Talk:Aboriginal Tasmanians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Aboriginal Tasmanian)
Jump to: navigation, search


There's a problem with this. The 'Palawa' has a political ring to it, being the preferred name of the government-back Tasmania Aboriginal Centre, which represents the Bass Strait people. But in Tasmania, many claim descent from marriages between sealers and sailors, and aboriginal women, people who were never moved by official agency, but stayed put because, as the scions of mixed descent, they were not at the time classified as true tribal aborigines. These are the Lia Pootah. It's a problem of NPOV, since, as it stands (esp the lead) one position is endorsed, while the minority position, is ignored or passed over in silence.Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Parlevar (Palawa) was the name of the "first man" (created from a Kangaroo) by a creation spirit and the name was used by Tasmanian Aborigines to identify themselves. However, the name is now used by the political minority group that runs the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. Since splitting from the main Aboriginal community (Palawa and Lia Pootah) in 1996, the Palawa have had the power to decide who is a Tasmanian Aboriginal (ie: who can and who cannot access money and services provided by the government) and they recognise only decendants of the Bass Strait Island community as Aboriginal (around 2,000 people) and all claim direct decent from Manalaganna, the grandfather of Fanny Cochrane Smith. Palawa do not consider those decended from Tasmanian mainland Aboriginal communities, the Lia Pootah, as Aboriginal (around 16,000). In Tasmania, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is subordinate to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre who control all government funding and also control what books on Aboriginal history schools and libraries in Tasmania can have, unapproved books are banned as are records of their own pre 1996 oral history as it contradicts their post 1996 oral history. Michael Mansell is their spokesman. This political connection probably makes the use of the word in the article inappropriate.Wayne (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I tend to disagree. We may or may not agree with the ways the TAC has placed itself at the top (which incidentally applies to a lot of government around the planet!) but until something changes, they appear to be the source of "official" material for the Tasmanian local government, such as place-names for the national parks, teaching material for schools etc. That to me suggests a sufficient level of offficialness.
Retaining the palervar I feel is also not entirely appropriate in the presence of a less colonial (mis-)spelling. And crucially, I don't see any evidence that there is objection from within the community to the spelling "palawa", rather than the work(ings) of the TAC.
My view is, if there are sources that question the use of the "palawa" spelling then we can use both but we can't just airbrush the spelling of the only (AFAIK) current language revitalisation project from the article because there may be political machinations involved. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus for Palawa. Parlevar is not colonial spelling but the original Aboriginal name. The article recognises that Palawa is English spelling. The article recognises the modern usage of Palawa despite your claim that it does not. The usage of Parlevar avoids descrimination as Palawa is used politically. I'll have a look at how the academic community view the name. Wayne (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah a response :) Just what makes you think that the spelling Parlevar is anything but colonial? To use an analogy, Hong Kong is a colonial spelling that is neither Cantonese, Hakka nor Mandarin. In the case of Hong Kong the name has stuck by mutual consensus but that does not mean at all that it's "original" Akerbeltz (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Parlevar (English spelling of the Aboriginal phonetics) was the name used by Tasmanian Aborigines to identify themselves. It was anglicized to Palawa. Wayne (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see the problem. Look, it usually goes like this (using Hong Kong as an example): Native says: /hœːŋ˥ kɔːŋ˧˥/ Foreigner hears: "whut? sounds a bit like /hɔŋ kʰɔŋ/" So he writes Hong Kong, which is normally a zillion miles away from how a linguist would write it or how a native writing system would write it. What usually happens is that later on the natives revisit such ghastly spellings and find a more appropriate way of spelling the sounds of their language. Parlever falls into the same category as Geelong, which in less garbled spelling is not Jillong. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Usually I support common English usage but with indigenous topics you need to exercise care when a term has become politicised or controversial. The Palawa debate is a very "touchy" area where "Palawa" has effectively become a political group. Wayne (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that sensitivity is sensible but we should also remember that Wikipedia does not consider "stepping on the toes of X" a reason for not saying something. Let me put this the other way round - is there any contemporary tribe/grouping/organisation that uses Parlever? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Academic sources often use Parlevar. When "Palawa Aborigines" are mentioned it refers to a specific minority group not the Indigenous community as a whole. All Palawa are of Bass Strait Island descent, specifically they are all descended from two grand-daughters of Mannalargenna of the Plangermaireener "tribe". Indigenous Tasmanians who claim descent from the other eight Tasmanian "tribes" are not Palawa. Wayne (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should avoid giving a "native" term altogether? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

'Full Blooded'[edit]

Perhaps the debate on genocide can be more thoughtfully considered with a language edit. Throughout the article, the term 'full-blood' is used to describe people of differing degrees of 'Aboriginality', with the implied 'half-blood', or 'half-caste' - which is, by definition, everyone else - highly offensive. For reference, the wiki article on half-caste establishes that determining aboriginality based on a level of blood is inappropriate and no longer used.

This article points out the confusion caused by the death of the 'last full-blood' Trugernanner or Fanny Cochrane Smith for those unaware of the survival of Tasmanian Aboriginal culture after forced migration to the mainland and later returns to traditional homelands by these survivors - but implying that Aboriginality is due to a prescribed percentage of Aboriginal blood is highly offensive. I suggest an edit where the term 'full-blooded' is only used in historical references (e.g., Fanny being recognised by Parliament) or references to common historical misconceptions and in these cases, always in quotation marks. In other sections - "Contact with Sealers on the North and East Coasts" and the first part of "After European Settlement" the term should be removed entirely as the number of Tasmanian Aboriginal *people* was dropping significantly due to these events and clashes.

As for the Genocide debate - I'd like to point out that the definitions on the wiki page, the UN definitions and otherwise do not suggest that use of the term Genocide is not related to the success or the operation (survival of victims doesn't negate the use of the term), the formality of the actions (who authorised them) but the link between actions and intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The term 'half-caste' is not "by definition" highly offensive. Some people may take offense at the term, but others may chose to use it.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The term half-caste is highly offensive to aboriginal people. Inclusion as an aboriginal person is defined by kinship ties not degrees of genetic lineage. Moreover, the classification of aboriginal people by degree was a criterion for removal of children or allocation of benefits during the period of the Aboriginal Protection Board i.e. the period of Stolen Generations. The term still resonates today and ought not be used in any discussion around aboriginality.[1] Sean Parker (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


Why is there nothing written about their culture and language? It isn't as if nothing is known about either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Tasmanian aboriginal culture section commenced - additions welcome! Language is covered already in language pages.Sean Parker (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

deliberate massacre[edit]

about fifteen years ago i had an aussie neighbor who told this story * at some point after disease had done it*s work the white inhabitants formed an armed line across the entire island and marched from end to end killing all aborigines * he was prompted to tell this story by a news article from home saying that the sole survivor * a woman * had just passed on from old age * there seems to be enough detail to this tale to enable someone to verify or discredit it * especially the part about a newspaper article * (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)grumpy

Didn't happen in Tasmania but it did happen in 1918 on Bentinck Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Wayne (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a mixed-up retelling of the Black Line campaign of 1830. In October 1831 settlers also formed a cordon to try to trap and capture Aboriginals on the Freycinet Peninsula. That was no more successful. BlackCab (TALK) 06:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a list of supposedly extinct human populations on wikipedia?[edit]

If not, I suggest we start one... Please be in touch if you would like my help in compiling such a list as this is a subject near and dear to my area of academic research expertise and I have begun such a list, personally. Ancient Infant (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have so far found the following list: Ancient Infant (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 28 October 2011[edit]

In the section "Tasmanian Aborigine shell necklace art" the verb should be singular : "A number..... IS held...." (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a lovely pedantic request. It's fixed. Thanks HiLo48 (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Propose name change to "Aboriginal Tasmanians"[edit]

The word "Aborigines" is now considered outdated and offensive to many Aboriginal Australians. See and discussion on Australian Aborigines. Hexyhex (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Yes. Completely the right thing to do. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems resonable to me, so support. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I will bump this discussion for a day or so to see if anyone new comes along who might object. Otherwise, I will move the article then. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If we are getting on the Euphemism treadmill, it is time to step up. "Aboriginal Tasmanians" is now considered offensive by some, and replaced with "Indigenous Tasmanians". Balgaboy (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on cave dwellings[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} There's this line in the article: "It is now believed that they also constructed basic wooden shelters and small domed 'huts' to protect themselves during chilly winter months, although it seems they preferred to live in cave dwellings" The source for this statement is given as [1] but it contains no mentions of huts or caves. I would like somebody to add a citation-needed tag to the statement, or provide a better source that proves they lived in cave dwellings.

Sentence removed, as not in the citation. Thanks. Discuss below if necc.  Chzz  ►  23:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No evidence of 'cave dwellings' so far as I am aware. There is evidence of use of caves and Extensive use of rock shelters I.e. Overhangs in NE Western Tiers and Lake Dulverton. Sean Parker (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing Request: Grammar, Intro[edit]

"There, a woman called Trugernanner (often rendered as Truganini), who is widely believed to be the last of the 'full-blooded' Aboriginal person, died in 1876."

Last of the 'full-blooded' Aboriginal people? (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)RSDB

Yes check.svg Done Sentence is a bit clearer now. Ignorant•Armies (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Tribe Associated with the Risdon Area[edit]

Under the list of areas the respective tribes inhabited, The Moomairremener Tribe (from the Oyster Cove Peoples) are shown as being in the Risdon area. When looking at the South East Peoples, especially the Mouheneenner Tribe, it seems to imply they also were in this area due to written info regarding the first white settlement at Rison Cove. I believe the Mouheneenner Tribe (Hobart Town) were not actually on that side of the Derwent River. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


First of all sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker. When I see the claims that there was no genocide of Native Tasmanians I feel a great indignation. Simple logic: a group of native peoples who lived in an isolated island for thousands or tens of thousands years, "mysteriously" disappeared in the 19-th century, just few decades after the arrival of the European settlers. Not culturally assimilated neither intermarried, but physically died without leaving descendants. You can debate about "full blood" or "criteria of Aboriginality", but the fact is that there's no proof of living descendants of the Tasmanian Aborigines, the rest is nothing but demagogy. The only known exception appears to be Fanny Cochrane Smith who married an English man and had 11 children, so the only possible way to be a descendant of the Aboriginal Tasmanians is to be a descendant of that woman. Other definitions such as "self-identification" and "spiritual connection" are nice and politically correct, I can also claim that I came from Mars, but it doesn't mean I really did. Except Fanny Smith the rest of the Native Tasmanians perished between 1804 - 1876 (one generation) without leaving any know descendants. The article Genocide says that one of the forms of genocide is "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". That's exactly what happened to the Tasmanians.-- (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The article does not seem to make any claim that there was no genocide: see the lead –
Geoffrey Blainey wrote that by 1830 in Tasmania: "Disease had killed most of them but warfare and private violence had also been devastating."[7] Other historians regard the Black War as one of the earliest recorded modern genocides.[8] Benjamin Madley wrote: "Despite over 170 years of debate over who or what was responsible for this near-extinction, no consensus exists on its origins, process, or whether or not it was genocide" however, using the "UN definition, sufficient evidence exists to designate the Tasmanian catastrophe genocide."[1] . . . dave souza, talk 02:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Genocide implies a deliberate attempt to kill all or most of a group. There was no systematic plan to kill Tasmanian Aborigines.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Jacqui Lambie[edit]

Jacqui Lambie claimed on 5/9/2014 that she is part Tasmanian Aboriginal, and that she is the first female indigenous senator to "cross the line". --Zam864 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2014[edit]

The novel Korunah's Gift by S. PItt (2014) The historical novel Wyemena's Story and the collection of short stories Trouwerner by S. Pitt Please add this to the Literature section of the article Elisade63 (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Thanks for your interest. However, that section is only for notable pieces of literature only. This means that either the author or the piece itself need a Wikipedia article. Stickee (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request.[edit]

I think Richard Flanagan's "Gould's Book of Fish: A Novel in Twelve Fish" (2001)shoud be added to the Literature and Entertainment section for obvious reasons. Cheers, Geoffrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request.[edit]

There has been some material added, without any source or reference, to this page in the History section, Before European Settlement, regarding "the Amazon Hypothesis" apparently a theory regarding Tasmanian Aboriginal people originating in South America. In the absence of a source, this material should be edited out. (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Audio recording[edit]

Could someone please put 'Indigenous Australians are advised that this recording contains voices of people who are now deceased' in the comment box under the recording please?


Carcass1900 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not necessary unless expressly requested. Whilst this is common practice in traditional areas of northern Australia there is no indication that Aboriginal Tasmanians now practice or desire such a warning. Sean Parker (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

North Midlands Nation discussion[edit]

This dicussion centres on what is known and can be inferred from the archaeololgical and ethnographic data primarily related to the Panninher and Tyerrernotepanner clans.


This is relatively uncontroversial but I have alluded to uncertainty of the northern border of the North Midlands Nation. Several sources (Ryan.Jones) attribute the western Tamar region as the country of the letteremairrener. This seems unlikely give the distance from known clan regions (i.e. the east Tamar) and that the Panninher were known to visit the south west Tamar valley. It seems likely that the western tamar valley was the province of a hitherto unknown clan of the North midlands nation (a possibility entertained by Ryan) or was country belonging to clans of the North nation ( asserted by plomley). Given that clan/nation boundaries overlapped it is probable that no certainty can be established. Which is why I have described the NNW border of the North Midlands Nation as being the West Tamar region or lying somewhere around the natural border of cluan tier/ meander river valley.Sean Parker (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


This is a puzzle which probably requires linguistic investigation. The Tyerrernotepanner were a clan centred at Campbell Town. We know this from Robinson who had members of this clan in his conciliatory mission. Contemporary sources, other than robinson, are of little help as they simply record all peoples of the south midlands as 'Stony creek tribe'. It is also clear that the modern use of the term 'tyerrernotepanner' really describes the population of at least 3 clans. It has long been conjectured that there were more than one clans in the south central midlands region and Robinson describes many clan names, often variants of the name 'tyerrernotepanner' (see Plomley's Tribes and Cicatrices). Ryan, rhys jones and others do ascribe some certainty to the probablility that there were clans centered at the Isis, Tunbridge and Ross regions. Pulling together the nomenclature and regions from Plomley shows this:

  tyerrernotepanner: 'Campbell Town region'
  peenrymairmemener : clan at Koannerwe country Lake Leake/ Glen Morriston region
   tareernotemmeter: clan at Ellinthorpe Hall 
   Rolemairre: clan at Tunbridge area
   Marwemairrener//truemairremener: clan at Mt Morriston, east of Ross  - alternative name

If we throw these names at a map we get:

  • tyrrernotepanner + peenry__ :clan at Campbell Town/Lake river/ South Fingal Valley (possibly with as alternate spelling/name
  • tareernotemmeter: Auburn/Isis region
  • marwemairer: Ross/Mt Morriston region:
  • rolemairre: clan at Tunbridge area

There are endless permutations but what it IS known is:

There are archeological remains + some historical data suggesting large groups at:

  1. Bells lagoon (near Isis/Ellinthorpe hall) which infers but doesn't confirm a clan area
  2. Cleveland/ campbell town/ south esk + historical references
  3. Campbell town tier, lake leake
  4. Mt Morrison area + Tooms lake (?Oyster Bay nation) , including tool quarries + historical references
  5. Tunbridge - archeological remains

This is conjectural and I suggest that:

  • Tyrrernotepanner + tareernotemmeter + peenrymairmemener at Campbell town/ campbelltown north + n/west region isis/lake river is consistent + archeological evidence of significant use
  • Rolemmaire in Tunbridge region is consistent + archeological evidence of significant use
  • marwemairrener as separate from tyrrernotepanner in SE Ross region

I suggest that we could remove all reference to other clans in the main page and leave it as discussion on the Talk Page but I think that it does a disservice to history and the probable presence of these other clan groups not to mention them on the main page, if not in this detail. I am wary of postulating clan locations and have them as being read as 'fact' by wikipedia browsers. Sean Parker (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ben Lomond Nation Discussion[edit]

I have added some information to the Ben Lomond nation which probably deserves some explanation as some is inferred from the historical record.


I have postulated that the use of the term 'Pennyroyal creek people' or 'Pennyroyal people' is a misnomer. As mentioned in the article, the use of the term 'Pennyroyal/Ben Lomond' come from one entry in Plomley's 'Friendly mission;' and is transcribed from a diary entry by Robinson. In all other instances Robinson (and Plomley) write about the Ben Lomond people without reference to 'Pennyroyal creek'.

There is no 'Pennyroyal creek' in the Ben Lomond or North-east Tasmanian area. So what is to be made of this - why would Robinson's guides (members of the Eastern and Northern nations),and Robinson himself, have referred to people they clearly would have known of as belonging to a region that lay on the other side of the Midlands with that of the Ben Lomond people? And why refer to the Ben Lomond people eponymously from the mountain in the text except in one instance?

Pennyroyal creek was the colonial and contemporary name of the Liffey River on the western midlands and was also the name (attributed by Robinson and Plomley ) of the people occupying this land - The Pennyroyal Creek people (Panninher). Robinson himself traveled over this country when passing through the midlands but by this time there were no aboriginal people left there which infers that they were deceased or had moved to lands not their own. There are several other examples of dwindling tribes forming coalitions during the black war (e.g. Oyster bay and Big River tribes, Tyerernotepanner and Plangermaireener etc)Sean Parker (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is reasonable to infer that these people in the North-east region (at the time of this diary entry Robinson was in the north east)were Plangermaireener (Ben Lomond) and Panninher (Pennyroyal creek) people in confederation. If they were only Ben Lomond people manarlargenna (Robinson's guide) would have known this (coming from the adjoining region himself). So I contend that the reference 'Ben Lomond -PennyroyalCreek Natives' should be read as 'BL natives + Pennyroyal Creek natives' not 'BL/Pennyroyal Creek natives'.

It may state later in Plomley's history the composition of this group in question as they may have been 'conciliated' by him (or others) at a later date - if the people were a composite of Midlands and Ben Lomond it would lend weight to this contention, if not it would remove some support - subject for later research into this matter.

Nevertheless, Ben Lomond-Pennyroyal creek is now commonly used by contemporary Tasmanian Aboriginal people (see Patsy Cameron's "Grease and ochre")to describe members of the Ben Lomond Nation in the 1800s. So, if it is a misnomer it is now an accepted name - historically and geographically correct or not.

Clan Locations[edit]

Tribal locations in Tasmania essentially derive from historical records at the time - where tribes were named as per the region in which they were commonly observed i.e. the Ben Lomond tribe were often seen in the ben Lomond locality, although they ranged anywhere from the ochre mines in the Western tiers, to Cape portland in the north east to Oyster Bay. The first historian to do major work on tribal names and locations was Plomley followed by the archaeologist Rhys Jones (published in Norman Tindale's text). Lyndall Ryan follows Rhys Jones' tribal boundaries exactly in her works. Rhys Jones does not appear to have read all of plomley's published notes on aboriginal tribal locations and nomenclature as he does not describe the location of any of the Ben Lomond clans - describing their locations as 'unknown'. Ryan follows this in her history. I have made the following inferences about tribal locations based mainly on Plomley's transcription of Robinson's notes, as follows:

  • Plangermaireener. Plomley has transcribed Robinson's notoriously nebulous and contradictory notes at length and, from this, it appears that the referent Plangermaireener is used as a term for the Ben Lomond people generally and the clan variously inhabiting the eastern Ben Lomond and coastal region specifically. Manarlargenna is also described as a Plangermaireener AND an Oyster bay (sometimes Cape Portland) chief, or Chief of the Ben Lomond Tribe. This infers that he was a chief of an eastern coastal clan and that and the Plangermaireener country is on (or towards)the east Coast. Confusingly, or perhaps in support, the northern (i.e. coastal) Oyster Bay clan is also called Plangumaireener and in one instance, by Robinson (cited by Plomley), plangermaireener!

Plomley also specifically states that Plangermaireener refers to the Ben Lomond Tribe along the South Esk valley (Fingal area). As stated in the entry 'maireener' is a suffix indicating 'people' or 'plenty of them' - indicating a whole people, not just a clan necessarily - although other clans have the suffix mairenerpairener (plenty of them). So from this contradictory material the word Plangermaireener refers to both the entire Ben Lomond nation and the eastern (towards or on the coast) clans of that nation. If the Plangermaireener were a separate clan, as proposed and mapped by Rhys Jones and followed by Ryan, than it is most likely that they occupied the Eastern aspect of the Ben Lomond area from the Fingal Valley, probably (given the nomenclature) to the coast or at least the St Mary's plains region.

  • Plindermairhemener. The plindermairhemener clan are mentioned briefly by plomley in his works and he make some mention of their location as south of the Ben Lomond Plateau. This would place them in a narrow strip of land between Stacks Bluff and the South Esk, as the plangermaireener lay to the east and the Tyrernotepanner lay to the southwest (the Tyrernotepanner were known as the 'Stony Creek Tribe' by colonials from the small tributary of the South Esk some 15 Km from Avoca by river). This is too small a section of land to support a clan so it seems reasonable to infer that they occupied the region of the western flank of Ben Lomond as well. As the south-esk river is the natural boundary between the Ben Lomond and North Midlands (Tyerernotepanner/Panninher) nations it seems reasonable (but conjectural) that the Plindermairhemener occupied the Glen Esk -Nile -Deddington region.

There are two mentions in the literature of the Plindermairhemener in the western Ben Lomond region (one relating to the Nile), but both sources have no clear attribution to the historical record. There are archeological remains on the eastern South-esk and Nile river areas which support their occupation - by someone.

  • Tonenerweenerlarmenne. There is almost nothing in the historical record about this clan. If the regions previously mentioned were occupied already it seems reasonable to infer that the Tonenerweenerlarmenne occupied at lest some of the remaining tribal region of the ben Lomond Nation. This land lies in the extensive region of the Lower South Esk (Evandale, Gordon Plains) Upper North Esk (White hills, Blessington, Roses Tier) and Upper South Esk (Mathinna) as well as the hills bordering the surrounding mountains (Mt Barrow, Ben nevis, Saddleback, Victori) beyond which lay the country of the Pyemairernerpairener. There is one citation mentioning the Tonenerweenerlarmenne as being located in the South Esk valley, which I have referenced, but I could find no attribution to primary source material in the citation.
  • Fourth Clan?. Plomley,Rhys Jones and Ryan mention that the Ben Lomond Nation had 'three, possibly four' divisions. If so it is plausible that the lower South Esk/Upper North Esk had a clan bounding the Port Dalrymple nation (the closest clan to the colonial occupation of Launceston - and the first subjected to disease and violence) and a separate clan in the upper South Esk. The area is large enough to support this but it is entirely conjectural and no names are mentioned in the historical record.

Sean Parker (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Tasmanian people ??![edit]

I can't figure how to fix this: a search on: "Tasmanian people" gives the result: "There is a page named "Tasmanian people" on Wikipedia", but there is no entry in it for "Aboriginal Tasmanians". To me this result seems both unhelpful and insulting. How can the situation be rectified?

LookingGlass (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


There ought to be a section on anthropology. The Tasmanians were much more primitive than mainland Aborigines, and had a number of distinct characteristics that ought to be recorded.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC) This is a curious suggestion - what do you mean by more 'primitive'? If you mean that tasmanian aboriginals used less artefacts than mainland aboriginal people than I think that is discussed, or implied. Any implication that any people is 'more primitive' than another is 19th century thinking. What the tasmanian people had was appropriate for their environment. There is no suggestion in the anthropological record, such as it is, that the spiritual or cultural life of tasmanian aboriginal people was 'more primitive' than mainland aboriginal people. We do not know enough of their oral culture to know. What 'distinct characteristics' do you mean? Sean Parker (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Tasmanian Aboriginals were probably more complex thinkers as the different environment they lived in would require abstract thinking to survive (thinking about the future, changes in seasons, etc) its insanely different down here climate wise compared to the dry deserts in the mainland. - Mick

George Robinson[edit]

The reference to George Robinson is inaccurate and highly defamatory. He was not a missionary, and his assurances to the aborigines were not false. He wanted to resettle the surviving Aboringines at the camp of Wybalenna, and did so.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources I used for the major rewrite of the Black War article described Robinson as an evangelical humanitarian, and that term would be more accurate than "missionary". I agree that the current wording accusing Robinson of deliberately lying to the remaining Aboriginal people is wrong. There seems no doubt he meant well, though it's also clear he resorted to force and began herding them at gunpoint to the settlements where their health began deteriorating immediately. BlackCab (TALK) 06:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

How Robinson should be perceived is a subject of contemporary debate. Modern scholars (and contemporaries, I might add) regard him as vain, arrogant, aloof, humane, yes, but also highly contributory to the demise of Tasmanian aboriginal culture. Boyce has a very articulate article asserting Robinson's failures of character and action. This must be balanced against some of his comment's from his diary (found in Plomley's Friendly Mision') which clearly show his profound respect and humanitarian approach to Aboriginal people, specifically; but also his patronising approach and actions, generally. There is nothing defamatory in asserting that Robinson misled the Aboriginal people. This indeed appears to be the case - he advocated for the removal of the aboriginal people to Flinders Island knowing that there was no plan from government to return them to their traditional lands - a promise relayed to the people via Mannarlargenna. Robinson then went on to oversee the abysmal, and ultimately lethal, incarceration of aboriginal people on Flinders island. Unfortunately, Robinson's actions on removing the west coast clans was not only unnecessary but also removed the final hope that some aboriginal people might retain their traditional culture in toto. The motive for this removal appears to be vanity and self-aggrandisement - as a dispassionate reading of Robinson's own diary reveals.Sean Parker (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the history section to reduce the inflammatory content alluded to above. Contemporary historians make a strong case that Robinson, at best, obfuscated, at worse, misled the Tasmanian Aboriginal people.Sean Parker (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Appropriate Terminology, Representations and Protocols of Acknowledgement for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples" (PDF). Flinders University. Retrieved 8 May 2016.