Australian frontier wars: Difference between revisions
Keepitshort (talk | contribs) m →New South Wales: minor tidy on ending of martial law |
→Background: Citations |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
Cook, in his voyage up the east coast of Australia, observed no signs of European-style agriculture or other development by its inhabitants. Some historians argue that the prevailing European law was such land was deemed ''[[terra nullius]]'' or land belonging to nobody<ref name = "Macintyre_34">Macintyre (1999), p. 34</ref> and that Cook disobeyed his orders against claiming possession of Australia without the consent of the native inhabitants. Cook claimed the east coast of the continent for Britain on 23 August 1770. They claim that the British Government accepted this action without further investigation.<ref>Broome (1988), p. 92–93</ref> |
Cook, in his voyage up the east coast of Australia, observed no signs of European-style agriculture or other development by its inhabitants. Some historians argue that the prevailing European law was such land was deemed ''[[terra nullius]]'' or land belonging to nobody<ref name = "Macintyre_34">Macintyre (1999), p. 34</ref> and that Cook disobeyed his orders against claiming possession of Australia without the consent of the native inhabitants. Cook claimed the east coast of the continent for Britain on 23 August 1770. They claim that the British Government accepted this action without further investigation.<ref>Broome (1988), p. 92–93</ref> |
||
Historian Michael Connor argues that this is a misinterpretation of Cook’s orders, of the term ''[[terra nullius]]'' and of the prevailing European law. The section of Cook’s orders which dealt with the Great South Land ordered him to claim it with the consent of the natives or if uninhabited. However, Australia was not then thought of as the Great South Land. |
Historian Michael Connor argues that this is a misinterpretation of Cook’s orders, of the term ''[[terra nullius]]'' and of the prevailing European law. The section of Cook’s orders which dealt with the Great South Land ordered him to claim it with the consent of the natives or if uninhabited. However, Australia was not then thought of as the Great South Land.<ref>http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2009/02/nulliusgate#_ftn13</ref> In Cook’s time, the Great South Land was believed to lie in an area to the south of Tahiti and east of New Zealand.<ref>http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2009/02/nulliusgate#_ftn13</ref> The Great South Land was a myth and the appellation only began to be applied to Australia (New Holland) long after the voyages of Cook made that fact clear.<ref>http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2009/02/nulliusgate#_ftn13</ref> |
||
Cook’s orders went on to say “You will also observe with accuracy the Situation of such Islands as you may discover in the Course of your Voyage that have not hitherto been discover’d by any Europeans and take Possession for His Majesty and make Surveys and Draughts of such of them as may appear to be of Consequence, without Suffering yourself however to be thereby diverted from the Object which you are always to have in View, the Discovery of the Southern Continent so often Mentioned.” There is no mention in this section of his orders of either getting the consent of the natives or that the lands must be uninhabited before taking possession on behalf of the King. It was this section of his orders that Cook was obeying in taking possession of the Society Islands, New Zealand and the east coast of Australia (all of which were inhabited). |
Cook’s orders went on to say “You will also observe with accuracy the Situation of such Islands as you may discover in the Course of your Voyage that have not hitherto been discover’d by any Europeans and take Possession for His Majesty and make Surveys and Draughts of such of them as may appear to be of Consequence, without Suffering yourself however to be thereby diverted from the Object which you are always to have in View, the Discovery of the Southern Continent so often Mentioned.” There is no mention in this section of his orders of either getting the consent of the natives or that the lands must be uninhabited before taking possession on behalf of the King. It was this section of his orders that Cook was obeying in taking possession of the Society Islands, New Zealand and the east coast of Australia (all of which were inhabited).<ref>http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2009/02/nulliusgate#_ftn13</ref> |
||
Connor argues that when Cook took possession of the east coast of Australia, he did so by annexation and not because it was regarded as ''[[terra nullius]]''. In European tradition, beyond the acquisition of genuinely unoccupied land (like the Falkland Islands), territory could also be acquired by conquest, cession (including gift and purchase) and by annexation. The concept of ''[[terra nullius]]'', a term that was originally defined as meaning “land not under any sovereignty”, is not found in the writings of Cook (in particular the log and journal covering the voyage during which he took possession of Australia) and was never used by the British to justify their claim to Australia. ''[[Terra nullius]]'' has been confused by some historians with ''[[res nullius]]'', a legal term, which means “a thing which has no owner”. <ref>http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2009/02/nulliusgate#_ftn13 </ref> <ref>M. Connor, ‘Dispel myth of Terra Nullius and Historians are on Shaky Ground’, The Australian, 9 July 2004 </ref> <ref>M. Connor, ‘Error Nullius’, Bulletin, 28 August, 2003 </ref> <ref>M. Connor, ‘Error Nullius Revisited’, Upholding the Constitution: Papers of the Samuel Griffith Society, 16 </ref> |
Connor argues that when Cook took possession of the east coast of Australia, he did so by annexation and not because it was regarded as ''[[terra nullius]]''. In European tradition, beyond the acquisition of genuinely unoccupied land (like the Falkland Islands), territory could also be acquired by conquest, cession (including gift and purchase) and by annexation. The concept of ''[[terra nullius]]'', a term that was originally defined as meaning “land not under any sovereignty”, is not found in the writings of Cook (in particular the log and journal covering the voyage during which he took possession of Australia) and was never used by the British to justify their claim to Australia. ''[[Terra nullius]]'' has been confused by some historians with ''[[res nullius]]'', a legal term, which means “a thing which has no owner”. <ref>http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2009/02/nulliusgate#_ftn13 </ref> <ref>M. Connor, ‘Dispel myth of Terra Nullius and Historians are on Shaky Ground’, The Australian, 9 July 2004 </ref> <ref>M. Connor, ‘Error Nullius’, Bulletin, 28 August, 2003 </ref> <ref>M. Connor, ‘Error Nullius Revisited’, Upholding the Constitution: Papers of the Samuel Griffith Society, 16 </ref> |
Revision as of 11:20, 22 June 2009
Australian frontier wars | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() Mounted police attacking Indigenous Australians during the Slaughterhouse Creek Massacre of 1838 | |||||
| |||||
Belligerents | |||||
European settlers | Indigenous Australians | ||||
Casualties and losses | |||||
2,000-2,500[2] | At least 20,000[2] |
The Australian frontier wars were a series of conflicts fought between Indigenous Australians and European settlers. The first fighting took place in May 1788 and the last clashes occurred in the early 1930s. Indigenous fatalities from the fighting have been estimated as at least 20,000 and European deaths as between 2,000 and 2,500. Far more devastating, however, was the effect of disease which significantly reduced the Indigenous population by the beginning of the 20th century and may have limited their ability to resist.[3]
Background
In 1770 a British expedition under the command of then-Lieutenant James Cook made the first voyage by Europeans along the Australian east coast. On 29 April Cook and a small landing party fired on a group of Tharawal people who threatened them when they attempted to come ashore at Botany Bay. Two Tharawal men threw spears at the British, before fleeing in alarm after being fired on again. Cook did not make further contact with the Tharawal, but later established a peaceful relationship with the Kokobujundji people when his ship, HM Bark Endeavour, had to be repaired at present-day Cooktown.[4]
Cook, in his voyage up the east coast of Australia, observed no signs of European-style agriculture or other development by its inhabitants. Some historians argue that the prevailing European law was such land was deemed terra nullius or land belonging to nobody[5] and that Cook disobeyed his orders against claiming possession of Australia without the consent of the native inhabitants. Cook claimed the east coast of the continent for Britain on 23 August 1770. They claim that the British Government accepted this action without further investigation.[6]
Historian Michael Connor argues that this is a misinterpretation of Cook’s orders, of the term terra nullius and of the prevailing European law. The section of Cook’s orders which dealt with the Great South Land ordered him to claim it with the consent of the natives or if uninhabited. However, Australia was not then thought of as the Great South Land.[7] In Cook’s time, the Great South Land was believed to lie in an area to the south of Tahiti and east of New Zealand.[8] The Great South Land was a myth and the appellation only began to be applied to Australia (New Holland) long after the voyages of Cook made that fact clear.[9]
Cook’s orders went on to say “You will also observe with accuracy the Situation of such Islands as you may discover in the Course of your Voyage that have not hitherto been discover’d by any Europeans and take Possession for His Majesty and make Surveys and Draughts of such of them as may appear to be of Consequence, without Suffering yourself however to be thereby diverted from the Object which you are always to have in View, the Discovery of the Southern Continent so often Mentioned.” There is no mention in this section of his orders of either getting the consent of the natives or that the lands must be uninhabited before taking possession on behalf of the King. It was this section of his orders that Cook was obeying in taking possession of the Society Islands, New Zealand and the east coast of Australia (all of which were inhabited).[10]
Connor argues that when Cook took possession of the east coast of Australia, he did so by annexation and not because it was regarded as terra nullius. In European tradition, beyond the acquisition of genuinely unoccupied land (like the Falkland Islands), territory could also be acquired by conquest, cession (including gift and purchase) and by annexation. The concept of terra nullius, a term that was originally defined as meaning “land not under any sovereignty”, is not found in the writings of Cook (in particular the log and journal covering the voyage during which he took possession of Australia) and was never used by the British to justify their claim to Australia. Terra nullius has been confused by some historians with res nullius, a legal term, which means “a thing which has no owner”. [11] [12] [13] [14]
The British Government decided to establish a prison colony in Australia in 1786.[15] Some historians argue that Australia had a European legal status of terra nullius and that this meant that Indigenous Australians were not recognised as having property rights and that territory could be acquired through 'original occupation' rather than conquest or consent.[5] The colony's Governor, Captain Arthur Phillip, was instructed to "live in amity and kindness" with Indigenous Australians, however and sought to avoid conflict.[16]
However, under the alternative explanation of the British acquisition of Australia, i.e. annexation, colonists could be granted the right to occupy such areas of the annexed land that did not appear to be under cultivation or some other kind of development (such as a village or town) but were generally expected to respect the property rights of the original inhabitants. Since, in European terms however, property rights were principally exercised by the cultivation of land, the marking of boundaries and by the building of permanent buildings and settlements, it did not appear to the European eye that nomadic hunter-gatherers claimed what could be considered property rights to the lands they roamed over. Instead, nomadic hunter-gatherers seemed, to the Europeans, to be concerned only with the right to hunt and kill the wild game, which was their principal source of food. Many of the violent incidents between white settlers and Aborigines seem to have occurred when Aborigines objected to settlers hunting wild game, rather than because the settlers were 'occupying' Aboriginal territory.[citation needed]
Violence between Indigenous Australians and Europeans began several months after the First Fleet established Sydney on 26 January 1788. The local Indigenous people became suspicious when the British began to clear land and catch fish, and in May 1788 five convicts were killed and an Indigenous man was wounded. The British grew increasingly concerned when groups of up to three hundred Indigenous people were sighted at the outskirts of the settlement in June.[17] Despite this, Phillip attempted to avoid conflict, and forbade reprisals after being speared in 1790.[18] He did, however, authorise two punitive expeditions in December 1790 after his huntsman was killed, but neither was successful.[19]
History
During the 1790s and early 1800s the British established small settlements along the Australian coastline. These settlements initially occupied small amounts of land, and there was little conflict between the settlers and Indigenous peoples. Fighting broke out when the settlements expanded however, disrupting traditional Indigenous food-gathering activities, and subsequently followed the pattern of European settlement in Australia for the next 150 years.[20] Indeed whilst the reactions of the native inhabitants to the sudden arrival of British settlers were varied, they became inevitably hostile when their presence led to competition over resources, and to the occupation of their lands. European diseases decimated Indigeous populations, and the occupation or destruction of lands and food resources sometimes led to starvation.[21] By and large neither the Europeans nor the Indigenous peoples approached the conflict in an organised sense, with the conflict more one between groups of settlers and individual tribes rather than systematic warfare, even if at times it did involve British soldiers and later formed mounted police units. Not all Indigenous Australians resisted white encroachment on their lands either, whilst many also served in mounted police units and were involved in attacks on other tribes.[22] Regardless a pattern of frontier warfare emerges, with Indigenous resistance beginning in the 18th century and continuing into the early 20th century, belying the "myth" of peaceful settlement in Australia. Settlers in turn often reacted with violence, resulting in a number of indiscriminate massacres.[23][24]
It may be inaccurate, however, to depict the conflict as one sided and mainly perpetrated by Europeans on Indigenous Australians. Although many more died than Europeans, many cases of mass killing were not massacres but military defeats, and this may have had more to do with the technological and logistic advantages enjoyed by Europeans.[25] Indigenous tactics varied, but were mainly based on pre-existing hunting and fighting practices—utilising spears, clubs and other primitive weapons. Unlike the indigenous peoples of New Zealand and North America, on the main they failed to adapt to meet the challenge of the Europeans, and although there were some instances of individuals and groups acquiring and using firearms, this was not widespread.[26] In reality the Indigenous peoples were never a serious military threat, regardless of how much the settlers may have feared them.[27] On occasions large groups attacked Europeans in open terrain and a conventional battle ensued, during which the natives would attempt to use superior numbers to their advantage. This could sometimes be effective, with reports of them advancing in crescent formation in an attempt to outflank and surround their opponents, waiting out the first volley of shots and then hurling their spears whilst the settlers reloaded. Usually however such open warfare proved more costly for the Indigenous Australians than the Europeans.[28]
Central to the success of the Europeans was the use of firearms, however the advantages this afforded have often been overstated. Prior to the 19th century, firearms were often cumbersome muzzle-loading, smooth-bore, single shot weapons with flint-lock mechanisms. Such weapons produced a low rate of fire, whilst suffering from a high rate of failure and were only accurate within 50 metres (160 ft). These deficiencies gave the natives the advantage, allowing them to move in close and engage with spears. However by 1850 significant advances in firearms gave the Europeans a distinct advantage, with the six-shot Colt revolver, the Snider single shot breech-loading rifle and later the Martini-Henry rifle as well as rapid-fire rifles such as the Winchester rifle, becoming available. These weapons, when used on open ground and combined with the superior mobility provided by horses to surround and engage groups of Indigenous Australians, often proved successful. The Europeans also had to adapt their tactics to fight their fast-moving, often hidden enemies. Strategies employed included night-time surprise attacks, and positioning forces to drive the natives off cliffs or force them to retreat into rivers while attacking from both banks.[29]
New South Wales
The first frontier war began in 1795 when the British established farms along the Hawkesbury River west of Sydney. The local Darug people raided farms until Governor Macquarie dispatched troops from the British Army 46th Regiment in 1816. These troops patrolled the Hawkesbury Valley and ended the conflict by killing 14 Indigenous Australians in a raid on their campsite.[30]
Conflict began again when the British expanded into inland New South Wales. The settlers who crossed the Blue Mountains were harassed by Wiradjuri warriors, who killed or wounded stock-keepers and stock and were subjected to retaliatory killings. In response, Governor Brisbane proclaimed martial law on 14th August 1824 to end "...the Slaughter of Black Women and Children, and unoffending White Men...". It remained in force until 11th December 1824, when it was proclaimed that "...the judicious and humane Measures pursued by the Magistrates assembled at Bathurst have restored Tranquillity without Bloodshed...".[31][32]. There is a display of the weaponry and history of this conflict at the National Museum of Australia.[33] This includes a commendation by Governor Brisbane of the deployment of the troops under Major Morisset: "I felt it necessary to augment the Detachment at Bathurst to 75 men who were divided into various small parties, each headed by a Magistrate who proceeded in different directions in towards the interior of the Country ... This system of keeping these unfortunate People in a constant state of alarm soon brought them to a sense of their Duty, and ... Saturday their great and most warlike Chieftain has been with me to receive his pardon and that He, with most of His Tribe, attended the annual conference held here on the 28th Novr...."[34]
Brisbane also established the New South Wales Mounted Police, who began as mounted infantry from the 3rd Regiment, and were first deployed against bushrangers around Bathurst in 1825. Later they were deployed to the upper Hunter Valley in 1826 after fighting broke out there between Wonnarua and Kamilaroi people and settlers.[35]
Van Diemen's Land
The British established a settlement in Van Diemen's Land (modern Tasmania) in 1803. Relations with the local Indigenous people were generally peaceful until the mid-1820s when pastoral expansion caused conflict over land. This led to sustained frontier warfare (the 'Black War'), and in some districts farmers were forced to fortify their houses.[30] Over 50 British were killed between 1828 and 1830 in what was the "most successful Aboriginal resistance in Australia's history".[36]
In 1830 Lieutenant-Governor Arthur attempted to end the 'Black War' through a massive offensive. In an operation which became known as the 'Black Line' ten percent of the colony's male civilian population were mobilised and marched across the settled districts in company with police and soldiers in an attempt to clear Indigenous Australians from the area. While few Indigenous people were captured, the operation discouraged the Indigenous raiding parties, and they gradually agreed to leave their land for a reservation which had been established at Flinders Island.[30]
Northern Australia
The British made three attempts to establish military outposts in northern Australia. The initial settlement at Fort Dundas on Melville Island was established in 1824 but was abandoned in 1829 due to attacks from the local Tiwi people. Some fighting also took place near Fort Wellington on the Cobourg Peninsula between its establishment in 1827 and abandonment in 1829. The third British settlement, Fort Victoria, was also established on the Cobourg Peninsula in 1838 but was abandoned in 1845.[30]
Western Australia
The first British settlement in Western Australia was established by the British Army at Albany in 1826. Relations between the garrison and the local Minang people were generally good. Open conflict between Noongar and European settlers broke out in Western Australia in the 1830s as the Swan River Colony expanded from Perth. The Battle of Pinjarra is the best known single event, it was fought on 33 October 1833 between a party of British soldiers and mounted police led by Governor Stirling attacked an Indigenous campsite on the banks of the Murray River.[30]
The Noongar people forced from traditional hunting grounds and denied access to sacred sites turned to stealing settlers crops and killing livestock to supplement their food supply. In 1831 a Noongar person was killed taking potatoes this resulted in Yagan killing a servent of the household as was the response permitted under tribal law. In 1832 Yagan and two others were arrested and sentenced to death, settler Robert Menli Lyon argued that Yagan was defending his land from invasion as such he should be treated as a prisoner of war. The argument was successful and the three men were exiled to Carnac Island under the supervision of Lyon and two soldiers, the group later escaped from the island.[37]
Fighting continued on into the 1840's along the Avon River near York.[30]
The discovery of gold near Coolgardie in 1892 brought thousands of prospectors onto Wangkathaa land, causing sporadic fighting.[38]
Wars on the plains
From the 1830s British settlement spread rapidly through inland eastern Australia, leading to widespread conflict. Fighting took place across the Liverpool Plains, with 16 British and up to 500 Indigenous Australians being killed between 1832 and 1838. The fighting in this region included several massacres of Indigenous people including as the Waterloo Creek massacre and Myall Creek massacres in 1838 and did not end until 1843. Further fighting took place in the New England region during the early 1840s.[39]
Fighting also took place in Victoria after it was settled by British in 1834. A clash at Benalla in 1838 marked the beginning of frontier conflict in the colony which lasted for fifteen years. The Indigenous groups in Victoria concentrated on economic warfare, killing tens of thousands of sheep. Large numbers of British settlers arrived in Victoria during the 1840s, and rapidly outnumbered the Indigenous population. By the late 1840s frontier conflict was limited to the Wimmera and Gippsland.[40] Considerable fighting also took place in South Australia between 1839 and 1841.[41]
The frontier wars on the eastern Australian plains were particularly bitter in south-east and central Queensland. British settlers reached the Darling Downs in 1840, leading to widespread fighting and heavy loss of life. The conflict later spread north to the Wide Bay-Hervey Bay region, and at one stage the settlement of Maryborough was virtually under siege.[42] Both sides committed atrocities, with settlers on the Darling Downs poisoning Indigenous people in 1842 and Indigenous warriors killing 19 settlers during the Cullin-La-Ringo massacre on 17 October 1861.[30]
Western and north Queensland and northern Western Australia
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Skirmish_near_Creen_Creek.jpg/220px-Skirmish_near_Creen_Creek.jpg)
In the 1870s most conflict took place in western and north Queensland and northern Western Australia. Raids conducted by the Kalkadoon held settlers out of Western Queensland for ten years until September 1884 when they attacked a force of settlers and native police at Battle Mountain near modern Cloncurry. The subsequent Battle of Battle Mountain ended in disaster for the Kalkadoon, who suffered heavy losses.[43] Fighting continued in north Queensland, however, with Indigenous raiders attacking sheep and cattle while native police mounted punitive expeditions.[38] Overall, the fighting in north Queensland was the most significant of the frontier wars, with Indigenous warriors killing at least 470 settlers and native police and at least 4,000 Indigenous people being killed after 1860.[44]
Continued European expansion in Western Australia led to further frontier conflict, Banuba raiders also attacked European settlements during the 1890s until their leader was killed in 1897.[38] Sporadic conflict continued in northern Western Australia until the 1920s, with a Royal Commission held in 1926 finding that at least eleven Indigenous Australians had been killed in the Forrest River massacre by a police expedition in retaliation for the death of a European.[45]
Northern Territory
The final battles of the Australian frontier wars took place in the Northern Territory. A permanent settlement was established at modern-day Darwin in 1869 and attempts by pastoralists to occupy Indigenous land led to conflict.[38] This fighting continued into the Twentieth century, and was driven by reprisals against European deaths and the pastoralists' desire to secure their land. At least 31 Indigenous men were killed by police in the Coniston massacre in 1928 and further reprisal expeditions were conducted in 1932 and 1933.[46]
Historiography
The existence of armed resistance to white settlement was generally not acknowledged by historians until the 1970s. In 1968 anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner wrote that historians' failure to include Indigenous Australians in histories of Australia or acknowledge widespread frontier conflict constituted a 'great Australian silence'. Works which discussed the conflicts began to appear during the 1970s and 1980s, and the first history of the Australian frontier told from an Indigenous perspective, Henry Reynolds' The Other Side of the Frontier, was published in 1982.[38]
Between 2000 and 2002 Keith Windschuttle published a series of articles in the magazine Quadrant and the book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. These works argued that there had not been prolonged frontier warfare in Australia, and that historians had in some instances fabricated evidence of fighting. Windschuttle's claims led to the so-called 'History wars' in which historians debated the extent of the conflict between Indigenous Australians and European settlers.[38]
The frontier wars are not commemorated at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. The Memorial argues that the Australian frontier fighting is outside of its charter as it did not involve Australian military forces. This position is supported by the Returned and Services League of Australia but is opposed by many historians, including Geoffrey Blainey, Gordon Briscoe, John Coates, John Connor, Ken Inglis, Michael McKernan and Peter Stanley. These historians argue that the fighting should be commemorated at the Memorial as it involved large numbers of Indigenous Australians and paramilitary Australian units.[47]
See also
Notes
- ^ Coates (2006), p. 12
- ^ a b Grey (2008), p. 39
- ^ Dennis et al 1995, p. 11.
- ^ Broome (1988), p. 92
- ^ a b Macintyre (1999), p. 34
- ^ Broome (1988), p. 92–93
- ^ http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2009/02/nulliusgate#_ftn13
- ^ http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2009/02/nulliusgate#_ftn13
- ^ http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2009/02/nulliusgate#_ftn13
- ^ http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2009/02/nulliusgate#_ftn13
- ^ http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2009/02/nulliusgate#_ftn13
- ^ M. Connor, ‘Dispel myth of Terra Nullius and Historians are on Shaky Ground’, The Australian, 9 July 2004
- ^ M. Connor, ‘Error Nullius’, Bulletin, 28 August, 2003
- ^ M. Connor, ‘Error Nullius Revisited’, Upholding the Constitution: Papers of the Samuel Griffith Society, 16
- ^ Macintyre (1999), p. 30
- ^ Broome (1988), p. 93
- ^ Broome (1988), p. 94
- ^ Macintyre (1999), p. 33
- ^ Connor (2002), pp. 31–33
- ^ Connor (2002), pp. 33–34
- ^ Dennis et al (1995), p. 9.
- ^ Dennis et al (1995), p. 9.
- ^ Dennis et al (1995), p. 12.
- ^ Grey (1999), p. 31.
- ^ Grey (1995), p. 12.
- ^ Dennis et al (1995), p. 5.
- ^ Grey (1999), p. 30.
- ^ Dennis et al (1995), p. 12–13.
- ^ Dennis et al (1995), pp. 7–8.
- ^ a b c d e f g Connor (2008), p. 220
- ^ Text of Proclamation of Martial Law at National Library of Australia. Note: "Measure" made plural to align with 'have" [1]
- ^ Text of Proclamation ending Martial Law at National Library of Australia.[2]
- ^ Bell's Falls Gorge interactive display at the National Museum of Australia. [3]
- ^ Sir Thomas Brisbane to Earl Bathurst, Despatch No.18 per ship Mangles,Government House, N.S. Wales, 31st December, 1824.[4]
- ^ Connor (2008), p. 62
- ^ Broome (1988), p. 96
- ^ Hasluck, Alexandra (1967). "Yagan ( - 1833)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra: National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. ISBN 978-0-522-84459-7. ISSN 1833-7538. OCLC 70677943. Retrieved 2008-11-04.
- ^ a b c d e f Connor (2008), p. 221
- ^ Broome (1988), p. 101
- ^ Broome (1988), pp. 102–103
- ^ Broome (1988), pp. 103–104
- ^ Broome (1988), p. 102
- ^ Coulthard-Clark (2001), pp. 51–52
- ^ Grey (2008), p. 38
- ^ Broome (1988), pp. 108–109
- ^ Broome (1988), p. 109
- ^ Peacock, Matt (26 February 2009). "War memorial battle over frontier conflict recognition". The 7:30 Report. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 18 April 2009.
References
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg/30px-Commons-logo.svg.png)
- Broome, Richard (1988). "The Struggle for Australia : Aboriginal-European Warfare, 1770–1930". In McKernan, M. and Browne, M (ed.). Australia Two Centuries of War & Peace. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. ISBN 0642995028.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) - Coates, John (2006). An Atlas of Australia's Wars. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195559142.
- Connor, John (2002). The Australian frontier wars, 1788-1838. Sydney: UNSW Press. ISBN 0868407569.
- Connor, John (2008). "Frontier Wars". In Dennis, Peter; et al. (eds.). The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History (Second ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand. ISBN 9780195517842.
{{cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|editor=
(help) - Coulthard-Clark, Chris (2001). The Encyclopedia of Australia's Battles. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
- Dennis, Peter (1995). The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195532279.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - Grassby, Al (1988). Six Australian Battlefields. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1864486724.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - Grey, Jeffrey (1999). A Military History of Australia (Second ed.). Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-64483-6.
- Grey, Jeffrey (2008). A Military History of Australia (Third ed.). Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521697910.
- Macintyre, Stuart (1999). A Concise History of Australia. Cambridge Consise Histories (First ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521625777.
- Reynolds, Henry (1995). The Other Side of the Frontier. Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia. Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia. ISBN 0140130403.
- Stanley, Peter (1986). The Remote Garrison. The British Army in Australia 1788-1870. Kenthurst: Kangaroo Press. ISBN 0864170912.