XXVI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas

- 31 5 ­
or function and other facts Ilot in accord wilh theo ries of a unitary origin
haye been minimized or entirely ignored (Davidson, lII, IV).
To the minds of many a boomerang is a 1 eturning weapon, but this
supposition strictly speaking is a double falacy, first, because only a
very small percentage of Australian boomerangs are of the returning type,
and second, beca use the returners ' as a general rule are not weapons, but
toys thro\Vn .for amusement. The presence of returners has not bten
established outside of Australia although various claims have been made
generally to be withdrawl1 sooner or later by their pro'posers.
A common origin foc the so -ca.¡¿~d boomera,ngs of India, the Celebes,
Espiritu Santo and other al eas and the boomerangs of Australia has
be en accepted by Rivet but there are rnany facts which do not support
such a conclusion. The tio/(hi of Espiritu Santo \Vas first termed a
boomerang by Rivers partly because he believed it to strengthen the theory
of migratíon uf his J(m;a people, to 'whom he a tlributed the prese nce of
boomerangs in Australia. This object is a stout curved stick used in a
game and is held and thrown differently than Australian boomerangs
\Vith which there is no übvious relatíonship.
The "boomerangs" of India and the Celebes are functionally similar
lo Australian boomerangs in that they are 'weapons but they differ
greatly in proportions from the latter. Their superficial resemblances
could be attributed reasonably to their similarity of purpose for there
are certain limitations in size and weight o,f simple missile-sticks within
which human beings of more or less the same physical strength must
make their seJection if efficiency is to be attainecl. However, these
questions are matters of opinon and carry ¡ittle \Veight in the argumento
The l110st inportant evidence whích appea rs to deny the historical
re:ationship of Australian uoomerangs (both ordinary and returning)
anel the objeds from lhe other areas is found in their distribution and
the known directions of their diffusion in Australia (Davidson, IV).
Not onl)' are they not present in Tasmania and, therefore, it would seem
cannot have as great an antiquity as petroglyphs with which by implication
they are associatecl historically by Rivet, but they are not of universal
appearance in Australia and, as a result, (he suspicion seem warranted
that they may not have been a possession oi the early AustralÍans. The
li12i n regi ons \vhere they are lacking ;¡Iso have an important bearing on
the case for they include the three northern penínsulas of the continerit,
the 0111y areas knovvn to have received foreign influences and the onl)'
areas where the Australians could have reciprocated culture borrowing.
It cannot be maintained with wisdom that boomerangs were formerly
present in these northern regions for they are now diffusing into two
of them, the Kimberley region and N orth Australia, and although the
evidente is less specific, there are also data which indicate a similar
northward diffusion jnto the base of the Cape York Peninsula. These