Paul,

Water is one thing, food is another. No Aboriginal people would have been so dopey as to rely on nothing more than a good water supply. They would have moved out of their drier areas to follow the animals in search of plant food and to re-invigorate relations with neighbouring groups related by marriage.

Perhaps you need to read a bit more about survival in the harsher regions of Australia.

I don't know about an 80 % drop in population -- that might have happened in specific regions over a long period, but more likely population decline would have been the outcome of two factors: an attrition of older people and young children; and the halt to births for the duration, and maybe a year afterwards. And more like evacuation of regions for the duration, and migration to other areas, rather than actual extinction.

So higher mortality and very low fertility - the combined outcome would be a decline in the population for the length of the drought, plus a year or so afterwards (and taking into account that very young children, deprived of breast-feeding, would have also died). Maybe a demographer could calculate incremental population decline depending on the duration and extent of a drought.

My point was that a very widespread and lengthy drought would have forced people out of affected regions, into the arms of neighbouring and related groups. And it may have taken some time for people to re-populate their country before the next drought bites.

Joe

Paul what type of Palms grow in the Simpson Desert?

Hi Joe,

"Water is one thing, food is another." I agree, given that Aboriginal people had a far better understanding of their environment than the European, it is my opinion that through good management they survived far better than would otherwise have been the case. Your claim that a population declined from "half a million; and down to 100,000 (a simple calculation will show that is 80%) in very long droughts" has no substance, it is simply a reflection of European thinking. I also don't agree with the European term "drought" as trying to apply it to indigenous, well managed dry periods, yes, the concept of drought, no.
I refer you to the existence of the Bedouin of the Western Sahara, who despite living in one of the driest and desolate places on earth (by European standards) survive rather well, even thriving.

Hi Josephus,

I know you are a fundo christian and take fairy tails literally, but are you serious? The palms growing in the Simpson Desert are a sub-species of the ones growing at the South Pole.

SM's last trip into the desert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zfI-WyOfQ

Paul,

Towards the end of the 1890s drought down this way, at a 'Royal Commission into the Aborigines', some of the remaining pastoral tenants, lessees, as they invariably described themselves, gave testimony about Aboriginal people coming in from the desert north of the Bight, in a pitiable condition, with string tied tightly around their upper stomachs to stop the hunger pangs. After they had been fed for a few months, some stayed but some went back out into the desert.

All on my web-site: www.firstsources.info - just look up the 'Royal Commissions' page.

Joe

Hi Joe,

I could not find any reference to your claim; "One drought in the thirteenth century lasted for 32 years." Can you provide evidence of that?

On the claimed 80% reduction in overall population due to "drought". You did say that; "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." Later you tried to qualify that with; "I don't know about an 80 % drop in population -- that might have happened in specific regions over a long period" Its gone from core population to specific regions, possibly your gusstemation system is a little wonky.

But that's not what I need explaining, this other claim; The 1890s drought down your way, where "Aboriginal people coming in from the desert north of the Bight, in a pitiable condition, with string tied tightly around their upper stomachs to stop the hunger pangs. After they had been fed for a few months, some stayed but some went back out into the desert." Given the relatively small magnitude of this 1890's "desert dry period", and what is said to have happened with indigenous people. Would it not be fair to say, that a prolonged widespread dry period, sometime in the last 40,000 years, lasting several decades, and with no whitefella to save them, like in the 1890's that there would have been total extinction of the Aboriginal on the Australian continent. Why is that not so?

Now there are plans a foot, to grow "bush tucker" as commercial crops, being far more resistant to long periods of European defined drought. Amazingly they want aboriginal people to show them how this can be achieved. Seems, there is more to "bush tucker" than macadamia nuts.