1  

   

Introduction

During the 1833-1834 whaling season a massacre of the local Kircarer Gundidj of the Gunditjmara tribe occurred at Allestree, on the coast 10 kilometres north of Portland.i It is most likely that the massacre was perpetrated by whalers after a dispute arose over a whale carcass which had washed ashore.ii The exact loss of life is unknown, although some historians contend that only two members of the Kilcarer were left alive, Pollikeunnuc and Yarereryarerer.iii However, as with the date, exact figures of those lost are uncertain. This is why much of the focus academically has been on the origin of the toponym Convincing Ground, as it is

where most of the primary source material is focused. Although there is broad conjecture over the onomastic history of the Convincing Ground, I shall focus on the two main explanations: conflict over a beached whale and a place to settle disputes amongst whalers.

The difficulty of the limited primary sources is that it challenges our preconceived notions of what may be relied on in order to constitute a historical event. It is this which has led to a fierce debate over the veracity of the sources discussed below.

Figure 1 [Above] ‘The Convincing Ground’, by Marnie Pitts, pencil on paper (2013).

   

     

2  

   

The ‘History Wars’

After surfacing academically during the so-called ‘History Wars’; the ‘Convincing Ground’ massacre has remained a topic of fierce debate.iv It was thrust into the public domain in January 2005, when a development at the site was halted by the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officers, but only after bulldozing of the area had begun.

The ‘History Wars’ ignited with Keith Windschuttle’s ‘The Fabrication of Aboriginal History’, which focussed primarily on the settlement of Van Diemen’s Land, what is now Tasmania. The focus of the ‘History Wars’ then shifted to a new battleground, with the publication of Ian Clark’s Scars in the Landscape, a Register of Massacre Sites in Western Victoria, 1803-1859 and Michael Connor’s work, Convincing Ground: an invented massacre. Fundamental to this debate was a focal shift that was occurring amongst sections of historians. This shift looked to fill the silences in history by giving a voice to those that had previously been written out of works of history, such as: women, indigenous peoples and the working class. This revolution revolved around looking at historical evidence from a different perspective as well as using sources that were traditionally not seen as ‘proper’ sources of history. But it was the backdrop to something greater that was occurring in Australia, the battle for native title was before the courts and would eventually be settled in the landmark High Court case of Mabo.v

The Chief Protector - George Augustus Robinson

The sole primary source for the assertion that the massacre resulted from a dispute over a beached whale is George Augustus Robinson. Robinson was the Chief Protector of Aborigines for the Port Phillip District from 1839 to 1850. Robinson’s

journal of May 16 1841 recounts a meal at the residence of wealthy land owner Edward Henty. Present at the dinner were Charles Tyers, Daniel Primrose, Edward Henty and James Blair.

Figure 2 – [Above] Painting of George Augustus Robinson by Benjamin Duterrau, 1835. Courtesy of the Archives Office of Tasmania.

i)   Massacre

Robinson was offered two possible explanations for the origin of the Convincing Ground. First, Robinson wrote that:

‘Mr Henty said the Blacks at Mt Clay are a bad set and he did not think I should get a communication with them. I said I did not lay wagers but I could venture to do so in this case; that I should get to them. He related one story of their badness. He said that some time ago, I suppose two or three years, a whale broke from her moorings and went onshore. And the boats went in to get it off, when they were attacked by the natives who drove them off. He said the men were so enraged that they went to the head station for their firearms and then

   

     

3  

   

returned to the whale, when the natives again attacked them. And the whalers then let fly, to use his expression, right and left upon the natives.’ vi

Robinson goes on to state that Mr Blair, the local Police Magistrate, then made the connection between this and the location of the massacre site.

‘There is a spot on the north shore, where the try works are I think, which is called the “Convincing Ground” and I was informed that it got its name from some transactions with the natives of the kind mentioned, so Mr Blair said.’

ii)   Dispute Settlement

Conversely, in the same journal entry Robinson noted that Mr Tyres contended a separate and entirely different origin of the name for the site.

‘Mr Tyers however said it was because when the whalers had any disputes they went on shore and there settled it by fighting.’vii

Robinson himself was sceptical of this explanation, and stated that he thought ‘the

former the most feasibly, especially after what Mr Henty himself stated.’viii Robinson reiterated this story in his journal the following day and then again in his official report of his 1841 trip to western Victoria.ix Although Robinson’s visit is some years after the massacre occurred, it seems illogical to deny this information any credence because of the delay. The settlement at Portland had occurred without government authority and therefore provision for governmental services such as Robinson’s could not be put in place immediately. Furthermore, this is in an Australia that is disjointed and the means of communication and transportation are inconceivable when compared with that of the current day.

A Convincing Ground?

In the Nineteenth Century the place name ‘convincing ground’ was in common usage. Connor contends that this gives credence to Mr Tyres’ explanation of the site, whaler dispute settlement. Connor relies on the Australian Dictionary definition which states that a convincing ground is a place where ‘prize or grudge fights were held’ and George Dunderdale’s 1898 reference in The Book of the Bush

Figure 3 [Above] John Helder Wedge field book, October 1 1835, From the State Library of Victoria's Manuscripts collection. Accession number: MS10768.

   

     

4  

   

that the Convincing Ground ‘was so-called because the whalers used to go down there to fight, and convince one another of who was the best man’.x However, Clark displays that this was not the only context in which the phrase ‘convincing ground’ was used. For instance, it could be used to describe the location of a horse race (see Figure 4).xi This leaves the exact origin of the name up in the air, however, the explanations are not dichotomous and instead may refer to an evolution in the meaning of Convincing Ground.

Figure  4  [Above]  ‘Sporting  Intelligence’,  The  Argus,  Wednesday  31  October  1855,  5,  in  Trove  [online  database],  accessed  5  Oct.  2015.  

From ‘a’ Convincing Ground to ‘the’ Convincing Ground

Clark contends that the origin of the name Convincing Ground may possibly be derived from the settlement of intra-whaler disputes. However, he argues that the meaning behind the site being named as such changed after the massacre that took place there.xii

Therefore, it is plausible that both of these explanations to be true. In the same way that the phrase “World Trade Centre” had an entirely different meaning before the terrorist attacks that occurred there. Likewise, the ‘Convincing Ground’ may very well have been a site for whalers to settle their disputes, but following the massacre taking place, this name now adopted an entirely different meaning.

When did the massacre occur?

Although the information relating to the date and location that the massacre occurred is vague and few sources for the

information are provided, it seems most likely that the massacre occurred during the 1833-1834 whaling season.

Robinson mentions four references to when the massacre may have occurred in his writings. The clearest of these being his journal entry of March 23 1842, ‘It was 8 or 9 years ago the collision between the whalers & blacks took place at the Convincing Ground.’xiii

Connor dismisses the evidence of Robinson due to the fact that the supposed source of this information Edward Henty, had not arrived in Portland yet.xiv However, this is rebutted by Clark who points out that the source of Connor’s explanation for the Convincing Ground, Mr Tyres, did not arrive in Portland until November 14 1840, long after the Convincing Ground had been named such.xv

‘Convincing Ground’ placed in context

When you look at the climate of violence that existed in the area at the time, then you are able to understand the likelihood of violence occurring at the Convincing Ground. This was a desperate time, inhabitants lived and died on the resources that surrounded them.

In February 1839, Dr G. C. Collier alleged that a massacre of indigenous peoples occurred as revenge for the murder of a hut-keeper who had allegedly committed ‘base acts’ against the ‘wives and daughters’ of these ‘unhappy people’.xvi The Governor of the time, Sir George Gipps, was sceptical of the events having occurred as Dr Collier described. So much so that he investigated into the identity of Dr Collier, as he believed the whistle-blower to have an ulterior motive. This investigation proved fruitless and due to the egregious nature of the allegations Governor Gipps dispatched Foster Fyans,

   

     

5  

   

the resident Magistrate of Geelong, to investigate.

Having only deposed the Messrs Henty, the neighbouring squatter Mr Trevor Winter and men that were worked under them at the time of the massacre, Fyans concluded that the retribution sought by the Messrs Henty was proportionate to the murder of the hut-keeper. Fyans attributed the unruly knavery of the area to the many runaway convicts which frequent the area and recommended that a Police Magistrate was required in Portland along with three constables and three mounted police. Following Fyans’ recommendation Governor Gipps did not act for some time and when he did, he chose to make the Messrs Henty the Magistrates for the region. xvii

This all seems quite bizarre when you view it in the guise of a modern criminal investigation. Of course if you only question those accused of the atrocity as to the events that occurred, the likely outcome will be that they will justify their actions or attempt to shift the blame elsewhere.

However, more pertinent to the discussion is the understanding of the environment in which the Convincing Ground massacre occurred. This was a place where the rule of law limited and what did exist was not the understanding of the concept that we have today.

Is it not possible that if the attitudes of the Messrs Henty was in 1939 to reply an eye for an eye, that in 1833-1834 that other individuals might have taken extreme measures in protecting the resources that they relied on?

Figure 5 [Above] An isolated shepherd’s hut is attacked by Aborigines. A recreated scene in the Illustrated Melbourne Post, 25 April 1864 in Michael Cannon, editor, Historical Records of Victoria: Volume Two B: Aborigines and Protectors, Melbourne, 1983, p 636.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, denial of what occurred at the Convincing Ground will continue into the future. Conclusive evidence that will prove beyond reasonable doubt what happened is currently unavailable. However, it seems on the balance of probabilities that a massacre did occur at the Convincing Ground in 1833-1834.

By Grant Klemm

   

     

6  

   

i  Ian Clark, Scars in the Landscape: a register of massacre sites in western Victoria, 1803 – 1859, Canberra, 1995 17-22.  ii Ian Clark, 2001, The Papers of George Augustus Robinson, Chief Protector, Port Phillip Aboriginal Protectorate, Vol. 4 Annual and Occasional Reports 1841-1849. Clarendon: Heritage Matters, p. 21. iii Ian Clark, Scars in the Landscape: a register of massacre sites in western Victoria, 1803 – 1859, Canberra, 1995 17-22. iv See Keith Windschuttle and Michael Connor, Convincing Ground: an invented massacre, Quadrant Online December 1st 2007. v Mabo and Others v Queensland (No. 2) 1992 175 CLR 1. vi Ian Clark, 2000, The Journals of George Augustus Robinson, Chief Protector. Port Aboriginal Protectorate. Vols. 1-6 1839-1852, Heritage Matters, p 206. vii Ibid. viii Ibid. ix Ian Clark, 2001, The Papers of George Augustus Robinson, Chief Protector, Port

Phillip Aboriginal Protectorate, Vol. 4 Annual and Occasional Reports 1841-1849. Clarendon: Heritage Matters, p. 21. x Michael Connor, 2005, The Invention of Terra Nullis, Macleay Press, Sydney p. 142. xi Ian Clark, 2014, The Convincing Ground, Portland Bay, Victoria, Australia: An Exploration of the Controversy Surrounding its Onomastic History, Names, Vol. 62 No. 1, March 2014, p. 8. xii Ibid. xiii Ian Clark, 2000, The Journals of George Augustus Robinson, Chief Protector. Port Aboriginal Protectorate. Vols. 1-6 1839-1852, Heritage Matters, Vol 2: 48. xiv Michael Connor, 2005, The Invention of Terra Nullis, Macleay Press, Sydney p. 149. xv Ian Clark, 2014, The Convincing Ground, Portland Bay, Victoria, Australia: An Exploration of the Controversy Surrounding its Onomastic History, Names, Vol. 62 No. 1, March 2014, p. 4. xvi Michael Cannon, editor, Historical Records of Victoria: Volume Two B: Aborigines and Protectors, Melbourne, 1983, p 629. xvii Ibid, p 629-637.