NATIONAL ۸

OF

VICTORIA

MELBOURNE :: AUSTRALIA

MEMOIRS

(World List abbrev. Mem. nat. Mus. Vict.)
C. W. BRAZENOR, Director

No. 22 8th November, 1957 Part 8

The Role of Australites in

Aboriginal Customs

by

GEORGE BAKER

PUBLISHED BY ORDER
OF THE TRUSTEES

5601/67,

- m m. -m

NATIONAL MUSEUM of VICTORIA

MEMOIRS

МОМА Bay,

вто, L

120 130 140 50

1 Ie USE. и qan | "een a i m B Џ | الاش‎

* KNOWN AUSTRALITE LOCALITIES ٠
m ИЕ a ЕН TRIBES DEFINITELY
FT

C. KNOWN TO HAVE USED AUSTRALITES

ل |
150 140 130 20'

For Explanation of Figure 1, see pages 20—21,

The Воје of Australites in Aboriginal Customs

By GEORGE BAKER, D.Sc.
INTRODUCTION.

The Australian textites (Plates I., II. and Ш.), formerly called obsidianites,
obsidian bombs, obsidian buttons, &c., but now known as australites, have been
found in considerable numbers strewn over vast areas of the southern portion
of Australia (figure 1). Apart from their geological and astronomical
importance, considerable ethnographic interest attaches to australites, They are
sometimes encountered, among other types of stones, on the sites of ancient
aboriginal camps, and are distinctive in being remarkable, black glassy objects,
mostly possessing relatively regular shapes. Many oí them were treasured by
certain aboriginal tribes (see text figure 1) as medicine-stones, death-pointers,
punishment-stones, hunting-stones, sacred-stones, magic-stones, amulets or
charm-stones, throwing-stones, rainmaking-stones, message-stones, and a few
were used as small implements. It has also been suggested they were earlier
used as barter-stones.

Figure 1.—-Sites of australite discoveries in relation to the location of aboriginal
tribes known to have used australites for various purposes. (Based on Fenner's
(1935) map of australite distribution, with additions, and Tindale's (1940) map о!
distribution of aboriginal tribes of Australia.)

Since the occupation of Australia by the white man, and the retreat of
the aborigines into the more remote regions of Australia-—regions that are
principally beyond the northern fringe of the australite strewnfield, many of
the native customs concerned with australites have evidently fallen into disuse,
or are by no means as commonly applied in native sorcery or native medical
practises. Hence it is difficult to verify some of the details relating to certain
uses of australites by the aborigines, and recourse has perforce to be made to
scattered and passing references in the early literature on such matters.

The writings of various authors on both geological and archaeological
aspects of australites date from around the middle of the 19th Century. Several
of these refer to the use of australites by the aborigines, and taken in
conjunction with subsequent inquiries and findings from discussions and
correspondence with anthropologists, ethnologists and geologists, it has been
possible to assemble a collection of data deemed worthy of being placed on
record. One important conclusion that arises from the archaeological aspect
is that australites were more commonly revered and carefully preserved as
ceremonial- and magic-stones? by the natives; they were looked upon as
objects of magic and mystery, probably more so than any other type of rock
or mineral. Complete or nearly complete specimens in particular were largely
collected and retained for these purposes, most frequently by such influential
members of the tribes as the witch doctors or medicine men.

The term “blackfellows' buttons", sometimes applied to the australites,
is attributed to popular fancy, and was evidently used in a whimsical manner
bv the earlier white settlers, for in his native state the blackfellow of the
interior and outback regions of Australia had no use for buttons as such (cf.
Fenner, 1939, p. 16).

As a group of natural black glass objects, the australites do not provide
particularly satisfactory material for Stone Age artefacts. А few, however.
have been shaped or splintered for use as small implements and for parts of
certain larger weapons.

* Referred io as "novelty-stones" by Dr. T. D. Campbell of Adelaide (personal
communication).

5591 AT.

The reasons for such usages as magic-stones, charm-stones, &c., are
evidently to be ascribed partly to the curious and symmetrical shapes possessed
by the majority of well-preserved australites, and partly to their small size and
glassy nature. Being small objects of brittle glass, seldom more than 1 or 2
inches across at the most, more frequently much smaller, the australites are
not well-suited to the production of the types of weapons and implements,
on a scale and of a size normally required by the Australian aborigine. But,
in strong contrast to most superficial materials associated with them, they are
of dark colour and extraordinary shapes. They are black in reflected light,
yellowish bottle green in transmitted light in thin fragments and plates. Their
shapes vary, being most commonly round in plan and lenticular in side aspect,
with or without a circumferential flange; less commonly they are oval-, boat-,
canoe-, teardrop- or dumbbell-shaped, occasionally aberrant in form. In
possession of this colour and these shapes, and showing pronounced sculpture
patterns where not excessively abraded, they attracted the notice of the
aborigines, with their keen sense of vision, as being a most unusual occurrence,
and so were gathered and respected more especially for ceremonial and magical
purposes, such as native psychotherapy, &c.

The association of australites and aborigines is considered herein from the
aspects of chronological factors and cultural factors, the latter being regarded
from (а) the social anthropological, and (b) other ethnological angles.
Reference is also made to latter day uses of australites by the aborigines, as
brought about by more frequent contact with the white race in Australia.

CHRONOLOGICAL FACTORS.

Considered from the chronological angle, it seems reasonably certain that
australites had fallen across the southern part of Australia, including Tasmania
and the islands in Bass Strait, some considerable time prior to the arrival of
aborigines in these parts (cf. Fenner, 1939, p. 16). In the archaeological
importance of australites, the chronological factor is largely subordinated to
the social anthropological and other ethnological factors, according to our
present state of knowledge of these matters. The chronological factor seems
to be more important geologically than archaeologically, for little is known of
australite artefacts (which are by no means common) in relation to such of the
aboriginal culture levels as may be recognized.

Both the arrival of australites from an extra-terrestrial source on to the
surface of southern Australia, and the migration of aboriginal man to the
southern seaboard and into Tasmania, are events of geologically Recent history,
but neither event has yet been precisely dated relative to one another.

Searches of the literature bearing upon the association of australites with
aboriginal customs reveal that there is nothing to be gleaned from their
folk-lore that would in any way suggest witnessing of the fall of australites
from the sky by the early ancestors in Australia of the blackfellow. Inasmuch
as australites were discovered and used by several tribes, the inference is that
they were already available on the surface of the ground when the aborigines
appeared on the scene. However, the australites did not pre-date the aborigine
by any very great length of geological time. A Recent age is indicated by
various lines of evidence, among which is that of their use as gizzard stones
by certain living native birds, but not, apparently, by extinct native birds of no
great geological antiquity. Living birds such as the emu ( Dromaius
novae-hollandiae) and the plain turkey (Eupodotis australis), are notable in
their collection of australites for utilization as gizzard stones. On the other

hand, skeletons of the extinct giant bird Genyornis newtoni (Late Pleistocene
to Early Recent) discovered at Lake Callabonna, South Australia, were found
to be associated with some 14 ounces of gizzard stones. All of these stones are
of types common to the gibber plains of the interior of Australia, but no
australites were among therm, even though the site of the discovery lies well
within the known australite strewn-field. 'The conclusion has therefore been
reached that the fall of australites was post-Genyornis ( Fenner, 1949, pp. 18-19).
Being pre-aboriginal man, the time of arrival of the australites upon the
earth's surface, from the above reasonings, could thus be approximately assigned
to the early or middle Recent period. The possibility musi not be overlooked,
however, that if these particular gizzard stones became exposed at the surface,
when wind erosion removed the thin, superficial covering sands and soils tc
reveal the skeletons, then any australites which might have been present could
well have been picked up by later native birds, or even by the aborigine. In this
event, australites could thus possibly be pre-Genyornis. However, the greater
antiquity of australites, compared with the time of arrival of the aborigines in
southern Australia, seems to be proved by the fact that many australites have
been unearthed from geologically Recent auriferous and stanniferous gravels
by mining activities (cf. Stephens, 1897, Dunn, 1912, and others), whereas
aboriginal works of art have not been found in the Recent drifis containing
australites, and these drifts have been largely and widely explored by
goldminers in Victoria (cf. Brough Smyth, 1878, pp. lvi and 365).

SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL FACTORS.

It has been remarked that the Australian natives were the first to theorize
upon the origin of australites (Fenner, 1935), and the ideas of certain tribes
concerning them were connected with matters relating to superstitions about
australites. Legends regarding australites exist among the Dieri and adjacent
tribes inhabiting the area east of Lake Eyre, South Australia. In these legends,
the australites are referred to as ooga and титатита, terms which were earlier
translated to mean “staring-eyes” and “ emu-eyes ". Recently, however,
Mr. N. B. Tindale has indicated that muramura does not directly mean
“emu-eye”, and that its primary meaning is Ancestral Being. The native
word for emu in these parts is warukati and australites are loosely called
warukati-undru, ie. pertaining to emus; they are things of the muramura.

The Wadikali tribe of the Yandama district, Lake Frome basin, South
Australia, had similar legends, for they referred to australites as
mindjimindjilpara, which Mr. N. B. Tindale has translated as meaning “ eyes
that look at you like a man staring hard” (see Fenner, 1935, р. 137). Fenner
considered this might be taken as constituting stone age man's theory of
australite origin. Some native tribes, however, evidently regarded the australites
as products of lightning, those in Central Australia calling them
“lightning-stones " (Horne and Aiston, 1924, p. 156). Other tribes, such as
those inhabiting the Ooldea district of south-western South Australia, and the
Warburton Ranges, South Australia, had yet other ideas concerning them.
Mr. A. G. Mathews, of Kalgoorlie, formerly a missioner among these natives,
was convinced that the aborigines believed thai the black stones (australites)
fall from the sky, and that only an occasional one enters a man, who then
becomes ill or “ possessed " (communicated by Mr. W. H. Cleverly, Kalgoorlie).

In their relationship to australites, social anthropological factors bear
largely upon native superstitious beliefs involving the value of australites in the
practise of sorcery and healing by magic. As magic-stones, charm-stones,

8591/57.—2

sacred-stones and/or ceremonial-stones, australites were regarded by different
Australian aboriginal tribes to possess superior and mystical powers, and as
such they can be divided into the following categories:

(i) “ Medicine-stones "having curative powers.

(ii) “ Lethal-stones " or " death-pointers "having the powers of causing
death; and “ punishment-stones "- having the powers of causing
pain o^ illness.

(iii) " Rainmaking-stones."

(iv) " Message-stones."

(v) “ Lucky-stones."

(i) " Medicine-stones."

As a magical power behind healing wounds and bodily pains, an? curiag
sickness and disease, the part played by australites in native customs was
prominent. 'They usually comprised part of the tools of trade of most tribal
witeh doctors in their practise of native medicine, more especially, if not
exclusively, among tribes frequenting areas of Australia lying within the
tektite-sprinkled strewnfield. Their use as medicine-stones ог as
ceremonial-stones is not reported among tribes remote from the australite
strewnfield, ie, in northern portions of Australia. For example, the
anthropologist Dr. Donald F. Thomson, who dwelt among the blacks of the
Northern Territory for several years, states that he has neither seen nor heard
of australites being used for any purpose whatsoever by the aborigines of
Arnhem Land (verbal communication).

In eentral, western and southern parts of Australia, however, australites
were typically used in the native art of psychic healing. An example is provided
by Professor R. Tate (1879, p. Ixxi), who recorded a report from Mr. Canham,
of Stuart's Creek, south-west end of Lake Eyre South. Mr. Canham related
the strange story of an australite he acquired from an aborigine, who informed
him that it had been removed from the breast of a sick member of ihe tribe by
one of their koonkies (tribal witch doctor). This “ operation " failed to save
the life of the patient, the reason for this being given as due to some other
koonkie of another tribe having had greater powers than the one who * removed
the stone ". Mr. Canham added that the sick native died of diseased lungs, and
allthe koonkies in the country could not have saved him.

Additional information was received by Tate from a correspondent at Salt
River, King George's Sound (Albany district, south-west Western Australia),
concerning the magical healing powers attributed to australites (Tate, 1879,
p. Ixxi). The correspondent stated that the black stones (australites) were
rare and much prized by the natives, who believed the possessor bore a charmed
life and was able to cure sick people of any complaint with which they may
have been afflicted.

Furthermore, the aborigines of the Coolgardie district of Western Australia
used the button-shaped australites (see Plate I., figure A) as charms to drive
away illness, by pressing them on the part of the body which was suffering pain
(Twelvetrees and Petterd, 1897, p. 42). The natives of Condah, in the Western

District of Victoria, also applied australites to the human body to remove pain
(Dum; 192 р, 19,

Two australites from Kanowna, north-west of Boulder, Western Australia,
now lodged in the Australian Museum, Sydney (Reg. Nos. 9002-3), were used
by the natives as charms in healing the чек (fide Mr. F. D. McCarthy, Curator
of Anthropology, Australian Museum, Sydney).

5

The aborigines of the Warburton Ranges and Ooldea, South Australia,
regarded the australites as the seat of their sickness, pain, devil possession,
&c.; the witch doctor assured his patients that these black stones were the
cause of the illness, and then proceeded either to rub or to suck at the affected
part, meanwhile going through a ritual. Finally he “ palmed” an australite
from the patient's body, or if he had applied the sucking technique, he spat
out a previously concealei australite from his mouth. Auto-suggestion being
so strong among the natives, the patient then considered himself cured. Only
australites were used, never any other stones, in this faith-healing procedure.
(Information from Mr. A. G. Mathews, Kalgoorlie.)

In the Ethnological Collection of the Perth Museum, three australites
displayed among other objects labelled as “ Medicines and Charms” are
designated as “Magic Stones (Mabbin--emu-stones) used for curing diseases,
wounds, &c.”

Australites found on the banks of Mt. Emu Creek, in the vicinity of
Darlington, Western District of Victoria, were regarded by the aborigines as an
infallible cure for toothache. Dawson (1881, p. 59) referred to a specimen
used for this purpose, and outlined one of the practises in use as follows—a
heated spear thrower (woomera) was applied to the cheek and then thrown
away; the toothache supposedly went with it in the form of an australite about
the size of a walnut (cf. Plate TI., figure 13A) called karriitch. It was imagined
by the natives that when such stones were thrown into a stream some distance
from their camp, they would return to the place where originally found.
Similar stones found among sand hills along the sea coast (some 40 miles to
the south) used to be placed in a long bag made of rushes, which was fastened
around the cheek to cure toothache. The witch doctor always carried these
stones in his wallet, and lent them to sick members of the tribe without fee

or reward.

The native tribes of some parts of South Australia called australites
pandella and kaleya korru (= emu-eye). The medicine men of these tribes
collected specimens and applied them in the art of curing sickness (Basedow,

1905, p. 89).

Among a collection of aboriginal relics in the British Museum of Natural
History, London, a box of australites (locality of discovery not stated) is
labelled as “ obsidian bombs, called by the natives ' таррат` and worn applied
to the stomach as medicine " (see Fenner, 1939, p. 16).

The widely separated localities in the above illustrations of the use of
australites as medicine-stones, serve to indicate the extensive application of
these tektites by the Australian aborigines, and it is noteworthy that the
locations of widely separated tribes using them for these purposes are all
within the confines of the australite sprinkled strewnfield.

(ii) “ Lethal-stones ", “ punishment-stones."

In contrast to certain tribes placing faith in the curative values of
australites, other groups of natives believed in their destructive powers. A few
examples have been recorded of the practise of using australites as lethal-stones
or death-pointers. Аз such, they were not forcefully applied as missiles or
weapons intended to cause actual physical damage, but because of their supposed
supernatural powers, they were used in such a manner as to cause an afflicted
native to die of fear.

6

Native possessors of аце га ес in some areas of the south-western portion
of Western Australia were supposed to have the powers of bewitching their
enemies, or anyone against whom they had a grievance, tormenting them with
all kinds of diseases, and finally destroying life itself (Tate, 1879, p. Јхх1).

In a section devoted to “ Australites used by Aborigines" Dunn (1912,
р. 14) referred to Curr’s (1887, vol. HI. p. 547) statement that the blacks
occupying the Gippsland district of Eastern Victoria used an egg-shaped
specimen known to them as bulk, the owner of which was supposed to have the
power of causing death by merely touching with it; the priests worked
enchantment with this stone. It should be noted, however, that Curr did not
record the petrological character of this particular stone, while Brough Smyth
(1878, vol. L, p. 386) had earlier stated that it was thickly covered with oxide
of iron, part of which was cleared away to reveal “an appearance like that of
а trap rock”. This stone was given to Brough Smyth by А. W. Howitt, who
obtained it from an old (aboriginal) man in Gippsland. Brough Smyth
recorded the weight of the stone as 271 ounces ( approximately 780 grams),

and its dimensions as 4 inches (just over 10 cms.) by 2! inches (nearly 64 cms.).
This particular stone would thus be three and one-half times as heavy as the
heaviest australite specimen known to Science to-day, and its length and
breadth measurements far in excess of the largest known elongated australite.
An approximate calculation of its density from Brough Smyth's measurements
yields a value of 2-6 to 2:7, whereas the average specific gravity of australites
is 2-41 and the range in value up to 2:51 (Baker and Forster, 1943, p. 380).
Moreover, this specimen would represent the only australite, if avthentic, to
have come from the far eastern regions of Victoria. It is evident that the
specimen known as bull: is not an australite, and Brough Smyth's reference to
it as being a trap-like rock indicates a fine-grained, non-vesicular volcanic rock.
The whereabouts of this stone is at present unknown. Howitt himself described
another example of bulk (see Appendix, p. 307, of Brough Smyth, 1878) as
being “ госк crystal like a small pigeon's egg "

Some of the black varieties of the magic-stones (dhakke) employed by
sorcerers of the Kabi Kabi, Waka Waka and Gurang Gurang tribes in the Wide
Bay and Burnett districts of south-east Queensland were known as mullu
(= black) to the Kabi Kabi* tribe, and as minkom (= mingom*) to all three
tribes. The Rev. John Mathew, an authority on aboriginal customs (Mathew,
1910, pp. 174-175), was satisfied that some of the black coloured magic stones
were australites. He was told by the aborigines that they were found in creeks
and waterholes. A native sorcerer was credited with having a number of these
stones in his inside, and this was the secret of his power; the more he had,
so much the greater his vitality and magie power. Не certainly carried a
stock in his dilly-bag, wrapped in hair, as something tangible and visible for
use with his hands. When a native felt a sudden pain, he ascribed it to a mullu
being thrown at him by an enemy, not because the stone actually struck him,
but because of its supposed irresistible influence.

Further to these observations, Dr. L. P. Winterbotham, of Brisbane
(personal communication), adds that the black stones (mingom) were obtained
from waterholes in which the Rainbow Snake was supposed to dwell. The
native medicine men used to dive into these waterholes in order to procure such
stones per medium of the Rainbow Snake. The mingom were used in the
practise of evil magic, while white stones (jinding) were used to heal and to
promote good.

* Also spelt Gabi Gabi and mingom, as k and g seem to be interchangeable in
these native words, according to Dr. L. P. Winterbotham, of Brisbane.

7

The Condah natives, Western Victoria, also employed australites as
punishment-stones, inasmuch as they sometimes threw them in the direction
of an offending tribe, with a request to punish it with toothache or some other
form of illness. If, next day, these stones were found where originally picked
up, it was believed that their mission had been fulfilled (Dawson, 1881, p. 89).

(ii) “ Rainmaking-stones.”’

The medicine men of the Wheelman tribe of south-western Australia were
known as mulgars, and the natives possessed a deep regard for magic (mulga)
and magical processes, most practises of which were confined to the use of
stones. Any stone differing markedly from others in the neighbourhood was
immediately accepted as a magic-stone. Although not specifically chosen for
any one kind of magical practise, there seemed to be some rule governing ihe
particular purpose to which were put certain of the rarer types of stones.
Every mulgar had his collection of magic-stones (booliah), which were carried
about in his pag (coot) made from kangaroo skin (Hassell, 1936, pp. 705-707).
From Hassell’s description, it is plainly evident that some half a dozen of the
stones seen in possession of this tribe were well-shaped australites. They were
greatly prized by the aborigines for use during their rainmaking ceremonies.

Some of the other stones in use for magical practises were specifically
assigned to the curing of illnesses. Some were used to place curses upon
members of the tribe, or upon individuals or groups of other tribes. Others
were utilized to make game more plentiful, to stop the wind, to make the sun
shine, or for many other purposes. It is not clear from Hassell's account,
however, whether forms of australites other than those of a particular shape
(dumbbell—Plate IIL, figures 25-27), reserved for the rainmaking ceremonies,
were used in any of the other magical processes cited.

(iv) “ Message-stones."

Two australites from Mt. Margaret, Western Australia, now lodged in the
Australian Museum, Sydney (Reg. Nos. 23531-2), were regarded by the natives
of that district as being of great value in the transmission of messages. They
were carried about in the beards of medicine men; this gave them a power,
supposedly exuded through the navel, to receive and transmit messages long
distances (fide Mr. F. D. McCarthy, Australian Museum, Sydney).

(v) * Lucky-stones " or “ Charm-stones."

Australites found on the gibber plains of Central Australia are occasionally
regarded by the aborigines as lucky-stones. Horne and Aiston (1924, pp.
135-136) state that they are in very great demand as luck-bringers, and as
soon as possible after a tree has been struck with lightning. some of the
blackfellows dig around the roots to get what they call lightning-stone. Any
of an unusual shape are carefully preserved.

Other Examples of Australites used as Magic-stones,

Inquiries among ethnologists in possession of collections of aboriginal
stone implements have revealed a few known to have been used for purposes
of magic. Thus, in a comprehensive collection of such implements in the
possession of Mr. S. R. Mitchell, of Frankston, Victoria, are several australites
obtained from Mr. George Aiston, of Mulka, via Maree, South Australia, said by
him to have been used by the natives as magic-stones (see also Mitchell, 1949,
ЮЕ)

One australite, among others, in the collection of Mr. С, S. Rogers, of
Kilsyth, Victoria, is pronounced as being a magic-stone from the dilly-bag of
a native medicine man.

8591 /57.—

8

In connexion with the use of australites as magic-stones by aboriginal
tribes, it is of interest to note the fate of the australites on the death of their
possessors. It has been recorded for the Wheelman tribe of south-western
Australia (Hassell, 1936) that, when a mulgar (medicine-man) dies, his
successor takes over the contents of his coot (dilly-bag), and hence acquires
such australites as were used as magic-stones for rainmaking, &c. On the
other hand, among certain of the Victorian tribes, it has been observed that
the custom was to bury with the corpse all the personal effects of a deceased
native of some influence, such as an old man or a witch doctor (Brough Smyth,
1878, vol. L, pp. 104 and 111). This means that any australites among the
personal effects would become buried some 5 feet underground, and normally
such specimens were originally picked up on the surface of the ground. Among
the personal effects, Brough Smyth recorded the presence of pieces of hard
stone suitable for paring skins, small relics and other articles. It is an
established fact that the medicine men and some of the older men of some
aboriginal tribes used australites as magic-stones. Hence it is highly likely
that both well-preserved australites and small implements made from them
could have been emptied into graves, which are usually up to 5 feet deep,
3 ft. 6 in. long and 2 feet wide, It was customary to empty the personal
effects into the grave before interment of the corpse, so that it should be
possible to find australites buried at depths of some 5 feet or so in native
burial grounds. No one, however, has yet been able to ascertain whether any
particular australite (or group of australites) was so treated, and none can be
specifically said to have been unearthed from a probable grave site, while
none are recorded as having been found beneath skeletons in known graves.
The possibility remains, however, that australites might have been re-buried
by this means.

Other Ethnological Factors.

The more practical uses for australites by the Australian aborigines include
their employment (а) as small implements and in certain weapons, (b) as
hunting-stones, and (c) as barter-stones.

(а) Use as Implements and in Certain Weapons.

The us? of australites as aboriginal implements and in the manufacture of
certain larger weapons was evidently not particularly extensive, partly because
of their relative rarity, and partly because of their comparatively small size.
Their shapes and their colour were obviously far more decisive factors in
imparting to them a much greater importance in the practise of witchcraft
and healing, hence it is highly likely that only already naturally fractured,
badly preserved or accidentally fractured specimens were flaked for producing
small scraper-stones, cutting-stones and splinters for barbing spears.

In connexion with their relative rarity, Tate (1879, pp. Ixx-1xxi) remarked
that these stones (australites) “ were held in high esteem by the aborigines, a
fact which proves inferentially that they are not common ".

Collections of specimens of australites in museums and in the hands of
private collectors total approximately 30,000 to 35,000 complete, nearly
complete or fragmented specimens. Of these, something of the order of
0-005 per cent. are aboriginal chipped flakes and implements. Although such
flakes and implements are thus of considerable rarity among australites, it
must not be overlooked that naturally fractured specimens may well have been
utilized by the aborigines. Some of the naturally fragmented australites have
broken up into pieces that would be ideal for use, without further treatment,

9

as points, serapers, cutting-edges and so forth; this applies especially to many
flange fragments from australites, which frequently break up to produce
sharp-pointed and sharp-edged fragments.

| The rarity of the formation of implements from australites Бу aborigines
is also made evident from inspection of the lists of various rock types set out
as being typical of the implements found at numerous aboriginal camp sites
(ef. Mitchell, 1949).

From references scattered throughout the literature on aboriginal man in
Australia, and from the known specimens preserved in natural history museums
and private collections in Australia, one finds proof that a few australites
were employed as implements. Generally, however, greater quantities of more
suitable larger stones possessing denseness of texture or a homogeneous
character were available for these purposes merely by picking them up from
gibber plains, creek beds, dry lake beds, marine beaches, &c. Stones such as
quarts (morion, rock crystal, reef quartz, &c.), quartzite, jasper, flint,
chaleedony, agate, opal, chert, lydianstone, dacite, diabase, basalt, tachylyte,
silicified volcanic ash, silicified rhyolite, silicified wood, ferruginous silicified
fine-grained sandstone, and others, therefore predominate among aboriginal
implements and weapons, and australites only constitute a very minor
proportion. Since the arrival of the white man in Australia, it is even probable
that such artificial materials as porcelain insulators, bottle glass, motor car
windscreen glass and the like have been fashioned into aboriginal implements
far more extensively than ever were australites.

It has been pointed out by Mr. N. B. Tindale, South Australian Museum,
Adelaide, that the aborigines sometimes made small implements (microlith
adze stones) from australites, but so far as is known none was made from the
larger specimens (see Fenner, 1949, p. 18). It is significant, according to
Tindale, that all such implements as are known from the region extending
from the Broken Hill district of New South Wales to Yorke Peninsula in South
Australia first appear in the Mudukian culture, which is now dated roughly to
about 2,000 years ago. This is the latest but one of the aboriginal culture
sequences, and lends support to the fact, indicated by all other available
evidence, that the fall of the australite swarm of textites was a comparatively
recent occurrence. Mr. Tindale (personal communication) points out that
aborigines of earlier times, such as the Pirrian period, might have been
acquainted with australites, and did not find them suitable for implement
purposes, but it is equally possible that the reason why australites first appear
as implements among the Mudukian people was because this shower of tektites
fell during their time.

On Kangaroo Island, off the coast of South Australia, australites were
often found in the possession of the aborigines, who not only used them as
charms, but sometimes chipped them into the form of scrapers (Howchin,
1909, p. 349).

In reference to 72 pieces of australites discovered among sand dunes in
the Moonta area, South Australia, Fenner (1938, p. 196) recorded that such
dunes were the sites of aboriginal camps, and that, in addition to the use of the
australites for purposes of magical practises by these people, some were also
used as material for cutting-tools.

Information supplied by Mr. Archibald, a former curator of the museum
at Warrnambool on the south coast of Western Victoria (see Walcott, 1898,
p. 42), was to the effect that the aborigines of the Western District of Victoria
carried australites as amulets, and sometimes broke them up to obtain splinters

for barbing spears.

10

Earlier, Dawson (1881, p. 87) described the wurokiigil spear as being
jagged for 6 inches on each side of the point, with sharp splinters of flint or
volcanic glass fixed in grooves with wattle gum. This volcanic glass is
recorded in Dawson's (1881, p. xvi) vocabulary of aboriginal words as ۰
Since no obsidian has been found in Australia, and australites were originally
referred to as obsidians, and furthermore, since Dawson (1881, p. 78) regarded
one of the glassy substances used by the aborigines as being obsidian, it is
apparent that the “ volcanic glass" set into the wwrokiigil spear was either
australite glass, or else has been confused with a special type of fragmented
tachylyte (see Baker, 1956b).

Australites from other parts of the tektite-sprinkled strewnfield have also
been artificially chipped by aboriginal man for use as flaked implements. Thus,
Dunn (1912, p. 14) referred to some that he inspected as showing distinct
signs of handwear (now referred to as " carry polish "), and others as having
been artificially chipped or rubbed. A few in the collection of Dr. T. D.
Campbell, of Adelaide, have been likewise secondarily chipped.

One collected from the large aboriginal encampment at Willaura in the
Western District of Victoria by Dr. R. M. Wishart, or Kew, Victoria, measures
14 x 14 x 8 mm., and is a semi-discoidal scraper which was made from the
interior portion of a broken australite.

Seven implements prepared from australites, lodged in the collection of
Mr. F. C. Smith, of Mt. Dandenong, Victoria, were found at three different
localities in Western Victoria, namely, Glenthompson, Murtoa and Willaura.
The one from Glenthompson was prepared from a boat-shaped australite, and
measures 45 mm. in length, 21 mm. in width, and 17 mm. in depth
(= thickness). Reconstruction of the specimen reveals an original length of
approximately 55 mm. One end of this specimen was chipped away by a
Stone Age craftsman in such a manner as to produce a secondary face lying
at an oblique angle to the long axis of the boat-shaped australite, thus producing
an implement ideally suited for use as a scraper, or micro-adze stone. The
fracture surface reveals a vitreous lustre and conchoidal fracture pattern.
Dr. R. M. Wishart and Mr. F. C. Smith classify this implement as an end-scraper.
It shows signs of having been used, for the fractured surface is scratched and
possesses a scraper edge with minor chipping effects brought about by wear.
Since the hardness of australites is between six and seven, the scratched
character of the fracture surface on this end-scraper indicates that it was
occasionally used to attempt to shape something relatively hard.

The implement from Murtoa is a semi-discoidal scraper measuring
15 x 14 x 3 mm., and was prepared from one side of the waist region of a
dumbbell-shaped australite. It reveals three remnants of flow ridges which
provide the clue to the original shape of the australite, and also indicate that
the portion of the outer surface of the australite still remaining on the
implement is the anterior surface. The fracture surface reveals many
subsequently developed scratches.

The other five implements in Mr. F. C. Smith's collection were obtained
from the ancient aboriginal camp site at Willaura. One is classified as a
geometric and measures 15 x 9 x 5 mm, one is a semidiscoidal scraper
measuring 19 x 19 x 6 mm., and one a discoidal scraper measuring 19 x 19 x 5
mm. The original shape of the australite from which the semidiscoidal scraper
was prepared is not indicated, but the slightly thinner discoidal scraper
represents the greater part of the bubble-pitted top of the posterior surface
of a button-shaped australite from which the flange had previously been broken,
either purposefully or accidentally (by natural fracture). In plan aspect, this

lat

implement is thus virtually circular in outline, and its shape entirely due to
the original form of the australite. It bears adequate testimony to the
adroitness of the aboriginal craftsman, who fashioned it by cleanly fracturing
a small lenticular, glassy object (originally just over 19 mm. in diameter)
along an equatorial plane; the depth of such a lenticular object with a diameter
of approximately 19 mm. would not have exceeded some 9 to 14 mm. (cf.
Baker, 1955b, figure 11, p. 181). Of the two other scrapers in the Smith
collection, one was derived from the edge of an oval- or boat-shaped australite;
this implement measures 17 x 9 x 3 mm., the thickness of 3 mm. on one side
tapering down to a fraction of a millimetre on the other side. It shows typical
conchoidal fracture, with a well preserved vitreous lustre on the fracture
surface, this being in marked contrast to the opposite surface, which is
constituted of a duller, remnant portion of the flow-ridge-bearing anterior
surface of the original australite. This implement, which is blade-like in
character, reveals five minor points of conchoidal fracture at one end, six at
the other, all of which represent points of minute secondary pressure flaking.
These minute conchoidal fracture surfaces vary from 1 mm. to 2-5 mm. across.
The other microscraper, measuring 13-5 x 12 x 6 mm., was prepared from the
edge of an australite core carrying a few bubble pits, and considerably
weathered. The implement is trigonal in end-on aspect (i.e, normal to its long
axis), and the vitreous, conchoidal fracture surface is slightly dulled by natural
etching which has accentuated a few internal flow lines; this surface is also
scratched in two or three places. The edges show no marginal flaking, but
are occasionally minutely chipped from use as a scraping implement.

One or two specimens among a collection of some two dozen or so
australites obtained by the late Mr. F. A. Cudmore from Oakvale Station, in
South Australia, have also been fashioned into micro-scrapers; these are now
lodged in the Geological Collection of the University of Melbourne, along with
ten other worked flakes of australites also presented by Mr. Cudmore. The
range in size of these microliths is from 13 x 8 x 2 mm. to 25 x 17 x 10 mm.
The third figure in these measurements provides the maximum thickness of the
flakes; the minimum thickness is a fraction of a millimetre for specimens
where sharp, relatively straight edges have been produced along one side, or
along one side and one end. АП of these flakes show signs of marginal pressure
flaking, and most provide evidence of having been prepared for use as
scraper-stones. One in particular has been used more extensively than the
remainder, evidently on something harder than australite glass, for it is much
seratched on the fracture surfaces, and possesses a number of minute conchoidal
fracture points along the scraping or cutting. edge. It is not known where
these specimens were collected, and the indications are that they were obtained
from several localities, because some of the flakes with remnants of original
australite surface have well-preserved structural features typical of the fresher
australites found in more temperate regions of Australia; others are much
worn like the abraded specimens that come from the sub-arid and desert regions
of the central and western parts of the continent.

Two secondarily chipped australites from Mulka, South Australia, now in
the collection of Mr. H. R. Balfour, of Toorak, Victoria, appear to ђе of
aboriginal manufacture. One, which was probably employed as a small knife,
is slightly crescent-shaped, shows secondary chipping on the sharp, thinner
edge, and measures approximately ^5 inch across; the other specimen
measures 1! inch across. A slightly chipped specimen in the same collection,
found by Mr. Balfour himself, comes from the Glen Aire distriet on the south
coast of Western Victoria; it also was possibly chipped by an aborigine, but
was probably not used as an artefact.

12

Two secondarily chipped flakes of australites in the collection of Mr. S. R.
Mitchell, Frankston, Victoria, show definite “ scraper re-touch ", and were
undoubtedly used by the aborigines as scraper-stones. They measure
13 x 10 x 2-5 mm. and 15 x 9 x 3 mm. respectively, and were collected 6 miles
west of Willaura in the Western District of Victoria Another australite flake
in the same collection, obtained from the same locality, is a micro-flake
exhibiting no signs of use as an artefact; it measures 14 x 10 x 2 mm. As a
stone used for cutting- and scraping-tools, Mitchell (1949, pp. 93 and 159)
records that microscrapers were made from australites by the aborigines.

Several hundred fragmented australites have been examined by the author
among collections totalling over 2,500 specimens of australites from the
Moonlight Head, Port Campbell, Peterborough, Nirranda and Childers Cove
districts of southern South-west Victoria (Baker, 1937, 1938, 1940a, 1940b,
1943, 1944, 1946, 1950, 19556, 19564) and from Harrow in the far west of
Western Victoria (Baker, 1955а). Of these, and specimens from a few other
Victorian localities, only five showed convincing evidence of aboriginal flaking.
They have been determined as worked aboriginal flakes by Mr. A. Massola, of
the National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne. One is a flaked implement of the
semi-discoidal scraper type, and another, of the same type, measures
18 x 15 x 9 mm. The third is a blade which may have been a point; it has a
broader flat face, is triangular in cross section, and measures 24 x 9 x 5 mm.
The remaining two consist of chips measuring 16 x 7 x 2 mm. and 11 x 6 x 3 mm.
respectively. One of the chips was derived from the interior portion of an
australite, whereas the remainder reveal small portions of the original outer
surfaces. There is insufficient left of these outer surfaces, however, to determine
the particular australite shape group from which the flakes were derived.
The shapes of two of the flakes suggest development from elongated forms of
australites. The flakes reveal the typical conchoidal fracture with associated
ripple fracture, which is so characteristic of australite glass. The flakes are
of no very great antiquity, inasmuch as the fracture surfaces are fresh and
stili possess a marked vitreous lustre in contrast with remnant portions of ihe
original surfaces. Natural etching has not brought out the internal schlieren
on two of the implements, while on the remaining three, only very lighi etching
has occurred. This would suggest some little difference in the date of
manufacture of the several implements, provided that natural conditions of
etching were not markedly different in different locations.

The first of these five aboriginal flakes was found in 1955 by Colin Drake,
of Warrnambool, and Brian Mansbridge, of Allansford, in the Childers Cove
district, 14 miles east of Warrnambool, and was presented to the National
Museum of Victoria (Reg. No. 49250) along with approximately 300 other
specimens of australites. The other four flakes (Reg. No. 49301) were
discovered in 1956 by the same collectors, on the property known as “ The
Brae”, between Childers Cove and Wilson's Crack on the south coast of
Western Victoria. They are also now in the collection of the National Museum
of Victoria,

Among a dozen or so chips of black stones from Caramut, Western
Victoria, in the private collection of Mr. A. Massola, one is a chip from an
australite. It has been determined by Mr. Massola as an end scraper, and
measures 17 x 9 x 5 mm. Eight of the fragments in this collection are
identical with the natural black glass fragments (tachylyte) described from
the Sherbrook River, Port Campbell, and from the Childers Cove district of
Western Victoria (Baker, 1956b). The remaining three or four chips consist
of black, silicified material.

13

۱ The sizes of the flakes given in the above illustrations provide a fair
indication of the average size of chipped fragments that could be obtained by
the aborigines from australites generally.

For the many other fragments of australites examined from the Moonlight
Head-Port Campbell-Peterborough-Nirranda-Childers Cove districts of Western
Victoria, there is much doubt concerning the assignment of any to the work
of aboriginal man, because so many are likely to have been fractured by other
means. Such fragments may nevertheless have been put to use during earlier
culture periods, even if not manufactured by aboriginal man. Most show
signs of ancient fracturing, followed by relatively prolonged natural etching of
the fracture surfaces, and no signs of secondary re-touching. There is ample
evidence at many places in the region referred to above of previous occupancy
by aborigines. According to Brough Smyth (1878, vol. L, p. 40), the Barrath
tribe occupied the area around the Sherbrook River and Brown's Hill, east of
Port Campbell, and the Narrapoort tribe inhabited the region east of Curdie's
River—i.e., between Peterborough and Port Campbell Kitchen middens, chief
of which is at the mouth of the Sherbrook River, are common in the coastal
regions of the district. These have yielded numerous flakes chipped from
various types of hard, dense rocks transported into this region by the aborigines
from several parts of Victoria, and occasional stone weapons have also been
discovered. At the same time, these camp sites frequently carry the occupational
debris (firestones, shell debris, small bones) usual to ancient aboriginal
encampments. By and large, however, it again becomes apparent that the
aborigines prized the australites more for other purposes than for breaking
them into fragments for the production of small implements, as evidenced by
the extreme rarity (less than 0-5 per cent.) of worked australite fragments
among the large number of specimens so far recovered.

It has been shown (Baker, 1940, p. 489; 1946, plate XII.; 1956a, рр. 66 67,
13-16 and 91-94) that the fracturing of these australites has first to be
considered and examined from the aspect of fragmentation by natural and
accidental means, rather than by purposeful shaping. One or two specimens
are known to have been chipped by modern ploughing operations, or as a
result of having been struck by steel-shod horse-hooves or steel-banded
cart-wheels, inasmuch as they show fresh, glassy internal fracture surfaces,
and, occasionally, streaks of iron across outer weathered surfaces, small
fragments of the iron being lodged in bubble-pits ог such surfaces. Some of
the fragmented australites have been fractured by the effects of diurnal
temperature changes, others probably by impact, either on landing, or
subsequently during transportation by eroding agents, or rolling down slopes.
Some may have been fractured during the end stages of atmospheric flight.
Yet others might have been broken in the gizzards of the large, flightless native
birds such as emus and plain turkeys, especially if already cracked and etched

before being taken into the gizzards to act as “ grinder-stones ”.*

Thus, one can only be reasonably sure that certain fragmented australites
were worked by aboriginal man, if indisputable evidence is present of the effects
of the application of marginal pressure flaking or the like.

There is another aspect of the way in which the fracturing and chipping
of australites can be accomplished. Chipping may be deliberately carried out
by an aborigine, but not for purposes of making implements, Whether or not

* Of 49 australites among 51 black stones from the gizzard of one specimen of a Plain
Turkey (Eupodotis australis), three consisted of fragments of australites (see Fenmer,
1949, p. 11).

14

this was done by earlier tribes of aborigines, in order to ascertain the nature
of the insides of such stones, is not known, but it has been recorded (see
Fenner, 1940, p. 317) that Dr. Keith Ward, of Adelaide, who many years ago
used to collect australites from the aborigines frequenting the tektite-sprinkled
area around Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, himself witnessed the fact that if
a native collector had any doubts of his specimen, he deftly struck a chip from
the dul! surface to reveal the reassuring glassy material within.

A common error in classifying certain black, vitreous aboriginal flakes or
implements as having been prepared from australites is one of mistaken
identity of the material of which they are composed. It has been the author's
experience that among several collections of implements thought to be made
from australites, usually only 2 per cent., sometimes 9 per cent. to 15 per cent.,
and very rarely up to 50 per cent. of implements so designated, are actually
made from australite glass. Microscrapers, microliths, &c., composed of dense,
black, vitreous to sub-vitreous materials in these ethnological collections,
principally turn out to be fragments of morion (black quartz) or a peculiar
form of tachylyte (cf. Baker, 19565),

Flaked Asutralites used in Operations.

The sharp, keen edges of fracture fragments from australites renders this
natural tektite glass eminently suitable for use by the medicine men and elders
of the tribes as surgical implements.

In the Ethnological Collection of the Perth Museum, Western Australia, a
shaped australite fragment from Red Hill, Western Australia, is labelled as
"Chip of australite worked and used as a knife by an aboriginal ”. This
implement is approximately 30 to 35 mm. long, 15 mm. broad, and 1 to 2 mm.
thick. It was evidently dressed, in common with occasional larger, thin oval,
plate-like pieces of australites approximately 40 mm. across (derived from
elongated australites such as those depicted on Plate IL, figures 14 and 16),
for use in the aboriginal religious rite of lartna (circumcision), and also in the
operation of ariltha (sub-incision).

A flaked australite recently discovered by Mr. W. H. Cleverly, of Kalgoorlie,
Western Australia, at a locality adjacent to a cutting on the former
Kalgoorlie-Kurramia woodline, 7-4 miles east-north-east from Kalgoorlie
railway station, has been determined by Mr. A. Massola as an aboriginal
circumcision knife. This specimen is now lodged in the collection of the
National Museum of Victoria (Reg. No. 49299).

Suggestion that Australites were made by Aborigines.

About the middle of the 19th Century, Clarke (1855, p. 403) remarked
that the australites “appeared as if they had been cast in a mould”. Asa
probable outcome of this remark, one European writer, early in the 20th
Century, credited the Australian natives with having been able to produce the
actual shapes of australites from plastic materials. Regarding the australites
as artificially moulded forms, Berwerth (1917) proclaimed them to be artefacts
representing the traces of ancient workshops or firepits of a very early but
lost culture. Subsequent European writers, and all Australian workers on the
subject of australites, however, summarily dismiss this hypothesis as being
entirely incorrect. In fact, it had been shown earlier by Summers (1909,
p. 433) that an artificial origin for australites was chemically impossible, and
that it was difficult indeed to entertain the belief held by some people at that
time that the aborigines were sufficiently advanced metallurgically to control
femperatures exceeding 1,300” C.—the fusion temperature of australite glass
being 1,320" C.

15

(b) “ Hunting-stones."

۱ One of the more practical applications for australites by aboriginal man
in Australia concerns his food-hunting methods, for emus in particular. One
method has been recounted by Mr. H. R. Balfour, of Toorak, Victoria, who, in
1954, made inquiries among the blacks of the Woomera region of Central
Australia concerning the reason for their calling them “ emu-stones” (see
Baker, 1956а, pp. 66-67). One native told Mr. Balfour that the natives of his
district loosely bind up a number of australites in balls of emu feathers, and
throw them on to the feeding grounds of these struthious birds. The aborigines,
who had meanwhile camouflaged themselves, await the approach of the emus.
Being endowed with an especial natural inquisitiveness, the emus are attracted
to these balls of feathers containing australites, and while engaged in
investigating them for the extraction of the australites (for use as
gizzard-stones), they are speared by the aborigines. It has been found that
the gizzards of emus often contain several ounces of stones up to an inch or so
in diameter. These gizzard-stones аге frequently black in colour, and often
the greater proportion of them are australites,

A somewhat different method in use among the natives of Central Australia
was described by Horne and Aiston (1924, p. 60), who state that the “ obsidian
bombs" (= australites) picked up on the gibber plains of the Centre are
known to the natives as “emu-eyes”, The natives believed that these stones
had a magical effect upon the emus, causing them to go blind. According to
information obtained by the authors from a native known as Old Piltibunna,
the technique of emu capture was as follows: —When the emus came down to
drink, а cordon of aborigines formed along one side of a lagoon and lit a number
of small fires on to which they placed salt bush for creating dense smoke.
The cordon gradually contracted towards the water where the emus had
gathered. Suddenly, two men, one from each end of the line, rushed out and
threw a small feather packet containing ‘‘emu-eyes"’ at the birds. The emus
became confused, as they were supposedly blinded by the australites, and no
doubt worried by the smoke from the salt bush on the fires, so that they rushed
out into the waters of the lagoon, where they were easily captured. As a great
favour, Old Piltibunna gave one of the authors "a nest containing three
emu-eyes ", informing him that he could now catch emus whenever he wished.
Horne and Aiston's illustration of this "nest" reveals that the “ emu-eyes ”
are button-shaped australites (cf. Plate L, figure 1).

3

In further comments on these ‘ obsidian bombs ” from the Centre, Horne
and Aiston (1924, p. 135) stated that the stones were called warroo getti титл“
(emu-eyes) by the natives, warroo getti being their name for the emu. The
stones were supposed to be eyes that the emu had lost when wandering around
in search of food. When found by the natives, they were smeared with fat
and red ochre, and stored in a net bag full of emu feathers bound together
with hair rope. Such treatment given to australites by the aborigines the
smearing on them of fat and ochre, which would become well embedded in the
bubble pits on posterior surfaces, and in the gap regions between the flange
and the central core portions of flanged australites—may well account for the
faet that the first australite known to Science, discovered by Sir Thomas
Mitchell on the Darling Downs and given to Charles Darwin for determination
and description, appeared as if it had been embedded in “ reddish tuffaceous

material ".

1 ieri is Wurukati milki (= “ emu-eyes ”)
* The proper spelling of the Dieri name is [ ١ -eye Р
Т в Ee gen " according to Mr. N. B. Tindale (personal communication).

16

There may appear to be some little confusion between the use by certain
aboriginal tribes of the terms “ emu-eyes" and “emu-stones” as applied to
australites, or else this confusion has arisen from different usages by different
authors. As far as can be ascertained at present, it seems desirable to assume
that the two terms were fundamentally used to connote a different sense,
"emu-eyes" more frequently having its application in a manner relating to
their supposedly representing lost emu-eyes, or to their being “ staring-eyes "
and hence involving the supposed magical powers of the button-shaped
australites. “ Emu-stones", on the other hand, seems to be applied more
particularly as a term in connexion with “ gizzard-stones ". It is also possible
that the term “emu-stones " is now used by living aboriginals in place of the
term “ emu-eyes ", as a result of their more recent association with white man
in Australia. The present day white inhabitants of the Outback have adopted
the name ''emu-stones" as a popular name for “ gizzard-stones ". The term
was used by the early white settlers for all gizzard-stones, and because of their
preponderance among the contents of the gizzards of emus, the term ultimately
applied more particularly to australites. "There is also a preponderance of
australites among the gizzard-stones of the Australian buzzard or plain turkey
(Eupodotis australis). One specimen which was shot carried 43 ounces of
stones in its gizzard. The total number of stones was 51, of which 49 were
australites- the remaining two were also black in colour and rounded, but
were definitely not australites (cf. Fenner, 1949, p. 11). No doubt the blacks
frequenting the Nullarbor Plain region were aware of the use of these black
stones by the plain turkey, and took advantage of this fact in hunting for food.
(c) “ Barter-stones."

There are no authenticated examples recorded in the literature on
australites or on the customs of aboriginal man in Australia, which point
directly and indubitably to the specific use of australites as articles of barter
among different native tribes. In view of the fact, however, that australites
were regarded in some quarters as obsidian in the early days of the white
man's settlement of Australia, and that stones were sometimes bartered
between tribes, it can be assumed that a few australites might well have been
brought into the native exchange system. One of Dawson's (1881, p. 78)
accounts lends some credence to this suggestion, for He remarked that “ obsidian
or volcanic rock for scraping and polishing weapons is found near Dunkeld”,
Victoria. It is now known that obsidian does not occur at Dunkeld, but
australites have been collected in the district. Dawson stated further that these
were used (along with several other items) as articles of exchange, a favourite
meeting place for this purpose being at Mt. Noorat, near Terang, in the Western
District of Victoria. Some tribes of the Australian aborigines were masters
in the art of bartering, e.g., the Dieri tribe east of Lake Eyre in South Australia,
but it seems that other tribes would not part with certain much revered objects.

As a means of accounting for the widespread distribution of australites
over some 2,000,000 square miles embraced by the southern portions of
Australia, some of the early workers on the subject expressed the opinion that
the aborigines used them as articles of barter among themselves, and were thus
responsible for distributing “ these attractive-looking stones" far and wide
over Australia. This suggestion was accepted by Krause (1896, p. 214), but
others considered that such a practise was not in accord with the known habits
of Australian native tribes, and that australites were not bartered to “any
appreciable extent. Such conflicting statements evidently arise from different
authors having considerable knowledge of the habits and customs of certain
tribes only, and some customs apparently varied somewhat from tribe to tribe.

17

Since australites were principally treasured as charm and ceremonial
stones, the view that they would not be extensively exchanged between tribes
receives some support from Dr. Donald F. Thomson, of Melbourne University,
who expresses the opinion, based on first-hand knowledge of the customs and
habits of aboriginal man in northern Australia, that ceremonial stones are 50
highly prized the natives would certainly not barter them (verbal
communication).

Such arguments apply more to the customs of aboriginal man in his more
primitive state, in areas where virtually unaffected by the white civilization.
It is an entirely different story, however, in those parts of the tektite-sprinkled
region of Australia where remaining members of Australian native tribes are
in occasional or frequent contact with the white race. In the past two or three
decades, there has been a marked impact upon their customary uses of
australites, for such natives evidently no longer value them as objects of magic
and mystery. They have recently used them more and more as articles of
barter. Large numbers of australites have been readily exchanged by ihem
with the white man for small sums of money, for food, and for tobacco and
sweets. In this way, the aborigine has become one of the most prolific
colleetors and distributors of specimens of australites; this is unfortunate in
some respects, for it has resulted in many australites which were acquired in
this manner, and which ultimately passed into museum collections, being
labelled as coming from such extensive areas as “ Nullarbor Plain " or “ Central
Australia" or “Western Australia”, &c. At the same time, detailed
information is completely lacking for such large numbers of specimens. Their
manner of occurrence and the nature of associated superficial materials at the
sites of discovery, for example, will never be known accurately.

The following reports serve to indicate the extent to which the latter-day
aborigines have bartered australites with the white man in Australia, including
more especially station owners, station hands, tourists and interested collectors.

The aborigines along the Transcontinental Railway, between Port Augusta
and Kalgoorlie, have traded australites with passing travellers, and in later
years have been exploited as collectors of australites ( Fenner, 1934, pp. 64-65).
It has been reported by Mr. George Aiston, of Mulka, via Maree, South
Australia, that around the Mulka district “the aboriginal children collected
australites at the rate of one lolly per australite, but at the present time the
older blacks are asking 15. for each whole specimen” (see Fenner, 1935,
p. 127). Furthermore, station owners and others in various parts of ihe
tektite-sprinkled strewnfield where aborigines remained encouraged the natives
to collect australites, more especially “in the arid plains of Central, Southern
and Western Australia", where "а considerable amount of collecting was
carried out by the aborigines, because they thus obtained small rewards from
interested white men " (Fenner, 1935, p. 135).

In amassing large collections of australites numbering 3,920 and 7,184
specimens respectively, both W. H. C. Shaw (Nullabor Plain, South Australia
and Western Australia) and J. W. Kennett (Charlotte Waters, Central
Australia) utilized the aborigines of the Outback regions (see Fenner, 1934;
1940, p. 308). It has been reported by Sergeant J. W. Kennett, in charge of
the Police Station at Charlotte Waters, Central Australia, in 1932, that he had
a blacktracker under him of more than average intelligence. This native
(called Mick Doolan) informed Kennett that certain black stones brought in
by other natives were australites, and that one—a flanged button (cf. Plate I.,
figure 1)—was called “ emu-eye " by the natives, but that these stones were
regarded as glass meteorites by the white man. Kennett scoffed at this idea

18

at first, but was later convinced. He would accompany the blacks out on to
the gibber plains, but was completely exasperated at the outset by being
unable to find any, while the natives were picking them up all around him.
However, he was ultimately successful, after several weeks hard searching,
and at the end of five years at Charlotte Waters a collection totalling 7,184
specimens of australites had been made, with the help of the aborigines.
Kennett's first find was a relatively large specimen, after which he received
the following hint from the aborigines: —“ Supposem you find more big fella
stone, alright, you look about properly fella, and you findem mob little fella."
Kennett later became as keen-eyed as the natives in finding australites; his
collection came from an area of just over 2,100 square miles of gibber plain
territory. The second largest australite seen by Kennett in the Charlotte
Waters area was one he was unable to acquire. This specimen was found by
а lubra, and purchased by Mrs. Child, of Crow Point Station, for the handsome
reward of one minty (see Fenner, 1940, p. 307).

A large australite specimen weighing approximately 142 grams, and known
io the natives as nooloo, was found by a native woman in the vicinity of Eucla,
on the Nullabor Plain, on the Western Australian side of the Western
Australia-South Australia border. This specimen was sent to a jeweller in
Melbourne, but it split into several pieces during treatment, and was then
thrown away (Fenner, 1934, p. 78).

The above accounts indicate that, since white man's occupation of
Australia, the aborigine has been responsible for collecting and distributing
several thousands of australites. There is no clear proof, however, that his
ancestors spread them all over southern Australia in the first place.
Undoubtedly, specimens of australites exposed on the surface of the
ground, that were collected and used by earlier aboriginal tribes, have been
locally moved about, as a consequence of their use as throwing-stones and
hunting-stones, or by their having been dropped and lost while the aborigines
were on “walkabout” (cf. Clarke, 1855, p. 403; Tate, 1879, p. Ixx; Basedow,
1905, p. 89; &c.). Several, when subsequently found, are thus not necessarily
im situ discoveries. Generally, however, it is considered that the majority of
australites so far collected come from the area in which they originally fell.
The use of australites by the aborigines, although widespread, does not account
for their occurrence at depths of 15 to 30 feet below the surface in auriferous
and stanniferous drifts, and up to 20 feet in clay pan deposits. Such recent
sediments were accumulated prior to the arrival of the aborigine (cf.
Twelvetrees and Petterd, 1897; Stephens, 1897, p. 97). Discussing such matters
as these at the turn of the 20th Century, Simpson (1902, p. 84) remarked that
it had been suggested the australites were distributed by the aborigines“ some
tribes certainly look upon them as charms, but the majority apparently of the
present race of blacks set practically no value upon them, so that it would
seem that in most cases their present position is not due to the aborigines ".

17101011 ۸

E uroon AX

۱۱۲ цапоў uaəuja

[FU ۸

(оподхо шу эту
марах тд نا‎ (79) JO хпогол ISIM-UNIC 1 ¿ U SPP aud
نا‎ y
ЭТС ip vonsu ‘аќ ayer о gser > ۶ ۵۲ > SIAH-DULIBIS os ELETO
0 I Jo 01 а aeg
Е ие 40qavpm N
ош о nqufu لله‎ y плодом | `` за реза | ^c 33mpe43snm ۰ (пји Ги) ۲

мәт

и зми ۲

۱
‘AG ONT Jo ۲

Surg 5001117

tat للا‎ y

пш

puv[suoon()
доста — Аза opta

T ۱0۳۹ qey

ou °° 0

wt ПИ

19

DRESS]‏ ارگ
000۵00

puv[suoon()

тем ۷
راجاق‎ виле
+ 3

(urosurur) шоми у

UOISIOA 0

jo Suds 0

NEM BYVAL (шовшш=) шоушш 10166 PIM | FM FEM &
۱ M Awdpfpuru[fpurur | vrergsny yynog ‘шогу oye | ^^ перем | `` SOAI-DULIBIS заварити pura
ure: deur i i i i uredde
VIPBASNY илодко M 1 9011018-13 en чаи
(ereagsuy
Цапо مر‎ 4580
-ygnog ur Ам
BOPA Buruuəur J001—
(лем | плодводу ‘зомфир | uogsurpre(p | ^7 fgipuvung | 181) ,, 905093003 ,, 0411.111
(949
—nan “QUe ==
зеам ` nanyereey 2A wrensny yqnog | ٠٠ ¿š “+ | em[ey) sedAo-nuto NOY ۲
ош ил x 110 BI[VIJSNY uiojsoM-uQ3nos | ^^ uvmypooy A, | `` SIUOIS-UTB.L ђе ۱
эшек [equ JO гуше ۲ онда "офа -‘Suraeoyy "eUreN

‘SHNOLSDIDVI SV AASA SHLITVALSAV ЗОЯ SHNVN ПУМГОТЧОВУ HO ۷ ۵

20

NOTES ON TABLE SHOWING SUMMARY OF ABORIGINAL NAMES.

(a) Some names, e.g., booliah, also include magic-stones other than
australites.

(b) “ Emu-eye" refers more specifically to the Напред, button-shaped
australites (see Plate L, figure 1).

(c) In western South Australia, the name pandella could mean “ pertaining
to limestone places ", since parnda and parndala mean lime and limestone (fide
Mr. N. B. Tindale).

(d) The known or inferred phonetic spellings of the aboriginal names for
australites used in magical practises, and for the tribes using them as such.
were supplied by Mr. N. B. Tindale. The system of transcription is that
employed by research workers in anthropology at Adelaide, South Australia.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
For valuable aid in the compilation of this article, thanks are due to the
followiug gentlemen :-
Dr. Donald F. Thomson, Dr. R. M. Wishart, R. T. M. Pescott, Esq.,
E. D. Gill, Esq., F. C. Smith, Esq., S. R. Mitchell, Esq., A. Massola,
Esq., H. R. Balfour, Esq., and C. S. Rogers, Esq., all of Melbourne,
Victoria.
N. B. Tindale, Esq., and Dr. T. D. Campbell, of Adelaide, South Australia.

К 0. Chalmers, Esq., and F. D. McCarthy, Esq., of Sydney, New South
Wales.

Dr. L. P. Winterbotham and F. S. Colliver, Esq., of Brisbane, Queensland.

W. H. Cleverly, Esq., and A. G. Mathews, Esq., of Kalgoorlie, Western
Australia.

Professor H. Otley Beyer, of Manila, Philippine Islands.

EXPLANATION OF FIGURE 1.

Sites of australite discoveries in relation to the location of aboriginal
tribes known to have used australites for various purposes. (Based on Fenner's
(1935) map of australite distribution, with additions, and Tindale's (1940)
map of distribution of aboriginal tribes of Australia.)

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS.

A — Arabana
AR — Aranda
D — Dieri
DA — Danga : li
G — Gurang Gurang
GU — Gu: nditjmara
K — Kabi Kabi
KA — Каја : ko
КЕ — Кеја : ko
KI — Kir : ae
KO — Ko: ara
KU — Kujani
M — Marditjali
MA — Maduwonga
MI — Min: en

21

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS——con(iinued.

MR — Мита

N — Маг: anga
ND — Nditj

T — Tjapwuron

TL — Tjeraridja : 1

W — Wadikali

WI — Wi: Imen (Wheelman)
WL — Wiljakali
WW — Waka Waka

The known australite localities shown on figure 1 include specimens from
the surface as well as specimens from placer deposits.

No doubt many other tribes occupying areas within the australite
strewnfield utilized australites for various purposes, but the author has been
unable to find evidence that would warrant their inclusion in the above list.

The majority of the tribal names have been chosen from Tindale's map
(1940), rather than employing tribal names set out in earlier literature:
abbreviations for these tribal names are located according to Tindale's tribal
boundaries.

DESCRIPTION OF PLATES.
Plate I.—Australites selected from a large collection from Port Campbell,
Victoria, to illustrate typical round forms (all x3).

1—complete button-shaped forms; A = posterior surface showing
smooth circumferential flange and bubble-pitted core (1212),
B = side view, with posterior surface uppermost (1212),
C = anterior surface showing counterclockwise flow ridge and
radial flow lines (C).

2—complete detached flange, posterior surface uppermost (91).

3—broken, hollow button-shaped form, showing high degree of lustre
(“ hot-polish ") of walls of internal cavity (890).

4—lens-shaped. form showing bubble-pitted surface (posterior) and
primary flow-swirls (884).

5—small lens-shaped form showing posterior surface (661).

6—round core; A — posterior surface, B — side view showing equatorial
zone, and with posterior surface uppermost (A).

7—flange fragment, anterior surface uppermost (1128).

8—oval-shaped form with remnants of flange, posterior surface
uppermost (1010).

9—small, thin, slightly concave round disc, with minute depression at
centre of posterior surface (1187).

10—small button, with relatively broad flange, posterior surface
uppermost (1205).

11—small, thin, oval bowl-like form, showing broad flange and small
core on posterior surface (419).

12—small, thin, teardrop-shaped form, with posterior surface showing
small core and broad flange (883).

(Photographs-—R. OLDFIELD.)

22

Plate H. -Australites selected from a large collection from Port Campbell,
Victoria, to illustrate aberrant forms and typical elongated forms (all x3).
(No. 13 from Moonlight Head, 20 miles south-east of Port Campbell.)

15 large oval core; A = posterior surface showing bubble pits and flow
lines, B side view showing naturally flaked equatorial zone,
and with posterior surface uppermost (918).

oval-shaped form without flange, posterior surface uppermost (984).
2 flat, oval-shaped, plate-like form with broad flange, posterior

surface uppermost (1193).
16-—boat-shaped form, without flange, posterior surface uppermost (609. )
l"—boat-shaped form, with incomplete flange, posterior surface

uppermost (647).

18 canoe-shaped form showing longitudinal flow structures and thin,

elongated, turned-back ends, posterior surface uppermost (1219).

19. aberrant form, showing “ twisted " flow ridges (1354).
20. Nondescript fragment with thin edges, showing bubble-pitted

posterior surface (1333).

(Photographs--R. OLDFIELD. )

Plate III. — Australites selected from a large collection from Port Campbell,
Victoria, to illustrate typical constricted elongated forms (all x3).

2] -teardrop-shaped form; А posterior surface, B side view, with
posterior surface uppermost (B).

22 attenuated “tail” broken from a teardrop-shaped form, posterior
surface uppermost (1326).

23 —slender teardrop-shaped form, with attenuated “ tail” partly broken
away; showing elongated flow grooves trending towards the
"tail", posterior surface uppermost (639).

24 stumpy teardrop-shaped form, showing longitudinal flow lines and

narrow, broken flange, posterior surface uppermost (947).

25 large dumbbell-shaped core, showing thick waist and naturally
flaked equatorial zone, posterior surface uppermost (628).
dumbbell-shaped form, with flange, posterior surface uppermost (78.)
27 —dumbbell-shaped form, without flange, posterior surface uppermost

(1025).
‚ (Photographs --R. OLDFIELD.)

(Numbers and letters in brackets refer to registered numbers and letters
in the author's australite collection.)

REFERENCES.

Baker, G., 1937. Tektites from the Sherbrook River District, East of Port Campbell.
Proc. Roy. Soc. Vic., 49 (2), 165-177.

Baker, G., 1938. Article on “ Port Campbell". Walkabout (Australia), 4 (9), 36.

Baker, G., 1940«. Some Australite Structures and Their Origin. Min. Mag., 25,
487-494.

Baker, G., 1940b. An Unusual Australite Form. Proc. Коу. Soc. Vic., 52 (2), 312-314.

Baker, G., 1944. The Flanges of Australites. Мет. Nat. Mus. Vic. (Melbourne),
LCL Ys Tea

Baker, G., 1946. Some Unusual Shapes and Features of Australites (Tektites). Mem.

Nat. Mus. Vie. (Melbourne), 14 CRD ed sd.

Baker, G., 1950. Section on “ Australites” in “ Geology and Physiography of the
Moonlight Head District, Victoria.” Proc. Roy. Soc. Vic., 60, 35.

Baker, G., 19554. Australites from Harrow, Victoria. Min. Mag., 30, 596-603.

Baker, G., 19556. = Curvature-- Size Relationships of Port Campbell Australites,
Victoria. Proc. Roy. Soc. Vic., 67 (2), 165-219.

Baker, G, 19564. Nirranda Strewntield Australites, South-east of Warrnambool,
Western Victoria. Мет. Nat, Mus. Vic. (Melbourne), 20, 59-172.

DE

,
"m

Baker, G., 19565. Natural Black Glass Resembling Australite Fragments. Мет. Nat.
Mus. Vic. (Melbourne), 20, 173 189.

Baker, G., and Forster, H. C., 1943, The Specific Gravity Relationships of Australites.
Amer. Journ. Sci., 241, 377-406.

Basedow, H., 1905. Geological Report on the Country traversed by the South
Australian Government North-west Prospecting Expedition, 1903. Trans. Roy.
Soc. Sth. Aust., 29, 57-102.

Berwerth, F., 1917. Konnen die Tektite als Kunstprodukte gedeutet werden?
Centralbl. Mineraloy., 240-254,

Beyer, H. O., 1955. The Relation of Tektites lo Archaeology. Special Report, Nat.
Research Council of the Philippines, Philipp. Univ., Quezon City.

Clarke, W. B., 1855. On the Occurrence of Obsidian Bombs in the Auriferous Alluvia
of New South Wales. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., London, 11, 403-404,

Curr, E. M., 1886-1887. The Australian Race. vol. III, 547. Government Printer,
Melbourne.

Dawson, J., 1881. Australian Aborigines. The language and customs of several tribes
of aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia. George Robertson,
Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide.

Dunn, E. J., 1912. Australites. Bull. Geol. бита. Vie, 27, 3-23.

Fenner, С., 1934. Australites, Part I. Classification of the W. H, С. Shaw Collection.
тпм Hoy. Son, ВЕЛ. Aust. 58, 62-79,

Fenner, C. 1935. Australites, Part Ii, Numbers, forms, distribution and origin.
Trans, Roy. Soc. Sth, Aust. 59, 125-140

Fenner, C., 1938. Australites, Part IH. A contribution to the problem of the origin
of tektites. Trans Кош, Soc, Sth. Aust, 62, 192-216.

Fenner, C., 1939. Blackfellow” Buttons, the remarkable glass meteorites of Australia.
The Sky -Maguzine of Cosmic News, 3 (VIIL), 16-17 and 27.
Fenner, C., 1940. Australiles, Part IV. The John Kennett Collection, with notes on
Darwin Glass and Bediasites, Trans. Roy. Soc. Sth. Aust, 64, 305-324.
Fenner, C. 1949. Australites, Part У. Tektites in the South Australian Museum, with
some notes on Theories of Origin. Trans. Roy. Soc. Sth. Aust, 73, 7-21.
Hassell, E., 1936. Notes on the tihnology of the Wheelman Tribe of South-western
Australia. Anthropar, 21, 705-797.

Horne, G., and Aiston, ©., 1024, Savage Life in Central Australia. Macmillan and Co.
Ltd, London.

Howchin, W., 1909. Report of Annual Meeting, October 5th, 1909, - Trans. Roy. Soc.
Sth Aust., 33, 348 549.

Krause, F. M., 1896. Introduction to the Study of Mineralogy, p. 214. Robertson and
Со. Melbourne, &c.

Mathew, J. 1910. Two Representative Tribes of Queensland. T, Fisher Unwin,
London and Leipsic.

Mitchell, S. R. 1949. Sione-Age Craftsmen. Тан Book Co. Pty. Ltd. Melbourne,
Australia.

Simpson, E. S., 1902. Obsidianites. Notes from the Departmental Laboratory. Bull.
Geol. Surv., Western Aust., 6, 719 85

Smyth, R. Brough, 1878. The Aborigines of Vietoria, vols. I. and II. Government
Printer, Melbourne.

Stephens, Т., 1897. Notes on a Specimen òf Basalt Glass (Tachylyle) from near
Macquarie Plains, with remarks on Obsidian “buttons”. Papers and Proc,
Roy. Soc. Tas. (issued 1898), 54-53.

Summers, H. S. 1909, Obsidianites- Their Or ріп from a Chemical Standpoint. Proc,
Roy, Soc, Vie, 21 (2), 423-443.

Tate, R., 1879. Anniversary Address of the President. Trans. Philos. Soc. Sth. Aust.,
2, xxxix-Ixxv. Е А |

Tindale, N. В. 1940. Мар Showing the Distribution of the Aboriginal Tribes of
Australia. Government Photolithograoher, Adelaide (see Trans. Roy. Soc. Sth.
Aust. 64, 140-231 and ۰

Twolvetrees, W. H. and Petterd, W. F., 1807. On the Occurrence of Obsidian
"buttons" in Tasmania. Papers and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tus, (issued 1898), 39-46,

Walcott, R. H., 1898. The Oceurrence of so-called Obsidian Bombs in Australia. Proc,
Roy. Soc. Vie., 11 (1), 23-53,

24

PLATE I

25

PEATE П

26

Ррате lll

By Authority: W. M. HOUSTON, Government Printer, Melbourne