I love how my story which is filled with quotes from anthropologists and other scientific experts is "romantic." Meanwhile, the links that you've provided talk about things that were observed in the 19th century or later, including discussing the way that alcohol contributes to violence amongst aboriginals. In other words, they have no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.

I have been unable to find anything that speaks to Australian aboriginals as having issues with violence pre-contact. Instead, everything I've seen describes them in the same way as any other band hunter-gatherer tribe.

"Aboriginal society was egalitarian with no formal government or chiefs. Authority rested with elders who held extensive ritual knowledge gained over many years. Group decisions were generally made through the consensus of elders. The traditional economy was cooperative, with males generally hunting large game while females gathered local staples such as small animals, shellfish, vegetables, fruits, seeds and nuts. Food was shared within groups and exchanged across groups.[29]

Aboriginal groups were semi-nomadic, generally ranging over a specific territory defined by natural features. Members of a group would enter the territory of another group through rights established by marriage and kinship or by invitation for specific purposes such as ceremonies and sharing abundant seasonal foods. As all natural features of the land were created by ancestral beings, a group's particular country provided physical and spiritual nourishment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia

I'm not going to spend $18 to read a book that I am highly doubtful says what you purport it says, based on your misinterpretation of the other links that you've given me and the other things that I've just read about how "true to type" Australian aboriginals appear to be.

Jebel Sahaba is pretty much universally acknowledged as the sight of the first instance of mass violence - around 13k years ago and most widescale violence takes place even later than that.

“Many social arrangements impede war, such as cross-group ties of kinship and marriage; cooperation in hunting, agriculture or food sharing; flexibility in social arrangements that allow individuals to move to other groups; norms that value peace and stigmatize killing; and recognized means for conflict resolution.

These mechanisms do not eliminate serious conflict, but they do channel it in ways that either prevent killing or keep it confined among a limited number of individuals.People are people. They fight and sometimes kill. Humans have always had a capacity to make war if conditions and culture so dictate.

But those conditions and the warlike cultures they generate became common only over the past 10,000 years — and, in most places, much more recently than that. The high level of killing often reported in history, ethnography or later archaeology is contradicted in the earliest archaeological findings around the globe." Scientific American

At this juncture, I'm just kind of chuckling because you are such a cliche - the man who is just so sure that widespread violence has always existed, without actually being able to produce anything to support that which indicates that is the case, and flying in the face of all sorts of scientific evidence to the contrary. What exactly do you get out of this, I wonder? I find it really strange.