Josephus,

There are Gugu-Yalantji people all over Australia. Indigenous people often moved around early in our post-colonial history: most missions and settlements have been made up of people from many groups since the earliest days.

As for '3,000 to 4,000 people' living in that area in the early days, population estimates recently are wildly exaggerated. I've seem an estimate for Tasmania's Aboriginal population of 8,000. Maybe a rough rule of thumb is to divide such estimates by ten.

Hence, maybe five thousand Aboriginal people across South Australia pre-1836, with a core population across Australia of a quarter of a million, going up (after generations of long, good times) to half a million; and down to 100,000 in very long droughts. One drought in the thirteenth century lasted for 32 years. That would have wiped out (or forced the amalgamation of) entire groups, and their lands would have been slowly re-populated by neighbouring groups based in more favourable country, over hundreds of years.

Rain-forests in particular may not have been so affected by droughts, but tend to have low populations everywhere in the world, maybe one person to the square kilometre, since it is not easy to travel around or find food in rain-forests, even though it may be there. That might have favoured smaller people, hence the reports (and photographs) of 'pygmies' in those northern Queensland areas. Weapons such as spears were also miniaturised, spears only three or four feet long for example.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

These figures of yours, "divide by 10"... "maybe five thousand Aboriginal people across South Australia pre-1836, with a core population across Australia of a quarter of a million, going up (after generations of long, good times) to half a million; and down to 100,000 in very long droughts." Is there any substantive evidence for this claim, or is it simply in your minds eye.

"One drought in the thirteenth century lasted for 32 years." Where is this coming from?

If I was to say the aboriginal population was extremely stable during dry periods, drought is only a European phenomenon due to bad land and water management.

Paul,

Cores on lakes give a fairly accurate picture of vegetation and occurrence of droughts over the past few thousand years. Nothing especially difficult about that.

As for my rough estimates, perhaps you have better ones ? Mine seem to roughly match early estimates by people on the spot, with a bit of up-estimating to account for the vile and racist colonialism of those days. Of course, I know only about South Australia, and not really much of that either. You may have far more information and better estimating techniques of the population of the rest of Australia, in good times and in droughts.

Joe

Paul,

"drought is only a European phenomenon due to bad land and water management."

I am optimistically assuming that you are joking and are not a brain dead ignoramus.

Paul,

As to your extraordinary claim that " .... the aboriginal population was extremely stable during dry periods ...." I can't even imagine where you get this from.

Yes, people may have known where to find water, but neither people nor animals (nor birds) can survive on water alone: they need plant food and, in the case of humans, animal food as well. within a couple of weeks. At the beginning of droughts, the animals shoot through looking for better country, and people have to follow them.

The longer the drought, the further people have to go to find refuge and hospitality with neighbouring (and related) groups, and the longer they stay there.

Populations may decline during droughts, not just because the older and sicker people pass away, but simply because no babies are born until mothers are fairly sure that they will be able to feed them when the better times return. Those 'better times' takes time to kick in, of course, certainly longer than nine months.

And of course, if a drought last for the better part of a generation, the group is in danger of withering away entirely, once potential mothers hit menopause, perhaps in their thirties.

So pre-European, Aboriginal population would have gone down rapidly during droughts and up again slowly once that particular drought finishes and before the next one hits.

But of course, you may know better, and I don't have Indigenous documentation from before 1788. Maybe I rely too much on common sense, while you rely on something else entirely.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Your claim of an 80% population decline, in fact total extinction would be more likely if Aboriginals had suffered from the lack of knowledge in the way of the European, and treated those parts of Australia with generally minimal rainfall/water supply as did the European. I would say the outcome would have been extinction.

"The ability of Australian indigenous people to survive
in the desert regions where rainfall is low (<200 mm pa),
episodic and unreliable, and evaporation is exceptionally
high (>3,000 mm pa), has long excited the popular
imagination ( of Europeans). Most of the early European explorers
expressed awe and wonder at the extraordinary ability
of Aborigines to survive in what they regarded as hostile
if not “impossible” regions."

How indigenous people managed water
in desert regions of Australia - I Bayly
Dept of Biological Sciences, Monash University.

If a clueless European like Shadow Minister was released into the Simpson Desert, the only thing he would believe necessary to take would be his 60kg reverse cycle air-conditioning unit strapped to his back. He would need the A/C in case it got hot during the day and he had to plug it into the nearest 3 pin outlet, while he resting under a palm tree, waiting for a local to drop in with a refreshing pina colada.