'Missing the point' or 'what to believe--the theory or the data': rationales for the production of Kimberley points.

Akerman, Kim

Abstract: In a recent article, Rodney Harrison presented an interesting view on the role glass Kimberley points played in the lives of the Aborigines who made and used them. Harrison employed ethnographic and historical data to argue that glass Kimberley points were not part of the normal suite of post-contact artefacts used primarily for hunting and fighting or Indigenous exchange purposes, but primarily were created to service a non-Indigenous market for aesthetically pleasing artefacts. Harrison asserted that this market determined the form that these points took. A critical analysis of the data does not substantiate either of these claims. Here I do not deal with Harrison's theoretical material or arguments; I focus on the ethnographic and historical material that he has either omitted or failed to appreciate in developing his thesis and which, in turn, renders it invalid.

**********

In reply to my brief rejoinder (Akerman 2007:133) to his original paper in Current Anthropology (Harrison 2006), Harrison (2007:133) stated that I was conflating marginally retouched (as opposed to invasively pressure-flaked) points and hafted short points (as opposed to long points, which were generally not) manufactured in the Kimberley in the past with those on which my paper concentrates.

In this paper, as in my rejoinder, the term Kimberley point is taken to refer to those points so identified by Akerman and Bindon (1995:92-4)--bifacial points produced by invasive pressure-flaking and with either serrated or denticulate margins points. There is no 'conflation' of point types.

Kimberley points as a late nineteenth-century phenomenon

Harrison (2006:64) initially stated that 'prior to 1885 few stone Kimberley points ... had ever been made'. I gather that this deduction was made on the basis that few points are found in archaeological situations. My own understanding is that the creators of these points did not discard the finished articles casually, either across the landscape or within the usual habitation sites. Blanks and preforms were both lost on sites or abandoned as rejects. As I have noted elsewhere (Akerman 1978), a completed or near-completed point that suffered tip damage--either through use or by accident--was easily rejuvenated and returned to service. Often, after watching knappers at Kalumburu and Mowanjum in the northern and west--Kimberley pressure--flake points for five to six hours at a time, I have been amazed at how little evidence is left of their activity. Any piece of glass more than 25 millimetres long was usually reworked to form a small point--even when the initial desired point length may have been more than 40 millimetres in length.

This situation appears to parallel the case of the metal arrowheads of the Kalahari San. Wiessner (1983:262) noted that since in the vast majority of cases retrieved points are reworked and reused, most arrows left in the archaeological record would be stray finds, and few points would be found on living sites'. Complete Kimberley points are rare on sites but not unknown.

Harrison's attempt to correlate discarded (or lost) tula adze stones with lost or discarded Kimberley points fails to recognise that the former artefacts usually need to be removed by the artisan from their heavy resin mountings before discard--a process that requires fire to warm the mastic--consequently, they are likely to be discarded at occupation sites (or at quarries) when an adze is being refurbished. Kimberley points, on the other hand, break easily from their mounting medium--a design feature in their construction--and can be retrieved and reused until lost or broken in situations away from the area of general occupation.

Having accompanied Aboriginal hunters who hunted with stone- and glass-tipped spears in the 1960s and 1970s, I can state that loss of a point after it had transfixed the quarry was not an uncommon event. If the stone tip was still fixed in the resin-halting medium after impact, it tended to fly free when the spear emerged on the opposite side from point of entry and its momentum was stopped. The point was usually then lost in the leaf litter or dirt. This may account for the isolated finds of points apparently unconnected with other archaeological features. Of course, if a Kimberley point was lost on a living site, there was every chance it would be recovered and used at a later date by the finder or his or her associated male kin. In the 1960s stone and glass points recovered in this way were often re-halted as spearheads or used as ritual knives.

Bowerbirds (Chlamedera nuchalis) were notorious for stealing finished points, and care was taken not to leave them lying around camps or exposed in situations where they could be stolen. The bowers or display areas, the entrances of which male birds decorated with bleached dog faeces, leaves and snail shells, as well as with flakes and other small artefacts, were regularly searched for lost points. In 1973 two glass points made from glass identifiable as originating from Lea and Perrins Worcestershire Sauce bottles were recovered from a bower some 60 kilometres east of Derby (Dr Erich Kolig, personal communication, September 1973); from the impressed brands still visible on the points, the manufacturers of Lea and Perrins identified the glass as originating from bottles from about 1885-90.

The map provided by Harrison (2006:Figure 2) is also erroneous. Traditionally, the manufacture of Kimberley points did not occur on the Dampierland Peninsula (that area north of a line connecting Derby and Broome), although the inhabitants of that area did receive stone and glass points as trade items, as well as spears tipped with them and their associated spear-throwers. The western edge of the southern boundary of point manufacture can probably be best considered as the Fitzroy River Basin. Pressure-flaking of points on the Dampierland Peninsula occurred after colonisation, as men from point-making groups were moved across the landscape to missions, hospitals, prisons etc. (Akerman and Bindon 1983).

Likewise, an injudicious use of references may mislead a reader into accepting Harrison's interpretations of the historical data. For example, while Harrison (2006:69) presents Walter Froggatt as a typical nineteenth-century collector, Froggatt himself does not mention in his brief paper of 1888 that he was a collector of, or indeed sought out, glass spearheads particularly. In fact, the only pertinent quotation relating to any spearheads to be found in Froggatt (1888:652, my emphasis) is that '... their long hair is tied up in a bunch at the back of the head, in which they carry all their spare spear-heads, on which they set great value'. In his reply, Harrison (2007:135) noted that in museums there are examples of spearheads that were collected by Froggatt. As Froggatt was a collector of natural history specimens for William Macleay (Davies 2002:54), the dozen or so spearheads that he collected (Etheridge 1891:34) does not change my opinion that the artefacts are no more than by-blows to his other activities. That is, Froggatt was not specifically making more than a small representative collection of artefacts that he encountered as he travelled. Indeed, examination of the description and images of the Froggatt spearheads indicates only one of them was of bottle glass and that one of them, at least, had been halted (Etheridge 1891:34-6, Plate 6[2]).

Harrison, possibly because his own investigations were carried out in an area richly supplied with superb flaking materials, failed to realise that other areas where Kimberley points occurred were not so well endowed with good-quality stone. Indeed, for most of the Kimberley, suitable stone was rarely quarried but was sought among pebbles or cobbles in stream beds. There is little evidence that all fine stone--except that obtained from major quarries--was 'richly endowed with meaning and efficacy' (Harrison 2007:134). Many sandstone ledges in central Kimberley rock-shelters show signs of battering, where people have sought suitably silicified pieces of cortex to make into spearheads. As Love (1936:74) noted: The Worora man, in his hunting, always keeps his eyes open for useful bits of stone that will make spear-heads. He will take up a piece of broken rock the size of his fist, lying on the surface of the ground, and test it by striking it with any convenient lump of stone lying about that will serve as a hammer ... If it flakes nicely he will break it down to somewhere near the size of a spear-head, and put it in his paperbark wallet, to be dressed into shape at his leisure back in camp.

Lommel (1997:5) also noted that 'The raw material is flaked from suitable boulders in the bush and on the spot brought as far as possible into the rough shape of the spear-head'.

Further removal of bi-face thinning flakes and pressure flakes (most of which shatter on removal) as the point is refined in the camp situation is not going to create vast accumulations of debit-age that would enable the archaeologist to determine how many points were once produced at any such site. While men did pressure-flake points within the locus of a hearth camp, they more often moved to a more isolated situation--on a point or bluff from which a lookout could be kept as they worked, or where they could discuss more esoteric matters in private. Because of the need for good light, pressure-flaking was not generally undertaken within rock-shelters.

The lack of plentiful and concentrated supplies of stone (in most areas) that could be exploited by quarrying is a primary reason why glass became such an important resource that continued to be traded from settlements and towns into the hinterland--up to and into the late 1970s, when there was only a handful of knappers across the region capable of producing these points (Akerman 1979a:246,248).

Kimberley points as spearheads

Regardless of Harrison's assertions, Kimberley points of stone or glass formed eminently suitable spearheads. Both glass and stone points not only penetrate but also have the added advantage over wooden spearheads of promoting haemorrhage. If these points separate from the fore-shaft or break while in the body of a target, they act as shrapnel, which further enhances their efficacy.

Evidence for their use as spearheads has been continually recorded from the early nineteenth century. The first illustrations of Kimberley points can be attributed to King (1827:68). One image, of a large, unmounted point, has been referred to by Akerman and Bindon (1995) and by Akerman (et al. 2002). However, King also illustrates a halted Kimberley point and section of fore-shaft in the same plate (these artefacts were recorded in August 1821). King's illustrations clearly demonstrate that both large and small Kimberley points were established forms at the time of initial contact in the north Kimberley.

I suggest that the points figured by Harrison (2006:Figure 3d-g) are not in fact points that would be halted as functional Kimberley spearheads--Figures 3e and 3f appear to be a late-stage preform prior to, or in the early stages of, final edge treatment and tipping. Figures 3d and 3g appear to be marginally trimmed points.

In an oil painting executed in 1857, the artist Thomas Baines clearly depicted composite spears with Kimberley points, along with barbed wooden spears, being used to threaten members of the Gregory Expedition in the Northern Territory (Braddon 1986:38-9). Titled Thomas Baines and Bowman Meeting the Hostile Tribes on the Baines River 1855, this painting was hung in the exhibition The Sound of the Sky at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory in July and August 2006. Another painting by Baines (Braddon 1986:54) clearly depicts an Aboriginal male, with Kimberley-type spear engaged in spear-thrower, threatening the two men.

On 14 May 1895 teamsters Jack Mulligan and George Ligar were ambushed by Ngalliwurru warriors as they passed through Jasper Gorge at the western end of the Stokes Range, Northern Territory. I collected details of this attack during the course of fieldwork for the Timber Creek Land Claim in the 1980s (Bauman et al. 1984:15). Ligar was speared in the nose with a glass-tipped Kimberley-style spear. The spearhead was said to have separated from the fore-shaft and remained embedded in the wound until it was removed three days later when the men broke through the siege and escaped to Auvergne Station.

Glass Kimberley points--spearheads or souvenirs?

Glass points in the two earliest images of which I am aware have in both cases the resin hafting material present on the distal end--indicating that they were originally mounted on spears and subsequently broken from the shaft prior to collection (Etheridge 1890:Plate 6[2]; 1891:Plate 6121--collected by Froggatt). Similarly, some of the stone points illustrated in these papers also have traces of resin. It was common practice for police, settlement supervisors, pastoralists and missionaries to disarm warriors at any sign of conflict by removing the spearheads or by breaking the very fragile spears. In my own collection are six glass points, each still with evidence of the resin hafting material, that were collected in 1913 from police officers at Wyndham in the northeastern Kimberley.

Glass is more easily worked than stone if, by 'ease', one implies that fewer stages of reduction (and consequently less time) are required to reduce an already even-sectioned, thin piece of glass to a serrated point (Akerman 1979b; Akerman et al. 2002:20, Figure 6). However, it does require the same amount of care and control in order to avoid unnecessary breakage. Nonetheless, as Idriess (1937:62) recorded, 'In an hour three men turned out twenty spear-heads'.

The fact that glass became readily available and required fewer tools to work made it an ideal addition to the knappers' range of raw material. As Idriess (1937:58) noted while on patrol in the then remote central Kimberley: Glass too is eagerly sought and transformed into spear-heads with surprising efficiency and artistry. I watched them at it, for trackers had managed to secrete a few empty beer bottles and scraps of iron in the pack-bags. And so throughout the patrol they managed a little quiet trading.

No mention was made by Idriess of finished glass spearheads heading back with the trackers for sale or exchange with the 'whitefella'. As Helmut Petri (1954:54) noted during fieldwork in the central Kimberley in 1938-39: It would be conceivable that the ancient stone tip industry would fall into oblivion, if sheet iron were one day to be available in any quantity whatever. And yet such a prediction would be too daring, for we have seen people who possessed several spears with iron tips and nevertheless manufactured their old stone spearheads and also used them in the hunt.

In the 1970s I found several caches of tools and implements, hidden in Kimberley rock-shelters, that can be dated to the first half of the twentieth century. These have both metal spearheads, pressure-flakers and other artefacts, as well as pieces of glass at various stages of Kimberley point manufacture. One cache had 11 fragments of unworked bottle glass and 17 pieces in different stages of point manufacture (Akerman 1983:84-5). The second cache had metal-rod spearheads of the types used for taking fish and crocodile, and also included six rectangular pieces of bottle glass, each broken from the polygonal-sectioned body of a bottle with hot wire. Pressure-flakers made from heavy-gauge wire were also present in the cache. The fish and crocodile spears were used without the aid of a spear-thrower, an example of which was also present in the cache. There were, however, no metal spearheads of the so-called 'shovel-nose' type that are thrown with a spearthrower. It is presumed, then, that the owner of this cache used glass-tipped spears for hunting terrestrial game.

Older Aboriginal men, with whom I discussed these caches, saw no anomaly in a man possessing and using both metal and glass spearheads. Indeed, many had done so in their earlier years. This leads us to a question of practicality. A glass point, rapidly made, is of greater economic advantage for spearing most small forms of game--that is, wallabies and smaller kangaroos and larger birds--than a metal spearhead. A stone- or glass-tipped spear, because of its construction, usually only requires the head be replaced if it is lost. This process takes only minutes, requiring only a fire to warm the resin halting material and heat the base of the point to ensure firm adhesion (Akerman 1978). In the same paper, I demonstrate bow the method of hafting used in the Kimberley ensures that major breakage is reduced and the chances of rejuvenation of damaged points enhanced.

On the other hand, a metal head is set in a split in the fore-shaft of the spear. It is fixed initially with a binding of sinew, applied wet. When the sinew is dry, a layer of wax obtained from the hive of a native bee, cleaned of any woodchips, honey or pollen by chewing, and then mixed with powdered charcoal, is applied over the sinew lashing. The wax is softened by warming over a fire and smoothed by rolling the junction of head and fore-shaft along the body of the spear-thrower. A neat binding of bush string (a two-ply twine made by rolling vegetable fibres on the thigh) is then tightly bound around the base of the spearhead and tied off at the fore-shaft. A second coating of wax holds the binding in place and protects it from abrasion. Finally, the craftsman uses the proximal end of the spear-thrower to build up an abrupt shoulder at the base of the exposed section of the spearhead and the junction with the foreshaft. This ensures that the spear will not transfix the animal, resulting in major damage to the spear-shaft or loss of the spearhead if the animal escapes with a minor wound. However, each time the spear is used successfully, it is likely that the spearhead will move and require re-setting. After several successful strikes, the fore-shaft will have begun to split back and will require replacing with a new piece of wood. With big game--the larger kangaroo, emu and, in the pastoral period, cattle--the cost of replacement of the fore-shaft and the regular rebinding of the spearhead was a small price to pay for between 20 and 200 kilograms of meat. In the case of smaller game, however, the use of stone or glass spear-points was obviously an advantage in terms of both time and energy.

In an earlier paper, Harrison (2002:366) presented me as an authority of the impracticability of glass points for hunting: Although it is often stated that glass points would not be practical for use as a hunting weapon (Akerman 1979), it is also possible that they were used by some individuals to escape the need to defer to elders who controlled stone quarries.

Re-reading my 1979 (Akerman 1979a) paper, I find that I made no such assertion. In fact, I know the reverse to be true, and that glass-tipped spears also were used for fighting well into the late 1950s. I have not, in my time in the Kimberley, heard any statement that glass spearheads were less efficient than stone ones. Glass points are known historically to have been deliberately fashioned to arm spears used in homicides. Shaw (1981:166), drawing on police records, noted that, in 1927 at Carlton Station in the eastern Kimberley, three men made glass-tipped spears specifically for the purpose of killing another male deemed to have broken 'tribal law'. Some months after the execution, a police constable visited the scene of the killing, where he collected 'several parts of a human skeleton ... and two broken glass spearheads found in the ribs' (Shaw 1981:166).

Harrison (2007:135) noted that he named 'individuals' who believed that glass points were inferior to stone points when it came to killing large land game. I could list more than 40 men I have known over the years who made and used glass and stone Kimberley points and who did not perceive that one material was better than the other for the purposes of killing anything. At a technical level, flaked glass generally produces far sharper edges than most flakes of stone or mineral--with the exception of crystal quartz, obsidian, ()pal and heat-treated cryptocrystalline silica (cherts, flints etc.).

Harrison's own area of study was one where good-quality stone was abundant and quarries did exist. Access to quarries was open to all adult males of the land-holding clan and also to other affinal male kin (that is, usually males of adjoining clans). The use of glass in these areas was not so much a mechanism whereby the young could avoid deferring to the old but, rather, again, a practical one. The white chert of the south and south-east Kimberley requires heat treatment before it is suitable for pressure-flaking, and a stone Kimberley point demands a more complex reduction sequence than that followed when making a glass point (Akerman 1979b; Akerman et al. 2002:20, Figure 6).

Because of the nature of bottle glass, which has thin walls, large points made from it do not have the same mass as stone points of a similar length and width. Consequently, glass points up to 120 millimetres long can be safely secured with resin to the fore-shaft and used for hunting or fighting. These points may have a width/thickness ratio of eight or even ten (Callahan 1996:18). It is rare to find a very thin, large stone Kimberley point. Kimberley spears with longer glass points were made for the wunan trade circuit and exported far afield. In some instances, Aboriginal men outside the Kimberley who received both large glass Kimberley points and Kimberley spears would haft the points onto the traded shafts (Falkenberg 1968:23). Stone Kimberley points with more than 50 millimetres protruding from the hafting resin were also recorded by Davidson (1935:180), who collected them among the Wardaman at Delamere Station in the Northern Territory.

In the western areas of the Northern Territory, ovate glass points, made from the sides of square-faced gin bottles or from window-pane glass and which could be up to and in excess of 180 millimetres in length and 60 millimetres wide, were halted as spearheads. These glass points were post-contact forms of the stone Wanji points. Stone Wanji points were made from cleavage fragments of sheared hornsfel tuff or other fissile rocks that were trimmed into shape by percussion flaking. Glass Wanji points were usually only trimmed around the margins and exhibited little invasive flaking. These points were directly hafted with beeswax and fibre cord binding into split sockets in bamboo spear-shafts (Akerman and Bindon 1995:90-1).

As a slight digression, in the 2002 paper referred to earlier, Harrison (2002:368-70) raised the notion of Kimberley points being the ultimate mundane expression of Kimberley masculinity. While the manufacture of points might be a male occupation, the spear-thrower, rather than the spear-point or the spear itself, is the general symbol of masculinity and male authority. In those areas where spear-throwers were used to launch spears, men regularly carried them as a symbol of their status and ability. Spears, themselves, were only carried if a man was going hunting or intended to challenge or defend himself against a second party. Two decades or so ago, spearthrowers were still carried by more conservative older men whenever they left their own camps or hearths. Today the practice is found only in the more remote parts of the Western Desert regions. It actually does not require the spear-thrower to be functional. A spear-thrower without a spur attached is still a potent symbol of authority and was used into the 1970s by 'clever men' in parts of the Kimberley to divert or redirect approaching storms and cyclones. Perhaps one can consider the spear-thrower the 'penis' and the spear the 'ejaculate' if Freudian analogies need to be sought.

Among comments appended in Current Anthropology, only Anthony Redmond (2006), with considerable fieldwork experience in the Kimberley and with the advantage of knowledge of the local ethnography, questioned Harrison's interpretations. Redmond queried Harrison's use of the term 'whitefella bottle points', noting quite logically that it reflects the fact that the glass is a product of White society. I would have to say that the terms Dottle spear or glass-Dottle spear, rather than whitefella Dottle points, were the more common Kriol terms used to describe glass points as opposed to stone ones (Kriol: stoneDottle spear) in the more than 40 years that I have been involved with the Kimberley. In the 1970s the term jimbila, likewise, referred to glass spearpoints (rather than stone ones) but today is often used as a gloss for any Kimberley point (Akerman et al. 2002:17-18).

Uses of Kimberley points beyond the region of production

Kimberley points, and spears tipped with Kimberley points, were traded far beyond the regions in which they originated.

In the adjacent Northern Territory, Kimberley spears were received in trade and used for both hunting and fighting. More recently, they have been perceived as prestige trade goods. Falkenberg (1968:19, 24) illustrated Kimberley spears, tipped with large glass Kimberley points collected from the Murinhpatha, at Port Keats in the Northern Territory. Murinhpatha were also shown hafting glass points, showing that they were familiar with the technology, even though they may not have made the points themselves. Falkenberg identified the points as being made of glass and porcelain derived from telegraph insulators. Those identified as 'porcelain', however, appear to be made of the heat-treated white chert commonly used for points in the south-eastern Kimberley--a material often confused with porcelain by the unwary.

Tindale (1965: Figures 20-23; 1985: Figure 1[19]) illustrated large (>60 millimetre) resin-hafted stone Kimberley points used as knives from the arid regions of South and Central Australia.

In terms of perceived metaphysical powers, large glass points were regarded in the Central Australian and Western Desert areas with which I am familiar as potent symbols of lightning and rain and were eagerly sought--not only for their aesthetic appeal, but also for use as ritual knives. This remains the situation today.

Production of Kimberley points for use as spearheads or collection?

During the 1970s at Kalumburu, three knappers each produced between about 50 and 80 glass points each year. These were invariably hafted on spears, which were then traded or sent as gifts to Mowanjum in the western Kimberley, south to Gibb River or east to Kununurra. At this time, I was also assisting to set up an organised market for artefacts aimed at museum and specialist collectors. Regardless of the external demand for glass points--which, I might add, was not great even though I had informed many museums etc. about the possibility of obtaining samples for them--the internal needs ensured that most points did not find their way into non-Indigenous hands. At this time, the spears were still quality wunan trade goods and used in various dance performances. Attrition was rapid and spears rarely lasted more than a year before being damaged beyond repair.

I question Harrison's (2006:71) assumption that large numbers of stone or glass points moved through artefact shops. As Harrison noted, Tyrell's Bookshop sold points for five shillings in 1929, which suggests that rather than being in abundant supply, they were not, in fact, in high demand. In 1960 a stone or glass point could be purchased in the Kimberley for five to ten shillings. In 1966 the cost had not moved and they sold for a dollar each.

In relation to the nature of collectors and collecting, I have seen little evidence that many collections of 25 or more points were made at any one time by a single collector. There are exceptions, but these are few. My impression is that the nature of point collecting is similar to the collecting of carved boab nuts or boomerangs, for most people who visited the region. One major exception is the 120 halted and un-hafted specimens in the Western Australian Museum (Harrison 2006:70). The majority of these points, in fact, came from one source--the then Protector of Aborigines, AO Neville. Neville was in a unique position to collect--points were sent to him by his officers, missionaries etc. on the reserves under his jurisdiction. Most men carried between two and six spears, so, taking the lower figure, the Western Australian Museum collection really only briefly deprived 60 men of two spearheads or spears each--hardly an indication of intense collection.

Similarly, Balfour's (1951:274) illustration of the contents of a bark wallet collected from a Worrorra tribesman shows that it held, along with pressure-flaking tools etc., 21 completed points. In 1917 JRB Love estimated that the Worrorra numbered about 300 individuals, with about 50 of these being less than 12 years of age (Love 1917:21). Taking into account age and gender of the remaining 250 people, I would suggest that there were probably about 70 males making and owning spearheads. This indicates that, even halving the number of points per toolkit that Balfour recorded, there were among the Worrorra alone at any one time possibly 700 glass or stone points--not including those already hafted as spear-points. Extrapolating further, I would say that, among all those using Kimberley points in the 1930s, there were probably at least 5000 points either in wallets or halted on spears in the region on any one clay.

Redmond (2006:81) noted the high rates of production required to keep hunters equipped with spearheads. Lommel (1997:5) recorded that 'As the heads break off after every throw, no matter whether the target was hit or not, one can imagine that the Aborigines are constantly busy making stone spear-heads'. Love (1936:74) also noted that the making of spearheads was the main occupation of adult men.

Collectors such as Love and Balfour did provide points to museums outside Australia--but again these were usually part of a wider collection of artefacts that demonstrated the whole reduction sequence and were never in great numbers. The British Museum has only two complete points collected by Love, for example. Balfour, who did visit the Kimberley, made a large collection of points for himself and, yes, he so admired the aesthetic qualities of the points that he took pieces of potch opal with him that were flaked into small points. Likewise, Tindale in 1953, while recording pressure-flaking techniques in the south-eastern Kimberley, also made large collections of points in various stages of manufacture for the South Australian Museum. These collectors, however, are hardly representative of the general collecting trends in the first half of the twentieth century. Consequently, I challenge Harrison's (2006:70) view that 'The number of points in museum collections in Australia is probably in the thousands'. I do not accept, as Harrison (2007:134) asserts, that 'such large holdings of any one item of material culture must indicate some sort of fetish for their acquisition'.

A cursory glance at the figures (approximately 500+ specimens in three major Australian museums) referred to by Harrison (2006:70), in over a century of collecting, cannot be considered an indication of intense collection. Some Australian museums, such as the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, have less than a dozen examples; the British Museum has less than 70. Clearly, relatively few Kimberley points were made specifically for the market or actually ended up in the hands of the collectors or institutions. The production of Kimberley points cannot, therefore, be equated with the production of obsidian knives in the Admiralty Islands, as discussed by Torrence (1993; 2000).

It is the lack of other than specialist interest in Kimberley points, of either glass or stone, that has probably led to the loss of transmission of the skills required to produce them, rather than a post-1930 awareness or 'broad understanding of the technique of their manufacture' (Harrison 2007:134). This is strange when one considers that artisans from those Kimberley communities that once made stone and glass points began to produce artefacts such as boomerangs and didjeridus (with which they were traditionally never associated) for the market, rather than the points that Harrison believes were in such keen demand.

Strangely enough, with the recent growth of interest by collectors and investors in Aboriginal art and artefacts, Kimberley points may hold more fascination today than they ever did in the past. Examination of catalogue records of auction houses, such as those of Sotheby's International, suggests that Kimberley points only come onto the market occasionally, and when they do, they command relatively much higher prices than they ever did in the past. The fact that they are rarely offered also suggests that there is not a vast pool of points that have been accumulated on which the market can draw

Conclusion

in perhaps misunderstanding the general ethnography, as well as the history, of Kimberley point collection, Harrison's views on art theory, colonialism and artefact collecting in Australia, and concomitant implications for understanding the history and current practice of archaeology in relation to the points, appear to be no longer valid.

As I see it, a knowledge of both the ethnography of the area and its history allows one to understand why Kimberley points are not represented to any great degree in the archaeological landscape--an understanding that need not be based on the influence of spellbound collectors.

The only irony I find in Harrison's paper is that an academic audience has been treated to a wonderful example of the careful unpacking of a suitcase full of post-modern narratives, while being distracted in the presentation from the fact that the suitcase was selectively pre-packed. On the other hand, the paper may simply reflect Harrison's own post-colonial enchantment (or conflicts) with these artefacts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In relation to particularly detailed information on Kimberley spears, I acknowledge the following men: Frank Regent, Sam Woolagoodja, Collier Bangmoro, Windbag Ordu, George Jomeri and Albert Barunga (all from the then Mowanjum Mission); Radio Pijaduwai, Jack Jowan and Kicker Winjanji (of Tablelands Station); Manila Kutwit, Hector Dangal, Geoffrey Mangolamara, Jack and Louis Karadada and Fred Jakomarra (from Kalumburu Mission); Johnny Lannigan and Charlie Wilbilla (Halls Creek) and, finally, Ronald Morgan and Robert Roberts (of Oombulgarri). I thank Jill Hasell (Pacific and Australian Collections) at the British Museum and Jeremy Coote, Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, for supplying me with data on their Kimberley point collections. Harry Allen kindly drew my attention to the paper by Falkenberg. Sandra Bowdler, Peter Veth, Tony Redmond and Richard Fullagar read drafts of this paper--I am most grateful for their insights and comments. Barry Cundy generously provided me with a draft translation of Falkenberg's paper. I am grateful also to Sean Ulm for editorial advice. Finally I thank Val Hawkes for her editorial assistance.

REFERENCES

Akerman, Kim 1978 'Notes on the Kimberley stone-tipped spear, focusing on the hafting mechanism', Mankind 11(4):486-9.

--1979a 'Material culture and trade in the Kimberleys today' in RM Berndt (ed.) Aborigines of the West, University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, pp.243-51.

--1979b 'Flaking stone with wooden tools', The Artefact 4(3 and 4):79-80.

--1983 'Mangatji's memorial' in M Smith (ed.) Archaeology at ANZAAS 1983, Western Australian Museum, Perth, pp. 81-5.

--2007 'On Kimberley points and the politics of enchantment', Current Anthropology 48(1):134.

--and Peter Bindon 1983 'Evidence of Aboriginal lithic experimentation on the Dampierland Peninsula, in M Smith (ed.) Archaeology at ANZAAS 1983, Western Australian Museum, Perth, pp.75-80.

--and Peter Bindon 1995 'Dentate and related stone biface points from northern Australia', The Beagle, Records of the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory 12:89-99.

--Richard Fullagar and Annetou van Gijn 2002 'Weapons and wunan: Production, function and exchange of Kimberley points', Australian Aboriginal Studies

2002/1:13-42.

Balfour, Henry R 1951 'A native tool kit from the Kimberley District, Western Australia', Mankind 4(7):273-4.

Bauman, Toni, Kim Akerman and Kingsley Palmer 1984 The Timber Creek Land Claim: Claim book, Northern Land Council, Darwin.

Braddon, Russell 1986 Thomas Barnes and the North Australian Expedition, Collins in association with the Royal Geographical Society, Sydney.

Callahan, Eric 1996 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A manual for flintknappers and lithic analysts, Piltdown Productions, Lynchburg VA (reprinted from Archaeology of Eastern North America 7, 1979).

Davidson, Daniel Sutherland 1935 'Archaeological problems of northern Australia', Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 65:145-83.

Davies, Susan M 2002 Collected: 150 Years of Aboriginal art and artifacts at the Macleay Museum, Macleay Museum and The University of Sydney, Sydney.

Etheridge, Robert 1890 'On some beautifully-formed stone spear heads, from Kimberley, northwest Australia', Records of the Geological Survey of New South Wales 11(2):61-5.

--1891 'Spear-heads from the Kimberley', Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 6(1):34-7.

Falkenberg, Johannes 1968 'Spyd og kastetraer fra murinhataene i Nord-Australia', University of Oslo Ethnographic Museum Yearbook--1968, pp.15-38.

Froggatt, Walter W 1888 'Notes on the natives of West Kimberley, N. W. Australia', Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 3(2):651-6.

Harrison, Rodney 2002 'Archaeology and the colonial encounter: Kimberley spear-points, cultural identity and masculinity in the north of Australia', Journal of Social Archaeology 2(3):352-77.

--2006 'Artefacts of colonial desire: Kimberley points and the politics of enchantment', Current Anthropology 47(1):63-79.

--2007 'Reply to Akerman--On Kimberley points and the politics of enchantment', Current Anthropology 48(1):134-5.

Idriess, Ion L 1937 Over the Range: Sunshine and shadow in the Kimberleys, Angus & Robertson, Sydney.

Lommel, Andreas 1997 The Unamhal: A tribe in northwest Australia, Takarakka Nowan Kas Publications, Carnarvon Gorge (English translation of Die Unambal: ein Stature in nordwest Australien, Museum of Ethnology, Hamburg 1952).

Love, James Robert Beattie 1917 'Notes on the Worora tribe of north-western Australia', Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 41:21-38.

--1936 Stone-age Bushmen of Today: Life and adventure among a tribe of savages in north-western Australia, Blackie, London.

Petri, Helmut 1954 Sterbende Welt in Nordwest Australien, Limbach Verl, Braunschweig.

Redmond, Anthony 2006 'Reply: CA comments', Current Anthropology 47(1):80-1.

Shaw, Bruce 1981 My Country of the Pelican Dreaming: The life o fan Australian Aborigine of the Gadjerong, Grant Ngabidj, 1904-1977, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Tindale Norman B 1965 'Stone implement making among the Nakako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the Great Western Desert', Records of the South Australia Museum 15(1):131-64.

--1985 'Australian Aboriginal techniques of pressure-flaking stone implements: Some personal observations' in MG Plew, JC Woods and MG Pavesic (eds) Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in honor of Don E Crabtree, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM, pp.1-33.

Torrence, Robin 1993 'Ethnoarchaeology, museum collections and prehistoric exchange: Obsidian-tipped artefacts from the Admiralty Islands', World Archaeology 24(3):467-81.

--2000 'Just another trader? An archaeological perspective on European barter with Admiralty Islanders, Papua New Guinea' in C Kaufmann, C Kocher and S Ohnemus (eds) The Archaeology of Difference: Negotiating cross-cultural engagements in Oceania, Routledge, London, pp.104-41.

Wiessner, Polly 1983 'Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points', American Antiquity 48(2):253-76.

Kim Akerman

Moonah

Kim Akerman, Moonah 7009.

<kimakerman@tastel.net.au>