ENGLAND: THE OTHER WITHIN

Pitt Rivers and boomerang technology

Alison Petch,
Researcher 'The Other Within' project

Pitt Rivers was interested in his artefacts mostly for what he believed they could tell him about the evolution of people from the 'simple to the complex', from the earliest man to modern Victorian Englishman. However, as his work on stone tools shows, he was also interested in working out how things were made, and how they worked. A case in point for these interests is the work he did on boomerangs. In 1883 he seemed to confirm that his interest in boomerang technology had been lifelong:

'The form of the returning boomerang, its curve, its twist, and its peculiar section, flat on one side and convex on the other, has long been known in this country, and fac-similes of it have been used as toys for many years. More than forty years ago, when a boy, I practised with one of them copied from an Australian specimen, and acquired some skill in throwing it so as to return to me repeatedly, and also to pass behind me in its return flight.' [Footnote 2, Pitt Rivers, 1883: 457]

His earliest public mention of this work is in 1868:

A further movement is effected in the flight of the boomerang by giving the arms a slight lateral twist, by means of which it is caused to rise by virtue of its rotation, screwing itself up in the air precisely in the same manner that a boy's flying-top rises to the ceiling. By means of this addition, the weapon is sometimes made to strike an object in its fall to the ground, behind the thrower, but the twist is not by any means invariable, as any one may see by examining a collection of these weapons. Nor is it essential to ensure a return fall, which I have frequently ascertained by practising with a boomerang that was perfectly flat. [Primitive Warfare II, published again in 1906: 125]

On December 19 1869 he wrote to Edward Burnett Tylor who had obviously written to him asking about his views on boomerangs. He wrote:

There appears to me to long too much focus on the return flight of the boomerang, which is very useless and as far as I can learn but seldom productive. I am told they will kill a bird sitting at a few yards distance by [NEXT PAGE] a direct throw and amongst a large flock of birds in the air it can be made to fly about in all directions with the chance of hitting something but as to hitting an object behind the back of what use would it be. The only difference between the Australian boomerangs and that of the ?Kolis is that the former is about 1/16 or 1/4 inch thinner and therefore lighter which causes it to fly about. But Jim Walter Elliot tells me the Kolis use it for larger game than the Australians and he has seen them break the leg of a tiger with it. To do that they must of course use a heavier weapon. In all other respects except [NEXT PAGE] weight and thickness the two weapons are identical both in respect to form and manner of throwing. ... [NEXT PAGE] It certainly is a mistake to suppose that the flight of the boomerang depends on its being flat on one side and convex on the other, or that the twist is necessary. When they have those forms no doubt its flight is affected by them but the majority have neither twist nor flat side and I have ascertained by practising with a perfectly flat one that it is not necessary. As to calculating the flight of the boomerang which I am told some German Author pretends to have done. It may be all very well as a mathematical exercise but quite impossible to apply. I believe no two boomerangs will fly quite alike nor will the same boomerang (after touching the ground as they make them often do) fly twice in the same direction. NEXT PAGE
(f.30) The Australians who exhibited their forms in the country last year threw the boomerang. They fell in all parts of the field and many were lost by falling amongst the crowd. When therefore you consider the uselessness of the return flight - which is the point in which the two weapons differ, and on the other hand the advantages of rotation, of the curve as facilitating rotation, of throwing the weapon point first to overcome the resistance of the atmosphere which are points in which they resemble each other I think I NEXT PAGE am justified in saying that the resemblances are greater than the differences and thus the differences are no greater than might be naturally expected suggesting the weapon to have had a common origin and to have survived amongst races which have been countless ages separated from one another. [British Library Tylor papers Add. 50254 ff. 28 - 31, 84, 141 (32 envelope) f.28 and f.30]

The sentence 'The Australians who exhibited their forms in the country last year threw the boomerang' is presumably a reference to the Aboriginal cricket tour of 1868. It was a 'cricket team made up of Australian Aborigines that toured England between May and October 1868, the first Australian cricket team to travel overseas. [see wikipedia article] The team was composed of men from Victoria mostly who had first played publicly in Melbourne on Boxing Day 1866. According to the wikipedia entry, 'the Aborigines frequently put on an exhibition of boomerang and spear throwing at the conclusion of a match'. Pitt Rivers remarks more fully about this in 1883:

'It is worthy of observation that although these natives [the Australian cricket tour], when exhibiting in this country, produced the most marvellous flights with the boomerang, using it as a toy, they never to my knowledge attempted to employ it as a weapon of precision. I should like to know how many animals a native in his own country will kill in a day with this weapon, by striking them in the return flight, and under what circumstances and for what purposes the return flight is employed. [Pitt Rivers, 1883: 463]

He referred publicly to this work again in 1872:

Any one who will take the trouble to practise with the different forms of this weapon will perceive that the essential principle of the boomerang (call it by whatever name you please) consists of its bent and flat form, by means of which it can be thrown with a rotary movement, therefore increasing the range and flatness of the trajectory. I have practised with the boomerangs of different nations. I made a facsimile of the Egyptian boomerang in the British Museum, and practised with it for some time upon Wormwood Scrubs, and I found that in time I could increase the range from fifty to one hundred paces, which is much further than I could throw an ordinary stick of the same size with accuracy. I also succeeded in at last obtaining a return flight, so that the weapon, after flying seventy paces forward, returned to within seven paces of the position in which I was standing. [Report of the BAAS for 1872 Address to the Department of Anthropology. Lane Fox p. 161]

Wormwood Scrubs is an open space located in the north east corner of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in west London. It is one of the largest areas of common land in London. It has been an open public space since the Wormwood Scrubs Act of 1879 (which is later than Pitt Rivers' use of it to throw boomerangs, but it was presumably a public open space before that). According to wikipedia, the Scrubs had been used to exercise cavalry horses and as common land. When he was practising there, the famous Wormwood Scrubs Prison had not been built, work began there in 1875. At this time Pitt Rivers lived in Phillimore Gardens, about a mile from Wormwood Scrubs (he wrote from there to Tylor in 1869). The Scrubs must have appealed to him as a location for experimentation as it was open, and presumably not as full of other visitors as more formal parks.

Pitt Rivers' Boomerang Theory

In Pitt Rivers' 1874 catalogue of the boomerang displays he arranged at Bethnal Green Museum he wrote a section to describe Screen 6, used to display boomerangs, 'arranged from left to right to show the transition from the simple stick to the boomerang, and ultimately to the malga, another form of Australian weapon used as a war pick'. [Pitt Rivers, 1874: 30]

His introduction reads:

The boomerang is a flat curved stick used by the Australians, the Africans, and Hill tribes of India, for throwing with a rotatory motion at animals, and as a weapon of war. It is a term commonly applied to weapons which are supposed to have the property of returning to their owner when thrown, but this characteristic, it will be seen, is not generic, and applies only to a particular form of this weapon. This series is arranged with a view of explaining the origin and development of the weapon, and of showing that it was not an invention, as some suppose, which would have required far greater knowledge of the laws of projectiles than is possessed by the people who use it, but simply a weapon accidentally produced and retained by the selection of the natural forms of the stems of trees and branches suitable for the purpose. ... The plain stick as cut from the tree would be the first weapon to suggest itself, and this would be used for throwing as well as for striking. ... A curved stick, when thrown from the hand rotates of its own accord, and it would soon be discovered that a flat curved stick formed by splitting a branch in half down the centre would fly further than a round one. The savage would be entirely ignorant of the reason for this; he would not understand that the rotation would cause the thin edge to be presented constantly to the resistance of the atmosphere in front, whilst the flat sides for the same reason would impede its fall; but he would find in practice that the thinner he made it the further it would fly, and this really constitutes the generic characteristic of the boomerang, and is applicable to those of all the countries represented upon this screen. By degrees it would be found that by throwing the boomerang at an angle upwards, it could be made to return; and this would be extremely useful to the savage, for by that means, in throwing his weapon at birds over swamps and rivers, it would return to the bank from which he threw it, and be saved. This depends on the movement of rotation continuing after the forward movement has ceased, by which means the axis of rotation continuing parallel to itself, and the fore part of the weapon being tilted upwards, in falling, it glides backwards on an inclined plane, in the same manner that a kite, when the string is suddenly broken, falls backwards for some distance on the plane of its length; in other cases the axis of rotation gradually changing its direction the weapon turns over and falls back topside turvey. But the savage would arrive at this knowledge empirically, without the slightest effort of reason. Finally it would be discovered that when the boomerang was slightly twisted in a particular direction, like the two arms of a windmill set in oblique planes, it would screw itself up in the air. But this he would arrive at more probably by imperfect workmanship, owing to the difficulty of constructing the weapon on a true plane than from any knowledge of its principle of action. All these different stages of development may be seen in any number of Australian boomerangs collected together. ... An improved form of this weapon [used by the 'Kolis of Guzerat'] ... i used by the Marawas of Madura, and some of these are much thinner than the boomerang of the Kolis, and in practice I have found them to fply with a return flight like the Australian boomerang. ... Nos 167, 168 and 169 are fac-similes of an Egyptian boomerang in the British Museum ... In order to ascertain by experiment whether this was really a boomerang, I had these facsimiles made with great care from the original of different kinds of wood, and they have been found by experiment to fly like a boomerang, ranging about 100 paces, and returning to within a few feet of the thrower. This experiment settles the question of the use of boomerang by the Egyptians, which, owing to the ill-defined representations of them in Egyptian sculptures, was previously open to dispute. ... [Pitt Rivers, 1874: 28-31]

Pitt Rivers' conclusions about the development of the boomerang, as set out in 1883, were:

Firstly, the origin of the weapon may be ascribed to the tendency of all savages to throw their weapons at their enemies. ... Such weapons when thrown necessarily rotate in their flight, but not being specially adapted for rotation the movement is constantly impeded by the resistance of the air, and both the range and accuracy of the missile are necessarily impaired through this cause. ...
In the second stage it would be discovered that a round curved stick would rotate more freely than a straight one. The impetus following the direction of the rotation would overcome the resistance afforded by the air to the movement of rotation. The weapon in its forward movement would be rapidly presented to the opposing air on its different sides, and the result would be an increase both of range and accuracy.
The third stage would be reached when it was found that by splitting the weapon in half throughout its length, and thereby opposing to the atmosphere a thinner edge, both the rotation and the range would be still further increased. ... This I consider to be the most important stage in the development of the boomerang. ... It was in this stage that I suppose it was carried by the black races into those distant regions in which it is now used. I have ascertained by experimenting with fac-similes of the Egyptian boomerang, that the first idea of a return flight may have occurred to the people who used the boomerang in this stage. ...
We have now, in the fourth stage, an additional force to consider in the flight of the weapon .. By constant practice and experience, which alone has been the instructor of the savage during all these improvements, rather than by any knowledge of the principles of its flight, he would soon learn to control and utilise these movements so as to make the weapon return towards him after it has done its work in the air.
But this last stage of improvement, so far as we at present know, was effected in Australia only ... [Pitt Rivers, 1883: 460-1]

As regard Egyptian boomerangs, he concluded:

'the Egyptian boomerang is not merely a bent stick, but a real flat boomerang. It is what I call the third stage of development , and therefore its affinity to the returning boomerang of the Australians is greater than has been supposed' [Pitt Rivers, 1883: 463]

Museum boomerangs and facsimiles

In 1883 Pitt Rivers published an article 'On the Egyptian Boomerang and its affinities' in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute. In the article Pitt Rivers referred to an artefact he had obtained, by a circuitious route: an Egyptian boomerang and to similar artefacts which had ended up in the British Museum.

I had a fac-simile made of it for experiment some years ago, and found that by throwing it against the wind I could make it return to my feet several times running: it has a flat enlargement at one end, and a similar but smaller enlargement at the other. [The boomerang he refers to is Plate XiV Fig 9 in the article, and came from the British Museum][Pitt Rivers, 1883: 456]

In the article Pitt Rivers refers to taking drawings of boomerangs he found in various museum collections. He seems to have had a series of facsimile boomerangs made:

Fig. 7 is the one to which I have referred as being marked with the name of Rameses the Great, 1355 BC. It has a flat enlargement at one end, and the opposite end is hooked and slightly twisted. I had a facsimile made of it for experiment and a similar twist given to the curved end; but it was found that it had no effect in screwing it up in the air, as indeed might be anticipated from its weight and thickness, and the shortness of the curved arm.' [Pitt Rivers, 1883: 456]

Pitt Rivers seemed to have been motivated to write the article because of what he believed to be misrepresentation:

I find that my views on this subject have been misrepresented, owing mainly, I presume, to the fact that some more or less casual remarks of mine in my address to the Anthropological Department of the British Association in 1872 have been widely circulated, whilst two previous papers in which I discussed the subject in detail in the years 1867 and 1868, having been published in the Royal United Services Institution, [he means Primitive Warfare I and II] the Journal of which society is not so generally accessible to anthropologists, have received no attention. It has been assumed that I supposed the Egyptian and Dravidian boomerangs to be identical with that particular variety of the weapon which in Australia is made to return to the thrower after being hurled at the object it is intended to strike, whereas the very reverse is what I stated in the papers to which I refer. I have there shown, by giving a description of all the different varieties of the boomerang used by the natives of Australia, that the Egyptian boomerang, the trombush of the blacks of Abyssinia, and that of the blacks of Hindustan, correspond only with one class of the Australian boomerang, viz., that used by them for war, and considered the most useful weapon they employ, and that this form differs from the returning boomerang, which I describe as "having a slight lateral twist by means by means of which it is caused to rise in the air, screwing itself up precisely in the same manner as a boy's flying top, which rises and springs upon the ceiling. This last kind of boomerang, I have contended, is merely a variety of the war boomerang, and is peculiar to the continent of Australia, and not found elsewhere, and that it is a development of the plain war boomerang, which latter is used by several of the black races bordering on the Indian Ocean as well as by the Australians. [Pitt Rivers 1883: 457-8]

Pitt Rivers also copied boomerangs 'called trombush on the Upper Nile, which I copied from specimens in the Ethnographical Museum at Copenhagen'. [Pitt Rivers 1883: 458]

Many, if not all, of the facsimiles of boomerangs that Pitt Rivers caused to be made are in the Pitt Rivers Museum.

Pitt Rivers' collection of boomerangs

Pitt Rivers donated a total of 42 boomerangs to the collection, nine of which are facsimiles.

Facsimiles:
Note that the description given below is the Museum's accession book entry, the second is the description given in Pitt Rivers' own catalogue for part of the collection when it was at Bethnal Green / South Kensington Museums:
1-3. 1884.25.30-32 Screen 6 .. 167 to 169 Fac-similes of an ancient Egyptian boomerang in the British Museum the original of which was obtained from the collection of James Burton Esq and are described as 'an instrument for fowling, for throwing at or knocking down birds as is continually represented on the walls of the tombs.' These facsimiles were made of different kinds of wood from the original, for the purpose of experiment, as stated in the preceding note. It was found that the weapon ranged 100 paces and with practice could be made to return to within a few feet of the thrower Fig 18. [p35]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry - Similar boomerangs were used by the ancient Egyptians and are represented on their monuments. Nos 167 168 and 169 Fig 18 are fac-similes of an Egyptian boomerang in the British Museum, which was obtained from the collection of James Burton Esq jun. and is described as 'an instrument for fowling, for throwing at and knocking down birds'. In order to ascertain by experiment whether this really was a boomerang I had these facsimiles made with great care from the original of different kinds of wood and they have been found by experiment to fly like a boomerang, ranging about 100 paces, and returning to within a few feet of the thrower. This experiment settles the question of the use of the boomerang by the Egyptians, which, owing to the ill-defined representations of them in Egyptian sculptures, was previously open to dispute. [p30-1]

4-6. 1884.25.38-40 Screen 6 ... 172 to 174 Fac-similes of the Boomerangs of the Kolis of Guzerat made by Colonel Fox for the purpose of experiment as stated above. These differ from the originals in being cut across the grain, whereas the original specimens in the India Museum conform to the natural curvature of the wood like the Australian boomerangs Fig 19 [p35]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry - Nos 172 173 174 Fig 19 are facsimiles of the boomerangs of the Kolis of Guzerat, who are of the Dravidian or black aboriginal race of the Deccan of India. These originals are formed on the grain of the wood, like the Australian boomerang which they resemble in form, except that being thicker and heavier they will not return to the thrower, as is the case with some of the Australian specimens. [p30]

7. 1884.25.41 Screen 6 ... Facsimile of another boomerang from the same locality with an oblong cross-section [p35]

8. 1884.25.44 Screen 6 ... Facsimile of another boomerang constructed for the purpose of experiment [p36]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry - An improved form of this weapon Nos 176 to 179 Fig 20 is used by the Marawás of Madura, and some of these are much thinner than the boomerang of the Kolis, and in practice I have found them to fly with a return flight like the Australian boomerang. This form is also copied and used in steel and has no doubt given rise to the use of the chakkra or war quoit, which is used in the same manner for throwing at an enemy, a rotatory motion having been previously given it by spinning it on the finger of the right hand. [p30]

9. 1884.25.45 Screen 6 ... Facsimile of another boomerang thinner than the preceding and better adapted for flight. This form is also constructed of steel and used for the same purpose[p36]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry - An improved form of this weapon Nos 176 to 179 Fig 20 is used by the Marawás of Madura, and some of these are much thinner than the boomerang of the Kolis, and in practice I have found them to fly with a return flight like the Australian boomerang. This form is also copied and used in steel and has no doubt given rise to the use of the chakkra or war quoit, which is used in the same manner for throwing at an enemy, a rotatory motion having been previously given it by spinning it on the finger of the right hand. [p30]

'Real' boomerangs:
These entries just give the Pitt Rivers' 1874 catalogue entry or the accession book entry relevant to that artefact
1. 1884.12.56 Screen 6 ... Red-coloured weapon called a tombat, from Laury's flat, county of Gloster, Australia. In this form we see a connecting link between the boomerang and the malga, resembling the latter in the unequal length of the arms, and the former in having no handle, and being probably used as a missile. Fig 11 [p34]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry - Nos 139 to 161 Figs 8 to 12, on the top row, are arranged from left to right to show the transition from the simple stick to the boomerang, and ultimately to the malga, another form of Australian weapon used as a war pick. [p30][the latter part of the catalogue description applies to all the boomerangs listed below with 1874 descriptions]

2. 1884.25.9 Screen 6 .. Dowak Plain straight round stick Western Australia Used for throwing at animals Fig 8 [p33]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry -

3. 1884.25.10 Screen 6 .. Dowak with gum handle straight and round [p33]

4. 1884.25.11 Screen 6 .. Dowak Straight of the same form as the preceding flattened [p33]

5. 1884.25.12 Screen 6 .. Dowak Victoria Round and curved Used for throwing [p33]

6. 1884.25.13 Screen 6 .. Dowak of the same form [as 1884.25.12] the curve following the grain of the wood which in this, as in the subsequent specimens, gives the curvature of the weapon. This represents the first introduction of the boomerang form [p33]

7. 1884.25.14 Screen 6 ... Red-coloured weapon called a tombat, from Laury's flat, county of Gloster, Australia. In this form we see a connecting link between the boomerang and the malga, resembling the latter in the unequal length of the arms, and the former in having no handle, and being probably used as a missile. Fig 11 [p34]

8. 1884.25.15 Screen 6 .. Hatchet boomerang. The general outline and curvature is the same as in the preceding example but the thickness is reduced to about three-eighths of an inch in order to adapt it for flight. There is a slight twist in the blade like many of the boomerangs. The part where the handle is shown in Nos 163 [ 1884.12.298] and 164 [1884.12.299] in this specimen is flat and sharp edged, showing that at this stage of development it was not used for striking in the hand but only as a missile Fig 17 [p35]

9. 1884.25.16 [No Pitt Rivers 1874 catalogue description for this artefact, it is described in the PRM accession book as 'Boomerang, very flat and much curved end slightly widened to a blade Australia']

10. 1884.25.17 [No Pitt Rivers 1874 catalogue description for this artefact, it is described in the PRM accession book as Boomerang, very long, narrow, much curved, blackened, roughened handle (probably more used in hand than as missile) [Used by Genl PR for lectures] Herbert R Queensland']

11. 1884.25.18 Screen 6 .. Curved sword or boomerang Flatter and more curved than the last with a handle at one end marked by the usual scratches to secure a firmer grip to the hand. In this specimen the boomerang form begins to show itself more fully but still the handle shows that it is chiefly used in the hand [p33]

12. 1884.25.19 Screen 6 .. Boomerang Narrow and flat, having the same curvature as the last. The labour employed in forming these weapons with the stone hatchet, frequently held in the hand without a handle, is shown by the chippings on the surface. In this specimen the boomerang form is complete, and it is used only as a missile; there is a slight twist in the blade, causing it to rise in the air on the principle of a screw propeller [p33]

13. 1884.25.20 Red coloured boomerang. Flatter and better adapted for flight than the last. From the county of Gloucester Australia Fig 10 [p34]

14-22. 1884.25.21-29 148 to 156 Boomerangs. Showing a gradual increase in curvature one having a reversed curve approaching the form of an S [p34]

23. 1884.25.33 [No Pitt Rivers 1874 catalogue description for this artefact, it is described in the PRM accession book as 'Boomerang, flat curved, roughly made and very small. Kathyawar Bombay Pres'y India (116) ?Anthrop Inst']

24. 1884.25.34 [No Pitt Rivers 1874 catalogue description for this artefact, it is described in the PRM accession book as 'Boomerang, flat curved, with square ends Kathyawar Bombay Pres'y India (?115) ?Anthrop Inst]

25. 1884.25.35 [No Pitt Rivers 1874 catalogue description for this artefact, it is described in the PRM accession book as Boomerang, flat curved, with slightly square ends Kathyawar Bombay Pres'y India (?114) ?Anthrop Inst]

26-27. 1884.25.42-43 Screen 6 ... 176 177 Boomerangs of the Marawar of Madura Fig 20 [p36]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry - An improved form of this weapon Nos 176 to 179 Fig 20 is used by the Marawás of Madura, and some of these are much thinner than the boomerang of the Kolis, and in practice I have found them to fly with a return flight like the Australian boomerang. This form is also copied and used in steel and has no doubt given rise to the use of the chakkra or war quoit, which is used in the same manner for throwing at an enemy, a rotatory motion having been previously given it by spinning it on the finger of the right hand. [p30]

28. 1884.25.46 [No Pitt Rivers 1874 catalogue description for this artefact, it is described in the PRM accession book Iron boomerang, very flat and thin, with sharp edges, square end, ornamented butt knob India]

29. 1884.25.48 A boomerang which was found unentered in the 1980s but was from New South Wales

30. 1884.63.2 No Pitt Rivers 1874 catalogue description for this artefact, it is described in the PRM accession book as 1884.63.1 - 90 Design (Development of Geometrical) - Curved flattened stick with dots of black paint on knots suggesting a primitive incentive to and origins of decoration Australia ?PR [sic] (114)

31. 1884.63.6 No Pitt Rivers 1874 catalogue description for this artefact, it is described in the PRM accession book as Boomerang with looped (double undulation) design, outlined with striations Queensland [Drawing]

32. 1884.63.7 Boomerang with snake-like figures streaked in the grain and zigzag lines along surface Australia [Drawing]

33. 1884.140.7 Screen 6 ... 144 Curved flat club or boomerang having nearly the same curvature as the last the knots in the wood are stained black by way of ornament and other black spots added to produce symmetry. This weapon though of the boomerang form will not return to the thrower Fig 9 [p33]
Additional Pitt Rivers Catalogue entry - ... these grooves no doubt originated in chips or flaws on the surface of the head ... and as we have already seen in the case of the boomerang from Australia no 144 Fig 9 p 33 ... the desire to produce symmetry would lead them to cut other grooves at equal distances to correspond to those produced by nature ... [p62]

There were items on Screen 6 which are not now classified as boomerangs.

Later work on boomerangs at the Pitt Rivers Museum

Pitt Rivers was not the last person connected with the Pitt Rivers collection to work on boomerangs. Francis H.S. Knowles started his 'career' or connection to the Museum at Oxford by working with the boomerang collections. In the Museum Annual Report for 1904 Henry Balfour writes: Mr F.W. Knowles, [sic] of Oriel College, has been engaged upon a practical study of the flight of the boomerang, with interesting results, and has received assistance in the Museum, which possesses a fairly extensive collection of Australian and other varieties of boomerangs. He carried on this interest for many years. Read more about it here.

There is a museum myth, that because of an acccident with a nanny with her charge, whilst Henry Balfour was practising throwing boomerangs in the University Parks, throwing boomerangs is banned by the University authorities. So far as the author knows, there is no evidence to suggest that this ever actually happened, but it is repeated as frequently as the other story about Henry Balfour accidentally pricking himself with a poisoned arrow and calmly sitting down to record his reactions.[1] The second story, at least, is repeated in the Dictionary of National Biography account for Henry Balfour.

The illustration shows a diagram drawn by Bryan Cranstone, a Curator at the Pitt Rivers Museum, for a lecture on technology.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Chris Wingfield for drawing my attention to the letter to Tylor in the British Library.

Further Reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormwood_Scrubs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1868_Aboriginal_cricket_tour_of_England
Mulvaney, John and Rex Harcourt. 1988 'Cricket Walkabout' London Macmillan
Lane Fox, A.H. 1874. Catalogue of the Anthropological Collection lent by Colonel Lane Fox for exhibition in the Bethnal Green branch of the South Kensington Museum June 1874 Parts I and II. London, Science and Art Department of the Committee of Council on Education HMSO [Re-issued 1879]
Pitt Rivers, A.H.L.F. 1883. On the Egyptian Boomerang and its Affinities. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 12 (1883), pp. 454-463
Pitt Rivers, A.H.L.F. 1906. [ed. JL Myers, intro. by Henry Balfour] The Evolution of Culture and other essays Clarendon Press Oxford UK

Notes

[1] An example of this myth being perpetuated: see the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry written by Hélène La Rue, which is summarised at http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/freeodnb/shelves/alumni/ where it says:

Henry Balfour(second in natural science, Trinity, 1885) later achieved note both as curator of the Pitt Rivers Museum and an amateur boomerang thrower. The latter activity was curtailed by university statute after Balfour accidentally struck a nanny out walking in the University Parks.

To find out more about Pitt Rivers and his collections go to here.