Ion Idriess

Ion (Jack) Idriess (1889-1979) was one of Australia’s best-loved writers, with 56 books to his credit, and many millions of copies sold.

I spotted him as the number one authority of aboriginals of the top end, when he appeared before a commission in 1937.

I’m now reading his “Over the Range”, which reads like a novel but is actually non-fiction, about the aborigines in the wildest parts of the Kimberlies. It’s based on his personal experiences in the territory in 1933 as an official inspector, and was published in 1942.

It’s a must read for anyone with an interest in Australian Aborigines. Other great books by Ion Idriess include “Man Tracks”, the non-fiction story of the black trackers who worked for the mounted police in northern WA, and “Nemarluk”, a fictional story about an aboriginal freedom fighter. For copies of these, other books written by Idriess, and books written by Don Bradman, email the Australian publisher directly at ettimprint@hotmail.com.

I like to summarise books I start a thread about, but that’s practically impossible with “Over the Range”, so I’ll have to settle for just a few quotes.

• From the preface:

“staggered me. In that short time a surprising number of the aboriginals I met there four years ago have died. And this in an area of country where the white settlers can be counted on the fingers of both hands; while to the north of that area there are no whites at all. And despite the fact that those whites are doing all in their power to save the remnants.”

• The book contains some humour:

“An irrascible cockatoo … His crest rose and he abused them with the aboriginal swear words (the house lubras) had taught him. … What he screeched almost reduced the house lubras to hysteria.”

• Some philosophical observations on the Aborigines and white settlers:

“The Australian aboriginal … will betray his fellow with an easy conscience if his own particular tribal or group law will allow him, and if he believes that swift vengeance will not overtake him” – in other words, Australian aboriginals are honest, or poor liers, when talking about the crimes of others. This makes policing possible.

The police do not intervene in tribal matters, they only intervene when the aborigines themselves ask for help from the whites.

“What Peter was saying of their more guarded rites here describes those practiced on Cape York Peninsula three thousand miles east, before the two great influenza plagues practically wiped out the north-eastern tribes. From the Peninsula, straight across west Queensland to the Territory and into the farthest Kimberleys the life, customs, and beliefs of these csatterred but self-contained tribes were identical, and had been so for thousands of years. Yet each tribe regarded the other as a foreigner; few even spoke the same language, though they are physically and mentally the same.”

• Some cameo biographies:

Big Paddy is an aboriginal in charge of a cattle station. “A few years previously, Big Paddy’s delight was his merry little son Kitchener … ride at a gallop, scorning constant warnings … The horse had propped at a hole and the lad must have shot over its head on to the rocks. The camp was horrified, Jinny the mother went crazy. Bug Paddy nursed his grief in a quiet mad fury. Then he urged the Old Men to ‘sing out’ those responsible for the death of his son. Straight to the primitive. Two wild bush natives, Danmarra and Bullidon were hunting up in a mountain creek. The Old Men declared that these strangers had ‘willed’ the lad to death. Big Paddy took the overseer’s rifle and shot both those innocent men.” For this he did a few years in jail, escaped, came back, found his wife gone. “What Big Paddy did to the man who stole his wife is unknown. He had learned from experience: he left no tracks, no trace; neither did he boast. And now Big Paddy scowled as he worked.”

“Possum … is a woman-stealer … Possum swoops down and takes one away to the ranges and months of quick moving, hunting and fighting. His conquest is his carrier, his beast of burden. He carries only his fighting gear, she follows carrying everything, stumbling after him over the ranges by night after some particularly daring escapade. When he has worn her out he calmly abandons her and swoops down on another”.

• Some aboriginal technologies are described in detail:

How to make four spear points from a beer bottle, using sharpened fencing wire, a stone, and paperbark. How to weave rope from kangaroo hair.

Idriess proved for the first time that aboriginal message-sticks are used to send definite messages. “These sticks carry a distinct message as to the arrival of someone of importance, or to initiation ceremonies, or from one man to another suggesting trade in such articles as ochres, piuturi or weapons. (The markings are) hills, lagoons, river, moon … The messenger must memorise the message. The stick is his bona fides, his passport. When delivering the message he confirms it by pointing to each marking, giving its explicit memorised meaning. The messge is meaningless to all but the man who marks it, the messenger, and the recipient.” It is therefore an unbreakable code.

• Other aboriginal technologies are described in less detail, but are not less surprising:

These include smoke signals (the fastest method of communication), making a tomahawk from an old shovel, making many objects from a horse shoe such as a pair of spear points or a plough.

I started reading this to look for any suggestion of stolen children, finding none. The closest was when a man was arrested and one of his wives travelled with him, leaving the other wives behind to look after the children.

good read, moll

Reading more.

What holds most interest for me is aboriginal technology.

They didn’t use animal hides for much if anything, certainly not clothing. The bow and arrow is unknown.

The top end aborigines loved the new imports of both tobacco and iron. They would do almost anything for tobacco. They were ambivalent about clothing, wanted it for special occasions but shed it in the bush where it tended to get in the way. Despite having no experience with iron before the whites, they were excellent ironworkers. A single night with a pair of rocks and some camp fire embers is perfectly sufficient to escape from chains. Home made iron tools extremely rapidly replaced stone ones.

Technology included the ability to make good waterproof buckets, though this technology may have been limited to the Kimberlies. Rope could be made from a variety of materials, human hair being perhaps the most common. It could be knotted to form a bag, but was never used to make clothing.

The observation that caused me to write this is that aborigines also made sporting arenas, open circular areas with seating at the edges. At certain times of the year five tribes would left together at this arena on the Walcott River for a set of staged fights. Inside is a sitting stone for the chief of the winning tribe. “Beyond, in a great circle, were other stones circling a flat ampitheatre of ground”. I had strongly suspected that the origin of sporting arenas dated back to the settling of America 13,000 years ago, although the oldest dated ones are from about 6,900 BC. But this pushes the date back to 40,000 years ago.

mollwollfumble said:

Technology included the ability to make good waterproof buckets, though this technology may have been limited to the Kimberlies. Rope could be made from a variety of materials, human hair being perhaps the most common. It could be knotted to form a bag, but was never used to make clothing.

The Kimberley.

He also wrote Lasseter’s Last Ride about the reef of gold he discovered, a good yarn in it’s time but mostly dismissed these days.
I just checked before I put key to screen to make sure I remembered correctly and discovered that Ion L lived at Tabulam.

certainly nighttime temp’s across much of Australia would be good incentive for clothing, to rug up, and i’m thinking about the step to noticing some of the animals being hunted and eaten have fur.

athletes i guess, like me, I could spend all day chopping wood naked and not burn any to stay warm.

mollwollfumble said:

The observation that caused me to write this is that aborigines also made sporting arenas, open circular areas with seating at the edges. At certain times of the year five tribes would left together at this arena on the Walcott River for a set of staged fights. Inside is a sitting stone for the chief of the winning tribe. “Beyond, in a great circle, were other stones circling a flat ampitheatre of ground”. I had strongly suspected that the origin of sporting arenas dated back to the settling of America 13,000 years ago, although the oldest dated ones are from about 6,900 BC. But this pushes the date back to 40,000 years ago.

Have the arenas been dated to that time then?

Are there no ancient arenas outside America and Australia?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Have the arenas been dated to that time then?

Are there no ancient arenas outside America and Australia?

The dated arenas are all in Europe and the middle East.

Another quote from Iron Idriess.

“He even explained the eating of the heart, kidneys, and liver of a slain enemy by warriors of his tribe, but not the organs of any of their own men. Such a thing is not done. Occasionally a young plump lubra is taken into the brush, killed, cooked, and all of her eaten. This, however, is only done on a special occasion.”

It’s because of examples like this that I have trouble accepting “tribal law”.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Have the arenas been dated to that time then?

Are there no ancient arenas outside America and Australia?

The dated arenas are all in Europe and the middle East.

Another quote from Iron Idriess.

“He even explained the eating of the heart, kidneys, and liver of a slain enemy by warriors of his tribe, but not the organs of any of their own men. Such a thing is not done. Occasionally a young plump lubra is taken into the brush, killed, cooked, and all of her eaten. This, however, is only done on a special occasion.”

It’s because of examples like this that I have trouble accepting “tribal law”.

If that is true and not another whiteman’s tale of Aboriginal cannibals, it would be nothing to do with tribal law, but custom.

Ion Idress mostly wrote fiction even when it was about opal gougers. Readable fiction but fiction all the same.

roughbarked said:

Ion Idress mostly wrote fiction even when it was about opal gougers. Readable fiction but fiction all the same.

Yes Idress made his living from telling stories, plus it was in an age when it was the Australian thing to do to tell the most unlikely stories, but tell it in such a way as to make it sound believable. Idress had lived an interesting life and certainly had many unusual life experiences in remote places and with Aborigines, which made his stories even more believable. But to take information from such a source and regard every detail as fact illustrates a severe lack of common sense. These stories and the conclusions reached, only go to hurt further a people who have experienced more than enough and to the extent the OP could not possibly understand.

roughbarked said:

Ion Idress mostly wrote fiction even when it was about opal gougers. Readable fiction but fiction all the same.

Ion Idriess wrote both fiction and non-fiction, as I pointed out in the OP. “Over the range” and “Man tracks” are non-fiction.

His “Flynn of the Inland” about the Flying Doctor Service may also be non-fiction. His “Nemarluk” is fiction.

—

I like books to have a happy ending. Real life doesn’t always have a happy ending. But does the book “Over the Range” have a happy ending? Or to put it another way, was the three month police patrol in the Kimberleys in 1933 worthwhile or not? This sheds light on the whole worth of policing.

On the surface, it has a very happy ending. A patrol of 5 people: a policeman, doctor, observer (Ion Idriess), and two black trackers entered the wildest part of Australia and made it back with a party of 35 including prisoners (all murderers), wives of prisoners, witnesses, lepers, and an ex-tracker who wanted to rejoin the force and his son. No deaths. Further, the patrol was sent to find the culprits in one murder and ended up uncovering two other murders, arresting every single one of the culprits for two of the three. For both murders they managed to get unforced confessions, independent witnesses and the bones. All the lepers survived to make it to the leprosarium in Derby. All of the white settlers they encountered were OK, despite the hardships.

Looking deeper, things are less positive. One prisoner escaped on the way back by ingeniously picking the lock using a barbed needle with a hook and a thread made of human hair. All the prisoners were acquitted. All of the wives left their husbands. One wife was going to be killed by her husband on the first available opportunity. Most lepers in the territory hid from the patrol. There was no cure for leprosy until 1841, and it was not realised at the time that it can spread by individuals who show no symptoms. Five of the lepers escaped from the leprosarium. The ex-tracker didn’t become a tracker again but instead went off with one of the prisoner’s wives. The best tracker, a crack shot with the rifle, broke into the leprosarium to see his ex-wives and was arrested, so in a huff resigned from the force and went native; if he ever decides on a life of crime he would be deadly and impossible to catch. And to top if off, as soon as the patrol left one plantation it was destroyed by the plantation aborigines, forcing the whites to start again elsewhere. So you could say that the net effect of the patrol was zero.

But looking even deeper, two of the prisoners had provoked a tribal war and were busy gathering troops when arrested. So the war was averted, for now.

mollwollfumble said:

Looking deeper, things are less positive. One prisoner escaped on the way back by ingeniously picking the lock using a barbed needle with a hook and a thread made of human hair. All the prisoners were acquitted. All of the wives left their husbands. One wife was going to be killed by her husband on the first available opportunity. Most lepers in the territory hid from the patrol. There was no cure for leprosy until 1841, and it was not realised at the time that it can spread by individuals who show no symptoms. Five of the lepers escaped from the leprosarium. The ex-tracker didn’t become a tracker again but instead went off with one of the prisoner’s wives. The best tracker, a crack shot with the rifle, broke into the leprosarium to see his ex-wives and was arrested, so in a huff resigned from the force and went native; if he ever decides on a life of crime he would be deadly and impossible to catch. And to top if off, as soon as the patrol left one plantation it was destroyed by the plantation aborigines, forcing the whites to start again elsewhere. So you could say that the net effect of the patrol was zero.

I suspect that the cure for leprosy may not have been for another hundred years, or thereabouts.

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

Looking deeper, things are less positive. One prisoner escaped on the way back by ingeniously picking the lock using a barbed needle with a hook and a thread made of human hair. All the prisoners were acquitted. All of the wives left their husbands. One wife was going to be killed by her husband on the first available opportunity. Most lepers in the territory hid from the patrol. There was no cure for leprosy until 1841, and it was not realised at the time that it can spread by individuals who show no symptoms. Five of the lepers escaped from the leprosarium. The ex-tracker didn’t become a tracker again but instead went off with one of the prisoner’s wives. The best tracker, a crack shot with the rifle, broke into the leprosarium to see his ex-wives and was arrested, so in a huff resigned from the force and went native; if he ever decides on a life of crime he would be deadly and impossible to catch. And to top if off, as soon as the patrol left one plantation it was destroyed by the plantation aborigines, forcing the whites to start again elsewhere. So you could say that the net effect of the patrol was zero.

I suspect that the cure for leprosy may not have been for another hundred years, or thereabouts.

Oops. Yes, exactly. 1941. Although it didn’t reach the Derby leprosarium until several years later.

—

Travelling with murderers for over two months in their own territory and describing it in a morally neutral way gives Ion Idriess an interesting insight into the mind of a murderer. It also introduces the much more difficult topic of the difference between a tribal killing and a murder.

Theft is not a common motive for murder. The most common form of theft is to wait until the owner and second in command are both away and then steal things (cattle, crops, tobacco), or to surruptitiously take things while the owner is distracted (nails picked up with the toes, horseshoes, other iron, bottles).

Some murder, hurt and harm because they enjoy it, eg. killing an old couple in their sleep, pushing the head of a girl underwater to drown her.

Some murder people they just don’t like. eg. brother in law.

It’s OK to fight a person for a woman, and give them a thrashing, but not to kill them.

Most murderers enjoy the status it gives them. Being in white mens jail gives them “big man” status, as does avoiding a police patrol. It gives them a reputation for violence that allows them to more easily take what they want.

Some kill and commit other crimes in order to start a war with a neighbouring tribe.

This sounds awfully like the criminal gangs in many modern cities.

All the above don’t count as tribal killings, but the line is awfully blurred. The natives have to want the white police to interfere, especially when they’re too frightened to talk, in order for it to count as a murder.

One case is clearly on the borderline – a specific wicked witch doctor would happily name innocent people as the source of a curse (a curse always being blamed if a person died of disease). A couple of times and it counts as a tribal killing, but too often and the natives start fearing the witch doctor and it becomes murder.

In one case, the killing is purely tribal even though the victim is innocent. The dead man’s body is raised on a bier and protected from crows by paperbark. Stones are placed underneath in a circle, coloured by tribe and each representing a person. The fat dripping from the decomposing body would be blown a bit by the breeze and the person assigned to the first stone on which fat drips is judged as identified by the soul of the dead man, and is killed.

—

In another take on this, it’s interesting that alcohol was not at that time an aboriginal problem there. But an aboriginal in the Kimberleys in 1933 would go to any lengths to obtain tobacco. Tobacco had become the “money” of the region.

The aborigine had not the slightest interest in agriculture. Which makes me wonder about the start of agriculture. Perhaps the first crops to be grown around the world were not foods but intoxicants: poppies, hemp, tobacco, alcohol. And so perhaps it’s only incidentally that the crops also provided fibres or food. Intoxicants as a source of civilisation?

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

Looking deeper, things are less positive. One prisoner escaped on the way back by ingeniously picking the lock using a barbed needle with a hook and a thread made of human hair. All the prisoners were acquitted. All of the wives left their husbands. One wife was going to be killed by her husband on the first available opportunity. Most lepers in the territory hid from the patrol. There was no cure for leprosy until 1841, and it was not realised at the time that it can spread by individuals who show no symptoms. Five of the lepers escaped from the leprosarium. The ex-tracker didn’t become a tracker again but instead went off with one of the prisoner’s wives. The best tracker, a crack shot with the rifle, broke into the leprosarium to see his ex-wives and was arrested, so in a huff resigned from the force and went native; if he ever decides on a life of crime he would be deadly and impossible to catch. And to top if off, as soon as the patrol left one plantation it was destroyed by the plantation aborigines, forcing the whites to start again elsewhere. So you could say that the net effect of the patrol was zero.

I suspect that the cure for leprosy may not have been for another hundred years, or thereabouts.

So where did this leprosy originate amongst Australian Aboriginals of which the benevolent Europeans sort to cure?

>>Spread of disease among Aborigines in 1850s; introduction of disease by pearlers and missionaries; isolation of victims; Derby Leprosarium; Aborigines Protection Act, 1886; native welfare acts<< This is a summery of Havens of refuge : a history of leprosy in Western Australia /​ W.S. Davidson. Online version Davidson, W.S. (William Sharp), 1909- Havens of refuge. Nedlands, W.A. : University of Western Australia Press ; Forest Grove, Or. : Distributed by ISBS, Inc., 1978. Western Australia. Public Health Department (1911-1979) .

So they would be very thankful of the likes of the OP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy
“…Leprosy was once believed to be highly contagious and was treated with mercury—as was syphilis, which was first described in 1530. Many early cases thought to be leprosy could actually have been syphilis…”

mollwollfumble said:

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

Looking deeper, things are less positive. One prisoner escaped on the way back by ingeniously picking the lock using a barbed needle with a hook and a thread made of human hair. All the prisoners were acquitted. All of the wives left their husbands. One wife was going to be killed by her husband on the first available opportunity. Most lepers in the territory hid from the patrol. There was no cure for leprosy until 1841, and it was not realised at the time that it can spread by individuals who show no symptoms. Five of the lepers escaped from the leprosarium. The ex-tracker didn’t become a tracker again but instead went off with one of the prisoner’s wives. The best tracker, a crack shot with the rifle, broke into the leprosarium to see his ex-wives and was arrested, so in a huff resigned from the force and went native; if he ever decides on a life of crime he would be deadly and impossible to catch. And to top if off, as soon as the patrol left one plantation it was destroyed by the plantation aborigines, forcing the whites to start again elsewhere. So you could say that the net effect of the patrol was zero.

I suspect that the cure for leprosy may not have been for another hundred years, or thereabouts.

Oops. Yes, exactly. 1941. Although it didn’t reach the Derby leprosarium until several years later.

—

Travelling with murderers for over two months in their own territory and describing it in a morally neutral way gives Ion Idriess an interesting insight into the mind of a murderer. It also introduces the much more difficult topic of the difference between a tribal killing and a murder.

Theft is not a common motive for murder. The most common form of theft is to wait until the owner and second in command are both away and then steal things (cattle, crops, tobacco), or to surruptitiously take things while the owner is distracted (nails picked up with the toes, horseshoes, other iron, bottles).

Some murder, hurt and harm because they enjoy it, eg. killing an old couple in their sleep, pushing the head of a girl underwater to drown her.

Some murder people they just don’t like. eg. brother in law.

It’s OK to fight a person for a woman, and give them a thrashing, but not to kill them.

Most murderers enjoy the status it gives them. Being in white mens jail gives them “big man” status, as does avoiding a police patrol. It gives them a reputation for violence that allows them to more easily take what they want.

Some kill and commit other crimes in order to start a war with a neighbouring tribe.

This sounds awfully like the criminal gangs in many modern cities.

All the above don’t count as tribal killings, but the line is awfully blurred. The natives have to want the white police to interfere, especially when they’re too frightened to talk, in order for it to count as a murder.

One case is clearly on the borderline – a specific wicked witch doctor would happily name innocent people as the source of a curse (a curse always being blamed if a person died of disease). A couple of times and it counts as a tribal killing, but too often and the natives start fearing the witch doctor and it becomes murder.

In one case, the killing is purely tribal even though the victim is innocent. The dead man’s body is raised on a bier and protected from crows by paperbark. Stones are placed underneath in a circle, coloured by tribe and each representing a person. The fat dripping from the decomposing body would be blown a bit by the breeze and the person assigned to the first stone on which fat drips is judged as identified by the soul of the dead man, and is killed.

—

In another take on this, it’s interesting that alcohol was not at that time an aboriginal problem there. But an aboriginal in the Kimberleys in 1933 would go to any lengths to obtain tobacco. Tobacco had become the “money” of the region.

The aborigine had not the slightest interest in agriculture. Which makes me wonder about the start of agriculture. Perhaps the first crops to be grown around the world were not foods but intoxicants: poppies, hemp, tobacco, alcohol. And so perhaps it’s only incidentally that the crops also provided fibres or food. Intoxicants as a source of civilisation?

You must really be enjoying yourself moll by spreading the worst possible things that MIGHT have happened by Aboriginal people and written by a story teller that you claim are facts. Well allow me to give you another aspect to the Aboriginal situation – once the first settlers arrived most they wasted no time in getting rid of the native populations, which caused the survivors to flee, often to missions. Tribal values, culture and their law were largely destroyed by this persecution and murder. It forced unrelated groups together, who would normally avoid each other, which caused additional problems and the breakdown of law and order. Idriess was writing during a part of this period, which in no way reflects the true situation of Aboriginal culture.

Again you completely ignore the extensive studies of numerous anthropologists and other experts and follow the first thing you find that is remotely attributed to subject to ridiculous ends. I find it difficult for anyone who claims to have worked in a scientific capacity within the CSIRO to even casual wander down this path that is so anti-scientific and derogatory to an entire race of people and one that lived within the restraints of the Australian Continent for tens of thousands of years. You disgrace yourself and in the worst possible way and in the same manner as the Nazis did to the Jews.

reading this, off topic a bit, still quite interesting..

International Journal of Leprosy
http://ila.ilsl.br/pdfs/v1n4a03.pdf

then..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydnocarpus_wightiana_seed_oil
“The active ingredient that produces antimicrobial activity has been identified as hydnocarpic acid, a lipophilic compound. It acts by being an antagonist of biotin. The oil was used intravenously or intramuscularly in the early part of the 20th-century against leprosy”

>Intoxicants as a source of civilisation?

it’s an interesting idea, but to put it in perspective you have to see health as intoxicating, even reliable quality food, and oxygen.

recreational interests more generally (which surplus food allowed more enjoyment of).

knowledge accumulation, sharing, specialization, system working toward a common good.

even a good sleep can be intoxicating.

of course food and drink have long had indulgence of intoxicants associated with, there’s no escaping that, even just satisfying basic desires can be intoxicating.

fun and laughter can be intoxicating, contagious too.

transition said:

reading this, off topic a bit, still quite interesting..

International Journal of Leprosy
http://ila.ilsl.br/pdfs/v1n4a03.pdf

then..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydnocarpus_wightiana_seed_oil
“The active ingredient that produces antimicrobial activity has been identified as hydnocarpic acid, a lipophilic compound. It acts by being an antagonist of biotin. The oil was used intravenously or intramuscularly in the early part of the 20th-century against leprosy”

I found this interesting, too. According to one website the bacteria that cause TB and the bacteria that cause leprosy are very similar, to the point where catching TB confers immunity against leprosy. Aborigines in SW Australia were wiped out by TB, those in NW Australia avoided TB, but this left them open to death from leprosy. In 1922, only 5 lepers were known in the Kimberleys, but this vastly underestimated the problem because the lepers were hiding from doctors.

> You must really be enjoying yourself moll

I am, but that’s because all my interest is in aboriginal technologies.

Aboriginal Technologies

Sometimes I dislike the phrase “stone age” as if making stone tools was the only technology of the time. We only call it the stone age because stone tools survive better than other artefacts. It would be like calling modern times the “concrete age”. Making stone tools was just one of a hundred technologies present at the time.

I wonder to what extent these can be thought of as 40,000 years old?

>It would be like calling modern times the “concrete age”

;-) works for me

roughbarked said:

Ion Idress mostly wrote fiction even when it was about opal gougers. Readable fiction but fiction all the same.

If you doubt that “over the range” is non-fiction, the edition I have contains photos by Idriess of all the aboriginal prisoners and their mates. It also contains photos of the first message stick, the funeral bier, the tribesmen for one of the tribes, the stone idol, and the devil man painting, etc.

The book leaves open the question of homosexuality and paedophilia among the aborigines. One of the prisoners has a male “partner”, and one other is fed up with lubras and travels with his “piccinini”.

On a lighter note. Douglas Adams wrote “The Jatravartids are a race of creatures that live on Viltvodle VI. They have blue skin and fifty arms each. They are the only race of people who invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.” I can’t help wondering if humans are the only race of people who invented the contraceptive before clothing. Isn’t that amazing. Both Ion Idriess and Jack McLaren claim that aborigines have an effective contraceptive. Also, it might be worth looking into family trees of animals other than human, such as chimps, to see if there are marriage taboos that limit interbreeding.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Ion Idress mostly wrote fiction even when it was about opal gougers. Readable fiction but fiction all the same.

If you doubt that “over the range” is non-fiction, the edition I have contains photos by Idriess of all the aboriginal prisoners and their mates. It also contains photos of the first message stick, the funeral bier, the tribesmen for one of the tribes, the stone idol, and the devil man painting, etc.

The book leaves open the question of homosexuality and paedophilia among the aborigines. One of the prisoners has a male “partner”, and one other is fed up with lubras and travels with his “piccinini”.

On a lighter note. Douglas Adams wrote “The Jatravartids are a race of creatures that live on Viltvodle VI. They have blue skin and fifty arms each. They are the only race of people who invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.” I can’t help wondering if humans are the only race of people who invented the contraceptive before clothing. Isn’t that amazing. Both Ion Idriess and Jack McLaren claim that aborigines have an effective contraceptive. Also, it might be worth looking into family trees of animals other than human, such as chimps, to see if there are marriage taboos that limit interbreeding.

Finally found a list of his books.

Bibliography of Major Books
1927 – Madman’s Island Howick Island is part of the Great Barrier Reef Parkland and the island that Idriess was stranded on with a mate who tried to kill him. The book was rewritten and published as a factual account in 1938.

1931 – Prospecting for Gold A fossicker’s guide and the ‘bible of gold prospectors’. In the grip of the Depression Jack penned a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald which appeared on 31st January 1930 proposing a Gold Search Association. He claimed over 235 people responded to him and this convinced the publishers to give him the go-ahead to write the book Published in February 1931 it sold 2000 copies within the first 10 minutes.

1931 – Lasseter’s Last Ride Lasseter’s diary was purchased by Angus & Robertson for Jack and he also had access to many official records and correspondence and interviewed those who had been on the expedition. He didn’t appear to doubt the claims that the gold reef existed though many did.

1932 – Flynn of the Inland Released in March, the month the Sydney Harbour Bridge was opened, this outsold all his other works. The story of the first man to inaugurate an aerial medical service for a civilian population.

1932 – The Desert Column Possibly Jack’s greatest work but not his best-selling, from the diary of his war service with the Australian Light Horse Brigade.

1932 – Men of the Jungle Released in September, by December 6,000 copies had sold. A story of Jack’s own experiences with his mates tin-mining and prospecting in the Australian north. Three years in the lives of the author and two companions with incidents from pioneer life, odd bits of bush lore, nature studies, side lights on Aboriginal life and the search for gold.

1933 – Drums of Mer First of Jack’s books on the Torres Straight Islanders. This book was regarded by the Murray Islanders as the bible of Mer. The secret sites and rituals he details would otherwise have been lost forever. Idriess was ordered by his publishers to remove any mention of ‘flying men with supernatural powers’ from the book, something he regretted for the rest of his life as these beliefs were an integral part of Murray Islanders culture.

1933 – Gold Dust and Ashes The story of the opening up of the New Guinea goldfields.

1934 – The Yellow Joss Idriess’ collection of short stories which include adventures of bushmen and natives of Cape York Peninsula, The Coral Sea and The Great Barrier Reef. The Yellow Joss became the first collection of short stories to sell consistently for many years in Australia.

1935 – Man Tracks Mounted police book and the tracking skills of indigenous Australians.

1936 – The Cattle King A biography of the life of Sir Sydney Kidman who started out with five shillings and eventually controlled over 100 cattle stations covering an area greater than that of Victoria and Tasmania combined.

1937 – Over the Range Sunshine and Shadows in the Kimberleys Concerns indigenous Australian outlaws. The Kimberley patrol is one of the wildest areas left in the nation, that north of the King Leopold Range.

1938 – How Must Australia Fight Also published as ‘Must Australia Fight’.

1939 – Forty Fathoms Deep About the pearl diving community in Broome, one of Jack’s favourite places. He planned a sequel to this book however it was never published.

1939 – Cyaniding for Gold Specialist book on gold prospecting techniques. RARE

1940 – Lightning Ridge The pioneering days of Lightning Ridge, based on Jack’s experiences.

1940 – Headhunters of the Coral Sea A story of shipwrecked children taken in by headhunters believing them to be the spirits of deceased ancestors.

1940 – The Great Trek The story of 6 whites, 4 aboriginals, 42 horses and a mob of cattle who set out on an expedition from Rockhampton to reach Somerset at the top of Cape Peninsula. Ten months later, after travelling 1800 miles, the last half over appalling unexplored country, the men minus the stock and equipment reached Somerset in rather poor condition.

1941 – Fortunes in Minerals Including Uranium. Includes simple tests and how to make them.

1941 – Nemarluk: King of the Wilds Written after Jack heard of Nemarluk’s death in Fanny Bay Gaol, Nemarluk was one of the most feared and respected Aboriginal ‘renegades’ of the north who vowed to rid Australia of whites and yellows. Jack knew Nemarluk and had his respect.

1942 – The Guerrilla Series: Series of 6 written for the Australian Army during WWII

Shoot to Kill – Practical details on accurate shooting. RARE

Sniping – Tactics for concealment and stalking, how to identify an enemies position by drawing fire

Guerrilla Tactics – Making bombs, booby traps and mines

Trapping the Jap – Aimed at the expected Japanese military invasion of Australia

Lurking Death – True stories of snipers in Gallipoli, Sinai and Palestine.

Scouting – One of the best field guides on combat scouting

1943 – The Great Boomerang Always filled with patriotism and hope for Australia this book looks at schemes for developing the Australian outback.

1944 – The Silent Service Action stories of the ANZAC Navy. Written with T.M. Jones.

1945 – Horrie the Wog Dog Some editions were titled ‘Dog of the Desert’ . The story of a mascot of the Australian forces during the desert war. In the end after such faithful service the dog was put down due to strict quarantine laws.

1946 – In Crocodile Land Story of Idriess’ own travels accross Queensland and the Northern Territory, fishing, hunting and trading.

1947 – Isles of Despair An historical account of the shipwrecked English woman Barbara Thomson who spent 5 years living as the wife of a Prince of Wales Island chief.

1948 – Stone of Destiny Diamond mining and exploration later edition titled ‘The Diamond – Stone of Destiny’. Jack stated of over 40 books he’s written this one proved to be the “headache” due to difficulty in obtaining authentic material for his research.

1949 – One Wet Season The story of how the tiny port of Derby is converged upon by station men, cattlemen, dingo shooters, “poddy-dodgers”, oil seekers and more to spin yarns and tell stories during the three month wet season.

1950 – The Wild White Man of Badu Amazing story of a convict who escaped from Norfolk Island after a desperate voyage where he killed and ate his companions. He went on to become a chief of Badu, creating a small empire over which he ruled ruthlessly.

1951 – Across the Nullarbor Jack drove across the Nullarbor, this is his story.

1952 – Outlaws of the Leopolds The Story of Sandamara, or Pigeon as the white man called him. An outlaw who planned and attempted to carry out a scheme to drive the white people from his country, and for a time had a sporting chance of succeeding. As a black tracker he was induced to join the outlaws he was sent to find. Thrilling running fights in narrow gorges and twisting caves in which he evaded his pursuers, until at last tracked down by the trail of his own blood and cornered, he fired his last shot …

1953 – The Red Chief One of the few books written at the time from a sympathetic perspective when few white writers had the experience or understanding to tackle stories about Aborigines. This is a fast-moving story about heroism and also an important document recording the social and ethical relationships between black and white Australians.

1954 – The Nor’Westers In this book Jack takes the liberty of writing whatever comes into his head. He says, “I have been moved by the mirrored beauty of a lonely Cape York Peninsula river and the sighing breath in some far-away Kimberley gorge. I have written of animals and birds, reptiles and fish that once tickled memory as they crossed my rambling path. I’ve enjoyed writing this book.”

1955 – The Vanished People Idriess, the anthropologist, fearing the end was inevitable for indigenous Australians he sought to chronicle their customs and beliefs before time ran out.

1956 – The Silver City The Broken Hill story where Jack tells of his early life and the only place he ever spoke harshly of. The place where he lost his mother and a town he never returned to for many years.

1957 – Coral Sea Calling A 19th century historical adventure of the beautiful and treacherous Coral Sea and the search for pearls and beche-de-mer.

1958 – Back O’ Cairns Gold prospecting in the far north.

1959 – The Tin Scratchers Northern Queensland tin miners.

1960 – The Wild North Jack’s second book of short stories in which appears “The Blood Hole”, one of his best short essays inspired by the meatworks a mile out of Wyndham. The blood trickled from the meatworks and left ‘brickish red scum’ floating on the surface.

1961 – Tracks of Destiny Northern Australia. The infamous Aboriginal massacre at Mistake Creek is given detailed account in this book.

1962 – My Mate Dick Prospecting for gold in Cape York Peninsula before WW I. Meeting with native warriors and colourful characters such as Crusoe Butcher who, dressed in goatskins, brewed his own potent grog from over-ripe bananas, lizards gall bladders and sulphur.

1963 – Our Living Stone Age A personal account of North Australian Aboriginal life from birth to marriage.

1964 – Our Stone Age Mystery The sequel to Our Living Stone Age and deals with life from marriage to death and beyond.

1968 – Challenge of the North This was Jack’s last book and fittingly he explores unusual ideas for Australia’s survival, He always believed in Australia, its benefits and potential. He wrote “This may be my last book and I have written it above all for the younger generation of
Australians … there are unlimited possibilities and untold rewards and satisfactions for those who devote their brains and skills to Australia’s development”.

mollwollfumble said:

I can’t help wondering if humans are the only race of people who invented the contraceptive before clothing. Isn’t that amazing. Both Ion Idriess and Jack McLaren claim that aborigines have an effective contraceptive. Also, it might be worth looking into family trees of animals other than human, such as chimps, to see if there are marriage taboos that limit interbreeding.

Xavier Herbert also commented on that.

I don’t seem to have any evidence that the aborigine smoked. They used Nicotina and Pituri but they chewed it.
Sucking on pipes and cigarettes seems to have come here with white men.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

I can’t help wondering if humans are the only race of people who invented the contraceptive before clothing. Isn’t that amazing. Both Ion Idriess and Jack McLaren claim that aborigines have an effective contraceptive. Also, it might be worth looking into family trees of animals other than human, such as chimps, to see if there are marriage taboos that limit interbreeding.

Xavier Herbert also commented on that.

The females leave their group and go looking for another.

>The females leave their group and go looking for another.

squabbles with neighbor tribes going way back, escalations of, justifications to plunder/pillage, probably historically involved a genetic plunder in effect, and men being more the ones that do the killing were dominant, so taking ladies was probably part of it.

reducing interbreeding’s related incest (avoidance) and overlaps.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Ion Idress mostly wrote fiction even when it was about opal gougers. Readable fiction but fiction all the same.

If you doubt that “over the range” is non-fiction, the edition I have contains photos by Idriess of all the aboriginal prisoners and their mates. It also contains photos of the first message stick, the funeral bier, the tribesmen for one of the tribes, the stone idol, and the devil man painting, etc.

The book leaves open the question of homosexuality and paedophilia among the aborigines. One of the prisoners has a male “partner”, and one other is fed up with lubras and travels with his “piccinini”.

On a lighter note. Douglas Adams wrote “The Jatravartids are a race of creatures that live on Viltvodle VI. They have blue skin and fifty arms each. They are the only race of people who invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.” I can’t help wondering if humans are the only race of people who invented the contraceptive before clothing. Isn’t that amazing. Both Ion Idriess and Jack McLaren claim that aborigines have an effective contraceptive. Also, it might be worth looking into family trees of animals other than human, such as chimps, to see if there are marriage taboos that limit interbreeding.

As I have said before, Idriess had a very varied and adventurous lifestyle and had personal experience with the books he wrote (I have read a number of them), but that does not mean he was an expert and what he thought or wrote was scientifically correct. His experiences assisted by yarning around the fire are limited in factual information and not applicable to Aborigines generally, as there were over 250 Aboriginal langues groups within Australia, each with their own customs and beliefs. Idriess would have met only a tiny portion of the Aboriginal population, yet you seem to think what he says apply to them all.

If you are really interested why don’t you read why don’t you read some of the more serious publications where scientific information is more reliable and based on fact. You apparently can access journal publications, well why not use it?

transition said:

>The females leave their group and go looking for another.

squabbles with neighbor tribes going way back, escalations of, justifications to plunder/pillage, probably historically involved a genetic plunder in effect, and men being more the ones that do the killing were dominant, so taking ladies was probably part of it.

reducing interbreeding’s related incest (avoidance) and overlaps.

The females are not forced to leave, but do so when sexually mature.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>The females leave their group and go looking for another.

squabbles with neighbor tribes going way back, escalations of, justifications to plunder/pillage, probably historically involved a genetic plunder in effect, and men being more the ones that do the killing were dominant, so taking ladies was probably part of it.

reducing interbreeding’s related incest (avoidance) and overlaps.

The females are not forced to leave, but do so when sexually mature.

yeah was more wandering thought about human history going way back, not the original inhabitants of this continent necessarily.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>The females leave their group and go looking for another.

squabbles with neighbor tribes going way back, escalations of, justifications to plunder/pillage, probably historically involved a genetic plunder in effect, and men being more the ones that do the killing were dominant, so taking ladies was probably part of it.

reducing interbreeding’s related incest (avoidance) and overlaps.

The females are not forced to leave, but do so when sexually mature.

yeah was more wandering thought about human history going way back, not the original inhabitants of this continent necessarily.

In direct answer to that, I have started reading the Ion Idriess book “Red Chief”. No, it’s not about red indians, it’s about chief Red Kangaroo of the Gunnedah tribe.

I have often poo-pooed talk of aboriginal “history” because there is no history from before the coming of the white man in Australia. I was wrong. Aboriginal people have rememberers whose job it is to remember histories from long ago, as this history is passed by word of mouth from generation to generation.. This history is quite different from legend, it concentrates on details of initiation ceremonies, battles and love affairs.

One of these rememberers, who had a superb grasp of the English language, related the story to a white man in Gunnedah of a chief who had died long ago and this was recorded as a diary. Ion Idriess wrote this diary, as accurately as possible (the preamble about how he did this is many pages long) in the book “Red Chief”. He initially didn’t want to write this, as he was fed up with writing about aborigines by this age.

It’s non-fiction, as close to an accurate history of stone age man before the coming of the whites as is possible. In that, it may be uniq

moll…you might find this interesting.

http://www.lynnekelly.com.au/the-memory-code/

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

The females are not forced to leave, but do so when sexually mature.

yeah was more wandering thought about human history going way back, not the original inhabitants of this continent necessarily.

In direct answer to that, I have started reading the Ion Idriess book “Red Chief”. No, it’s not about red indians, it’s about chief Red Kangaroo of the Gunnedah tribe.

I have often poo-pooed talk of aboriginal “history” because there is no history from before the coming of the white man in Australia. I was wrong. Aboriginal people have rememberers whose job it is to remember histories from long ago, as this history is passed by word of mouth from generation to generation.. This history is quite different from legend, it concentrates on details of initiation ceremonies, battles and love affairs.

One of these rememberers, who had a superb grasp of the English language, related the story to a white man in Gunnedah of a chief who had died long ago and this was recorded as a diary. Ion Idriess wrote this diary, as accurately as possible (the preamble about how he did this is many pages long) in the book “Red Chief”. He initially didn’t want to write this, as he was fed up with writing about aborigines by this age.

It’s non-fiction, as close to an accurate history of stone age man before the coming of the whites as is possible. In that, it may be uniq

A small number of people attempted to record some of what was held by those in charge of remembering history but thse are scattered and scarce.

buffy said:

moll…you might find this interesting.

http://www.lynnekelly.com.au/the-memory-code/

That looks very interesting.

buffy said:

moll…you might find this interesting.

http://www.lynnekelly.com.au/the-memory-code/

> She has discovered that this ancient memory technique is the secret behind the great stone monuments like Stonehenge

Um, no.

This ancient memory technique is carried on through corroborees, nightly dance-plays. I’m most of the way though Idriess “Red Chief” now, and it’s clear that this book is non-fiction in the same way that “Keating the musical” is a non-fiction account of Keating. ie. strongly based on fact, but altered in order to fit the music and the political bias of the writer.

The aboriginal diary on which “Red Chief” is based has come to the present day from the retelling of at least four separate corroboree plays. These plays allow for subtleties of thought and action to be transmitted, as well as details such as individual blows in a battle.

mollwollfumble said:

buffy said:

moll…you might find this interesting.

http://www.lynnekelly.com.au/the-memory-code/

> She has discovered that this ancient memory technique is the secret behind the great stone monuments like Stonehenge

Um, no.

This ancient memory technique is carried on through corroborees, nightly dance-plays. I’m most of the way though Idriess “Red Chief” now, and it’s clear that this book is non-fiction in the same way that “Keating the musical” is a non-fiction account of Keating. ie. strongly based on fact, but altered in order to fit the music and the political bias of the writer.

The aboriginal diary on which “Red Chief” is based has come to the present day from the retelling of at least four separate corroboree plays. These plays allow for subtleties of thought and action to be transmitted, as well as details such as individual blows in a battle.

Um, maybe. Always good to be open to new ideas.

You might want to have a read of this, Moll, there is a lot of interesting reading and information in it, taken from many sources which are listed at the end-

https://www.scribd.com/doc/23310373/Red-Kangaroo-war-chief-of-Gunnedah-The-Ewing-Texts

If you truly want to learn more about aboriginal customs and laws, rather than relying on a fellow who is writing in the early 1900s, who uses information from the people who had a lot to gain by dispossession both in the 1800s and in his own time, you might want to look a bit wider.

And dispossession is still happening. I wonder if that’s why Murdoch’s media juggernaut is promoting Ion Idriess a bit?

buffy said:

moll…you might find this interesting.

http://www.lynnekelly.com.au/the-memory-code/

I found her theories very interesting…

“It was only weeks into the PhD in the English program at La Trobe University that I glimpsed the complexity of Australian Aboriginal elders’ knowledge, the first group of cultures I explored in depth.

They memorised a vast amount of information about animals, their identification and behaviour, habitats and uses. A huge number of species of birds, mammals, reptiles and invertebrates were accurately described in stories, even when they had no apparent practical use.

I realised that the elders could identify all the animals across a wide landscape, when I was struggling with just the birds in my local area. I had a field guide; they had only memory.

I started asking the question which soon became an obsession: how could they remember so much stuff?

I soon discovered that elders use song, story, dance and mythology to help retain vast stores of factual information when the culture had no recourse to writing. It was the first step to understanding how they could remember so much stuff.”

https://blogleeg.com/book-extract-has-australian-researcher-lynne-kelly-discovered-the-secret-to-stonehenge/

—

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/lynne-kelly-unlocking-ancient-memory-storehouses/7794182

Here she discusses Stonehenge and demonstrates the Method of loci to create a “memory palace”.

Ian said:

buffy said:

moll…you might find this interesting.

http://www.lynnekelly.com.au/the-memory-code/

I found her theories very interesting…

“It was only weeks into the PhD in the English program at La Trobe University that I glimpsed the complexity of Australian Aboriginal elders’ knowledge, the first group of cultures I explored in depth.

They memorised a vast amount of information about animals, their identification and behaviour, habitats and uses. A huge number of species of birds, mammals, reptiles and invertebrates were accurately described in stories, even when they had no apparent practical use.

I realised that the elders could identify all the animals across a wide landscape, when I was struggling with just the birds in my local area. I had a field guide; they had only memory.

I started asking the question which soon became an obsession: how could they remember so much stuff?

I soon discovered that elders use song, story, dance and mythology to help retain vast stores of factual information when the culture had no recourse to writing. It was the first step to understanding how they could remember so much stuff.”

https://blogleeg.com/book-extract-has-australian-researcher-lynne-kelly-discovered-the-secret-to-stonehenge/

—

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/lynne-kelly-unlocking-ancient-memory-storehouses/7794182

Here she discusses Stonehenge and demonstrates the Method of loci to create a “memory palace”.

I’ve been to a couple of her lectures. She is a fascinating woman. And I have that book. She presented at the Skeptics conference in Melbourne a couple of years ago.

I’ve modified the wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_signal#Aboriginal_Australians based on many passages about smoke signals in The Red Chief and Over the Range. In The Red Chief there is an exact translation of one smoke signal involving a column of black, white and blue smoke and a ball of smoke and a smoke ring, but I’m not sure whether to trust the translation exactly so haven’t included the translation on wikipedia.

The book “The Red Chief” is definitely non-fiction (so far as is possible) set in a time before white man. That would be prior to the crossing of the Blue Mountains in 1813. With a bit of effort, it may be possible to set the date even earlier than that, based on the date of excavation of Red Kangaroo’s bones, age at death and age in the book, and the number of chiefs between Red Kangaroo and the date of excavation.

In The Red Chief, I counted 13 weapons carried by each aborigine on lookout patrol, as well as two “feather-like fire sticks” and a tool belt. The 13 weapons are:
1 shield
1 fighting club
1 stone knife or mussel shell knife
3 fighting spears
2 hunting spears (I think the hunting spears are of lighter construction)
2 fighting boomerang
1 hunting boomerang
1 spear thrower
1 stone tomahawk.

Is this excessive? Not by much, if at all. In one fight, an aboriginal tribesman coming unexpectedly upon a woman stealer used at least the shield, fighting club, 2 fighting and one hunting spears, 2 fighting boomerangs, spear thrower and tomahawk. During the initiation ceremony, an initiate armed only with a shield has to avoid spear thrower with 3 fighting spears and 3 fighting boomerangs.

On the table of aboriginal technology I stated that animal hides weren’t used for clothing. That is true of the Kimberley aborigines, but not of the aborigines of NSW and Victoria who had a cloak of possum skins.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possum-skin_cloak that was used as a cape, mattress, blanket, and to wrap babies. In at least one instance, kangaroo could substitute for possum. In NSW, as in the Kimberleys, aborigines were “clothing optional”.

The Red Chief and Over the Range both discuss aboriginal religion. mollwollfumble was definitely wrong in thinking that stone-age religion is something made up by christian archaeologists. Aboriginal religion before the arrival of white man includes at least:

From The Red Chief

• A single creator who came to Earth before ascending back into the sky, never to return
• A messenger from the creator
• Ghosts, poltergeists
• Reincarnation as animals

From Over the Range

• Ghosts, poltergeists
• At least one stone idol
• Elaborate funerals
• Carrying of bones takes the ghost along with the bones
• Devil animal in cave paintings

From another account by William Buckland

• Reincarnation as white man

Some of this seems startlinglingly like other religions, other parts startlingly different.

How many types of boomerang were there at the time Ion Idriess wasn’t? What did they do? What were they used for? Did any of them come back? What are the differences between a fighting or hunting boomerang?

When on patrol did these men do their own cooking, come back to the camp or stay out on special K rations?

When mentioning that hunting spears were of lighter construction, how is this meant? How does one construct a spear or indeed a boomerang? Is it more about the weight and strength and straightness of the wood or not? There appears little or no mention of which of these weapons were used for hunting or war or simply for ceremonial purposes.

In close quarters as one would imagine a fighting club could be used, why would there also be a need for a hafted stone axe? When would the woomera or spear thrower be used? Is it said that these men stood at distances and tossed spears at each other using spear throwers?

After all that work why toss a good spear away? Did single use spears exist? If so, why?

What would be the purpos of burdening oneself with clacking and noisy bits of different length sticks while attempting to be stealthy?

What was the real use of the shield?

and, if Idriess was such an authority what was wrong with Arthur Upfield’s accounts?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-27/map-of-indigenous-massacres-grows-to-include-more-sites/10040206

> How many types of boomerang were there at the time Ion Idriess wasn’t? What did they do? What were they used for? Did any of them come back? What are the differences between a fighting or hunting boomerang?

In 1700, according to the aboriginal chief, there were two main types of boomerangs. The hunting boomerang isn’t described in detail but from what I’ve seen elsewhere it was used for birds. A boomerang thrown into or over a flock of birds would bring down one or more for dinner.

A fighting boomerang is effective at 100 yards. The curving flight could make it attack from the side, or dip down to hit the legs. In closer fighting it could even attack from the rear. It was used primarily to break a man’s leg or arm. Its main advantage over a spear was that a spear could be relatively easily blocked by a shield. A good fighter could throw two boomerangs so that they would attack an enemy simultaneously.

> When on patrol did these men do their own cooking, come back to the camp or stay out on special K rations?

When on patrol in the Kimberies, Dave, the aboriginal tracker who was also a crack shot would be rent out to shoot kangaroos. If hungry, this would be eaten raw. As the patrol grew in size from 5 to 35, lubras would catch any food that the track passed. Goanna for example. One climbed a tree to tomahawk out a native bees nest. At a lagoon they all went hand-fishing for crocodiles. Very little is said about cooking, except on one occasion when the police made a camp oven, much to the surpise of some of the natives who had never seen one before.

> When mentioning that hunting spears were of lighter construction, how is this meant? How does one construct a spear or indeed a boomerang? Is it more about the weight and strength and straightness of the wood or not? There appears little or no mention of which of these weapons were used for hunting or war or simply for ceremonial purposes.

Nothing is said about how boomerangs are made, but the making of aboriginal spears is described in great detail in “The red chief” and the making of spearheads is described in great detail in “Over the range”. Too much detail to describe here, but spear-making is an art, one of the tribesman excelled at it, but even so could only manage five or so a year of top quality in addition to his normal duties. It involves the correct species of myall, straight grain, shaping with a stone scraper, a shell scraper, sanding, strengthening in a fire, chipping and fitting the head, adjusting the balance, etc.

The hunting spear is easily deflected by a shield. A war spear, thrown with force, can split a shield in two, rendering the opponent unprotected. There is no mention in either book of any weapon being used for ceremonial purposes. Often it will take two or sometimes even three hunting spears to bring down a single kangaroo.

> In close quarters as one would imagine a fighting club could be used, why would there also be a need for a hafted stone axe?

The tomahawk is the weapon of last resort. It is held in the tool belt in the small of the back. It is useful both for digging food animals out of trees and for fighting. It’s most useful when both combattants have shields. I know less about war clubs, but they do come in handy when woman stealing, a tap will render a woman unconscious without permanent injury.

> When would the woomera or spear thrower be used? Is it said that these men stood at distances and tossed spears at each other using spear throwers?

Yes, both in initiation ceremonies and in set duels at 100 yards the men used spear throwers. A good warrior in dangerous territory will keep his spear thrower in hand at all times, to be ready if ambushed.

> After all that work why toss a good spear away? Did single use spears exist? If so, why?

Spear heads are often single use. The barbs will break off rendering then useless. Not always, but usually. Spears themselves are multiple use, only broken deliberately, for example by a person who has been speared or during a raid on an enemy camp to stop the enemy from mounting a counter-raid.

> What would be the purpos of burdening oneself with clacking and noisy bits of different length sticks while attempting to be stealthy?

For real stealth, eg. When creeping up on a wide awake enemy, the spears are put down first and the fighting stick is used.

> What was the real use of the shield?

To parry spears, push them sideways. A fighting club was also used for this. In “the red chief” the edge of a shield was also used to deliver a blow to the neck.

> and, if Idriess was such an authority what was wrong with Arthur Upfield’s accounts?

Idriess was the leading authority on aborigines north of the tropic of capricorn, from cape york to broome. “The red chief” by idriess is a rewrite of a history by a native from Gunnedah.

The only Upfield I’ve read is the murder mystery novel “the batchelors of broken hill” which is not a book about aborigines. What else did he write?

—-

I’m now well into reading Idriess “The cattle King” about Kidman. Not about aborigines.

Ion Idriess gets me charged up.

Ian said:

Ion Idriess gets me charged up.

Positive or negative?

mollwollfumble said:

Idriess was the leading authority on aborigines north of the tropic of capricorn, from cape york to broome.

Yeah nah.
He was a bit of an itinerant, until he found his writing could be put to use. He did have a good range of experiences to write about, for sure. But for me, he was a continuation of a convenient way of looking at how the world works, when you are around the lower rungs of the middle of the pack. As he wrote in the first half of the 1900’s, his writings on aboriginals was a witness to an already very disrupted culture. But selective writing. He had an audience to appeal to, after all. That audience would not have been as receptive to the fact that the early settlers were the ones that stole aboriginal women away in very great numbers, and of the abuse and brutality that could go along with that. And what that might have meant to the remaining menfolk, and the abuse and brutality that they also had dealt to them. And how it was not just confined to early settlement, either.

Dispossession of land and assets, a ready supply of cheap labour, the notion of a hierarchical order of fitness to rule and superiority, cover up of where the real crimes are committed …..the more things change, the more they stay the same.

ruby said:

mollwollfumble said:

Idriess was the leading authority on aborigines north of the tropic of capricorn, from cape york to broome.

Yeah nah.
He was a bit of an itinerant, until he found his writing could be put to use. He did have a good range of experiences to write about, for sure. But for me, he was a continuation of a convenient way of looking at how the world works, when you are around the lower rungs of the middle of the pack. As he wrote in the first half of the 1900’s, his writings on aboriginals was a witness to an already very disrupted culture. But selective writing. He had an audience to appeal to, after all. That audience would not have been as receptive to the fact that the early settlers were the ones that stole aboriginal women away in very great numbers, and of the abuse and brutality that could go along with that. And what that might have meant to the remaining menfolk, and the abuse and brutality that they also had dealt to them. And how it was not just confined to early settlement, either.

Dispossession of land and assets, a ready supply of cheap labour, the notion of a hierarchical order of fitness to rule and superiority, cover up of where the real crimes are committed …..the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yep.

ruby said:

mollwollfumble said:

Idriess was the leading authority on aborigines north of the tropic of capricorn, from cape york to broome.

Yeah nah.
He was a bit of an itinerant, until he found his writing could be put to use. He did have a good range of experiences to write about, for sure. But for me, he was a continuation of a convenient way of looking at how the world works, when you are around the lower rungs of the middle of the pack. As he wrote in the first half of the 1900’s, his writings on aboriginals was a witness to an already very disrupted culture. But selective writing. He had an audience to appeal to, after all. That audience would not have been as receptive to the fact that the early settlers were the ones that stole aboriginal women away in very great numbers, and of the abuse and brutality that could go along with that. And what that might have meant to the remaining menfolk, and the abuse and brutality that they also had dealt to them. And how it was not just confined to early settlement, either.

Dispossession of land and assets, a ready supply of cheap labour, the notion of a hierarchical order of fitness to rule and superiority, cover up of where the real crimes are committed …..the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Very true and well told.

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

mollwollfumble said:

Idriess was the leading authority on aborigines north of the tropic of capricorn, from cape york to broome.

Yeah nah.
He was a bit of an itinerant, until he found his writing could be put to use. He did have a good range of experiences to write about, for sure. But for me, he was a continuation of a convenient way of looking at how the world works, when you are around the lower rungs of the middle of the pack. As he wrote in the first half of the 1900’s, his writings on aboriginals was a witness to an already very disrupted culture. But selective writing. He had an audience to appeal to, after all. That audience would not have been as receptive to the fact that the early settlers were the ones that stole aboriginal women away in very great numbers, and of the abuse and brutality that could go along with that. And what that might have meant to the remaining menfolk, and the abuse and brutality that they also had dealt to them. And how it was not just confined to early settlement, either.

Dispossession of land and assets, a ready supply of cheap labour, the notion of a hierarchical order of fitness to rule and superiority, cover up of where the real crimes are committed …..the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Very true and well told.

Pretty much how all conquered people are treated

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

ruby said:

Yeah nah.
He was a bit of an itinerant, until he found his writing could be put to use. He did have a good range of experiences to write about, for sure. But for me, he was a continuation of a convenient way of looking at how the world works, when you are around the lower rungs of the middle of the pack. As he wrote in the first half of the 1900’s, his writings on aboriginals was a witness to an already very disrupted culture. But selective writing. He had an audience to appeal to, after all. That audience would not have been as receptive to the fact that the early settlers were the ones that stole aboriginal women away in very great numbers, and of the abuse and brutality that could go along with that. And what that might have meant to the remaining menfolk, and the abuse and brutality that they also had dealt to them. And how it was not just confined to early settlement, either.

Dispossession of land and assets, a ready supply of cheap labour, the notion of a hierarchical order of fitness to rule and superiority, cover up of where the real crimes are committed …..the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Very true and well told.

Pretty much how all conquered people are treated

No they are not, because wars are generally between armies and when one is defeated and the country occupied they are told what they can or cannot do. There were no Aboriginal armies, just bands of people no larger than the land could sustain. They were simply shot and driven off their land if they resisted in any way, which was often by the early settlers and their employees or simply for sport. It is far closer to genocide and what the Jews experienced under the Nazis.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Very true and well told.

Pretty much how all conquered people are treated

No they are not, because wars are generally between armies and when one is defeated and the country occupied they are told what they can or cannot do. There were no Aboriginal armies, just bands of people no larger than the land could sustain. They were simply shot and driven off their land if they resisted in any way, which was often by the early settlers and their employees or simply for sport. It is far closer to genocide and what the Jews experienced under the Nazis.

You’ve gone about 50 bridges too far.

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Pretty much how all conquered people are treated

No they are not, because wars are generally between armies and when one is defeated and the country occupied they are told what they can or cannot do. There were no Aboriginal armies, just bands of people no larger than the land could sustain. They were simply shot and driven off their land if they resisted in any way, which was often by the early settlers and their employees or simply for sport. It is far closer to genocide and what the Jews experienced under the Nazis.

You’ve gone about 50 bridges too far.

Have I and in what way? What I have said is the truth, of which current generally European Australians do not like to admit.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Very true and well told.

Pretty much how all conquered people are treated

No they are not, because wars are generally between armies and when one is defeated and the country occupied they are told what they can or cannot do. There were no Aboriginal armies, just bands of people no larger than the land could sustain. They were simply shot and driven off their land if they resisted in any way, which was often by the early settlers and their employees or simply for sport. It is far closer to genocide and what the Jews experienced under the Nazis.

Very accurately put.

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Pretty much how all conquered people are treated

No they are not, because wars are generally between armies and when one is defeated and the country occupied they are told what they can or cannot do. There were no Aboriginal armies, just bands of people no larger than the land could sustain. They were simply shot and driven off their land if they resisted in any way, which was often by the early settlers and their employees or simply for sport. It is far closer to genocide and what the Jews experienced under the Nazis.

You’ve gone about 50 bridges too far.

and you’d tell me I was hypocritical for wanting cats hurt too?

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Pretty much how all conquered people are treated

No they are not, because wars are generally between armies and when one is defeated and the country occupied they are told what they can or cannot do. There were no Aboriginal armies, just bands of people no larger than the land could sustain. They were simply shot and driven off their land if they resisted in any way, which was often by the early settlers and their employees or simply for sport. It is far closer to genocide and what the Jews experienced under the Nazis.

Very accurately put.

Humans treating other humans poorly a common theme throughout history

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

No they are not, because wars are generally between armies and when one is defeated and the country occupied they are told what they can or cannot do. There were no Aboriginal armies, just bands of people no larger than the land could sustain. They were simply shot and driven off their land if they resisted in any way, which was often by the early settlers and their employees or simply for sport. It is far closer to genocide and what the Jews experienced under the Nazis.

You’ve gone about 50 bridges too far.

Have I and in what way? What I have said is the truth, of which current generally European Australians do not like to admit.

emphasis on not wanting to go anywhere near admitting any part thereof.

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

No they are not, because wars are generally between armies and when one is defeated and the country occupied they are told what they can or cannot do. There were no Aboriginal armies, just bands of people no larger than the land could sustain. They were simply shot and driven off their land if they resisted in any way, which was often by the early settlers and their employees or simply for sport. It is far closer to genocide and what the Jews experienced under the Nazis.

You’ve gone about 50 bridges too far.

and you’d tell me I was hypocritical for wanting cats hurt too?

Country invaded and inhabitants killed as the invaders wanted the land sounds like conquering to me just a different method used

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

No they are not, because wars are generally between armies and when one is defeated and the country occupied they are told what they can or cannot do. There were no Aboriginal armies, just bands of people no larger than the land could sustain. They were simply shot and driven off their land if they resisted in any way, which was often by the early settlers and their employees or simply for sport. It is far closer to genocide and what the Jews experienced under the Nazis.

Very accurately put.

Humans treating other humans poorly a common theme throughout history

To varying degrees of nastiness yes but humans do this to all other species of flora and fauna as well.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

No they are not, because wars are generally between armies and when one is defeated and the country occupied they are told what they can or cannot do. There were no Aboriginal armies, just bands of people no larger than the land could sustain. They were simply shot and driven off their land if they resisted in any way, which was often by the early settlers and their employees or simply for sport. It is far closer to genocide and what the Jews experienced under the Nazis.

Very accurately put.

Humans treating other humans poorly a common theme throughout history

The victors are very good at justifying their actions, possibly so they can live with themselves.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

You’ve gone about 50 bridges too far.

and you’d tell me I was hypocritical for wanting cats hurt too?

Country invaded and inhabitants killed as the invaders wanted the land sounds like conquering to me just a different method used

Using that terminology is most impactful as otherwise it’s whitewashed as troublesome natives upsetting the settlers

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Very accurately put.

Humans treating other humans poorly a common theme throughout history

To varying degrees of nastiness yes but humans do this to all other species of flora and fauna as well.

Yes and we haven’t changed much, the cat thing I mentioned was because it seems a convenient excuse to blame an animal for acting according to its nature when humans caused the problem in the first place.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

You’ve gone about 50 bridges too far.

and you’d tell me I was hypocritical for wanting cats hurt too?

Country invaded and inhabitants killed as the invaders wanted the land sounds like conquering to me just a different method used

ffs and you work in a court house?

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

You’ve gone about 50 bridges too far.

and you’d tell me I was hypocritical for wanting cats hurt too?

Country invaded and inhabitants killed as the invaders wanted the land sounds like conquering to me just a different method used

Yes very courageous of the English! I think they won every global conflict with savages with spears and other primitive self-defensive stuff. However they made ripping yarns to tell the kin at home.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

and you’d tell me I was hypocritical for wanting cats hurt too?

Country invaded and inhabitants killed as the invaders wanted the land sounds like conquering to me just a different method used

ffs and you work in a court house?

And ?

It was an invasion and the natives killed

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Humans treating other humans poorly a common theme throughout history

To varying degrees of nastiness yes but humans do this to all other species of flora and fauna as well.

Yes and we haven’t changed much, the cat thing I mentioned was because it seems a convenient excuse to blame an animal for acting according to its nature when humans caused the problem in the first place.

I seem to recall reading the sayings of a spirit guide, some supposed dead Amerindian named Silver Birch.. He was asked in seances for his advice about various things decades ago and the rabbits in Australia came up. His advice ws usually to respect all life but he said that what we cause is our responsibility to fix. Shipping them back to Persia was the option he offered.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Humans treating other humans poorly a common theme throughout history

To varying degrees of nastiness yes but humans do this to all other species of flora and fauna as well.

Yes and we haven’t changed much, the cat thing I mentioned was because it seems a convenient excuse to blame an animal for acting according to its nature when humans caused the problem in the first place.

Poor pussy! Sort of like the Aborigines driving the whiteman back to where they came from. Yes I see the similarity.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

and you’d tell me I was hypocritical for wanting cats hurt too?

Country invaded and inhabitants killed as the invaders wanted the land sounds like conquering to me just a different method used

Yes very courageous of the English! I think they won every global conflict with savages with spears and other primitive self-defensive stuff. However they made ripping yarns to tell the kin at home.

Its not noble and it was an invasion, does calling it that negate how horrible it was ?
No it doesn’t, all wars against a weaker enemy involved genocide, including todays ones.
Australia was settled on the premises the native population didn’t mean a thing and they were conquered slowly over years not in a great big war

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Country invaded and inhabitants killed as the invaders wanted the land sounds like conquering to me just a different method used

ffs and you work in a court house?

And ?

It was an invasion and the natives killed

war crime.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Country invaded and inhabitants killed as the invaders wanted the land sounds like conquering to me just a different method used

Yes very courageous of the English! I think they won every global conflict with savages with spears and other primitive self-defensive stuff. However they made ripping yarns to tell the kin at home.

Its not noble and it was an invasion, does calling it that negate how horrible it was ?
No it doesn’t, all wars against a weaker enemy involved genocide, including todays ones.
Australia was settled on the premises the native population didn’t mean a thing and they were conquered slowly over years not in a great big war

Premise? They called the place Terra Nullis.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

To varying degrees of nastiness yes but humans do this to all other species of flora and fauna as well.

Yes and we haven’t changed much, the cat thing I mentioned was because it seems a convenient excuse to blame an animal for acting according to its nature when humans caused the problem in the first place.

Poor pussy! Sort of like the Aborigines driving the whiteman back to where they came from. Yes I see the similarity.

So are we allowed to be cruel to cats as they killed native wildlife, you ask people and they say they hate cats and want to kill them

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

To varying degrees of nastiness yes but humans do this to all other species of flora and fauna as well.

Yes and we haven’t changed much, the cat thing I mentioned was because it seems a convenient excuse to blame an animal for acting according to its nature when humans caused the problem in the first place.

I seem to recall reading the sayings of a spirit guide, some supposed dead Amerindian named Silver Birch.. He was asked in seances for his advice about various things decades ago and the rabbits in Australia came up. His advice ws usually to respect all life but he said that what we cause is our responsibility to fix. Shipping them back to Persia was the option he offered.

A very smart man.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Yes and we haven’t changed much, the cat thing I mentioned was because it seems a convenient excuse to blame an animal for acting according to its nature when humans caused the problem in the first place.

Poor pussy! Sort of like the Aborigines driving the whiteman back to where they came from. Yes I see the similarity.

So are we allowed to be cruel to cats as they killed native wildlife, you ask people and they say they hate cats and want to kill them

You simply don’t grok it.

Laws are immutable. stop trying to reword them IN CAPITALS.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

ffs and you work in a court house?

And ?

It was an invasion and the natives killed

war crime.

Yes as are most wars, only its not called that by the “good guys”

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Yes very courageous of the English! I think they won every global conflict with savages with spears and other primitive self-defensive stuff. However they made ripping yarns to tell the kin at home.

Its not noble and it was an invasion, does calling it that negate how horrible it was ?
No it doesn’t, all wars against a weaker enemy involved genocide, including todays ones.
Australia was settled on the premises the native population didn’t mean a thing and they were conquered slowly over years not in a great big war

Premise? They called the place Terra Nullis.

I know that so it was already decided the native population didn’t matter or even exist.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Poor pussy! Sort of like the Aborigines driving the whiteman back to where they came from. Yes I see the similarity.

So are we allowed to be cruel to cats as they killed native wildlife, you ask people and they say they hate cats and want to kill them

You simply don’t grok it.

Laws are immutable. stop trying to reword them IN CAPITALS.

And you and PermeateFree come across as smug and blame everything on white people

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Country invaded and inhabitants killed as the invaders wanted the land sounds like conquering to me just a different method used

Yes very courageous of the English! I think they won every global conflict with savages with spears and other primitive self-defensive stuff. However they made ripping yarns to tell the kin at home.

Its not noble and it was an invasion, does calling it that negate how horrible it was ?
No it doesn’t, all wars against a weaker enemy involved genocide, including todays ones.
Australia was settled on the premises the native population didn’t mean a thing and they were conquered slowly over years not in a great big war

But now as it is all finished, we can gloss over the truth and pretend that they and Australia are better off because of it.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Yes and we haven’t changed much, the cat thing I mentioned was because it seems a convenient excuse to blame an animal for acting according to its nature when humans caused the problem in the first place.

I seem to recall reading the sayings of a spirit guide, some supposed dead Amerindian named Silver Birch.. He was asked in seances for his advice about various things decades ago and the rabbits in Australia came up. His advice ws usually to respect all life but he said that what we cause is our responsibility to fix. Shipping them back to Persia was the option he offered.

A very smart man.

A very smart long dead man.

http://www.angelfire.com/ok/SilverBirch/Tcon.html

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

And ?

It was an invasion and the natives killed

war crime.

Yes as are most wars, only its not called that by the “good guys”

and so who were the good guys here?

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Yes very courageous of the English! I think they won every global conflict with savages with spears and other primitive self-defensive stuff. However they made ripping yarns to tell the kin at home.

Its not noble and it was an invasion, does calling it that negate how horrible it was ?
No it doesn’t, all wars against a weaker enemy involved genocide, including todays ones.
Australia was settled on the premises the native population didn’t mean a thing and they were conquered slowly over years not in a great big war

But now as it is all finished, we can gloss over the truth and pretend that they and Australia are better off because of it.

Have I said that ?

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

I seem to recall reading the sayings of a spirit guide, some supposed dead Amerindian named Silver Birch.. He was asked in seances for his advice about various things decades ago and the rabbits in Australia came up. His advice ws usually to respect all life but he said that what we cause is our responsibility to fix. Shipping them back to Persia was the option he offered.

A very smart man.

A very smart long dead man.

http://www.angelfire.com/ok/SilverBirch/Tcon.html

If he was involved in a seance then no he wasn’t smart

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Yes and we haven’t changed much, the cat thing I mentioned was because it seems a convenient excuse to blame an animal for acting according to its nature when humans caused the problem in the first place.

Poor pussy! Sort of like the Aborigines driving the whiteman back to where they came from. Yes I see the similarity.

So are we allowed to be cruel to cats as they killed native wildlife, you ask people and they say they hate cats and want to kill them

Never mind what the cats do to the fauna of Australia, we must forgive them because Cymek thinks they are lovely.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

war crime.

Yes as are most wars, only its not called that by the “good guys”

and so who were the good guys here?

The Aboriginal people minding their own business.
I meant along the lines of our enemy commit wars crimes but we the so called good guys don’t it was friendly fire an accident, etc.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Poor pussy! Sort of like the Aborigines driving the whiteman back to where they came from. Yes I see the similarity.

So are we allowed to be cruel to cats as they killed native wildlife, you ask people and they say they hate cats and want to kill them

Never mind what the cats do to the fauna of Australia, we must forgive them because Cymek thinks they are lovely.

No you two advocate being cruel to them and killing them all off no matter where they live, little bit psychopathic

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

So are we allowed to be cruel to cats as they killed native wildlife, you ask people and they say they hate cats and want to kill them

You simply don’t grok it.

Laws are immutable. stop trying to reword them IN CAPITALS.

And you and PermeateFree come across as smug and blame everything on white people

Hypocrisy is very popular with the victors, just try looking in the mirror occasionally and you might find you are not as pure as you have been lead to believe.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Its not noble and it was an invasion, does calling it that negate how horrible it was ?
No it doesn’t, all wars against a weaker enemy involved genocide, including todays ones.
Australia was settled on the premises the native population didn’t mean a thing and they were conquered slowly over years not in a great big war

Premise? They called the place Terra Nullis.

I know that so it was already decided the native population didn’t matter or even exist.

At first they didn’t exist and when that proved to be impossibly incorrect, they called them savages or mere apes.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

So are we allowed to be cruel to cats as they killed native wildlife, you ask people and they say they hate cats and want to kill them

Never mind what the cats do to the fauna of Australia, we must forgive them because Cymek thinks they are lovely.

No you two advocate being cruel to them and killing them all off no matter where they live, little bit psychopathic

You also blame all the ills of Aboriginal people on the past, can’t blame their parents or themselves even though I see just how nasty some of them are, no excuse for certain behaviours no matter who you are.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

So are we allowed to be cruel to cats as they killed native wildlife, you ask people and they say they hate cats and want to kill them

You simply don’t grok it.

Laws are immutable. stop trying to reword them IN CAPITALS.

And you and PermeateFree come across as smug and blame everything on white people

ar you for real? I don’t want whatever you are smoking. I prfer my own thanks.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Yes very courageous of the English! I think they won every global conflict with savages with spears and other primitive self-defensive stuff. However they made ripping yarns to tell the kin at home.

Its not noble and it was an invasion, does calling it that negate how horrible it was ?
No it doesn’t, all wars against a weaker enemy involved genocide, including todays ones.
Australia was settled on the premises the native population didn’t mean a thing and they were conquered slowly over years not in a great big war

But now as it is all finished, we can gloss over the truth and pretend that they and Australia are better off because of it.

or can we?

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

A very smart man.

A very smart long dead man.

http://www.angelfire.com/ok/SilverBirch/Tcon.html

If he was involved in a seance then no he wasn’t smart

He was portayed to be speaking from the dead. who wrote it is yet to be proven.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

You simply don’t grok it.

Laws are immutable. stop trying to reword them IN CAPITALS.

And you and PermeateFree come across as smug and blame everything on white people

ar you for real? I don’t want whatever you are smoking. I prfer my own thanks.

You do, you excuse everything Aboriginal people do on white people and the past can’t possible make them responsible for their own actions.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Yes as are most wars, only its not called that by the “good guys”

and so who were the good guys here?

The Aboriginal people minding their own business.
I meant along the lines of our enemy commit wars crimes but we the so called good guys don’t it was friendly fire an accident, etc.

Everyone commits war crimes. That’s why wars have their own rules.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

So are we allowed to be cruel to cats as they killed native wildlife, you ask people and they say they hate cats and want to kill them

Never mind what the cats do to the fauna of Australia, we must forgive them because Cymek thinks they are lovely.

No you two advocate being cruel to them and killing them all off no matter where they live, little bit psychopathic

Why is daling with a disadvantageous situation classed as cruel? So you don’t slap mosquitoes?

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

So are we allowed to be cruel to cats as they killed native wildlife, you ask people and they say they hate cats and want to kill them

Never mind what the cats do to the fauna of Australia, we must forgive them because Cymek thinks they are lovely.

No you two advocate being cruel to them and killing them all off no matter where they live, little bit psychopathic

Quite obvious you don’t give a shit about the environmental welfare of this country, of which your opinion is the norm here. Go and rejoice, enjoy it while you can.

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Never mind what the cats do to the fauna of Australia, we must forgive them because Cymek thinks they are lovely.

No you two advocate being cruel to them and killing them all off no matter where they live, little bit psychopathic

You also blame all the ills of Aboriginal people on the past, can’t blame their parents or themselves even though I see just how nasty some of them are, no excuse for certain behaviours no matter who you are.

When have you ever spoken with a pure aboriginal person?

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

And you and PermeateFree come across as smug and blame everything on white people

ar you for real? I don’t want whatever you are smoking. I prfer my own thanks.

You do, you excuse everything Aboriginal people do on white people and the past can’t possible make them responsible for their own actions.

As I said. You do not grok the situation at all.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

and so who were the good guys here?

The Aboriginal people minding their own business.
I meant along the lines of our enemy commit wars crimes but we the so called good guys don’t it was friendly fire an accident, etc.

Everyone commits war crimes. That’s why wars have their own rules.

That’s what I mean, we excuse some because its us.
I have no problem with Aboriginal people but as individuals some of them are nasty people especially to each other, is that acceptable ?
You can’t blame everything on other people else how can you make anything better.
The whole world finds excuses to shift the blame from the individual to some outside entity (whomever that is) some is justified most isn’t

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Never mind what the cats do to the fauna of Australia, we must forgive them because Cymek thinks they are lovely.

No you two advocate being cruel to them and killing them all off no matter where they live, little bit psychopathic

Quite obvious you don’t give a shit about the environmental welfare of this country, of which your opinion is the norm here. Go and rejoice, enjoy it while you can.

Are you judging me by my colour now

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

No you two advocate being cruel to them and killing them all off no matter where they live, little bit psychopathic

Quite obvious you don’t give a shit about the environmental welfare of this country, of which your opinion is the norm here. Go and rejoice, enjoy it while you can.

Are you judging me by my colour now

I think the two of you are smug in you superior attitudes towards us on the forum because we don’t live and breath it like you both claim you do. You’d put the average person trying to change off as they aren’t good enough, like the worst kind of vegans

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Never mind what the cats do to the fauna of Australia, we must forgive them because Cymek thinks they are lovely.

No you two advocate being cruel to them and killing them all off no matter where they live, little bit psychopathic

You also blame all the ills of Aboriginal people on the past, can’t blame their parents or themselves even though I see just how nasty some of them are, no excuse for certain behaviours no matter who you are.

Your problem Cymek is you have no understanding of the history involved with their making of Aborigines today. I agree many are not nice people, but it is largely our fault and something we seem incapable of solving. Perhaps if we examined their history in greater detail, we might find the answer there, but we would need to admit we did far worse things to them them.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

The Aboriginal people minding their own business.
I meant along the lines of our enemy commit wars crimes but we the so called good guys don’t it was friendly fire an accident, etc.

Everyone commits war crimes. That’s why wars have their own rules.

That’s what I mean, we excuse some because its us.
I have no problem with Aboriginal people but as individuals some of them are nasty people especially to each other, is that acceptable ?
You can’t blame everything on other people else how can you make anything better.
The whole world finds excuses to shift the blame from the individual to some outside entity (whomever that is) some is justified most isn’t

Despite the whole speaking from the dead thing. I would encourage anyone to read the teachings of Silver Birch and allow yourself to be there. There will no harm come to you from it. I can assure you that you will only be stripped of your misconceptions.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

No you two advocate being cruel to them and killing them all off no matter where they live, little bit psychopathic

Quite obvious you don’t give a shit about the environmental welfare of this country, of which your opinion is the norm here. Go and rejoice, enjoy it while you can.

Are you judging me by my colour now

stop playing stupid games.

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Quite obvious you don’t give a shit about the environmental welfare of this country, of which your opinion is the norm here. Go and rejoice, enjoy it while you can.

Are you judging me by my colour now

I think the two of you are smug in you superior attitudes towards us on the forum because we don’t live and breath it like you both claim you do. You’d put the average person trying to change off as they aren’t good enough, like the worst kind of vegans

No we just go on the crap you say. It says it all.

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Quite obvious you don’t give a shit about the environmental welfare of this country, of which your opinion is the norm here. Go and rejoice, enjoy it while you can.

Are you judging me by my colour now

I think the two of you are smug in you superior attitudes towards us on the forum because we don’t live and breath it like you both claim you do. You’d put the average person trying to change off as they aren’t good enough, like the worst kind of vegans

You are welcome anytime to spend a week to see how I live. It is probably very similar to yourself apart from the fact that I don’t eat dead animals if I can avoid it.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

No you two advocate being cruel to them and killing them all off no matter where they live, little bit psychopathic

You also blame all the ills of Aboriginal people on the past, can’t blame their parents or themselves even though I see just how nasty some of them are, no excuse for certain behaviours no matter who you are.

Your problem Cymek is you have no understanding of the history involved with their making of Aborigines today. I agree many are not nice people, but it is largely our fault and something we seem incapable of solving. Perhaps if we examined their history in greater detail, we might find the answer there, but we would need to admit we did far worse things to them them.

science needs maths but history also helps.

Wow. I blinked and suddenly the thread doubled in length.

ruby said:

mollwollfumble said:

Idriess was the leading authority on aborigines north of the tropic of capricorn, from cape york to broome.

Yeah nah.
He was a bit of an itinerant, until he found his writing could be put to use. He did have a good range of experiences to write about, for sure. But for me, he was a continuation of a convenient way of looking at how the world works, when you are around the lower rungs of the middle of the pack. As he wrote in the first half of the 1900’s, his writings on aboriginals was a witness to an already very disrupted culture. But selective writing. He had an audience to appeal to, after all. That audience would not have been as receptive to the fact that the early settlers were the ones that stole aboriginal women away in very great numbers, and of the abuse and brutality that could go along with that. And what that might have meant to the remaining menfolk, and the abuse and brutality that they also had dealt to them. And how it was not just confined to early settlement, either.

Dispossession of land and assets, a ready supply of cheap labour, the notion of a hierarchical order of fitness to rule and superiority, cover up of where the real crimes are committed …..the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Ian Idriess is the original on which Crocodile Dundee is based.

It’s not unusual for a white to live for a while with an aboriginal tribe. Idriess is exceptional in that he lived with four (4) aboriginal tribes. What other white can make that claim?

> And how it was not just confined to early settlement, either.

It wasn’t just confined to the whites either. The treatment of women by their aboriginal husbands was freqently even more brutal.

> ready supply of cheap labour.

Aboriginal labour was never cheap. If you employed one then you have to feed and clothe his whole tribe.

> Dispossession of land and assets

Assets?

> the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yeah nah.

Here’s a follow up question. Suppose hypothetically that I procured the publication rights to Idriess, Upfield and Bradman. What’s the next step to getting their books sold?

mollwollfumble said:

Wow. I blinked and suddenly the thread doubled in length.

ruby said:

mollwollfumble said:

Idriess was the leading authority on aborigines north of the tropic of capricorn, from cape york to broome.

Yeah nah.
He was a bit of an itinerant, until he found his writing could be put to use. He did have a good range of experiences to write about, for sure. But for me, he was a continuation of a convenient way of looking at how the world works, when you are around the lower rungs of the middle of the pack. As he wrote in the first half of the 1900’s, his writings on aboriginals was a witness to an already very disrupted culture. But selective writing. He had an audience to appeal to, after all. That audience would not have been as receptive to the fact that the early settlers were the ones that stole aboriginal women away in very great numbers, and of the abuse and brutality that could go along with that. And what that might have meant to the remaining menfolk, and the abuse and brutality that they also had dealt to them. And how it was not just confined to early settlement, either.

Dispossession of land and assets, a ready supply of cheap labour, the notion of a hierarchical order of fitness to rule and superiority, cover up of where the real crimes are committed …..the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Ian Idriess is the original on which Crocodile Dundee is based.

It’s not unusual for a white to live for a while with an aboriginal tribe. Idriess is exceptional in that he lived with four (4) aboriginal tribes. What other white can make that claim?

> And how it was not just confined to early settlement, either.

It wasn’t just confined to the whites either. The treatment of women by their aboriginal husbands was freqently even more brutal.

> ready supply of cheap labour.

Aboriginal labour was never cheap. If you employed one then you have to feed and clothe his whole tribe.

> Dispossession of land and assets

Assets?

> the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yeah nah.

Here’s a follow up question. Suppose hypothetically that I procured the publication rights to Idriess, Upfield and Bradman. What’s the next step to getting their books sold?

Ion Idriess is no authority on anything. He is a story teller yes and he may have done what he thought was research but to credit him is to also suggest that I am the leading scientist on earth.

mollwollfumble said:

Wow. I blinked and suddenly the thread doubled in length.

Here’s a follow up question. Suppose hypothetically that I procured the publication rights to Idriess, Upfield and Bradman. What’s the next step to getting their books sold?

They sell on their merit. I’ve read a lot of Idriess Upfield and Bradman.
I’ m saying what I have already said.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Wow. I blinked and suddenly the thread doubled in length.

Here’s a follow up question. Suppose hypothetically that I procured the publication rights to Idriess, Upfield and Bradman. What’s the next step to getting their books sold?

They sell on their merit. I’ve read a lot of Idriess Upfield and Bradman.
I’ m saying what I have already said.

I’d love to know which ones. Seriously.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Wow. I blinked and suddenly the thread doubled in length.

Here’s a follow up question. Suppose hypothetically that I procured the publication rights to Idriess, Upfield and Bradman. What’s the next step to getting their books sold?

They sell on their merit. I’ve read a lot of Idriess Upfield and Bradman.
I’ m saying what I have already said.

I’d love to know which ones. Seriously.
Do you have a favourite or favourites?
Have you read any that were a waste of time?

I’ve only discovered Idriess in the past fortnight or so.

My current reading of Idriess “The cattle king” has sharpened my senses as to what is fiction and non-fiction in his books.

Locations – non-fiction (this book needs a map).
People’s names and occupations – non-fiction.
Timescale – non-fiction
Insights into the character of the protagonist eg. “for Kidman, to think is to act” – non-fiction.

Conversations – fiction.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Wow. I blinked and suddenly the thread doubled in length.

Here’s a follow up question. Suppose hypothetically that I procured the publication rights to Idriess, Upfield and Bradman. What’s the next step to getting their books sold?

They sell on their merit. I’ve read a lot of Idriess Upfield and Bradman.
I’ m saying what I have already said.

I’d love to know which ones. Seriously.
Do you have a favourite or favourites?
Have you read any that were a waste of time?

I’ve only discovered Idriess in the past fortnight or so.

My current reading of Idriess “The cattle king” has sharpened my senses as to what is fiction and non-fiction in his books.

Locations – non-fiction (this book needs a map).
People’s names and occupations – non-fiction.
Timescale – non-fiction
Insights into the character of the protagonist eg. “for Kidman, to think is to act” – non-fiction.

Conversations – fiction.

Around a decade ago I read every book written by Idriess in the local library, which was something like 5 or 6 books and I enjoyed them all. He is a very good writer and tells engaging stories from his many adventures in real life, so can give many unusual insights into the period and people. However, they are the impressions of a man based on personal experience and hearsay. They are NOT a scientific assessment and do not reflect Aborigines per se, which is what you seem to think and continually record here as fact.

PermeateFree said:

Around a decade ago I read every book written by Idriess in the local library, which was something like 5 or 6 books and I enjoyed them all. He is a very good writer and tells engaging stories from his many adventures in real life, so can give many unusual insights into the period and people. However, they are the impressions of a man based on personal experience and hearsay. They are NOT a scientific assessment and do not reflect Aborigines per se, which is what you seem to think and continually record here as fact.

I’ve finished The Cattle King about Kidman and am 3/4 of the way through Flynn of the Inland.

I agree that 90% of Flynn is fiction.

But I’d say that about 75% of Kidman is fact.
And about 90 to 95% of Over the Range is fact.

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

One “fact” presented in “the red chief” may be checkable independently, even though it is dated about 70 years before Captain Cook. It is claimed that chief Red Kangaroo invented a new type of shield. Shields of this new type can be found in the Adelaide and the Victoria museums. They look like this.

If the ancestry of these shields can be tracked back earlier than 1700 AD then that pushes the date of the story back earlier, too. Perhaps back out of history into legend.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Around a decade ago I read every book written by Idriess in the local library, which was something like 5 or 6 books and I enjoyed them all. He is a very good writer and tells engaging stories from his many adventures in real life, so can give many unusual insights into the period and people. However, they are the impressions of a man based on personal experience and hearsay. They are NOT a scientific assessment and do not reflect Aborigines per se, which is what you seem to think and continually record here as fact.

I’ve finished The Cattle King about Kidman and am 3/4 of the way through Flynn of the Inland.

I agree that 90% of Flynn is fiction.

But I’d say that about 75% of Kidman is fact.
And about 90 to 95% of Over the Range is fact.

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

One “fact” presented in “the red chief” may be checkable independently, even though it is dated about 70 years before Captain Cook. It is claimed that chief Red Kangaroo invented a new type of shield. Shields of this new type can be found in the Adelaide and the Victoria museums. They look like this.

If the ancestry of these shields can be tracked back earlier than 1700 AD then that pushes the date of the story back earlier, too. Perhaps back out of history into legend.

>>Coolamons are generally made by the men. They are usually made from a hardwood such as mallee. In Central Australia, the bean tree was often used. A piece of the outer bark of the tree is removed, then moulded over the fire to give it its distinctive curved sides. Deep ridges were made using a quartz stone knife. It needed to stand for a number of days, with a stick of wood holding it open to prevent it losing its shape. It may also be made of a knot or excrescence (“wirree”), from a tree.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolamon_(vessel)

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Around a decade ago I read every book written by Idriess in the local library, which was something like 5 or 6 books and I enjoyed them all. He is a very good writer and tells engaging stories from his many adventures in real life, so can give many unusual insights into the period and people. However, they are the impressions of a man based on personal experience and hearsay. They are NOT a scientific assessment and do not reflect Aborigines per se, which is what you seem to think and continually record here as fact.

I’ve finished The Cattle King about Kidman and am 3/4 of the way through Flynn of the Inland.

I agree that 90% of Flynn is fiction.

But I’d say that about 75% of Kidman is fact.
And about 90 to 95% of Over the Range is fact.

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

One “fact” presented in “the red chief” may be checkable independently, even though it is dated about 70 years before Captain Cook. It is claimed that chief Red Kangaroo invented a new type of shield. Shields of this new type can be found in the Adelaide and the Victoria museums. They look like this.

If the ancestry of these shields can be tracked back earlier than 1700 AD then that pushes the date of the story back earlier, too. Perhaps back out of history into legend.

>>Coolamons are generally made by the men. They are usually made from a hardwood such as mallee. In Central Australia, the bean tree was often used. A piece of the outer bark of the tree is removed, then moulded over the fire to give it its distinctive curved sides. Deep ridges were made using a quartz stone knife. It needed to stand for a number of days, with a stick of wood holding it open to prevent it losing its shape. It may also be made of a knot or excrescence (“wirree”), from a tree.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolamon_(vessel)

Did they make anything more bottle shaped to carry water

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Around a decade ago I read every book written by Idriess in the local library, which was something like 5 or 6 books and I enjoyed them all. He is a very good writer and tells engaging stories from his many adventures in real life, so can give many unusual insights into the period and people. However, they are the impressions of a man based on personal experience and hearsay. They are NOT a scientific assessment and do not reflect Aborigines per se, which is what you seem to think and continually record here as fact.

I’ve finished The Cattle King about Kidman and am 3/4 of the way through Flynn of the Inland.

I agree that 90% of Flynn is fiction.

But I’d say that about 75% of Kidman is fact.
And about 90 to 95% of Over the Range is fact.

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

One “fact” presented in “the red chief” may be checkable independently, even though it is dated about 70 years before Captain Cook. It is claimed that chief Red Kangaroo invented a new type of shield. Shields of this new type can be found in the Adelaide and the Victoria museums. They look like this.

If the ancestry of these shields can be tracked back earlier than 1700 AD then that pushes the date of the story back earlier, too. Perhaps back out of history into legend.

>>Coolamons are generally made by the men. They are usually made from a hardwood such as mallee. In Central Australia, the bean tree was often used. A piece of the outer bark of the tree is removed, then moulded over the fire to give it its distinctive curved sides. Deep ridges were made using a quartz stone knife. It needed to stand for a number of days, with a stick of wood holding it open to prevent it losing its shape. It may also be made of a knot or excrescence (“wirree”), from a tree.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolamon_(vessel)

Koori Shields Series

https://cv.vic.gov.au/stories/aboriginal-culture/meerreeng-an-here-is-my-country/koori-shields-series/

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Around a decade ago I read every book written by Idriess in the local library, which was something like 5 or 6 books and I enjoyed them all. He is a very good writer and tells engaging stories from his many adventures in real life, so can give many unusual insights into the period and people. However, they are the impressions of a man based on personal experience and hearsay. They are NOT a scientific assessment and do not reflect Aborigines per se, which is what you seem to think and continually record here as fact.

I’ve finished The Cattle King about Kidman and am 3/4 of the way through Flynn of the Inland.

I agree that 90% of Flynn is fiction.

But I’d say that about 75% of Kidman is fact.
And about 90 to 95% of Over the Range is fact.

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

One “fact” presented in “the red chief” may be checkable independently, even though it is dated about 70 years before Captain Cook. It is claimed that chief Red Kangaroo invented a new type of shield. Shields of this new type can be found in the Adelaide and the Victoria museums. They look like this.

If the ancestry of these shields can be tracked back earlier than 1700 AD then that pushes the date of the story back earlier, too. Perhaps back out of history into legend.

>>Coolamons are generally made by the men. They are usually made from a hardwood such as mallee. In Central Australia, the bean tree was often used. A piece of the outer bark of the tree is removed, then moulded over the fire to give it its distinctive curved sides. Deep ridges were made using a quartz stone knife. It needed to stand for a number of days, with a stick of wood holding it open to prevent it losing its shape. It may also be made of a knot or excrescence (“wirree”), from a tree.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolamon_(vessel)

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve finished The Cattle King about Kidman and am 3/4 of the way through Flynn of the Inland.

I agree that 90% of Flynn is fiction.

But I’d say that about 75% of Kidman is fact.
And about 90 to 95% of Over the Range is fact.

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

One “fact” presented in “the red chief” may be checkable independently, even though it is dated about 70 years before Captain Cook. It is claimed that chief Red Kangaroo invented a new type of shield. Shields of this new type can be found in the Adelaide and the Victoria museums. They look like this.

If the ancestry of these shields can be tracked back earlier than 1700 AD then that pushes the date of the story back earlier, too. Perhaps back out of history into legend.

>>Coolamons are generally made by the men. They are usually made from a hardwood such as mallee. In Central Australia, the bean tree was often used. A piece of the outer bark of the tree is removed, then moulded over the fire to give it its distinctive curved sides. Deep ridges were made using a quartz stone knife. It needed to stand for a number of days, with a stick of wood holding it open to prevent it losing its shape. It may also be made of a knot or excrescence (“wirree”), from a tree.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolamon_(vessel)

Did they make anything more bottle shaped to carry water

I think they used to make baskets out of paperbark for carrying water, paperbark will hold water for a considerable time before it gets water logged.

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

>>Coolamons are generally made by the men. They are usually made from a hardwood such as mallee. In Central Australia, the bean tree was often used. A piece of the outer bark of the tree is removed, then moulded over the fire to give it its distinctive curved sides. Deep ridges were made using a quartz stone knife. It needed to stand for a number of days, with a stick of wood holding it open to prevent it losing its shape. It may also be made of a knot or excrescence (“wirree”), from a tree.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolamon_(vessel)

Did they make anything more bottle shaped to carry water

I think they used to make baskets out of paperbark for carrying water, paperbark will hold water for a considerable time before it gets water logged.

The Coolamon wouldn’t be an ideal vessel to carry water in any distance, other stuff it would work great

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

Did they make anything more bottle shaped to carry water

I think they used to make baskets out of paperbark for carrying water, paperbark will hold water for a considerable time before it gets water logged.

The Coolamon wouldn’t be an ideal vessel to carry water in any distance, other stuff it would work great

The coolamon was the coles multiple use shopping bag, baby carrier. It could also be strapped to the feet to traverse swampy ground more easily.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve finished The Cattle King about Kidman and am 3/4 of the way through Flynn of the Inland.

I agree that 90% of Flynn is fiction.

But I’d say that about 75% of Kidman is fact.
And about 90 to 95% of Over the Range is fact.

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

One “fact” presented in “the red chief” may be checkable independently, even though it is dated about 70 years before Captain Cook. It is claimed that chief Red Kangaroo invented a new type of shield. Shields of this new type can be found in the Adelaide and the Victoria museums. They look like this.

If the ancestry of these shields can be tracked back earlier than 1700 AD then that pushes the date of the story back earlier, too. Perhaps back out of history into legend.

>>Coolamons are generally made by the men. They are usually made from a hardwood such as mallee. In Central Australia, the bean tree was often used. A piece of the outer bark of the tree is removed, then moulded over the fire to give it its distinctive curved sides. Deep ridges were made using a quartz stone knife. It needed to stand for a number of days, with a stick of wood holding it open to prevent it losing its shape. It may also be made of a knot or excrescence (“wirree”), from a tree.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolamon_(vessel)

Koori Shields Series

https://cv.vic.gov.au/stories/aboriginal-culture/meerreeng-an-here-is-my-country/koori-shields-series/

>>This is a group of four wooden Aboriginal shields from south-eastern Australia, collected in the 19th century. This type of shield is rounded and tapers to a point at either end. Each shield is uniquely carved and painted by its maker. The shields range in size from 87.4 cm to 133.0 cm in length, 20 cm to 28.5 cm in width and 1.5 cm to 5.4 cm in depth.<<

http://www.scootle.edu.au/ec/viewing/R7580/index.html

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I think they used to make baskets out of paperbark for carrying water, paperbark will hold water for a considerable time before it gets water logged.

The Coolamon wouldn’t be an ideal vessel to carry water in any distance, other stuff it would work great

The coolamon was the coles multiple use shopping bag, baby carrier. It could also be strapped to the feet to traverse swampy ground more easily.

Did they have one off use ones that fell apart halfway going back to camp

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

>>Coolamons are generally made by the men. They are usually made from a hardwood such as mallee. In Central Australia, the bean tree was often used. A piece of the outer bark of the tree is removed, then moulded over the fire to give it its distinctive curved sides. Deep ridges were made using a quartz stone knife. It needed to stand for a number of days, with a stick of wood holding it open to prevent it losing its shape. It may also be made of a knot or excrescence (“wirree”), from a tree.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolamon_(vessel)

Koori Shields Series

https://cv.vic.gov.au/stories/aboriginal-culture/meerreeng-an-here-is-my-country/koori-shields-series/

>>This is a group of four wooden Aboriginal shields from south-eastern Australia, collected in the 19th century. This type of shield is rounded and tapers to a point at either end. Each shield is uniquely carved and painted by its maker. The shields range in size from 87.4 cm to 133.0 cm in length, 20 cm to 28.5 cm in width and 1.5 cm to 5.4 cm in depth.<<

http://www.scootle.edu.au/ec/viewing/R7580/index.html

https://www.flickr.com/photos/aciamax/15221904031

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

The Coolamon wouldn’t be an ideal vessel to carry water in any distance, other stuff it would work great

The coolamon was the coles multiple use shopping bag, baby carrier. It could also be strapped to the feet to traverse swampy ground more easily.

Did they have one off use ones that fell apart halfway going back to camp

No. They knew they were going to fall apart before they finished taking them from the tree and would quit, try another.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

Koori Shields Series

https://cv.vic.gov.au/stories/aboriginal-culture/meerreeng-an-here-is-my-country/koori-shields-series/

>>This is a group of four wooden Aboriginal shields from south-eastern Australia, collected in the 19th century. This type of shield is rounded and tapers to a point at either end. Each shield is uniquely carved and painted by its maker. The shields range in size from 87.4 cm to 133.0 cm in length, 20 cm to 28.5 cm in width and 1.5 cm to 5.4 cm in depth.<<

http://www.scootle.edu.au/ec/viewing/R7580/index.html

https://www.flickr.com/photos/aciamax/15221904031

With the effort put into making them I imagine they’d be looked after, could give them to children and grandchildren

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

The coolamon was the coles multiple use shopping bag, baby carrier. It could also be strapped to the feet to traverse swampy ground more easily.

Did they have one off use ones that fell apart halfway going back to camp

No. They knew they were going to fall apart before they finished taking them from the tree and would quit, try another.

It was more a reference to the big debacle over one off shopping bags at coles vs multiple use ones

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

>>This is a group of four wooden Aboriginal shields from south-eastern Australia, collected in the 19th century. This type of shield is rounded and tapers to a point at either end. Each shield is uniquely carved and painted by its maker. The shields range in size from 87.4 cm to 133.0 cm in length, 20 cm to 28.5 cm in width and 1.5 cm to 5.4 cm in depth.<<

http://www.scootle.edu.au/ec/viewing/R7580/index.html

https://www.flickr.com/photos/aciamax/15221904031

With the effort put into making them I imagine they’d be looked after, could give them to children and grandchildren

You can see the development and modification from the coolomon shape to the pointed end shields.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Did they have one off use ones that fell apart halfway going back to camp

No. They knew they were going to fall apart before they finished taking them from the tree and would quit, try another.

It was more a reference to the big debacle over one off shopping bags at coles vs multiple use ones

They had single use separs. Hunting spears were designed that way because they were prone to breakage or even getting lost. The better spears were only used in ceremonies.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

No. They knew they were going to fall apart before they finished taking them from the tree and would quit, try another.

It was more a reference to the big debacle over one off shopping bags at coles vs multiple use ones

They had single use separs. Hunting spears were designed that way because they were prone to breakage or even getting lost. The better spears were only used in ceremonies.

That would make sense

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

No. They knew they were going to fall apart before they finished taking them from the tree and would quit, try another.

It was more a reference to the big debacle over one off shopping bags at coles vs multiple use ones

They had single use separs. Hunting spears were designed that way because they were prone to breakage or even getting lost. The better spears were only used in ceremonies.

Probably reused the stone or bone points.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

No. They knew they were going to fall apart before they finished taking them from the tree and would quit, try another.

It was more a reference to the big debacle over one off shopping bags at coles vs multiple use ones

They had single use separs. Hunting spears were designed that way because they were prone to breakage or even getting lost. The better spears were only used in ceremonies.

The tips of hunting spears were often only fire hardened wooden points.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Around a decade ago I read every book written by Idriess in the local library, which was something like 5 or 6 books and I enjoyed them all. He is a very good writer and tells engaging stories from his many adventures in real life, so can give many unusual insights into the period and people. However, they are the impressions of a man based on personal experience and hearsay. They are NOT a scientific assessment and do not reflect Aborigines per se, which is what you seem to think and continually record here as fact.

I’ve finished The Cattle King about Kidman and am 3/4 of the way through Flynn of the Inland.

I agree that 90% of Flynn is fiction.

But I’d say that about 75% of Kidman is fact.
And about 90 to 95% of Over the Range is fact.

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

One “fact” presented in “the red chief” may be checkable independently, even though it is dated about 70 years before Captain Cook. It is claimed that chief Red Kangaroo invented a new type of shield. Shields of this new type can be found in the Adelaide and the Victoria museums. They look like this.

If the ancestry of these shields can be tracked back earlier than 1700 AD then that pushes the date of the story back earlier, too. Perhaps back out of history into legend.

An aboriginal shield of similar design was collected by Captain Cook near Sydney in 1770. This shield from botanical evidence was made at or near South West Rocks Creek on north coast NSW.

Gunnedah is due inland from South West Rocks. In 70 years, such technology could have travelled that far.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

It was more a reference to the big debacle over one off shopping bags at coles vs multiple use ones

They had single use separs. Hunting spears were designed that way because they were prone to breakage or even getting lost. The better spears were only used in ceremonies.

The tips of hunting spears were often only fire hardened wooden points.

true.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Around a decade ago I read every book written by Idriess in the local library, which was something like 5 or 6 books and I enjoyed them all. He is a very good writer and tells engaging stories from his many adventures in real life, so can give many unusual insights into the period and people. However, they are the impressions of a man based on personal experience and hearsay. They are NOT a scientific assessment and do not reflect Aborigines per se, which is what you seem to think and continually record here as fact.

I’ve finished The Cattle King about Kidman and am 3/4 of the way through Flynn of the Inland.

I agree that 90% of Flynn is fiction.

But I’d say that about 75% of Kidman is fact.
And about 90 to 95% of Over the Range is fact.

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

One “fact” presented in “the red chief” may be checkable independently, even though it is dated about 70 years before Captain Cook. It is claimed that chief Red Kangaroo invented a new type of shield. Shields of this new type can be found in the Adelaide and the Victoria museums. They look like this.

If the ancestry of these shields can be tracked back earlier than 1700 AD then that pushes the date of the story back earlier, too. Perhaps back out of history into legend.

An aboriginal shield of similar design was collected by Captain Cook near Sydney in 1770. This shield from botanical evidence was made at or near South West Rocks Creek on north coast NSW.

Gunnedah is due inland from South West Rocks. In 70 years, such technology could have travelled that far.

Of course they could have been around for a lot longer.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve finished The Cattle King about Kidman and am 3/4 of the way through Flynn of the Inland.

I agree that 90% of Flynn is fiction.

But I’d say that about 75% of Kidman is fact.
And about 90 to 95% of Over the Range is fact.

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

One “fact” presented in “the red chief” may be checkable independently, even though it is dated about 70 years before Captain Cook. It is claimed that chief Red Kangaroo invented a new type of shield. Shields of this new type can be found in the Adelaide and the Victoria museums. They look like this.

If the ancestry of these shields can be tracked back earlier than 1700 AD then that pushes the date of the story back earlier, too. Perhaps back out of history into legend.

An aboriginal shield of similar design was collected by Captain Cook near Sydney in 1770. This shield from botanical evidence was made at or near South West Rocks Creek on north coast NSW.

Gunnedah is due inland from South West Rocks. In 70 years, such technology could have travelled that far.

Of course they could have been around for a lot longer.

THis.

mollwollfumble said:

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

Good grief.
Moll, did you read the link that I put up that details how Idriess wrote Red Chief using ‘The Ewing Papers’, which were written from 1890 to 1900? About how he pretty much took verbatim the information from these papers to write the tale…..Idriess wrote Red Chief in the 1950s, at the behest of a Gunnedah local. That’s why I put the link up, the information in there is interesting, and it shows starkly just how awfully we have treated the people who lived in this country for so long before us, and who had a rich culture that we smashed and trampled on. And that Idriess is pretty good at using other people’s good stories to make his own. With Red Chief, Idriess is using notes from the son of the policeman who talked to a remnant of a people who had been through land dispossession and consequent starvation, killings, taking of their women by the dispossessors. Who were sent to the fringes of the society we created here. And are still creating.

The ‘Red Chief’ in Idriess’s story is called Red Kangaroo, and his remains were dug up in 1887 from in front of the engraved tree that marked the spot, much to the disgust of the aboriginals there. One present was Old Joe Bungaree, who had been born in 1817, so was 70 at the time. According to my link, the Ewing papers were written down by the local policeman’s son. The local doctor who liked to collect skulls exorted Senior Sargeant J P Ewing to get Bungaree to tell all he knew about Red Kangaroo and what the carvings on the tree meant, but Bungaree wouldn’t. Other aboriginals were cajoled to tell. But it says that later Bungaree told him stories and he made detailed notes. The skeleton and the carved tree were removed. The man the skeleton belonged to was around 6’3’‘ tall.

For anyone interested, it is worth a read of Michael O’Rourke’s commentary. It jumps around a bit, but has a wealth of information-
https://www.scribd.com/doc/23310373/Red-Kangaroo-war-chief-of-Gunnedah-The-Ewing-Texts

From the link-
This raises two questions:
“What if anything was lost, or added, in the handing down over several generations of stories about a man said to have died in about 1745?”
And:
“What if anything was lost, or added, by their being recorded in English during the High Victorian period, when most white people looked down on Aborigines and Aboriginal culture, and the ‘science’ of anthropology was still in its infancy?”

Also – “I, for one, am very admiring of the pains they took to record, preserve and publicise these stories from long ago. As has been said: ‘we see so far today only because we stand on the shoulders of the giants who preceded us’.”

ruby said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Red Chief, it’s difficult to tell, it’s about 90% faithful to the aboriginal account passed down by corroboree but it’s not exactly clear how reliable the aboriginal account of their own history is. It’s known that aborigines of one tribe would steal good stories from other tribes.

Good grief.
Moll, did you read the link that I put up that details how Idriess wrote Red Chief using ‘The Ewing Papers’, which were written from 1890 to 1900? About how he pretty much took verbatim the information from these papers to write the tale…..Idriess wrote Red Chief in the 1950s, at the behest of a Gunnedah local. That’s why I put the link up, the information in there is interesting, and it shows starkly just how awfully we have treated the people who lived in this country for so long before us, and who had a rich culture that we smashed and trampled on. And that Idriess is pretty good at using other people’s good stories to make his own. With Red Chief, Idriess is using notes from the son of the policeman who talked to a remnant of a people who had been through land dispossession and consequent starvation, killings, taking of their women by the dispossessors. Who were sent to the fringes of the society we created here. And are still creating.

The ‘Red Chief’ in Idriess’s story is called Red Kangaroo, and his remains were dug up in 1887 from in front of the engraved tree that marked the spot, much to the disgust of the aboriginals there. One present was Old Joe Bungaree, who had been born in 1817, so was 70 at the time. According to my link, the Ewing papers were written down by the local policeman’s son. The local doctor who liked to collect skulls exorted Senior Sargeant J P Ewing to get Bungaree to tell all he knew about Red Kangaroo and what the carvings on the tree meant, but Bungaree wouldn’t. Other aboriginals were cajoled to tell. But it says that later Bungaree told him stories and he made detailed notes. The skeleton and the carved tree were removed. The man the skeleton belonged to was around 6’3’‘ tall.

For anyone interested, it is worth a read of Michael O’Rourke’s commentary. It jumps around a bit, but has a wealth of information-
https://www.scribd.com/doc/23310373/Red-Kangaroo-war-chief-of-Gunnedah-The-Ewing-Texts

From the link-
This raises two questions:
“What if anything was lost, or added, in the handing down over several generations of stories about a man said to have died in about 1745?”
And:
“What if anything was lost, or added, by their being recorded in English during the High Victorian period, when most white people looked down on Aborigines and Aboriginal culture, and the ‘science’ of anthropology was still in its infancy?”

Also – “I, for one, am very admiring of the pains they took to record, preserve and publicise these stories from long ago. As has been said: ‘we see so far today only because we stand on the shoulders of the giants who preceded us’.”

Very good.

Interesting reading for Idriess fans, a transcript of him being interviewed by ABC’s Tim Bowden. It’s a great snapshot of a time of change in Australia. My step father grew up in the Daintree rainforest a little while after Idriess was roaming around Australia, his tales had a similar feel to how Idriess talks-

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/legacy/programs/radioeye/documents/idriess.pdf

ruby said:

Interesting reading for Idriess fans, a transcript of him being interviewed by ABC’s Tim Bowden. It’s a great snapshot of a time of change in Australia. My step father grew up in the Daintree rainforest a little while after Idriess was roaming around Australia, his tales had a similar feel to how Idriess talks-

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/legacy/programs/radioeye/documents/idriess.pdf

Thanks for that, ruby.

Back to the topic of the shields. The purpose of the strange-shaped sharp end on the shield is to cut the opponent’s throat in close-in fighting.

As explained in “The Red Chief”, the innovation turns the shield from a weapon of defence to one of defence and offence. Once the spears and boomerangs have been thrown, a warrior is left with shield, fighting club, and with tomahawk in reserve at the small of the back.

Shield and fighting club against shield and fighting club can be a battle to exhaustion. A normal shield can’t do more than break an opponent’s nose, which typically doesn’t help because it just makes the opponent angrier.

But the stalemate can be broken when the bottom edge of the shield is sharpened to an unusually shaped point. In that case, a blow from the bottom edge of the shield to the opponent’s throat, particularly when coupled with a downwards blow from a club on the shield, will damage the opponent’s throat sufficiently to drop him to the ground. At which point a blow from the war club will kill him.