Peter Dowling

It's been commonplace wisdom in Australia that disease wiped out most of the aborigines.....probably until recent times when the story seems to be being replaced by massacres as the cause of declining numbers. In this context, the current book comes as a refreshing piece of scholarship. The author is very careful not to overstep the boundaries of his data. In fact, to my mind, that is the great fault of the book. We are told in great detail about epidemics of smallpox and measles and influenza but generally they are of reasonably well documented occurrences where somebody was taking the time and trouble to write down actual counts of morbidity and/or mortality. Inevitably we ar left with some general observations such as "the mortality among the aborigines in the bush was probably as great but we have no way of knowing the numbers. I guess, that I was looking for some overview, towards the end of the book, where Dowling might have made some generalisations such as: "Mortality due to imported diseases probably reduced the native populations from around 300,000 to 50,000 in the space of about 100 years". But Dowling is far too careful (or timid) to make such a claim. But I felt that the constantly repeated stories about smallpox, Measles, TB, Influenza, Syphilis and other venereal diseases were repetitive and whilst the individual accounts were interesting (and in many cases, shocking) there was no real attempt to draw conclusions from the data.
Another thing that seemed to be lacking entirely was any discussion about cross-breeding with the european or other foreigners. It seems that even where the foreigners had not been directly exposed to the disease (or vaccinated) that they suffered less than the native people. In other words, they had inherited some immunological response to the various diseases. And, presumably, when they interbred with the native populations 50% of their genes were passed on to the offspring...thus giving the offspring a greater chance of survival. And by the 1880's, given the mortality rates of the native people, maybe those with mixed genetic backgrounds were making up a majority (or significant proportion) of the survivors.. Anyway, this possibility, is never touched on.
I was aware, from previous readings that the transmission of smallpox preceded the European penetration of the continent and had wiped out large numbers of people. But if the mortality was anything like Governor Phillip's estimate of 50% mortality around Sydney in 1789, then some 150,000 people would have died within a few years after the arrival of the first fleet. (Or if the much larger population estimate of 2 million original inhabitants is accepted then deaths would have been about 1 million).......with a stunning impact on the culture and make up of communities.
I hadn't appreciated the possible impact of Indonesian Macassan traders in the north of Australia. Dowling doesn't seem to make many claims about this but it would indeed be surprising if diseases were not transmitted by these extended visits. After all the Chinese, Indian, Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, British, traders had been trading with the "spice Islands" for centuries before 1788....presumably also brining their diseases with them. They certainly took smallpox and measles to the Americas.
I was slightly surprised to see Bruce Pascoe's work "Dark Emu" given some prominence both by name and by some of the claims made....especially generalising about the Aborigines being farmers and building stone houses (Australia wide) etc., etc. I think these claims by Pascoe have been debunked fairly thoroughly by Peter Sutton and Karyn Walshe in their book Farmers or hunter gathers? Though the point about Australia having a larger population pre 1788 is well made.
I was also somewhat disappointed that Dowling downplays the remarkable improvement in survival rates of infants from 184 deaths per thousand live births in the late 1800's to 6.2 deaths per thousand in 2018. Presumably the deaths pre 1788 would be at least as high ...maybe more .....else the population would have been much greater over 70,000 years. Instead of celebrating this remarkable achievement Dowling buries it by comparing with the survival rates for the rest of Australians. Sure there is still a gap but bringing the deaths down by a factor of 30 times is surely the big story here.
Something else struck me with the medical reports cited and that was the consistency of well intentioned attempts by authorities, medical officers and various individuals to try and help the aboriginals when afflicted with diseases. Though this was often accompanied by remarkably ham fisted policies such as bringing aboriginal together in settlements or internment camps where conditions always seemed to be appalling.
I realise that the data doesn't exist to produce accurate numbers but I would have liked Dowling to have tried to do something like the following with his knowledge and the data he has. I wonder if we start with a base estimate of a population of 300,000 which was reduced to 150,000 within about 2-3 years by smallpox......then influenza (which reduced Maori populations by up to 50 %) so maybe the aboriginal populations were reduced by a further 25% to 113,000...maybe it recovered a bit to 120,000 by 1838 then further reduced by about 20% by measles to around 96,000, then hit by TB (say a further 10% reduction) to 86,000 then venereal diseases by a further 10% to 78,000. And remember that many people would have multiple infections ...many of them at the same time which would reduce their resistance. Plus they often had damp, cold living conditions and poor nutrition with flour, tea snd sugar and tobacco being the staple rations handed out. Plus there were multiple outbreaks of these diseases over the century ...not just one. So the population (despite any natural increase in the numbers) would have been further reduced by these multiple outbreaks....maybe by a further 10% to about 70,000. So the compounding impact of these diseases could have reduced the population to just 30% of the pre 1788 numbers. If the base figure was closer to 700,000 which some authorities suggest then the percentage reduction could be roughly the same to 210,000. Though I've seen estimates of the population being just 117,000 in 1900. Yes there were frontier wars and awful massacres of aborigines but the figures that I've seen for these murders seem to be of the order of 8,000-10,000;....a fraction of the number carried off by disease. However, one cuts it, the impact of disease on the indigenous population was devastating ...and in the hundreds of thousands. And this is in line with the similar impact of diseases on populations in Mexico, Peru, Hawaii, NZ and other Pacific Islands where people were exposed for the first time to smallpox, measles influenza etc.
Anyway, Dowling doesn't try to do any analysis like this ......just documents individual outbreaks and collects contemporary observations. So good but (in the words of my school reports) "Could have done better". Still, a fascinating book and I give it five stars.… (mais)

This attractive book opens with maps of New Zealand showing the location of the various regions alongside a map showing the Māori regions. Then each of the sixteen regions occupies a double page spread that includes a map, photos and information. For each region, a fact box gives the area, population and main industries. Pages at the back of the book cover the main offshore islands, New Zealand Territories and National Parks and Marine Reserves.
Although this initially seems like a useful book for schools and libraries, the information presented on each region is very limited. The means the choice of what to include and what to leave out seems a little quixotic at times. A child might use this book to choose a region to do a study on but would need to consult other sources to get enough information to complete their study. Luckily, there are some possible sources of further information at the back of the book.… (mais)