Australian history writing on Aborigines has moved from one extreme convention to a second. The first, a long-established one, is that Aborigines were of no significance in British settlement but largely faded away without resistance and with little in the way of incorporation in British economic activity. The second is a very recent revisionist story of extreme violence on both sides, with strong Aboriginal opposition and official and private violence by British settlers (Blainey, 1982; Elder, 1988; Loos, 1982; Reynolds, 1981; Robson, 1983; Turnbull, 1974). The first reflects the fact of Aboriginal depopulation, without inquiring into the reasons. The second derives from an exclusive focus on acts of violence and tends to create an impression of a noble Aboriginal defence of homelands and vicious behaviour by intruders, whether individuals or officials. It is suggested here that both interpretations are open to serious doubt. Let us look first at the mutual economic opportunities that could have led and did lead along two different paths, one to Aboriginal integration and at least partial compensation, the other to violence. There can be little doubt that British entrants did seek to acquire access to resources formerly used by Aborigines. Since they sought to produce their own food supplies and later to produce pastoral products for export, they necessarily sought to occupy Aboriginal lands. Economic interest in a takeover process must be recognised as a major determinant of the outcome.