You must log in or # to comment.
Hmm … the “uninhabited” region.
Was it actually uninhabited or were the aboriginal people there but as far as the Australian government was concerned they “didn’t count”? Genuine question, by the way
You already know the answer… the indigenous people were not actually people in the eyes of the colonists.
I found hundreds of maps of the First Nations People of Australia, including language groups, but was not able to discover any official map, which is not surprising given how counting the population worked in Australia. All maps show that the “uninhabited” area was just as densely populated as the rest of the continent.
(Trigger Warning: heavily racist policy descriptions)
How the population of Australia was counted: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/first-nations-peoples-census
It’s an inverted chart of how many white people are in an area.
More like: “Here be dragons”
When it comes to Griffith Taylor maps, I prefer mine with more sheep.
Why did no one congregate near the North where the closest other populations of other countries would be closest?
Not an expert but my suspicion: fresh water, or lack thereof.
Australia’s so damned flat that most moisture-laden air just flows right over it without dropping any rain.
The few significant hills and mountains that cause the humid air to churn and precipitation to form and fall are in the southeast. Which is thus where the biggest rivers are, and thus where the most people are.
On the north coast, the rivers seem few and far between, and pretty small, too.
The numbers have changed but I bet the shading is still pretty similar.
