The Edward White $5000 History Prize Still unclaimed
Posted 22 August 2025
Who Was Edward White?
On Tuesday 16 March 1830, an old, dishevelled man appeared at the door of the Colonial Aide-de-Camp’s room at Government House in Hobart. He said his name was Edward White and he was there to give evidence before the Aborigines Committee of Inquiry.
The inquiry had been established only a few months before, on 9 November 1829, by Lt-Governor George Arthur to enquire into the rapidly deteriorating relations between the settlers, pastoralists and convicts, and the native Aboriginal Tasmanians.
White claimed he had been an eyewitness to a terrible massacre, a massacre of Aboriginal people that had occurred 26 years earlier at Risdon Cove – the site of the first British settlement, near present day Hobart, in Van Diemen’s Land.
He told the Committee that he had seen ‘a great many of the Natives slaughtered and wounded’ and that ‘some of their bones were sent in two casks to Port Jackson by Dr Mountgarrett.’
His words would change the course of Tasmanian history for, not only did they affect the way we think of Risdon Cove today, but they have also played a big part in our story of colonisation and the fate of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people.
His testimony still reverberates - it played a central role in the History Wars of the early 2000s, amid the accusations of the ‘fabrication of Tasmanian Aboriginal history’; it formed the basis of an international article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2000, and it is still used as a primary source of evidence by today’s historians, notably (the now late) Professor Lyndall Ryan in her 2004 seminal essay on the Risdon Cove Massacre and in her current Massacre Map.
Similarly, Professor Henry Reynolds in Chapter 3 of his recent co-authored book, Tongerlongeter, and Phillip Tardif in his definitive 2003 book on Risdon Cove, John Bowen’s Hobart, both rely heavily on White’s ‘eye-witness’ testimony.
But was Edward White’s testimony true?
Was he actually at Risdon Cove on 3 May 1804?
In 2022 a book, Truth-Telling at Risdon Cove, authors Scott Seymour, George Brown and Roger Karge, provided evidence which they claimed showed that the Edward White who testified at the 1830 Aborigines Committee must have been lying - he could not have been at Risdon Cove in 1804 to witness the massacre as he did not enter the colony until 1806 (Figure 1).
Figure 1 - Truth-Telling at Risdon Cove, 2022
The book caused a minor stir in Hobart where leading Risdon Cove massacre academic, the late Professor Ryan had accused the authors of being “deniers” as reported in The Australian of 14 January 2022,
…Professor Ryan said an absence of White from records did not mean he was not present.. “To claim that Edward White was not a witness to the massacre is ridiculous,” she said. “None of the 19th century historians ... query White’s testimony. If White was a fake, he would have been exposed long ago.“This is the latest in a long line of massacre deniers.”
Ryan had written the seminal, 2004 academic paper on the Risdon Cove massacre so her criticism was not to be ignored.
Figure 2 - Source: FULL AUSTRALIAN Article here, 14 January 2022
And yet, where was the real documentary evidence that all these historians relied upon in their belief that the Edward White who testified in 1830 was actually at Risdon Cove, 26 years earlier, on the fateful day that all scholars believed a massacre had occurred?
The Offer of the $5000 Edward White History Prize
To get a debate underway in the hope of finding a successful challenger to the thesis presented in the book, Truth-telling at Risdon Cove, the Tasmanian history network, Hidden Histories has kindly established The Edward White History Prize with a single total prize value of $5000 to the first person or group who can prove*,
that the man who testified at the Aborigines Committee in 1830, the man we designate Edward White #1, was actually at Risdon Cove on 3 May 1804 as he claims, or
that any other man called Edward White was at Risdon Cove on 3 May 1804 (irrespective of whether he was the one who testified in 1830).
After three years no one has yet stepped forward and provided the evidence that would allow them to claim the $5000 prize despite significant discussion, debate and further research by those who say they have always believed White’s testimony.
The $5000 prize is thus still uncollected and up for grabs
The progress of the debate began when the Tasmanian Historical and Research Association (THRA) published a book review (Figure 3).
Figure 3 -Source : FULL THRA Review here , Malcolm Ward, Papers and Proceedings: Tasmanian Historical Research Association, Volume 69 Issue 2, August 2022
One of the most consequential questions raised by the reviewer went to the heart of the book thesis - were the historians who took Edward White’s testimony as fact relying on a historigraphy that was flawed in placing White at Risdon Cove in 1804?
As the reviewer Malcolm Ward noted,
Here we have book that presents new information on the confrontation at Risdon Cove in 1804, a critical event in Tasmania’s history. It challenges the orthodox view of it such that, if substantiated, a significant revision will be called for in contemporary histories…one of the assertions [made in the book] is rather troubling, if true. The authors identified that [historian] Phillips Tardif’s list, in his John Bowen’s Hobart (2003), of ‘people…allowed to stay at Risdon Cove during the period of the incident, taken from [citation] CO201/33, pp.240-2 included the name Edward White, whereas the original document cited by him does not. The authors helpfully reproduce both so readers can judge for themselves. Tardif’s list put White at Risdon and therefore a credible witness; if he’s not on that list, there is no other source that puts White there and the ‘witness’ argument is in doubt, with the consequences that brings.
The ‘rather troubling assertion’ alluded to by Ward was taken very seriously by historian Phillip Tardif and THRA commendably gave him 22 pages in their April 2023 journal to respond in great detail to the points raised by Ward in his review, and by the author’s in their book (Figure 4).
Figure 4 - Source: FULL THRA article here , Phillip Tardif, Papers and Proceedings: Tasmanian Historical Research Association, Volume 70 Issue 1 April 2023
The authors were then given the opportunity by THRA to respond to Tardif in five journal pages the following year (Figure 5).
Figure 5 - Source: FULL THRA Response here , Seymour, Brown & Karge, Papers and Proceedings: Tasmanian Historical Research Association, Volume 71 Issue 2 August 2024
The Edward White History Prize judging committee concurs with the conclusions of the August 2024 paper of Seymour, Brown and Karge when they say:
Tardif concedes that our claim, that the convict named Edward White off the Atlas did not arrive in Sydney in 1802, ‘is a possiblity’ and ‘may be correct’. He has admitted that there is no documentary evidence to place White at Risdon Cove or indeed in Hobart in 1803/4, other than White’s own testimony in 1830 and an 1833 reference by ex-convict John Fawkner [snr] that he had ‘known the petitioner [Edward White] for many years, nearly thirty …’ (See Figure 6)
Our call is for historians to be very circumspect in believing Edward White’s claim that he was an eye witness to the events at Risdon Cove on 3 May 1804 until further real proof comes to hand.
Figure 6 - Reference by John Fawkner snr on 27 May 1833 endorsing his acquaintance with Edward White for nearly thirty years - that is since ‘nearly 1803’.. Source: CSO 1/655/14693
This reference by John Fawkner is not accepted as proof since it is not independent of Edward White’s influence (he asked Fawkner to write it for him) but more importantly it does not say specifically that they knew each other at Risdon Cove, or even Hobart Town, in May 1804. It is a vague recollection that they had know each other only from sometime around then.
Thus no proof** has been provided by Tardif’s defence nor any other person or party and the $5000 is stall available to be claimed.
** Proof is taken to be defined as one or more pieces of evidence such as a primary document or a record such as a newspaper article, shipping list, police or magistrates record, a convict record, letter, journal entry, etc that can be independently corroborated to the satisfaction of the Prize judges. It does not include documents that the 1830 Edward White #1 himself had a hand in generating.
For example, in Edward White’s petition of ca May 1833, it is claimed that,
‘The petitioner is the oldest resident in Van Dieman’s Land having arrived at Restdown with Lieutenant Bowen in the year 1803…’
This petition itself cannot be accepted as a proof document given that it was most likely prepared by a scribe taking a deposition from Edward White himself (Edward White was believed to be illiterate - he signed his name with a cross on a magistrates record). If however, for example, it was found that an Edward White was included as a convict on the 1803 First Settler’s Association listing, then this 1833 petition document would serve as corroborating evidence [however, Edward White is not on the 1803 First Settlers listing].
Terms and Conditions : Contestants to submit their entries including copies of proof documents by email to:
dark.emu.exposed@gmail.com, Attention: The Edward White History Prize Judges,
The judges of the Edward White History Prize have full discretion as to whether or not to award the main prize and/or the lesser valued prizes in part or in full.
