Tag: Non-returning boomerang

The remarkable sophistication of the boomerang led to significant debate among early observers regarding how such a “primitive” people could have invented it. Historical texts reviewed reveal two primary schools of thought on its origins: one attributing it to accidental discovery, and the other to a legacy of inherited knowledge from a more advanced ancestry.

Several authors speculated that the boomerang was not a product of deliberate design, but a happy accident of nature and play. Carl Lumholtz was a primary proponent of this view, stating, “we can conceive it to have been invented by accident.” He proposed several possibilities:

• A warped piece of wood, twisted by “rain and sunshine,” may have “assumed a form which revealed the striking quality of returning when it was thrown.”
• More probably, “the idea was discovered in their games.” He observed that natives amused themselves by throwing twisted palm leaves or Brigalow-acacia leaves that would “start off, but to return in the same manner as the boomerang.”
• He also suggested they “may have received a suggestion from the whirling movements described by the winged fruit of the gum-trees as it falls to the ground.”

In direct contrast, other writers argued that the boomerang was proof of a more developed past. Richard Sadleir expressed this view bluntly, claiming that the present natives “have no power of invention,” and that the boomerang, being based on “scientific principles,” must have “descended to them and not been invented by them, denoting a higher ancestry.”

Albert F. Calvert strongly agreed, contending that the boomerang’s possession “alone redeems the Australian savage from his usually assigned place at the foot of the human ladder.” This theory was often linked to a broader, unresolved debate about the weapon’s geographical origins.

Carl Lumholtz noted it “has been asserted that the Egyptians and Assyrians used the boomerang,” but he cited Mr. B. Smyth to cast doubt, as the ancient versions likely could not return. Lumholtz concluded that intermediate forms found in Australia “show a development towards, rather than a retrogression from, the present 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.