Tongerlongeter: First Nations Leader and Tasmanian War Hero

TONGERLONGETER

HENRY REYNOLDS is one of Australia’s most recognised historians. He grew up in Hobart and was educated at Hobart High School and the University of Tasmania. In 1965, he accepted a lectureship at James Cook University in Townsville, which sparked an interest in the history of relations between settlers and Aboriginal people. In 2000, he took up a professorial fellowship at the University of Tasmania. His pioneering work has changed the way we see the intertwining of black and white history in Australia. His books with NewSouth include The Other Side of the Frontier (reissue); What’s Wrong with Anzac? (as co-author); Forgotten War, which won the Victorian Premier’s Award for Non-Fiction; Unnecessary Wars; This Whispering in Our Hearts Revisited and most recently Truth-Telling: History, Sovereignty and the Uluru Statement.

NICHOLAS CLEMENTS is an eighth generation Tasmanian who has spent most of his life in the Tamar Valley. In addition to being a family man and a keen rock climber, he is a part-time teacher of history, philosophy and psychology. He is also an adjunct researcher at the University of Tasmania, where he completed his PhD on the island’s Aboriginal and early contact histories. His 2014 book, The Black War: Fear, Sex and Resistance in Tasmania, explored the motivations and experiences of both Aborigines and colonists during that conflict.

‘Raw and engaging, Reynolds and Clements have rescued this forgotten hero from obscurity. Despite being stripped of their lore and having British law imposed upon them, Tongerlongeter and his allies fought fiercely for their country. I admire them greatly.’

Dianne Baldock, CEO of Circular Head Aboriginal Corporation

‘Through meticulous research and imaginative reconstruction, Reynolds and Clements have given Tasmania a new hero – Tongerlongeter. Australians should revere him as much as their Anzac heroes – he defended his country to the death.’

Professor Peter Stanley, UNSW Canberra

‘I felt proud reading the story of Tongerlongeter and his epic resistance who, in 19th century words, held their ground bravely for 30 years against the invaders of their beautiful domains. Reynolds and Clements reveal the guardians of empire in turmoil. Did we know? We do now.’

John Pilger, journalist, writer and documentary filmmaker

‘Australia puts much into remembering its war dead. The Great War centenary was commemorated more extensively and intensely here than anywhere else.

This is a book about a war hero, his people, and his allies, men and women who fought the longest, in proportion the bloodiest, and among the most consequential wars in Australia’s history. They fought with courage and skill until almost all of them were dead, and even then, the survivors did not surrender. They fought with honour for freedom and love of country.

Why have we never heard of them? Why can’t we pronounce their names, let alone say them with respect?

A great reckoning must come in Australia. We must be clearer on who was patriot and who invader; who was defending land, Law and people and who cast that aside. We need to see that both sides lost, one all that life and liberty hold dear, the other the keys to living with this land.

This book does not remedy injustice, but it recognises it. It offers Tongerlongeter, his people and his allies respect, recognition and regret. May it be one of many such books.’

Emeritus Professor Bill Gammage, author of The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia

For Kristy

TONGERLONGETER

FIRST NATIONS LEADER

& TASMANIAN WAR HERO

HENRY REYNOLDS &

NICHOLAS CLEMENTS

A NewSouth book

Published by

NewSouth Publishing

University of New South Wales Press Ltd

University of New South Wales

Sydney NSW 2052

AUSTRALIA

newsouthpublishing.com

© Henry Reynolds and Nicholas Clements 2021

First published 2021

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Inquiries should be addressed to the publisher.

A catalogue record for this

book is available from the

National Library of Australia

ISBN:9781742236384 (paperback)

9781742245263 (ebook)

9781742249810 (ePDF)

Design Josephine Pajor-Markus

Cover design Peter Long

Cover image Tukalunginta (Tongerlongeter), watercolour by Thomas Bock (1832).

British Museum, London

Printer Griffin Press, part of Ovato

All reasonable efforts were taken to obtain permission to use copyright material reproduced in this book, but in some cases copyright could not be traced. The author welcomes information in this regard.

This book is printed on paper using fibre supplied from plantation or sustainably managed forests.

Contents

Authors’ note

Introduction: Remembering their sacrifice

1An extraordinary day

2The explorers arrive

3Confrontation at Risdon

4Coming of age

5Zombie invasion

6A wayward brother

7Retribution (1824–27)

8Resistance (1828–30)

9Striking terror (1828–30)

10White devils

11Things fall apart

12Armistice

13Exile

14‘Till all the black men are dead’

Conclusion: ‘A brave and patriotic people’

Afterword

Acknowledgments

Notes

Index

Authors’ note

The subject of this book, the warrior chief Tongerlongeter, is first named in the records four days before the end of the Black War – the vast frontier conflict that consumed eastern Tasmania from 1823 to 1831. With the exception of his wayward kinsman Kickertopoller, who spent nearly four years living with a prominent Hobart family, no individual from among Tongerlongeter’s Oyster Bay nation or its ally, the Big River nation, was identified by name until the very end of the war. Even with the retrospective evidence of Tongerlongeter’s involvement, piecing together his probable movements and thinking was a complicated exercise. In addition to clues in the written evidence, which included the broader ethnographic sources on how Tasmanian Aborigines (Tasmanians) thought and lived, Nick compiled a tally of some 900 incidents in which Tongerlongeter or his allies were likely involved. This fully referenced compendium, which can be accessed at <https://dx.doi.org/10.25959/hpxk-5f95> and lists every recorded attack on and by Oyster Bay – Big River people, helped us to identify and analyse patterns of resistance in south-east and central Tasmania. We have done our best to provide an accurate picture of Tongerlongeter’s life, but in some respects, he remains as elusive to us as he did to the colonists.

We (Henry and Nick) are friends united in our passion for frontier history, and in our conviction that Tongerlongeter and others like him deserve to be commemorated. Neither of us was in a position to write this book alone. Henry, at eighty-two, has been researching and writing about Australian frontier history for more than half a century. His commanding perspective on how Tongerlongeter’s story fits into the vast scope of Australian and imperial history, as well as his knowledge of the political landscape, made him the perfect person to bookend this great warrior’s story. Nick, forty-four years Henry’s junior and his PhD student between 2009 and 2012, has an extensive knowledge of the primary sources relating to the Black War. By dragnetting the colonial archive, Nick was able to tell the finer-grained story, while Henry was in the best position to reveal its broader significance. It could not have been a more harmonious or fruitful collaboration.

Although there are many gaps in the historical records relating to the Black War and its aftermath, particularly when it comes to the Aboriginal perspective, Tasmania’s source material is remarkably abundant. A succession of British and French exploring expeditions to south-east Tasmania provided a rich record of pre-colonial life among Tongerlongeter’s people and their neighbours. The colonial government kept expansive and well-organised records of the conflict, and the writings of numerous columnists, correspondents and diarists also survive. But by far the most valuable source is George Augustus Robinson, the missionary and government agent who spent ten years living with the Tasmanians. Robinson was by no means an objective witness, yet his voluminous journals and papers provide an unrivalled snapshot of Aboriginal experiences, beliefs and behaviours. What’s more, Robinson developed a strong, mutually dependent relationship with Tongerlongeter, who appears often in his writings.

We have also done our best to take the historical investigation of frontier violence out of the abstract and into the messy reality of the 1820s and 1830s. When reasoning about events, every element, large and small, must be considered in context. A historian must have a detailed knowledge of the Tasmanian landscape and climate. They must also have the fullest picture of the situation that historical records can afford, being mindful of the prejudices, blind spots and motives of those involved. But even when drawing on all these strategies and sources, absolute certainty is rare. We have attempted to convey our degree of certainty by using qualified language. And while we have done our utmost to be rigorous and impartial, the nature of the evidence is such that we will inevitably have made some incorrect assumptions.

Some of the language used in colonial sources is considered inappropriate today, but we do not believe in shielding the reader, and have always remained true to the original wording. Some Aboriginal people prefer specific terms and spellings that differ from those we have used, but because of the lack of consensus here, we have chosen our terms on the basis of a range of considerations. When in doubt, we have used those most common at the time. ‘Native’, while technically accurate, has attracted too many negative connotations over time. More recently, Aborigine’ has come under similar scrutiny, but in Tasmania, where ‘Indigenous’ is unpopular, it remains the most appropriate term for a book like this. Even among historians, there is no agreement over some terms. ‘The Black War’, for instance, is problematic for several reasons, but ultimately less problematic and better known than the alternatives. While our terminology will not please every reader, our effort to combine accuracy and sensitivity has been made in good faith.

Contemporary terminology can also be confusing. We have clarified in the text where necessary, but a note on territories must be made here. ‘Oyster Bay’ is the large bay on the central east coast, but the ‘Oyster Bay people/tribe/nation’ was the name given to the alliance of bands which occupied a much broader slice of south-east Tasmania. Likewise, the ‘Big River’ (now the Ouse River) winds its way through just a fraction of the territory of the ‘Big River people/tribe/nation’, which envelops the Central Plateau and the river valleys to its south (see figure 11). These names evolved in the colonial press and have taken on a life of their own. There were probably Aboriginal names for these allied language groups, but no record of them survives. There is also confusion in the sources regarding the exact locations and status of homelands, as well as the nature of the relationships between and within bands and nations. The assumptions we have made align with those of most historians, but there is legitimate disagreement on some points.

Finally, it is our sincerest hope that all readers, but especially Aboriginal readers, find our research interesting and useful, for it is our fascination with Aboriginal cultures and histories that has driven us to write this and other books over the years. Admiration for people like Tongerlongeter transcends race, culture and creed – he is someone we can all look up to.

Introduction:

Remembering their sacrifice

Henry Reynolds

I began planning this introduction on Friday 26 April 2019, the morning after Anzac Day. I had just read the Hobart Mercury. The front page was dominated by a story about the previous day’s commemorations, but the content was not what local readers might have expected. The headline was large and arresting. ‘Battle Cry’, it declared, and went on to explain that ‘Anzac Day Marchers Highlight Black War’, Dominating the page was a picture of a large black, red and yellow banner that read: ‘Lest We Forget the Frontier Wars, A report on page two clarified what had happened. The Frontier Action Group, made up of members of the local Aboriginal community, had joined the official parade as it made its way from the city to the nearby cenotaph. They had not been invited to be part of the march, but approval was given at the last minute, since the procession was well under way.

The significance of the event was the subject of debate. Aboriginal elder Aunty Wendal Pitchford said it felt wonderful to officially take part in the parade for the first time, and explained that ‘Anzac Day is enabling us to represent our people who passed away in the Frontier Wars here in Tasmania. We’re going to be bigger and better next year, and we’ll get more people along because we are invited now’. The acting president of the RSL said that he had received no untoward feedback about the banner. Indeed there ‘was not a bad word said by anyone’.¹ But twenty-four hours later the mood had changed, the RSL declaring that the Aboriginal community would not be represented in the same way again. Anzac Day, the spokesman declared, was held to commemorate those who had served in the Australian military and paid the ultimate price with their lives. It was not to remember the conflicts of white settlement. Pitchford responded by saying her group would have a presence in the next year’s procession whether they were invited or not, because it was ‘the perfect setting to get our message out’.² The 2020 Anzac Parade was cancelled due to the impact of the COVID-19 virus, but the advocates for change are going nowhere.

The questions in contention in April 2019 were clearly of much more than local concern and more enduring. They have troubled the nation for many years. They are widely debated yet remain unresolved, and are likely to remain so for many years to come. At the centre of the controversy is the question of warfare. It may appear anomalous given the concentration on Australia’s history of war, which continued throughout the centenary of the First World War (2014–18) with an intensity unmatched in any other country and was lavishly funded by the national government. Hobart’s 2019 Anzac Day drew attention to the fundamental albeit unresolved questions. They are also woven through the texture of this book providing it with its cogency, relevance and urgency.

It is at this point that we should summarise the matters at stake. They are all related to the conflict between the Aboriginal nations and the invading colonists that characterised the outward thrust of settlement into Aboriginal territory from the first few weeks around Sydney Cove in 1788 up until the early decades of the 20th century. Even then, there were still significant areas of what to colonial society were extremely remote regions, where Aboriginal nations continued to exercise their sovereignty and live according to their own laws and customs. But nothing can diminish the seriousness of the conflict or its surprising longevity.

For more than half of the 20th century, frontier conflict was a rarely visited topic in the work of Australian historians. Students reading the numerous general histories written in the 1950s and 1960s would have learnt very little on the subject. The abundant evidence in the colonial records – in books, official documents and newspapers – sat disregarded on shelves in libraries and archives. But what the great anthropologist WEH Stanner called the ‘Great Australian Silence’ in his 1968 Boyer Lectures was being challenged from a variety of directions.³ Decolonisation in the wider world, the civil rights movement in the United States and growing assertiveness in Indigenous Australia was filling the soundscape with confronting voices. A new generation of historians responded with troubling stories. Everywhere they looked they came across evidence of conflict. They recorded forgotten incidents and unmistakable evidence of brutality and violence. They began the very difficult task of counting the death toll and identifying sites of mass killings. Eventually, the challenging, revisionist scholarship reached into every corner of the continent. Slowly, and often with reluctance, the nation came to accept the mounting evidence of conflict and the changes it forced on the overall image of our heritage. The once sunny story of peaceful pioneering could not survive.

While the new history of the frontier still arouses controversy, and indeed, residual hostility, it has come to influence the way the subject is taught in Australian schools, and pervades the work of novelists, poets, filmmakers, dramatists and visual artists. Yet big unresolved questions persist. Was frontier conflict warfare? If so, how does it compare to Australia’s overseas wars? These questions rested just below the surface in the discussion about Hobart’s Anzac Day march, as they do in similarly contentious situations all over the country. While they may appear to be simple questions, they require serious forensic examination. They also need to be approached from two directions – from the perspective of the colonists and then from that of the First Nations.

There was always plenty of evidence about frontier conflict in the public sphere of the separate colonies. No well-informed person would have been unaware of the manner in which the settlers gained control of country out on the frontiers. But whether it was war as recognised by European opinion or indeed by international law is a more complex question. At the very heart of the matter is the inescapable fact that the imperial government declared at the beginning of settlement in 1788 that the Aborigines had become British subjects, and this remained the case for all but a brief period between 1825 and 1837. The significance of this for Tasmania will be considered shortly, but most Aborigines, for most of the time, were accorded the legal status of British subjects. Consequently, their violent resistance could be seen as criminal behaviour or as rebellion against the Crown, but it could not be regarded as warfare.

The second legal instrument employed by the imperial authorities was the declaration that the Aborigines did not exercise sovereignty over their home territories, nor did they have any legal claim over the land. This infamous doctrine of terra nullius applied all over the continent and remained embedded in Australian law until it was excised by the High Court in the Mabo case in 1992. The full implications of these pernicious legal ideas are not always appreciated. They had a powerful influence over the way frontier conflict was understood. For whatever conflict was about, it could not be about property or sovereignty; that is, about the ownership or control of territory, which have always been the great strategic issues at the heart of military conflict. So fighting on the frontier lacked the status of warfare as the Europeans understood it. It equated more to lesser forms of violence, akin to banditry, vendetta or common criminality, caused by such matters as theft, trespass, revenge or contested possession of women.

As in so many other areas, the Mabo case transformed our understanding of history. The High Court declared that Indigenous Australians were in possession of their traditional lands at the time of British settlement, and that their laws and customs could be recognised by the common law. In other words, they exercised a form of sovereignty over their own country. These principles applied all over the continent, from the Murray Islands in the far north to the southernmost point of Tasmania. The implications for historywriting emerged slowly, but they were dramatic. Frontier conflict, wherever and whenever it occurred, had to be about the ownership and control of land. There was no other possible interpretation. The fighting, no matter how scattered or desultory, was warfare as it was understood in European jurisprudence. Given that it was practically universal and about the ownership and control of land over the whole continent, it had to be regarded as a war of the greatest consequence. Arguably, it was Australia’s most significant war. It was fought on this country for this country. It was instrumental in a change in land ownership on a scale rarely equalled elsewhere in the world. Eventually, Australians will come to see that our own frontier wars mattered more to us than those issues in contention during the Great War of 1914–18 – the balance of power in Europe or the carving up of the Ottoman Empire.

But there was another historical change of the law that influenced the understanding of frontier conflict in Tasmania and New South Wales between 1825 and 1837. It mattered far more in Tasmania because it coincided with the intense frontier conflict between 1826 and 1831. As a result of fighting around Bathurst, in modern-day New South Wales, in 1824, the British government adopted a new policy to cope with Aboriginal resistance. It applied equally to Tasmania, and actually arrived as written instructions in Hobart before it reached Sydney. George Arthur, governor of Tasmania (then Van Diemen’s Land) from 1824 to 1836, was obliged to put them into practice. He had no choice in the matter. The document contained provisions regarding ‘the manner in which the Native Inhabitants’ were to be treated when making ‘hostile incursions for the purpose of plunder’. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Bathurst, instructed the two governors that they should,

understand it to be your duty, when such disturbances cannot be prevented or allayed by less vigorous measures, to oppose force by force, and to repel such Aggressions in the same manner as if they proceeded from subjects of an accredited State.⁴

The clear intention was to treat the Aborigines as if they were members of a foreign country. They were now to be considered enemies rather than rebellious subjects. Resulting conflict was not domestic insurgency – it was warfare.

There is abundant evidence that Arthur used Bathurst’s instructions as a guide to the development of his Aboriginal policy. This is hardly surprising. He actually read the instructions to his officials and advisers on numerous occasions. This was the case when, in November 1828, he declared martial law in the central districts of the island. This was a quite radical decision. Martial law was rarely used in Britain itself, even when the country was at war. The colony’s Solicitor-General, Alfred Stephen, explained that the effect of the proclamation introducing martial law was ‘to place the aborigine, within the prescribed limits on a footing of open enemies of the King, in a state of actual warfare against him’.⁵ Arthur referred to war again and again in his official correspondence, as did many settlers when they wrote to him and to the local newspapers. Both the quantity and the nature of the pertinent evidence puts the matter beyond doubt. Settler society in Tasmania in the 1820s was engaged in a war with the Aborigines of the interior, and in particular with the Oyster Bay – Big River nations, which bore the brunt of the fighting.

Although the colony’s principal legal officer declared that the Aborigines were in a state of warfare against the King, they obviously had no idea who the King was and at best an uncertain understanding of where the white men had come from. But what about war? There is no simple answer. The way the various Aboriginal nations experienced invasion differed widely. Along the south-east coast, numerous European exploring expeditions dropped anchor in the sheltered bays between 1772 and 1802. Shore parties searched for water and collected plants, birds and animals. They had largely peaceful relations with the resident family groups.

We have no idea how widely news of these extraordinary events was carried to the other nations across the island. A generation of such visits had established a pattern of behaviour. The great ships sailed into view, stopped for a short while and then just as suddenly disappeared over the horizon. But everything changed and changed forever when three large parties of settlers arrived in a little over a year in 1803–04, two on the Derwent and one on the Tamar (see figure 12). The watching Aborigines may well have observed that the activities of these parties differed from what they had seen before. Still, the idea that the strangers had arrived for good may have needed some time to take root. The behaviour and intentions of the settlers must have been the subject of debate in the flickering light of innumerable camp fires.

The most common response was to watch the white men closely while avoiding close contact, even when parties of explorers and hunters ventured out into the hinterland. It was not hard to do. The strangers’ progress across country was monitored; the landowners knew their country intimately, and in the early years they could invariably outtravel any party advancing on foot. There was sporadic small-scale conflict during the first twenty years of settlement. The large, more substantial confrontation at the Risdon settlement on the east bank of the Derwent in April 1804 is exceptional and will be discussed in chapter 3. Every now and then, Aborigines confronted individuals or small parties of Europeans who were wounded or killed as a result. Was this war though? It is more likely that Europeans were attacked because in some way or another they had transgressed the laws and customs of the lands on which they had intruded. They were punished accordingly, yet it was specific and individual, more what was in effect law enforcement than warfare.

What the Aborigines could not know was that the small struggling settlements were merely the beachheads for the massive inflow of free settlers and convicts, which followed the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. The numbers alone must have astonished them. By 1820, the settlers began to pour out into the hinterlands of Hobart and Launceston with their convict servants and what must have seemed a countless number of sheep, which quickly spread across prime hunting grounds and critical river frontages. Avoidance became increasingly difficult. Traditional patterns of hunting, gathering and travel were disrupted. Conflict intensified; mutual hostility spiralled out of control.

This was particularly the case on the traditional lands of the Oyster Bay – Big River nation, which stretched in a broad band across the most desirable land on the island (see figure 12). Some time in the middle years of the 1820s, the transition was made from tribal justice to all-out war. Whether this was a conscious decision made at a particular time as a result of wide consultation, we will never know. But the objective had become intensely political. It was to drive the settlers and their animals off the ancestral hunting grounds. The resulting ‘Black War’, which engulfed much of central and eastern Tasmania between 1823 and 1831, was the most intense and lethal struggle in the long history of Australia’s frontier conflict. The war parties led by the Oyster Bay chief Tongerlongeter and his allies were by far the most successful resistance force in the whole of Australia. They paid a terrible price. By the end of the war there were only twenty-six of their countrymen and -women alive, sixteen men, nine women and one child. Their nation would have numbered about 1000 when the British arrived on the island.

We are unable to date the precise beginning of the Black War, but we know exactly when and how it ended. On the last day of December 1831, the surviving twenty-six met Aboriginal members of George Augustus Robinson’s ‘friendly mission’. Robinson was a zealous missionary who saw himself as God’s instrument in saving the ‘benighted natives’, but the real work of negotiating with the ‘hostile tribes’ was done by his Aboriginal guides. They were peaceful government envoys hoping to talk the warriors out of continued resistance. The two parties negotiated an armistice. It was not a capitulation. Robinson explained that the warrior band had accepted the offers of the government. They had agreed to go with Robinson’s party to Hobart to meet the governor. That evening the two Aboriginal parties danced in turn. A week later, on the morning of 7 January, the whole party walked down the hill on Hobart’s northern outskirts into Elizabeth Street and on to Government House, situated on a promontory overlooking the Derwent Estuary.

CHAPTER 1

An extraordinary day

Henry Reynolds

Saturday 7 January 1832 was an extraordinary day in Hobart Town. It still looks that way 189 years later. That morning the Hobart Town Courier reported, ‘with no small pleasure’, the gratifying news that the Oyster Bay – Big River nations, ‘the most sanguinary in the island’, had surrendered themselves to the missionary George Augustus Robinson.¹ They were expected to arrive in town early in the morning. News obviously spread very quickly and by ten o’clock an expectant crowd had gathered at vantage points along Elizabeth Street, the presumed route the party would take down the gradual incline through the town to Government House. The two local papers gave contrasting reports of the event. The Colonial Times remarked that ‘a more grotesque appearance we have seldom witnessed’. The Courier, reporting in its next issue a week later, observed that the party had walked very leisurely along the road accompanied by a large pack of