>>34638
I didnt knew about that lake, interesting theory.
If there was such a population explosion, larger settlements would have necessarily been formed. Shouldnt there been archeological findings around the lake?
I found nothing but a pranksite:
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/ruins-of-ancient-city-discovered-in-australian-desert/
Other stoneage cultures still build crude, but sizable stuff from boulders everywhere around the world the moment they had access to farming and thus greater populations.
So if it holds true that abbos werent always like abbos, one should find more then the rather small rock-cones (see pic) of the aforementioned eel-farming tribe that seem to represent the pinnacle of aboriginal architecture.
But while australia has its deadlands, the eastern coast has forests and a pretty moderate climate.
The race of pacific islanders that occupied new zealand (Maoris they were called, werent they?) had roughly the similar land as it is found on the eastern australian coast-snowy mountainranges, thick forests, moderate plains and an extinct megafauna-they build far more sophisticated buildings then the abbos, used cloth and a wide range of tools.
Maybe the abbos werent warlike enough to push each other to their cognitive limits?
I am certain that abbos waged wars, but the maoris surely more so due to limited space.
The only cultural underachievers, whose level of sophistication was as low as the aboriginal one but whose habitat and ressources were just as rich albeit including the lack of cows or other plow-pullers (and here we come back to OPs topic) are the fireland indians whose only notable cultural achievement was the canoo and the idea of private terretory.
I just cant wrap my head around the fact they managed to achieve so little, either its truly genetic or founded in a cultural mechanism that prevented innovation and ambition beyond spiritualism and the invention of the boomerang.