passes by imperceptible gradations from the straight sword, fig. 72,
on the one hand, into the ‘malga’, a kind of pick, fig. 89, used for
war purposes, on the other[159], and this Australian malga closely
resembles a weapon of the same kind from New Caledonia, figs. 90 and
91, which, as already mentioned, is used both as a weapon and for
tilling the ground. In Plate XV (diagram 5), figs. 92 to 100, I have
also arranged the links of connexion between the boomerang and a kind
of hatchet or chopper called the waddy. A slight swell or projection
is seen to grow out of one end of the concave side of the boomerang,
and this develops into the form of a chopper. In those specimens of
this class in which the projection is only slightly developed, as in
figs. 94 and 95, the sides of the implement are flat, and the weapon
is obviously designed for throwing, but in some of those in which
the projection is more fully developed, as in fig. 96, the shaft is
quite round, and the head becomes thick and heavy, so as to render it
totally unsuited to the purposes of a missile. We see, therefore, in
this diagram, the transition, by minute gradations, from a missile to
a hand weapon, or vice versa. The boomerang, the sword, the malga,
and the waddy, are thus seen to be allied in such a manner as to make
it difficult to determine which of the four was the original weapon,
and, if properly arranged to display their development, they should be
distributed in branch lines, starting from a common centre, exactly in
the same manner that I have suggested the various forms of spear and
arrow-heads ought to be arranged in the natural order of progression.
[See, for example, Plate III, and pp. 37-8, above.]
_Indian Boomerangs._
In Plate XV (diagram 6), figs. 101-5, I have arranged a series of
boomerangs from India. Figures 101 and 102 are specimens of the
‘katureea’ or boomerang of Goojerat, from the Indian Museum; they
are used by the coolies, according to the ticket in the Museum, ‘for
whirling at hares, boars, and other wild animals, and disabling
them’. It is of ‘raen’ wood, thicker and heavier than the Australian
specimens, and therefore not adapted to rise in the air and return. The
section is equal on both sides, but in other respects it is precisely
identical with the Australian weapon, and appears to have been roughly
chipped into form. Figures 103 and 104 are of an improved form, from
Madras, called the ‘collery’, also of wood, but having a knob at the
handle end; they are from the Museum of this Institution. Figure 105
is precisely the same form in steel, from the India Museum. It is
probable that this weapon led to the use of the steel ‘chakra’ or war
quoit (fig. 106) of which I have given an illustration from the Museum
of this Institution. The principle of its flight is precisely that of
the boomerang, in so far as regards the increase of range and velocity
produced by the rotation preserving the thin edge in the line of its
forward motion. The earliest mention of this instrument is in the
description of the Malabar Coast, by Magellan, about 1512, translated
by Mr. Stanley, for the Hakluyt Society. The author describes amongst
the arms used in the kingdom of Dely, certain wheels called chacarani,
‘two fingers broad, sharp outside like knives, and without edge inside,
and the surface of these is of the size of a small plate, and they
carry seven or eight of these each, put on the left arm, and they take
one and put it on the finger of the right hand, and make it spin round
many times, so that they hurl it at their enemies, and if they hit
any one on the arm or neck, it cuts through all, and with these they
carry on much fighting, and are very dexterous.’[160] These weapons
are usually worn on the head, but the circumstance here mentioned of
their being worn on the arm, reminds us very much of the peculiar
weapon worn by the Djibba negroes of Central Africa as a bracelet; this
is represented in figure 107; it is of iron, sharp on the outside and
blunt on the inside, which touches the arm; the edge is usually covered
with a strip of hide to prevent injury to the person. I am not aware
that this weapon of the negroes is ever used as a missile, but the
occurrence of two such singular weapons, similarly carried, is worthy
of notice, more particularly as we have clear evidence of a connexion
between the metal-workers of the whole continent of Africa and the hill
tribes of Central India.
It is possible that many links of connexion may be supplied when the
subject of continuity comes to be more carefully studied in these
countries. It would appear extremely probable that the small Koorkeree
and Goorkah knife, though now used only for hand fight, may have had
their origin in these missile weapons, which they resemble in form,
especially the large Goorkah knife. It would be interesting to know
if they are ever thrown. I have heard stories of this having been the
case, but no authentic account of such a practice. The Spaniards throw
their long clasp-knives with effect for a considerable distance.
_African Boomerangs._
Turning to Africa (Plate XV, diagram 7), we find the boomerang well
represented in many parts of that continent. Figure 108 is an ancient
Egyptian boomerang of wood, in the British Museum. It was obtained from
the collection of James Burton, Jr., Esq., which was formed by him in
Egypt, and is described as ‘an instrument for fowling, for throwing at,
or knocking down birds, as is continually represented on the walls of
the tombs’. It is of hard but light wood, the section is symmetrical
on both sides, and not flat on one side, like some of the Australian
boomerangs; it is somewhat broader at the ends than in the middle
of the blade. Figures 100, 110, and 111, are taken from Rosellini’s
_Egyptian Monuments_,[161] and show how this instrument was used by the
ancient Egyptians. Sir Samuel Baker has described the weapon called the
‘trombash’, used in those parts of Abyssinia which he traversed.[162]
It is of hard wood, resembling the Australian boomerang, about two feet
in length, and the end turns sharply at an angle of 30°; they throw
this with great dexterity, and inflict severe wounds with the hard
and sharp edge, but, unlike the boomerang, it does not return to the
thrower. Figure 113 is a wooden instrument, in the Christy Collection,
said to be used by the Djibba negroes for throwing at birds. Figure 114
is the Nubian sword, which in form exactly resembles the boomerang.
They have a great variety of curves, some of them, especially those of
the same form used in Abyssinia, bending nearly in a right angle. I am
not aware that this instrument is ever thrown by the Nubians; they,
however, are in the habit of throwing their curved clubs with great
dexterity. Figure 115 is an iron implement of native workmanship, used
as a missile by the inhabitants of Central Africa; it was brought from
that region by Consul Petherick, at whose sale I purchased it. Like
the majority of the succeeding figures represented in this diagram, it
resembles the Australian boomerang, in being flat on the under side,
that is to say, upon the side which would be undermost, if thrown from
the right hand with the point first; the weight, however, would prevent
such a weapon from rising in the air, or returning to the thrower.
Figure 116 is used by the Mundo tribe of Africa; like the last, it is
flat on the under side; in form it resembles the falchion, represented
in the Egyptian sculptures as being held in the hand by Rameses and
other figures, when slaying their enemies. The small knob on one side
of the blade is used to attach it to the person in carrying it. Figure
117, from Central Africa, is clearly a development of the preceding
figure. Figure 118 is a weapon of the same class, from Kordofan,
obtained near the cataracts of Assouan, Upper Nile, and now in the
Museum of this Institution; though of the same character as the other
missiles, its section is equal on both sides, and therefore it is not
calculated to range far in its flight. Figure 119 is also from the
Museum of this Institution; it is flat on the under side. Figures 120
and 121 are from illustrations in Denham and Clapperton’s _Travels
in Northern and Central Africa_ (Pl. xli. 3, 4), of the missile
instruments, called ‘hunga-mungas’, used by the negro tribes, south of
Lake Tchad. One of these is of very peculiar form; in the course of the
innumerable variations which this weapon appears to have undergone, the
constructor appears to have hit upon the idea of representing the head
and neck of a stork. Figure 122 is from a sketch, in Barth’s _Travels_,
of one of these weapons, belonging to the Marghi, a negro tribe in the
same region; it is called ‘danisco’, and he says that the specimen here
represented is of particularly regular shape, thereby inferring that
numerous varieties of form are in use among these people. In another
place, he describes the ‘goliyo’ of the Musgu and the ‘njiga’ of the
Bagirmi, as weapons of the same class, the name of the latter differing
from the word for spear only in a single letter; he says this weapon is
common to all the pagan, i.e. negro tribes, that he came across.[163]
Figure 123 is from East Central Africa, presented to the Christy
Collection by the Viceroy of Egypt; it is described as a cutting
instrument, from the country of the Dinkas and Shillooks, capable of
being thrown to a great distance. Mr. Petherick met with these tribes
in his travels on the White Nile.[164] Figure 124, from my collection,
is described as a battle-axe of the Dor tribe, between the equator and
the 6th or 7th degree of north latitude. It was brought to England
by Mr. Petherick, who obtained it in his travels in 1858; it is used
also for throwing. Figure 125 is from an illustration in Du Chaillu’s
work,[165] of the missile tomahawk, used by the Fans in the Gaboon, in
West Central Africa; he says that the thrower aims at the head, and,
after killing his victim, uses the round edge of the axe to cut off
the head. We see from this, that notwithstanding the innumerable and
apparently meaningless variations which this weapon has undergone, the
different parts of it are sometimes applied to especial uses. Figure
126 is another missile, used by the Neam-Nam tribes, East Central
Africa. Mr. Petherick says, that the Baer tribe carry a different kind
of iron missile from the Neam-Nams. Figures 126 to 129 are different
varieties of Neam-Nam weapons, in which, as they are all derived from
the same people, the gradual transition of form is more perceptible
than in those isolated specimens derived from different tribes. If,
however, we had specimens of all the varieties used by each tribe, we
should without doubt be able to trace the progression of the whole
of them from a common form. As it is, the connexion is sufficiently
obvious when the details are examined, throughout the whole region in
which they are found, extending from Egypt and the Nile in the East, to
the Gaboon on the West Coast. In all, the principle of construction is
the same, the divergent lateral blades serving the purpose of wings,
like the arms of the Australian boomerang, to sustain the weapon in
the air when spun horizontally. The variations are such as might
have resulted from successive copies, little or no improvement being
perceivable in the principle of construction throughout this region,
notwithstanding the innumerable forms through which it must have passed
during its transmission from its original source; the locality of
which we shall probably be unable to determine, until the antiquities
of the country have been more carefully described and studied. As,
however, it is everywhere found in the hands of the negro aborigines of
the country, it must probably have had the same origin as the art of
smelting and fabricating iron, which is everywhere identical throughout
this region, and is, without doubt, of the remotest antiquity, dating
long prior to any historical record of the continent of Africa.
_Cateia._
The possible employment of the boomerang in Europe has been made the
subject of occasional speculation amongst antiquarian writers. Having
been used in Egypt, and perhaps in Assyria, there is no good reason for
doubting that it may have spread from thence to the north-west. In a
learned paper on the subject in the _Transactions of the Royal Irish
Academy_, vol. xix (1843), § ‘Literature,’ p. 22, Pl. i, ii, Mr. Samuel
Ferguson endeavours to prove that the ‘cateia’ mentioned by classical
authors was the boomerang. He quotes several passages, and amongst
them one from Virgil (_Aeneid_ vii. 741), in which mention is made of
a people accustomed to whirl the ‘cateia’ after the Teutonic manner.
In the _Punica_ of Silius (iii. 327), one of the Libyan tribes which
accompanied Hannibal to Italy is described as being armed with a bent
or crooked ‘cateia’. Isidore, Bishop of Seville, a writer of the end of
the sixth and beginning of the seventh century, described the ‘cateia’
as ‘a species of bat, which, when thrown, flies not far, by reason
of its weight, but where it strikes, it breaks through with extreme
impetus, and if it be thrown with a skilful hand, it returns back again
to him who dismissed it’ (_Origines_, xviii. 7. 7).
Strabo also (pp. 196-7) describes the Belgae of his time, as using
‘a wooden weapon of the shape of a grosphus, which they throw out of
hand ... which flies farther than an arrow, and is chiefly used in the
pursuit of game’.
_General Conclusions relative to the Boomerang._
Those who desire further information relative to its supposed use
in Europe, cannot do better than refer to the paper from which I
have quoted. Meanwhile, enough has been said to show:--(1) that
the boomerang was used in many different countries at a very early
period, and in a very primitive condition of culture, and that it was
everywhere employed chiefly in the pursuit of game; (2) that it was
everywhere constructed of wood, before it was copied in metal; (3) that
in Australia it originated as a variety of the almond- or leaf-shaped
sword, and was suggested by the natural curvature of the material out
of which it was formed; (4) that the subsequent improvements by which
its return flight was ensured, arose from a practical selection of
suitable varieties, and was not the result of design, and (5) that the
form of the boomerang passes by minute gradations into at least three
other classes of weapons in common use by the same people, and may
therefore be regarded as a branch variety of an original normal type
of implement, used by the most primitive races as a general tool or
weapon.
_Development of the Club._
Amongst other implements used for war, the form of which appears to be
derived from the same common source as those already described, may
be included the Australian club, and the wamera or throwing stick. I
have arranged in Plate XVI, diagram 8, figs. 130 to 137, a series of
Australian clubs, showing a transition from the plain stick, of equal
size throughout, to one having a nearly round knob at one end. Nearly
similar forms to some of these, from Africa, figs. 138 to 140, are also
represented on the same diagram.
_Contrivances for Throwing the Spear._
Amongst the Australian ‘wameras’, there are so many varieties, that it
is next to impossible to speculate upon the priority of any particular
form, unless the plain stick, with a projecting peg at one end, may be
regarded as certainly the simplest, and therefore the earlier form.
The ‘wamera’ is held in the right hand, and the projecting peg at the
end is fitted into a cavity at the end of the spear, which latter is
held in the left hand, in the required direction, until just before the
moment of throwing. The spear is then impelled to its destination by
the wamera, which gives great additional impetus to the arm. Fig. 147
is a wamera from Nicol Bay, of exactly the same general outline as the
sword already figured from that locality, figs. 61 and 62, except that
one of the faces at the end of which the peg is fastened, is concave,
and the other convex; this specimen is in the Christy Collection. The
wamera assumes a great variety of forms; some, as for example fig.
142, resemble on a small scale the New Zealand paddle, the broad end
being held in the hand, and the peg inserted in the small end; others,
broad and flat, figs. 148 to 150, bulge out in the middle by successive
gradations, until they approach the form of a shield. No reasonable
cause that I am aware of, can be assigned for these different forms;
beyond caprice, and the action of the law of incessant variation, which
is constant in its operation amongst all the works of the aborigines.
The wamera is found on the north-west[166] and south-west[167] coasts
of Australia, and Major Mitchell describes it in the east and central
parts of the continent.[168]
That the wamera preceded the bow, appears probable from the fact that
no bow is ever used in Australia, unless occasionally upon the north
coast, where it is derived from the Papuans. The bow is not indigenous
in New Zealand, or in any of those islands of the Pacific which are
peopled by the Polynesian race; it belongs truly to the Papuans, and
where it is used elsewhere in the Pacific Islands as a toy, it may
very probably have been derived from their Papuan neighbours. The
throwing stick is used in New Zealand, in which country Mr. Darwin
describes the practice with them. ‘A cap,’ he says, ‘being fixed at
30 yards distance, they transfixed it with the spear delivered by
the throwing stick, with the rapidity of an arrow from the bow of a
practised archer.’[169] In New Guinea, Captain Cook saw the lance
thrown 60 yards, as he believed, by the throwing stick.[170] I saw
the Australians, now exhibiting on Kennington Common (1868), throw
their spears with the wamera nearly 100 yards extreme range, but as
they practised only for range, I had no opportunity of observing the
accuracy of flight. Mr. Oldfield says that their practice has been much
exaggerated by the European settlers, in order to justify acts on their
part, which would otherwise appear cowardly. He says, that a melon
having been put up at a distance of 30 yards, many natives practised
at it for an hour without hitting it, after which an European, who had
accustomed himself to the use of this weapon, struck it five times
out of six with his spear. Klemm, on the other hand, has collected
several accounts of their dexterity in the use of it; he says, that the
range is 90 yards, and mentions that Captain Phillip received a wound
several inches deep at 30 paces. At 40 paces, he says, the aborigines
are always safe of their mark (l. c., p. 32). A sharp flint is usually
fixed with gum into the handle of the wamera, which they use for
sharpening the points of their spears.
The throwing stick (fig. 151) is used by the Esquimaux throughout
the regions they inhabit. Frobisher[171] mentions it on the east,
Captain Beechey on the north-west, and Cranz describes its use in
Greenland.[172] Klemm says (l. c., p. 39), that the throwing stick used
in the Aleutian Isles, differs from that of the Greenlander in having a
cavity, to receive the end of the spear, instead of a projecting tang.
The Esquimaux stick generally differs from the Australian in form,
and has usually holes cut to receive the fingers, which by this means
secure a firm grasp of the instrument. The custom of forming holes or
depressions in an implement to receive the fingers was very widely
spread in prehistoric times. I have specimens of stones so indented,
used probably as hammers, from Ireland, Yorkshire, Denmark, and Central
India. In the Christy Collection there is one precisely similar from
the Andaman Isles.
The only other race that is known to make use of the throwing stick is
the Purus-Purus Indians of South America, inhabiting a tributary of the
Amazon. These people have no bow, and in many other respects resemble
the Australians in their habits. Their throwing stick is called
‘palheta’; it has a projection at the end, to fit into the end of the
spear, and is handled exactly in the same manner as the Australian
‘wamera’.[173]
Another kind of spear-thrower, consisting of a loop for the finger and
a thong by which it is fastened to the spear, is used in New Caledonia,
and Tanna, New Hebrides (fig. 152). On ordinary occasions this is
carried by being suspended to an armlet on the left arm, but, when
preparing for war, they fasten it on to the middle of their spears. I
exhibit here, fig. 153, a precisely similar contrivance from Central
Africa, from my collection. Judging by the spiral ferrule, at the end
of the lance to which it is attached, it appears to be derived from
Central or East Central Africa. This mode of increasing the range of
the dart or javelin was well known to the ancients, and was called by
the Greeks ἀγκύλη, and by the Romans ‘amentum’; it is represented on
the Etruscan vases, and is figured in Smith’s _Dictionary of Greek
and Roman Antiquities_, from which the drawing given in fig. 154 is
taken.[174] One of the effects produced by this contrivance was,
doubtless, to give the weapon a rotary motion, and thereby to increase
the accuracy of its flight, upon the same principle as the rifling of a
bullet; but the range and velocity were also increased, by enabling the
thrower, the tip of whose forefinger was passed through the loop of the
‘amentum’, to press longer upon the spear, and thus impart a greater
velocity to it, in the same manner that the effect of the Australian
wamera may be said to increase the length of the thrower’s arm. The
Emperor Napoleon, who, as we all know, has paid great attention to
these weapons of the ancients, caused experiments to be conducted,
under his own personal supervision, at Saint Germain, the result of
which showed that the range of a spear was increased from 20 to 80
meters by the use of this accessory.[175]
_Transition from Club to Shield (Australia)._
My next example of variation of form is taken from the Australian
‘heileman’, or shield. It may, on the first cursory consideration of
the subject, appear fanciful to suppose that so simple a contrivance
as the shield could require to have a history, or that the plain round
target, for example, so common amongst many savage nations, could be
the result of a long course of development. Surely, it may be said,
the shells of tortoises or the thick hides of beasts would, from the
first, have supplied so simple a contrivance. But the researches in
palaeoethnology teach us that such was not the case; man came into the
world naked and defenceless, and it was long before he acquired the
art of defending himself in this manner. His first weapon, as I have
already said, was a stone or a stick, and it is from one or other of
these, that we must trace all subsequent improvements. The stick became
a club, and it is to this alone that many of the earliest races trust
for the defence of their persons. The Dinkas of East Central Africa
have no shields, using the club, and a stick, hooked at both ends (Pl.
XVI, fig. 170), to ward off lances.[176] The Shoua and the Bagirmi
of Central Africa rarely carry shields, and they use a foreign name
for it.[177] The Khonds, hill tribes of Central India, have never
adopted the shield.[178] The inhabitants of Tahiti use no shield.[179]
The Sandwich Islanders use no shield or weapon of defence, employing
the javelin to ward off lances: like the Australians, and, like the
Bushmen, they are very expert in dodging the weapons of their enemies.
In Samoa the club is used for warding off lances, and the warriors
frequently exercise themselves in this practice. The ‘kerri’ sticks of
the Hottentots are used for warding off stones and assegais.[180]
The club head formed by the divergent roots of a tree (Pl. XVI,
fig. 155), offers great advantages in enabling the warrior to catch
the arrows in their flight, and this led to the use of the jagged
mace-head form of club, which is here represented from many different
localities. Fig. 155 is from Fiji, fig. 157 from Central Africa, fig.
156 from Australia, fig. 158 from New Guinea, and fig. 159 from the
Friendly Isles. The curved clubs, of which a great variety are found
in the hands of savages in every part of the world, are exceedingly
well adapted to catch and throw off the enemy’s arrow. The Australian
‘malga’, or ‘leowel’, as it is called by the Australians now in this
country, and already described (pp. 125-6), is used in this manner.