it instead of quoting "white" historians. No one would expect them to have pre-invasion data especially when most Aboriginal people trace their ancestry back to a handful of North East females from Eastern Straitsmen culture, a very confined knowledge base. Indeed Tindale in his forward (299) explains that he in 1953 and Birdsell in 1949 obtained "no significant field information could be gathered about the former tribal structure of these (Tasmanian Aborigines) people". (Interviews with their descendents on Cape Barren Island and Tasmania). However this could be because of the interviewers attitude and approach to delicate matters.
It is understandable to believe that the more people killed the worse the crime, so suggesting 10,000 not 4,000 is more supportive to any political argument. I think that it is not the number so much as the complete destruction of a cultural people that is more important - whatever the belief it was horrendous!
Finally, although some Anthropologists (principally Archaeologists) suggestions on population may be criticised, it remains a fact that their opinions carry more weight than any early settler and public servants with no real knowledge outside their own domain during a period of great distress.
113
29. "Conclusions"
The question to be answered in this paper was;
"Prior to European intrusion, that is physical contact, what was the Tasmanian Palaeo-Aboriginal population?" (Or how may "bands" and how many people in each "band?").
The intrusion date was 1772 ce.
Any information after this date, especially in the south, is suspect because of
1772 - 1802 Maritime Coastal Explorers. (Devastating disease struck the south?) Limited visits to south up to middle east coast. Limited time covering more "summer period". Casual recording.
1803 - 1821 British Invasion confined to Central East. Limited recording and contact. Aboriginal avoidance generally suggested.
1821 - 1829 Pastoral expansion, sealer activity. Limited recording. Hostilities - devastation of bands.
1829 - 1842 Remnant people brought in. Robinson records much, but casual conversations. Social structure all but completely destroyed.
1842 - 1899 Academics record what they can. Attempts at population estimates. Informers too old generally to be reliable. Limited information.
Thus it has been necessary to try and reach a possible acceptable conclusion utilising land area, resources and actual economically occupiable areas with subsequent possible carrying capacity calculations.
Although I have utilised Rhys Jones (299) as a benchmark, Rhys utilised the total "tribal" (people) area suggesting it was 45,300 K2 which as I have explained included significant areas of near useless to totally useless terrain. Although extremely difficult to calculate what this total area might be, but I must say trying to calculate debatable "tribal" boundaries is no less a problem, I make the suggestion that it may have been such that it reduced Rhys 45,300 down to only 28,500 K2 of "productive land".
Such thoughts, if working on a population of 4,000 within the 28,500 K2 we have a greatly reduced carrying capacity, instead of 11 K2 per person to only 7 K2, significantly
114 lower than the "European Palaeolithic suggestion of 10 K2, instead if we use 10 K2 for Tasmania's 28,500 K2 we have an unacceptable population of only 2,850.
At the other end of the spectrum if 10,000 people in 28,500 K2 this suggests only 3 K2 per person, far too small an area I suggest to be able to survive on within Tasmania's resources.
Plomley's 5,500 people would suggest 5 K2 per person.
Explaining further with some duplication;
Until 1966 and then 1974 (Plomley and Jones) no real useful research undertaken on population estimates, then
Plomley quotes opinions as 4,000 to 6,000. Jones suggests 3,000 to 5,000. Mansell (T.A.C.) believes 10,000 at least. Other information if "tribes" existed - nine, we have c. 4,500 as follows.
With limited data and so many factors as well as un-reliable previous opinions, recorded observations, and a "general" comparison outside Tasmania, we have the estimate of about,
4,000 ----- 5,000 (average 4,500), being a figure range that would seem practical. Any suggestions over 6,500 may be impractical especially around the 10,000.
The overall picture working on occupied ("homelands") land which excludes "roads" (walking tracks) through otherwise un-used areas but include places of significant ritual importance - these places would have sometimes only limited foraging value - is one of;
45,300 square kilometres.
The general suggestion held by many outside Australia is that an area of about 10 square kilometres is required for a foraging culture, thus we would have;
4,530 people.
Further "if" 9 "tribes" existed in Tasmania and an average population is 500 we have, (as said), two points that may be relevant,
1). 500 is a rough minimum inter-acting population needed to sustain a health people (221:228).
2). 500 is a rough mean average for a tribe, even a geographical people. (88A:216). Giving us 4,500 people.
115
A Victorian comparison of 440 people per tribe (224:15) could suggest a Tasmanian equivalent of;
c. 4,000 people.
The "band" social structure was extremely important and it is so in its contribution to the subject of population. As seen 85 separate "bands" probably existed and if averaging 50 individuals (as part of Jones' suggestion) we have;
c. 4,250 people (A suggestion of 85 with 40 people is 3,400 and seems too low).
The final consideration is a comparison with Australia re: density of the area, that is how many square kilometres of occupied territory per person, 45,300 K2 ÷ 4,050 (suggested people) = 11.3 K2 as seen.
Comparing with South West Victoria (inland) (234:37), we have only 2.5 - 3.3 K2 required for each person. This is indeed a significant different suggestion that South West Victoria was between four and three times richer in foraging than Tasmania!
However,
Comparing South West Victoria (coastal) (234:37), we have 1.4 - 2.5 K2 per person but in Tasmania only .35 K2 (350 sq. Metres) thus rightly or wrongly, (I suggest the former), in comparing South West Victoria to Tasmania, the suggestions is that Tasmania was poorer inland but much richer in (coastal) marine foods.
The use of a fixed population does not assist in trying to establish the actual total population of Tasmania, but a 50/50 usage for inland and coast does. The exercises undertaken here does support a belief held by many Archaeologists that the population of the Palaeo-Tasmanians prior to meeting Europeans was perhaps
c. 4,000 to 4,500 individuals.
Admittedly this is a generalisation but based on good estimates and approached in different ways arriving at very similar figures.
I cannot find any reason to extol statements that the population was
"____ At 10,000 (James Joyce)". (Michael Mansell, Tsmanian Aboriginal Centre) "Examiner" Newspaper 26/1/2013.
Tasmania had reached its full capacity more or less of human population within the limits of a "stone age" hunter-gathering culture, probably a few thousand years prior to European arrival, and that population had a size that could be reasonably compared with other similar cultures.
116
Any suggestion of a population exceeding 5,000 is not impossible, considering some evidence from other foraging people in the world. By this I would suggest that although the evidence suggests 4,500 - 5,000 as the total population, a variable of perhaps 20% (perhaps 6,000) cannot be ignored as a higher figure.
"But what if over 4,500?"
Utilising Professor Richard Cosgrove's reported important suggestions (Examiner 28/4/2014) that the pre-European contact population was considerably higher than 3,000 - 5,000, an interesting exercise would be to utilise 6,000 being 50% greater than the 4,000 used in this paper or 20% in comparison to the 5,000. Whether this could be said "considerable" is up to discussion but I believe it is.
So how would this impact on "Carrying Capacity"?
The following is the suggestions;
If 45,300 K2, 6,000 people, 7.5 K2 per person. ("Tribal/peoples" occupied area)
Or 28,500 K2 6,000 people, 4.7 K2 per person. (Suggested "economic area")
And 1,450 coast, 6,000 people, .24 KM per person.
Without being able to guarantee such thoughts, never the less the above appears to be reasonable considering the circumstances.
To take it further utilising Jones' suggested "Nine Tribal Areas" percentages we could hypothetically have;
Figure 18. "Considering Jones' Figures"
People Based on Jones (299) Using Jones 4,000 %'s Using my Productive Land - Coast % Area Occ Population % Using 6,000 % of area For 6,000 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) NW 7.5 450 12.3 740 12.7 760 SW 6.2 370 8.7 520 7.6 460 SE 6.8 410 12.3 740 9.4 560 OB 18.8 1.130 19.8 1.190 22.9 1,370 BR 17.2 1,030 9.9 590 6.3 380 N 10.4 620 7.4 440 9.1 550 NM 14.8 890 12.3 740 14.0 840 BL 5.7 340 5.0 300 3.2 190 NE 12.6 760 12.3 740 14.8 890 100 6,000 100 6,000 100 6,000
117
Utilising Jones' suggested occupied "Homeland" in a percentage (A), I have calculated what proportion of the 6,000 each of the "nine" would have (B). Next, calculating from Jones' 4,050 individuals the percentage of each he assigned to each of them (C). Using this on the 6,000 to establish a population comparison (D).
Finally I used my suggested "Productive" area including costs (E) and with these percentages applied them to the 6,000 to obtain further comparisons (F).
One would not expect Fig 18, (D) and (F) to be the same but actually numerically the differences are c. 200 less to 180 more. Percentage wise it is more significant due to the small populations involved, that is where 100 people is the variant the percentage is 14%. It must be always remembered that I am working with a single hypothetical set of figures as a base.
It is again I must remark on the BR populations, in this case only 590 and 380, especially the latter which is without a doubt a total misconception! Searching for an explanation I can only suggest the link between them and the OB was a greater eco- cultural one than supposed. By using the percentage area of only 6.3%, which does not include any coast but gives the OB 22.9%. If we are to amalgamate them within (E) and (F) we have 29.2% (each 14.6%) and 1,750 people (each 875), of course we must ask is halving reasonable to start with? Perhaps the figures look reasonable enough?
Obviously the unanswerable question is how many people constituted each of the "Nine People", let alone a single figure for Tasmania, but at least working on the single figure we have a much better chance of arriving at an acceptable one which may be c. 6,000.
Note: Although I have continually utilised Jones' c. 4,000 as a population guide it is still possible to relate to the more suggestive 6,000 by just increasing each of the "Nine People's" population by 50% to arrive at comparisons. Other suggested non- population data, e.g. areas in square kilometres and percentages remaining the same.
As a final thought can we "play with figures" and compare inland South West Victoria to Tasmania but include coast and its inland. This would be based on Tasmania having 6,000 people.
Such an exercise would be on "Carrying Capacity" of how many K2 per person;
Inland South Western Victoria 2.5 - 3.3 K2
Tasmania: Inland ("Homelands" 45,300 K2) 7.5 K2 Inland (Productive 28,500) 4.7
Coast With suggestion of;
Inland 7.5 + Coast .2 = 7.7 ÷2 = 3.8 And Inland 4.7 + Coast .2 = 4.9 ÷2 = 2.5
(The ÷2 because c. 50/50 use of inland/coast). An interesting comparison!
118
"Final Conclusion"
After obviously considerable research and thoughts the final situation is the question of whether my suggestion of utilising so-termed "Productive Land" and not suggested "Tribal Occupied Land" has merit? This I must leave to others.
What I will focus on is whether we can accept Jones' overall 11 K2 utilising "Tribal Occupied Land" of 45,300 K2. This as seen suggests a population of 4,200, if we apply 7 K2 (Lourandos NW 5 - 10 K2) we have 6,500 people*.
If c. 6,500 is accepted and using 28,500 K2 we have c. 4.4 K2*. With inland SW Victoria estimated at 2.5 - 3.3 K2 is 4.4 K2 reasonable? It seems so.
The following is a sliding scale comparison of the two square kilometre areas pertinent to the study, being suggested occupied area of 45,300 K2 and my thoughts on productive area of 28,500 K2, and square kilometres (K2) per person, resulting in population totals to the nearest 100 individuals.
Figure 19 "Final Comparison"
K2 Per P. 28,500 K2 45,300 K2 K2 per p. 28,500 K2 45,300 K2 2.5 11,400 18,100 6.5 4,400 7,000 3.0 9,500 15,100 7.0* 4,100 6,500 * 3.5 8,100 12.900 7.5 3,800 6,000 4.0 7,100 11,300 8.0 3,600 5,700 4.5* 6,300 * 10,100 8.5 3,400 5,300 5.0 5,700 9,100 9.0 3,200 5,000 5.5 5,200 8.200 9.5 3,000 4,800 6.0 4,800 7,600 10.0 2,900 4,500
If the "Tribal Areas" are 45,300 K2 and using the suggested total population of 6,500 we have, as seen, 7 K2 per person, further if using the suggested "Productive Area" total of 28,500 K2 we have only c. 4 K2. This means we have 16,800 K2 (45,300 less 28,500) meaning 11 K2 (7 + 4). Such an hypothesis shows that the 16,800 K2 as very poor indeed, nearly a third of the "Productive Area".
Such consequences makes it difficult not to accept c. 6,500 as a probable total population for the Palaeo-Tasmanians of c. 1772.
The suggestion of c. 4,000 - 4,500 appears to be just too low!
119
The Analysis of Individual People
The undertaking of analysing the "Nine People", suggested as a social structure in Tasmania, is of little value in trying to arrive at the possible total population.
Suggestions of what each of the "Nine" may have been in area occupied both terrestrial and littoral are nothing more than convenient geographical boundaries based on not only geography with its possible bordering terrain, such as rivers, mountains and coastal landmarks, but major vegetation domains. Although having some obvious value in showing separation possibilities such as the mountains and rainforests of the western half halting human expansion and creating a rich eastern half.
We cannot establish the borders of "bands" or ignore the possibilities of overlapping territories any more than we can do the same with the larger suggested "tribal" structure. Analysing "bands" is obviously even more complex.
The sophistication of relationships between social groups that included sharing territories by reciprocal agreements over an annual period distorts the exercise of trying to compare territorial area (terrestrial and littoral) to a suggested total population using percentages in various ways is totally misleading although by chance some data looks reasonable.
Making it even more complex are my suggestions of only using not area thought to be a "tribal homeland" but only the area that is designated of economic value. The exercise is complex and only based on opinions formed from suggested data that is not reliable enough to put forward with certainty.
As said the exercise was justified even if only to show its inadequacy in trying to answer our question on total population.
120
Carrying Capacity.
At this point the words of Lourandos, as mentioned at the beginning of this section (on page 57), again come into play, that is the warning that the concept is questionable because of the difficulty in measuring it as well as other things.
The difficulty in the measuring is that we can only suggest area occupied, its economic value and what this would translate into carrying capacity and population density. All presumptions based on other presumptions aided by looking at other similar people and their culture, yet realising that "other things" connected to these comparisons are not exactly the same. Additionally we have to suggest a population figure, for example 6,500.
I believe that these "other things" include cultural customs, environments, technology and social as well as economic trading.
So although we can come up with all sorts of suggestions on populations, and although we can reasonably suggest the measured area occupied, all we can hope to arrive at is a "possible carrying capacity" and "population density" all based on presumptions. Perhaps we can, in the Palaeo-Tasmanian case, say if 6,500 people lived on the island with only 70% usable then again perhaps each person would require 7 K2 to survive. This would include the littoral, near enough because it alone would be only .2 km per person. The littoral contribution excludes the 1 K2 hinterland as it is already included in the 7 K2 calculation.
Additionally, this translates into .14 persons requiring a square kilometre.
Yes! We can make these Tasmanian suggested figures, but if we hope that instead of using a population of 6,500 we reduce it to say 4,000, making the carrying capacity of 7 K2 to c. 11 K2, does it make such a difference that we can rely on carrying capacity to prove 6,500 is right or is it 4,000? It is just impossible.
I believe it is only an exercise. What seems more likely is that considering all the data 4,000 was probably a minimum and 6,500 perhaps a maximum.
However with the knowledge available to us about other cultures between 7 and 10 K2 per person for Tasmania is about as best as I think it comes.
Regretfully population density/carrying capacity cannot give us a population figure anymore than a population figure can give us the density/ capacity. All figures are exercises on supposition. Only a census can supply true figures and that's impossible!
121
References
6. Roth. H Ling "The Aborigines of Tasmania". Halifax (England) F. King & Sons 1899.
12. Plomley. N.J.B. ed Friendly Mission : The Tasmanian Journals and Papers of George Augustus Robinson 1829 - 1834". Hobart Tasmanian Historical Research Association 1966.
13. Turnbull, Clive "Blackwar - The Extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines Melbourne, Lansdowne Press Pty. Ltd., 1965.
24. Calder, J.E. 1875 "Some Accounts of the Wars, Extirpation, Habit etc of the Native Tribes of Tasmania".
85. Robson, L. "A History of Tasmania, Vol. 1, Van Diemans Land From The Earliest Times to 1855". Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 1983.
86. Plomley, N.J.B. "The Baudin Expedition and the Tasmanian Aborigines 1802". Hobart, Blubber Head Press, 1983.
88A. Flood, Josephine "Archaeology Of The Dreamtime", revised edition 1995.
89. Binks, C.J. "Explorers of Western Tasmania", Launceston , Mary Fisher Bookshops, 1980.
90. Ryan, Lyndall "The Aboriginal Tasmanians", London, St. Lucia, University of Queensland Press, 1981, Reprint 1982.
116. Vanderwal, Ron & Horton, David "Coastal South West Tasmania", Dept. Of Pre-History Research School of Pacific Studies, the Aust. Nat. Univ., 1984, Terra Australis 9.
125. Davies, J. L. Ed. "Atlas of Tasmania", Hobart, Lands & Surveys Department 1965.
170. Tasmania Day (24/11/1986) "The Log" - (Circumnavigation of Van Dieman's Land by Captain James Kelly & Other Accounts of Early Exploration of the West & North West Coast of Tasmania from Parliamentary Papers).
193. Johnston, Anna & Rolls, Mitchell (ed.) "Reading Robinson - Companion Essays To Friendly Mission", Quintus Publishing, 2008.
203. Cosgrove, Richard "Aboriginal Economy and Settlement in the Tasmanian Central Highlands", May 1984, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Sandy Bay, Hobart.
207. Kee, Sue "Midlands Aboriginal Archaeological Site Survey", Oct. 1990, Occasional Paper No. 26, Dept. of Parks, Wildlife & Heritage, Hobart, Tas.
122
208. Duyker, Edward (Editor) "The Discovery of Tasmania - Journal Extracts from the Expeditions of Abel Janszoon Tasman and Marc-Joseph Marion Dufresne.
211. Plomley, N.J.B. "The Aboriginal/Settler Clash In Van Dieman's Land 1803 - 1831", Occasional Paper No. 6, Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, Tas." (1992).
216. Leakey, Richard E. "The Making of Mankind", 1981, Michael Joseph Ltd., 44 Bedford Square, London, W.C.I.
219. Reynolds, Henry "Fate Of A Free People", 1995, Penguin Books, Australia Ltd.
221. Flood, Josephine "Rock Art of the Dreamtime", 1977. Angus & Robertson an Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, Australia.
223. Plomley, Brian & Piard-Bernier, Josiane "The General (The Visits of the Expedition Led by Bruny D'Entrecasteaux to Tasmanian Waters in 1792 & 1793" - 1993 Queen Victoria Museum, Launceston.
224. Plomley, N.J.B. "The Tasmanian Tribes & Cicatrices as Tribal Indicators Among the Tasmanian Aborigines", Occasional Paper No. 5. Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, Tasmania - undated circa, 1990.
225. Bonwick, James "Daily Life & Origins of the Tasmanians". Sampson Low. Son & Marston, London. 1870.
226. Walker, James Backhouse, "Early Tasmania", Papers John Vail, Government Printer 1902.
227. Plomley, N.J.B. "Weep In Silence" (A History of the Flinders Island Aboriginal Settlement), Hobart Blubber Head Press 1987.
233. Mulvaney, John & Kamminga, Johan "Prehistory of Australia". 1999 Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd.
234. Lourandos, Harry "Continent of Hunter-Gatherers New Perspectives in Australian Pre-History". Cambridge University Press. 1997.
235. Bethell, L.S. "The Story of Port Dalrymple" - Life & Work in Northern Tasmania.
236. Taylor, John Albert "A Study of the Palawa (Tasmanian Aboriginal) Place Names". Printed by Uniprint Launceston, 2006.
246. Pike-Jay, Anne, Cosgrove, Richard & Garvey, Jillian "Systematic Seasonal Land Use By Late Pleistocene Tasmanian Aborigines". Journal of Archaeological Science. XXX (2008) 1 - 13.
272. Plomley, N.J.B. "Thomas Bock's Portraits of the Tasmanian Aborigines", Queen Victoria Museum, Launceston, 1965. New Series No. 18.
123
279. Milligan, F.L.S. "The Aborigines of Tasmania : On the Dialects and Language of the Aboriginal Tribes of Tasmania, and on their Manners and Customs", p. 410 - 434, c. 1866.
299. Tindale, Norman B (Appendix on Tasmanian Tribes p. 319 - 354, by Rhys Jones), Australian National University Press, Canberra, 1974.
306. Luckman, Jessie "History of Maria Island" - The Tasmanian Tramp No. 19 (January 1970).
316. Nyman, Lois "The Easter Coasters - The Early Pioneering History of the East Coast of Tasmania", 1990.
317. Calder, Graeme "Levee, Line and Martial Law" - A History of the Dispossession of the Mairremmener People of Van Dieman's Land, 1803 - 1832. Studies in the History of Aboriginal Tasmania, Vol. 1, 2010.
320. Brown, Steve "Aboriginal Archaeological Sites in Eastern Tasmania : A Cultural Resource Management Statement", Occasional Paper No. 31, Hobart, Department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage, December, 1991.
335. Hiscock, Peter "Archaeology of Ancient Australia" Routledge, 2 Park Square Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14.4RN, 2008.
366. Boyce, James "Van Dieman's Land", Published By Black Inc., Melbourne, 2008.
371. Ryan, Lyndall "Tasmanian Aborigines - A History Since 1803". Allen & Unwin, 2012.
B38. "The Last Palaeo-Tasmanians". Feb 2011
B39. "Who Destroyed The Palaeo-Tasmanians?" Feb 2011
B40. "Did Tribes Exist In The Tasmanian Palaeo-Society?" Mar 2011 (Part thereof of "Controversial Palaeo-Tasmania").
B52. "Tasmania's Palaeo-Islands" 2012
B59. "The Northern Midlands People" (Their Destruction). Dec 2013
B38 - B59 Are by Barry H. Brimfield - unpublished papers. Copies held by Hobart and Launceston Libraries as well as the Tasmanian Museum and Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, Launceston.
124
NOTES
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______NOTES
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______NOTES
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______