Talk:History of Australia before 1901

Archive of talk

For earlier discussion see archive pages Talk:History of Australia before 1901/Archive 1

Split into smaller articles?

I would like to see this article split out into three separate pages:

Australian Aboriginal history before 1788 (and perhaps a separate one for since 1788)
European discovery/exploration of Australia
Colonial Australia 1788-1901

As it currently stands I find it rather confusing and complicated, and think that these three topics each deserve thorough coverage in their own right. I would personally be very interested in taking on the Colonial Australia page, and I notice that there is already a European Exploration of Australia page that is mostly just a list of explorers, which I'm also interested in doing some serious work on.

Any violent objections to me making the above split?

--Skud 05:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to splitting the article. I do object to the proposed title of the first article. There is no such thing as "Australian Aboriginal history before 1788," for the reasons given above in my reply to ntennis. Writing about indigenous Australians before 1788 is either prehistory, archaeology or anthropology. I would title the article "Australia before European settlement." Adam 06:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your core point about history being written etc, and agree that the name is contentious. I'm not firmly attached to the name I proposed, but I would like to point out that "Australia before European settlement" doesn't work for the split I proposed, because it would also encompass eg. Dirk Hartog's landing on the coast of WA. Something like "Australia before European contact" or "Indigenous Australia pre-1788" or something would suit me fine. In passing, I notice there is already a lot of information on the topic of whatever-it-is at Australian Aborigines, so the resulting page may like to incorporate that. --Skud 06:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think splitting the articles is a good idea, and is something we should have done long ago. Most of the other countries have quite a few articles covering a similar period to that since Australia's colonisation. As to the first article, History of Australia (until 1788) would follow the common convention of national history articles, but Adam's title would also be fine by me, but I'd prefer that it fitted into the general naming convention most other countries used. I don't think it's necessarily helpful to split Aboriginal and European history before 1788 - we don't currently have any Aboriginal history at all in there after the 1600s, when the European history starts, and I don't think there's enough to say - at least right now - for a seperate European history artice.

But back to splitting this up in general - how about breaking it down in articles, say, for every fifty years - History of Australia (1788-1851) (initial colonisation, exploration and development), History of Australia (1851-1901) (gold rushes through federation), History of Australia (1901-1950) (building a nation, war years, depression), and then (History of Australia (1951-present). Ambi 06:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed re: 50-year split as you mention. I was considering the late 19th century earlier today and thinking that lots of that stuff (like, the early labour movement) was so different from the early colonies that it seemed like a different culture altogether. You're also right about the pre-1788 stuff, but I still feel like a split between prehistory/indigenous and European exploration is worthwhile. How about "Australian History pre-1788" and "Australian pre-history", the latter of which would cover the Aboriginal stuff as well as mentioning speculation about Asian contact? That would leave us with:

(slight date tweaks there to avoid overlaps) --Skud 07:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, though as I said, I'm not sure there'll be much to say in the History before 1788 article. The only other issue there is that I'm not sure about ending the 1851-1900 article there, due to Federation occurring in 1901 - it means that the topic will likely end up split over two pages. Anyway, unless there's any other objections, it'd be nice to go about reshaping these two articles into six. Ambi 08:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) pre-1788, as well as the straightforward European Exploration of Australia, there is quite a lot to be said about topics like Joseph Banks, the effects of the American Revolutionary War on decisions to form a penal colony, etc. 2) Federation happened Jan 1st 1901, so I think anything in 1901 is post-Federation by definition... is there anything to say about it except "and it took effect Jan 1st"? (I honestly don't know, it's not my period.) --Skud 08:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this sounds good, I would, however, agree with Ambi about putting all the pre 1788 info into one article just for the moment, and we can split that one out if/when it requires, oversplitting can also be a problem. also I would use brackets in the links as per the History of the United States series, therefore we would have:

we should also have an expanded History of Australia article in the wikipedia:summary style with a few 4-5 paragraphs per subarticle with main article links (as per history of the United States), so one can see an overview "at-a-glance" and then delve into the subarticles for more details clarkk 12:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the end of WW2 (1945) would be a better cut-off point than 1950. After that we have significant events in 1947 like the post-war immigration boom (driven by things like the Snowy Mountains Scheme); the Cold War; the Holden; election of Robert Menzies in 1948; Korean War (1949). Just my two bob's worth. Grant65 (Talk) 12:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

how about: clarkk 12:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to disagree with this for two reasons. Firstly, it breaks the fifty years/article split that basically works for the other articles. Secondly, I kind of like the idea that the article would begin with federation and end with the Snowy Mountains Scheme and the election of our longest-serving Prime Minister - it covers the growth of the nation well, and as the rule of Menzies could be seen as a turning point, I'm inclined to like the 1950 split on content grounds as well. Ambi 13:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful and overdue discussion, isn't it? I have no probem with any of the schemes above, provided the point about not using the word "history" to describe indigenous peoples before 1788 is kept to. I agree there is an overlap between this section and the Australian Aborigines article (which in my opinion is not very good and needs to be renamed Indigenous Australians and rewritten). My view is that a description of indigenous Australians before 1788 belongs in that article and not in this one, because this is a history article and logically prehistory does not belong here. Nor, incidentially, does all the stuff at the start about climate, geography and flora and fauna. This belongs at Natural history of Australia or something like that. I'm sorry to be a bore about this but if Wikipedia is to be taken seriously it needs to respect the meanings of words like History, Prehistory and Natural history as professional historians use them. Adam 13:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

take #3: clarkk 13:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural history of Australia (move the climate etc. stuff here, can also reference Fauna of Australia etc. as main articles, see category:Natural history of Australia)
~~Prehistoric Australia (consistent with Prehistoric Europe, Prehistoric Scotland etc.)~~ Prehistory of Australia (update: clarkk 08:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
History of Australia (until 1788) (includes Cook, Banks etc.)
History of Australia (1788-1850)
History of Australia (1851-1900)
History of Australia (1901-1950)
History of Australia (1951-present)

Fine by me - I think this is the best yet. Adam? Skud? Ambi 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. As there is no argument over the 1788-1850 section, I'm going to start on that one now. Also, check out European exploration of Australia which I've been working on today. My brane hurts! --Skud 14:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

one technical matter, these articles should be moved to one of the new names, rather than cut-and-pasted to preserve the history (sic). I suggest that the pre-1901 article moved to 1851-1900 and the post-1901 to to 1901-1950 eventually. clarkk 14:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have one further quibble. Although human activities in Australia before 1788 are correctly described as prehistory, I would avoid the word "prehistoric" in the article title. It is correct in the sense that it is the adjectival form of prehistory, but it has acquired such negative connotations in popular usage it will probably be seen as derogatory towards indigneous Australians (just as the word "primitive", once a neutral term from anthropology, now cannot be used). I would call the article Prehistory of Australia or Australian prehistory. Adam 11:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point. To avoid such circumstances, I would prefer the period to be entitled Prehistory of Australia. However, I won't fuss about this; if others decide Prehistoric Australia is the ideal, then so let it be.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve the right to fuss about it :) Adam 12:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistory of Australia sounds just fine to me. clarkk 08:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas 1788, 1851, 1901 and 1945 are enormously significant years, 1951 is not. (Menzies was elected in December 1949.) And if we insist on rigid 50-year divisions, then we would have to have an article for 1951-2000 and one for post-2001, wouldn't we? Grant65 (Talk) 11:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

There is also nothing wrong, with having slight overlaps, e.g.

Grant65 (Talk) 14:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Just a side note: I'm presently experimenting with various versions of a new "series infobox" for use in the split articles, the results so far of which can be seen here--Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ones that you're playing with are too big, much like the Australian politics series box was (I can't see it in use anywhere anymore), one like {{History of Algeria}} or {{History_of_Poland}} would be ideal.--nixie 01:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, though it's probably obvious, other articles we still need are the histories of NSW, QLD, SA and NT as well as the histories of Brisbane, Perth, Hobart and perhaps even Darwin. Moreover, Norfolk Island has a substantial history section that could be hived off into to its own article (rather than a re-direct) and listed in the series.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with History of New South Wales is that for the first 50 years or so it's identical to History of Australia. Adam 05:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This could be tackled by confining discussion to the territory of modern New South Wales and redirecting readers to the relevant articles on other colonies once they have separated. Slac speak up! 07:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I respectfully disagree. Assuming you're counting from 1788, some things that occurred in the 50ish years following include the charting of the rest of the Australian coast by Flinders et al (1802ish), explorations south and west (Hume and Hovell 1824, Sturt 1830), the settlement of Melbourne (1835), the foundation of the penal colony at what is now Brisbane (1824), the settlement of Hobart (1803) and various other penal colonies in Van Diemen's Land, the settlement of what is now Perth (1829), the settlement of South Australia (1836). --Skud 15:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1945 or 1950?

Any more thoughts on whether to make the split at 1945 or 1950? It'd be nice to get this going, either way. Ambi 11:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~1950 from what I've read here seems like a pretty decent place to split it.--nixie 11:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

1945 it is then. Let's get on with it.--nixie 10:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the change? Ambi 10:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where countires have a series of article divided by dates rather than time periods (like Hisotry of India) it seems to be a pretty consistent cut off point, U.S., Poland, Germany, Brazil and so on. Besides if noone ever just picks then there will be no decision.--nixie 11:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Is there any chance you'd be able to do the splitting up? Ambi 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm not sure what the proposed scheme is- and I think it'd be better done by someone who's more familar with general Australian history than me.--nixie 12:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I must strongly disagree with the concept of "History of Australia, 1951-present". No serious/professional historian would ever use periodization based on rigid mathematical divisions of centuries, without regard for the related events that occur on either side of the division. Among the problems here are that the first two years of the Menzies govt, the Korean War, the Snowy scheme, etc are cut off, and the period 1945-49 becomes an anomaly, liable to be overlooked or neglected in the article about the preceding period.Grant65 (Talk) 12:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Did you not read what I said above? I argued that it would be a sensible note to end the article on, as it would begin with federation and end with a key period of nation-building, including the mass immigration, Snowy scheme, and election of the Menzies government - covering the whole "birth of the nation" topic quite well. Instead of an anomaly, I see it as avoiding an awkward cut-off at the end of the war (how would one conclude that article?) and making for a much more rounded article in general. Ambi 13:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I might also ask if you read what I said. I simply disagree with you and I think 1950 is conceptually flawed as a cut-off. The post-war era was the beginning of something, not a continuation of the early 20th century. 1945 is the standard cut-off point in Australian history. Can you name one significant thing that changed between 1950 and 1951? Grant65 (Talk) 02:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think 1950 is often used as the start of a cultural movement perhaps? - as the start of the fifties. It isnt really a strict dividing line or anything, but maybe things like tv, popular music gaining more prominance makes it sensible to divide it at 1949/1950, so 1901-49 and 1950-present Astrokey44 03:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My five cents worth is that 1945 is a standard starting date. If you read the papers or hansard from that period its contains the phrase 'post war reconstruction'. It was a new era for obvious resaons. Whilst with the 1950 nothing started then economically or even culturally. The 50s, as such, really started in 1956 with rock and roll etc. And TV in Aust. began in October 1956 (and then v. primitively)Eric A. Warbuton 06:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support the comments above in relation to 1945 - immediate post-war is a sensible starting point for discussing what happenned over the next few decades - the war ended and we got on with it - Australia developed differently post-war and even tried to learn from it post world war 1 experiences in such areas as soldier settlement. Things changed from 1945, it would be hard to name anything that changed because of the new decade 1950. --A Y Arktos (Talk) 18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that the original article should be kept - of course because it will be VERY hard to navigate those new sections. If you do have to split, 1945 is a great cut off point. From maybe 2006 onwards, you could let people just edit as things happen. Like a forum.

eels vs fish

No fish aint eels. You might not see a distinction but it made a fundemental economic difference to the Gunditjmara. Did the Gunditjmara breed eels or fish? By there systems of weirs and traps it could only be eels -fresh water fish in southern Aust dont migrate. Moreover( and this is important) eels were selectively bred because they had the greatest conc. of fats and proteins of any animal available. Thus they were able to support a greater number of people than exists currently. And why are their traces of fats only found in eels in the burnt out stumps nearby? (see the latest edition of the procceedings of the royal society of Victoria) Also are you happy with the paleoecological claptrap that you have reverted back to? Thus:'The australian continent gradually dried out over millions of years'? Where is there evidence that biodiversity was greater? Where is their evidence that the climate didnt stabilize and ameliorate 5000 years ago? Well? Youre an expert on paleoecology as well? Eric A. Warbuton 07:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eels are in fact a species of fish. However, if eels were specifically targeted by the indigenous people of that particular area, I see no harm in narrowing it down. But where have you cited evidence to support your change? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The requested reference: Builth,H. 2004 Mt. Eccles lavaflow and the Gunditjmara connection: a landform for all seasons. Proc. Roy. Soc Vict. 116(1):163-182

And few salient quotes: thus (from p167)

'The short fin eel(Anguilla australis) was the most consequential food resource. It is a reliable provider of high quality protein and lipids. It is seasonally predictable and abundant and , as its is highly territorial, its availability is assured throughout the year. This knowledge was utilised efficently and to great effect by the Gundjitmara. Technology was developed to ensure its effiecent exploitation and processing. The staples of tubers combined with eel satisfied basic nutritional requirements for many indigenous groups in western Victoria. The eel's capacity for preservation further meant it was ripe for long distance trading.'

And from page 163, thus

"Basalt stone, the reliable rainfall, the short fin eel and the E. viminalis woodland all contribute to the development of an aquaculture system covering 100sqkm. ... Resource specialization including processing formed the basis of sedentary settlement. Eric A. Warbuton 00:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

INTRO

Please take this in good faith.

a) saying that aborigines left 'very few' remains is surely POV? And factually wrong- the museums I go to have rooms amd rooms of the material. Not to mention the containers of material looted by European archealogists.

b) to say that aboriginals left no 'substancial' remains is POV. Admittedly its not the parthenon but then ours wont leave very much too talk about over the next few millenia either. All cultures leave archaealogical remains and in a scientific context its wrong to create a heirarchy of cultures.

c) saying that aborigines were 'perfectly' adapted to their environment is highly debatable and, though fashionable, no evidence exists or can exist for that matter. No culture has ever been. It would presuppose that they knew what they were doing ie. had some overview of human existence that we are unaware. All cultures exploit their changing environments for the purpose of survival. A good review of this idea is Flannery's 'The future eaters' whose thesis is, inter alia, that the environment of the australian continent is slowly degrading , chiefly because of poor soils and fire, and there's nothing we can do about it. Except of course be dimly aware of it.

d) aborigines seem to be written out of the text.Why is this? They play some mute role as backdrop at the outset but then wither away silently watching the main players take the stage no doubt pleased to watch representatives of the English throne take the stage. Eric A. Warbuton 04:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that the material culture of indigenous Australians was not of a type which has left materials from which history can be written. This is true of most non-literate hunter-gatherer cultures. This is not a value judgement about one kind of culture versus another.
I have no particular attachment to the "perfectly adapted" statement, but it follows from the fact that indigenous material culture changed hardly at all over many thousands of years. If it was not prefectly adapted, it would have changed.
Indigenous Australians are largely absent from the text because they were largely absent from Australian history from the early 19th century (when they were dispossessed of their lands and their resistance overcome) until the 1950s, when they emerged as a modern political lobby group. Of course there was a continuous indigenous history over that period, which should be written up at the appropriate article, but indigenous people were excluded from the mainstream of Australian history and the article rightly reflects that. Adam 05:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultures cant be static, especially from an environmental point of view and further I cant think of a single one on the globe that has not over time created a newer synthetic environment for their short term interests. You say their culture changed 'hardly at all' is a bit of a squib. Do you decide how much is so much?

The tribes of Tasmania had to adapt to the previous ice age, then with climate warming slowly encroaching rainforests meant that they had to radically change their diet, find new tools materials which had previously been available. Admittedly this was over 1000s of years but they adapted to changing circumstances far greater than 'we' have faced. All the coastal tribes had to adapt to rising sealevels of over 100m. The tribes of NQld had to adapt to a constantly shrinking and expanding rainforest over the last 100,000 years which meant coping with resource flux and shortage.

There is much evidence that newer cultures arrived in Australia, some 5000 years ago, bringing with them, inter alia, the domestic dog and agricultural practices. Thus the dingo never made it to Tasmania because sea level rise and is absent from the archeological record before 5000bp. To repeat:read Flannery about slow environmental change and its effect on culture.If you could direct me to some reading matter showing that aboringinal culture was static and thus 'perfectly adapted' I would be grateful. Eric A. Warbuton 06:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very minor point in the context of the article. Delete it if you want. Adam 07:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking down this article

We agreed a few months back to break up the Australian history articles into five or six, as discussed above, but nothing much has really happened there. Is anyone willing to start doing this? Ambi 07:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. Adam 08:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cook 'discovered' australia

Yes he wasnt the first person, european or even englishman to land in australia, but it doesnt change the fact that its popular opinion, or was popular opinion that Cook discovered Australia in 1770, and I think it should be noted even if you say that it is incorrect. Cfitzart 10:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. This is a history article, not a catalogue of folklore. Adam 10:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what about the sentence "A number of relics and remains have been interpreted as evidence that the Portuguese reached Australia in the early to mid 1500s, 200 years before Cook." - why is it so important that they're saying its 200 years before Cook, rather than 100 years before Jansz? It is an encyclopedia article, not a history encyclopedia article, theres nothing to say you cant put in a previously widely accepted opinion which was probably taught in every school in Australia before 1950. Cfitzart 10:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Adam.--nixie 10:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the Portuguese "relics" are folklore too, but I haven't been able to stop the antiquarians stuffing this silliness into the article. Adam 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

at least they havent mentioned Zheng He! Cfitzart 11:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement maps

The maps showing the colonies as settled are great. Good work Chuq! Just wondering though, should there be one of 1863 when the NT was established (as part of SA)?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are kind of deceptive since they imply that more of the country was explored that was the case and that borders technically existed, for example in 1830 very little of the country was actually settled- Brisbane, some of Tassie, NSW East of the Blue mountains and Perth. I guess they sort of show "statehood" but settlement is the wrong name. There is a really good map in my high shcool Longman Cheshire Atlas that shows settlement chronologically - I can scan it and email it to potential map makers if anyone is intersted.--nixie 09:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice maps! though 'claimed' might be a better word than 'settled' for 1788, also mentioned the colours in case someone from o/s who didnt know where the states are saw it Astrokey44 10:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bittangabee Bay Ruins

The so-called Portugese stone house at Bittangabee Bay was built by the Imlay Brothers in the early 1830s. It was not Portugese (nor for that matter was it Chinese at Gavin Menzies who wrote 1421 would claim. Thus I have removed this from the articleMirasmus 01:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we forgeting somebody?

What about our Muslim friends whom came to Australia from Indonesia, and traded with the Aborigines.

I found no refrence to them at all.

"Asian and Oceanic mariners and traders were in contact with Indigenous Australians for many centuries before the European expansion into the Eastern Hemisphere. Some formed substantial relationships with communities in northern Australia." straight out of the DFAT website

This is discussed quite extensively in the prehistory article. --Robert Merkel 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the claims about the Chinese?

I've heard various claims about the Chinese visiting Australia centuries before Europeans did. Even if this is not widely supported, shouldn't the article briefly mention the claims and why they're not widely accepted? --Robert Merkel 03:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really for this article. It needs to be in Prehistory of Australia. Rebecca 05:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]