Brief
New research estimates much larger pre-European Indigenous Australian population and 93% loss after 1788
New research indicates that Australia's Indigenous population before European arrival was much larger than previously believed, and that an estimated 93% was lost within 80 years of the First Fleet's 1788 arrival. The source does not provide the absolute population numbers or methods behind the estimate.
The finding, reported as new research, revises upward the pre-European population of Indigenous Australians and revises downward the time frame for its collapse. It estimates a 93% loss in less than 80 years after 1788. The report does not include the specific population figures or the evidence used to derive the estimate, so the certainty of the finding cannot be fully assessed from the available information.
Our reading
Our reading is that this finding, if robust, would substantially revise downward the timeline and scale of demographic collapse, but the absence of specific population figures in the report limits how precisely we can assess the claim.
What to do or watch
The precise unresolved question is what absolute pre-European population number and what evidence or method produced the 93% loss estimate, since the report provides neither. Readers should watch for the underlying study or data release that supplies those figures and methods before assessing how much weight the finding can carry.
Source details and supporting facts
Each line is stated by the page named above it.
Stated by phys.org
- Australia had a much larger Indigenous population before the arrival of Europeans than previously thought.
- An estimated 93% of the pre-European population was lost in less than 80 years following the 1788 arrival of the First Fleet.
Sources
- Phys.orgText stored 15 September 2026
How this story was checked. Written from the 1 page listed above, stored 15 September 2026; claims checked against that stored text on 15 September 2026.
What that means
- 2 of 2 reported statements were confirmed against the page that carries them; the rest were removed rather than published.
- Figures in the text were required to appear in the stored source text: yes. Identifiers: yes.
- The check reads stored text only: no claim rests on a fresh look that did not happen.
- Where the reporting was silent, the text says so instead of filling the gap.