Cape Grim Massacre - Historical Skepticism

Historical Skepticism

Keith Windschuttle, who visited the alleged massacre site and read the archival documents, argues that the claim that four shepherds could have killed thirty Aborigines at the location is inherently implausible. The muzzle-loading flintlock muskets of the day had a limited effective range of about 73 metres (80 yards) and were slow to reload. Windschuttle argues: “..even a child had time during reloading to run beyond the effective range..” and that such weapons cannot be fired, reloaded and fired again fast enough for four convict shepherds to kill thirty Aborigines at the alleged location before the intended victims either ran or swam out of range or turned on those shooting at them and killed them.

He also argues that Robinson's report that the shepherds forced the Aborigines from the shoreline to the edge of a cliff where they massacred them is inherently implausible given the terrain at the site. To get the Aborigines to the cliff's edge, the shepherds would have had to have climbed, and forced the Aborigines up an ascent so steep that at some points it requires that those making the ascent use their hands to do so. The shepherds would have had to have slung their muskets to make the ascent and once the Aborigines were at the top, they would have been in an area without barriers to prevent them escaping.

He has disputed the number killed by convict shepherds at Cape Grim, arguing that 6, killed in a fight near the shepherds' hut, is a more likely number, as described in the reports of Edward Curr, manager of the Van Diemen’s Land Company. Windschuttle believes Robinson exaggerated the number killed. However two other historians Ian McFarlane and Josephine Flood who have also visited the massacre site and read the archival documents, have come to the conclusion that Robinson's account is reasonably accurate.