Fast Fact Tag: hunting boomerang

There is a consistent and crucial distinction between two fundamental types of boomerangs, each designed for a specific purpose.

• The Returning Boomerang
• The Non-Returning Boomerang

The returning boomerang is the weapon that most fascinated European observers due to its unique aerodynamic properties. Its primary use was not for lethal combat, but for hunting birds and for amusement.

According to Carl Lumholtz, the warped boomerang that returns is “as a rule, used only as a toy.” He also observed that it was thrown into flocks of pigeons and ducks on rivers and lakes. William Kingston described its use as a sport while Barker noted that it was thrown in “friendly rivalry” and would soar high into the air before wheeling back to where the sender predicts that it would fall.

In contrast, the non-returning boomerang was a heavier, deadlier instrument designed for serious combat and hunting.

Lorimer Fison and A.W. Howitt in Kamilaroi and Kurnai explicitly states, “The boomerang was the fighting boomerang, which does not return to the thrower.” Carl Lumholtz confirms this for Western Queensland, noting that non-twisted boomerangs “are only for war and hunting” and “do not return when thrown.” William Buckley nearly lost his life to one, recalling it “split my shield in two” during a skirmish.

This type was a formidable weapon. Lucas described it as “longer and heavier” than the returning kind, noting “the wounds it inflicts are very severe.” John Morgan, recounting Buckley’s story, says they hurled it “with great force… spinning against the enemy.”

Baldwin Spencer and F. J. Gillen in The Native Tribes of Central Australia wrote, “The Central Australian native does not appear to have hit upon this contrivance [the returning boomerang]… his boomerang has a widely open curve, and the flat blade lies wholly in one plane.” They further clarify that the ornate, large boomerangs used for close-quarters fighting in the Centre are all of this non-returning type.

The general form was “something like a half-moon” (John Morgan) or “shaped like a young moon” (Mark Kershaw). Roderick J. Flannagan provided a minute description of its construction: “about three-eighths of an inch thick in the middle, gradually tapering off towards the extremities, and rounded on each side from the centre until brought to an edge.” 

He further specified its dimensions using a geometric diagram: “the chord AD E = 18 inches; the perpendicular, B D = 17 inches; the width, BC=5 inches.” According to Carl Lumholtz, “it is twisted so that the ends are bent in opposite directions.

 

Adapted from The Aborigines of Australia by Roderick J. Flanagan

The final step often involved decoration. Spencer and Gillen in The Native Tribes of Central Australia stated that “as a general rule the boomerangs are coated with red ochre,” and might be further ornamented with “a few rings of white kaolin or yellow ochre.” Some, particularly those traded from Queensland, featured intricate “incised patterns shaped like the figure 8 laid on its side.”

According to Roderick J. Flannagan, the boomerang was formed from “any tough, heavy piece of wood”. The best woods were specified by Carl Lumholtz as Brigalow (Acacia excelsa) or Myall (Acacia pendula), with the latter also noted by William Woolls as a dark, fragrant wood used by natives for this purpose.

The familiar cartoon image of an Aboriginal hunter throwing a returning boomerang at a kangaroo is misleading. It projects the best-known modern boomerang type into a use for which heavier non-returning forms were much better suited.

The National Museum explains that boomerangs for hunting game such as emu, kangaroo and other marsupials could be thrown directly at the animal or made to ricochet from the ground. Those were practical hunting weapons, not lightweight novelty returners.

Returning boomerangs did have hunting uses, but typically in bird hunting. A returning boomerang could be thrown above ducks to imitate a hovering hawk, frightening the birds into nets or within range of hunters using non-returning boomerangs.

So returning boomerangs were real, useful and ingenious — but the standard image of them as the normal kangaroo-hunting weapon is too simplistic.

No. The popular idea that a boomerang is a curved object that automatically comes back is historically misleading. Returning boomerangs were only one part of a much wider technology.

This distinction was already explicit in nineteenth-century ethnography. R. Brough Smyth’s 1878 account separates the returning play boomerang, or Wonguim, from the war boomerang, or Barngeet. He notes that the war form does not return, while the returning form was designed around a very different flight.

Threlkeld described the returning flight as an amusement or display and distinguished fighting throws intended to injure. Independently, Dawson described a heavier war boomerang that did not return, while Eyre recorded forms whose different angles produced markedly different flight paths.

Modern museum collections confirm the same broad picture: the vast majority of Aboriginal boomerangs were non-returning. The returning kind became disproportionately famous because it fascinated settlers, scientists, tourists and souvenir buyers.

So the historically accurate statement is not “boomerangs came back”, but rather: some specialised boomerangs returned; many hunting and fighting forms were designed to travel forward and strike with force.