369

UNEXPECTED TRAJECTORIES:

A HISTORY OF NIUEAN THROWING STONES

BARBARA ISAACOxford, England

GWYNEIRA ISAAC Smithsonian Institution

The throwing stones of Niue—otherwise known as war hand-stones, war stones, fighting or battle stones—are intensely rewarding to handle. They are carefully smoothed and evenly polished, fitting into the human hand with a satisfying shape and heft. To hold one provides a gratifying tactile experience. They are also the sole embodiment of a notable island behaviour, the existence of which has mostly faded from memory. Two fragments had been on exhibit within the Niue Museum, but unfortunately these were lost during the devastation brought by cyclone Heta in 2004. The only throwing stone on the island known to us resides with a keeper of traditional knowledge, Misa Kulatea, who inherited it from his uncle. Today, the majority of stones are housed in museums across the world. Their origins and particular histories, however, provide a curious trajectory illustrating the rapid social change experienced by Niueans in the mid 19th century, the collecting practices of missionaries, as well as the current configuration of these stones within ethnographic collections in museums in Europe, Australia and the United States.

This paper sets out to explore the unique physical and social properties of these throwing stones—their manufacture, use and cultural value—alongside their collection history and how they became emblematic of a specific form of “primitive” warfare of the “Savage Islanders”. While sling stones are widely distributed around the Pacific, as well as represented in the literature (York and York 2011), few studies have focused on the uniqueness of the Niuean throwing stones as material and cultural phenomena that exhibit modifications particular to the physical properties governing thrown projectiles. The two notable exceptions to this omission are descriptions given by Percy Smith (1902: 211) and in 1926, Edwin Loeb (1971: 129), both of whom were writing in the early part of the 20th century long after the practice had been abandoned in Niue. Using information gleaned from the objects themselves, accounts from travellers, missionaries, ethnologists and archaeological data, as well as collection histories, we expand on this literature, examining the specific ways in which these stones have manifested Niuean and European cultural practices, and memories of the “Savage Islands”—both in terms of acts of remembrance and forgetting.

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones370

This research sprang historically out of the intersection of two dissimilar yet intersecting interests: on the one hand, the possibility that the throwing of stones had been a behaviour essential to successful hunting at an early stage in human evolution (A.B. Isaac 1987) and, on the other, an interest in histories of loss and remembrance as explored through the process of collecting (G. Isaac in press). One of us (ABI), in searching for ethnographic accounts of stones modified for throwing, came across a reference by the popular 19th century writer on natural history, John George Wood (1870: 395), which led her to detailed descriptions by the anthropologist Edwin Loeb and his recording on Niue of fighting with stones modified for throwing. In attempting to identify museum holdings in order to compile statistics on the stones, a history of 19th century collecting emerged that touched on stories of encounter between cultures, the mission of early collectors, as well as the development of anthropology as a discipline. With the apparent absence of stones on Niue today, the importance of the museum holdings is inescapable, yet their removal and relocation also acts as indicators of the social histories involved, in particular, the actively disrupted relationships with a past that requires critical examination.

In the following pages we present the accounts of first contact between Niueans and Europeans, also using these records to think through Niuean practices of stone throwing. We examine the incorporation of the stones into 19th century European thinking, as well as discuss the disappearance of the stones from the island and the role of museums in housing this cultural information. Detailed data on all stones identified in museums, including measurements, weights, raw material and collection information, are contained in the Appendix.

“SAVAGE ISLAND”

From the sea, Niue appears as a formidable fortress of high cliffs surrounded by rough, breaking surf. There are few havens even for canoes, let alone the larger vessels of Europeans. This was “Savage Island” as named by Captain James Cook (1774). His three attempts to land in 1774 were foiled by the extremely threatening behaviour of the islanders, resulting in the naturalist Sparrmann receiving an arm injury from a thrown stone (Sparrmann 1944: 117).

The next recorded landing attempt was in 1830 by the London Missionary Society (LMS) missionary, John Williams, who observed from a rowboat the warriors lined up on the shore: “…each of them had three or four spears, with his sling, and a belt full of large stones” (Williams 1837: 294). Since many Pacific islanders defended themselves by thrown or slung stones, the singularity of the Niuean missiles was not noted until the Reverend George Turner, who was a founder of the Malua Theological College on Upolu,

371

Samoa in 1844, took down information from Peniamina, a Niuean who had left the island on a whaler and who returned as a Christianised teacher in 1846. Turner stated that “while Peniamina was with us at Malua, he gave me some interesting items respecting his island home…. they are constantly at war with each other. Stones, rounded like a cannon-ball, for throwing with the hand, clubs, and spears, are their weapons” (Turner 1861: 468). Concern had been expressed for the safety of Peniamina, and he was retrieved by Turner on the missionary voyage of 1848.

The missionaries did not give up easily and the islanders eventually adopted Christianity through the efforts of the next teacher, a Samoan called Paulo, who had been landed there in 1849 by the Reverend A.W. Murray (1863: 362). When Murray returned to Niue in 1852, he was able to say that there had been no war on the island since 1849 (1863: 367). Once the field had been well-tilled by Paulo, the first of the English missionaries, the Reverend W.G. Lawes arrived in 1861. Lawes was later joined and replaced by his brother Frank Lawes in 1868, who remained on the island for 42 years, retiring in 1910, seven years after Niue was annexed by New Zealand. The LMS and its missionaries appear again and again as the original source of the war stones in England, unsurprisingly perhaps, as Niue was far from the shipping routes and had few resources to attract shipping.

Thus—with the exception of the brief encounter by Cook—there were no first hand observations of Niuean throwing stones recorded by Western observers. The practice and resulting artefacts, although known to the early missionaries, were subsidiary to the larger picture of the islanders’ perceived savagery. The first letter dated April 19th 1862 from the Rev. W.G. Lawes to the Rev. Dr Tidman, the Foreign Secretary of the LMS, imagines the islanders before Christianisation:

Terrible indeed must they have looked with their long hair held between their teeth, their eyes starting from their sockets and their hands full of spears and clubs. The weapons which they carried in their wars were a club in one hand, a bundle of 10 spears under the arm, and a bag of large round [sic] stones round the neck. They were continually at war amongst themselves. Of the young men in my teacher’s class, many have stained their hands in blood, and all have witnessed scenes of bloodshed and cruelty. (W.G. Lawes 1862a; the crossing through of “round” is in the original MS.)

Although Niue was neither well known nor frequently visited, there are a few reports that describe the sources for and manufacture of the throwing stones.1 Thomas Hood, officer on HMS Fawn, in his one day on the island in 1862, observed, “the floor of the caves is thickly encrusted with stalagmite. From these the natives make round balls like grape-shot, which they throw

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones372

from the hand with deadly precision without a sling” (Hood 1863: 25). In 1865, two other determined travellers cruising with HMS Curaçoa, the gentleman explorer Julius Brenchley and the Hon. Herbert Meade R.N., also spent one day visiting the island. Brenchley learned from Rev. W.G. Lawes that:

In the interior are to be found pools of not more than two feet in diameter, which contain fresh water, the level of which seems affected by the tides, a fact noticeable in some parts of the island of Oahu. It was these holes or pools that the natives used formerly to collect the stalagmites, which they made use of as projectiles in their combats and which they adroitly threw without the aid of a sling. (Brenchley 1873: 24)

Herbert Meade, in his diary, used similar words, except in the description of the stones themselves:

The water in these and other inland caves is said to be affected by the rise and fall of the tide. Here the islanders collect the stalagmites which, when rounded something like a mower’s hone, formed, with spears and clubs, their only weapons prior to the introduction of firearms. (Meade 1870: 180)

Meade’s reference to the “mower’s hone” is puzzling: different from a whetstone, a hone was wooden and also elongated (Oliver Douglas, pers. comm. 2010)—a most unlikely comparison. It is possible that Meade was confusing the Niuean stones with the kawas of Tana, New Hebrides, described by Turner “as about the length of an ordinary counting-house ruler, only twice as thick” (Turner 1884: 312). This is unlikely, however, as Meade’s book was produced from his journals after his death, and he does not mention the kawas on his visit to Tana.2

COLLECTING STONES

At this juncture it is worth asking when and how did the throwing stones first leave Niue?3 At least 20, if not 21 of the 31 stones located in British museums seem to have come through the LMS or its missionaries (see Appendix). We know that the LMS had established a museum to display examples of artefacts accumulated by missionaries during their work in the field (Bell in press; Colley 2003: 409-12; Hooper 2008: 65, 71; Wingfield in prep). In his study of the Society’s Museum, however, Chris Wingfield has pointed out that no war stones are listed in the catalogue produced sometime between 1859 and 1862 (Wingfield, pers. comm. 2011). The first published record in Britain appears in the Guide to the Christy Collection, which is now held in the British Museum.4 The Guide, written in 1868 by the Keeper, Augustus

373

Franks, describes the items placed on show at the British Museum in Room III, where there were “conical stones used as missiles, a model of a boat, and an elegant plume from Savage Island” (A.W. Franks 1868: 16). Registers and correspondence reveal the source of the stones was Thomas Powell, LMS missionary active in Polynesia from 1848 to 1879. Powell may have brought the stones to England when he returned on furlough in 1866. On his voyage out of the southern Pacific it is likely that he would have enjoyed a customary anchoring off Niue and a visit with the resident missionary, the Rev. W.G. Lawes, when he could have been given some examples of the islanders’ former savage practices to bring to England.5 On his homecoming, Powell sold ethnographic items from Samoa and Niue directly to the British Museum (Letter dated 17 October 1866).6 In November of that year, Powell suggested a meeting with Franks in order to show him a plume from Niue that he said belonged to his daughter (Letter dated 8 November 1866). A final receipt was submitted by Powell to Franks (4 February 1867) which included “2 spherical balls—2.0” (i.e., £2).7 Through the LMS Museum, Powell also chose the stones to be sent to the 1867 Paris Exposition (Letter dated 8 February 1867 to Franks). The artefacts—“Deux pierres de guerre en stalagmite. Ile du Sauvage”—are listed as item #798 in the section “Missions Protestants” in the catalogue of the Exposition Universelle de 1867 a Paris. These artefacts would have been returned to the LMS Museum after the Exposition closed and are possible candidates for two stones purchased by the British Museum from the LMS in 1910 on the occasion of the LMS museum’s closure (Oc1910-297, 298) (Wingfield, pers. comm. 2010). However at least three more were purchased from the London Missionary Society by the collector Beasley; on his death one was transferred to the British Museum, one to Liverpool and one to the Cambridge Museum.

The year 1864 saw the wrecking of the LMS ship the John Williams II in Polynesia and in 1867 the wrecking of the new John Williams III, so the usual LMS sailing records do not track Powell’s 1866 journey. The letters recorded for 1864 and 1866 by the Rev. W.G. Lawes to the LMS foreign secretary, the Rev. Dr Tidman, are also missing from the LMS archive. We have, however, found a description of the stones given by Powell in his 1867 address for the ordination of the Rev. Frank Lawes, the brother of W.G. Lawes, demonstrating the most detailed knowledge of the stones:

A remarkable illustration of the ingenuity of the people is furnished by their large war stones, which were thrown from the hand. These are pieces of either stalagmite or stalactite, or of both, which they used to break off from the floors or roofs of their water caves, and then rub them down, on other stones or rough coral, to the required size and shape. These stones vary in size from

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones374

one to three or four pounds, and are of a spheroid shape, somewhat like that of the shot of Armstrong guns; only that both ends are elongated. This fact is remarkable as an indication of thought and design natural to this people; for it is not probable that the first inhabitants brought the ideas with them. But they found this limestone in the caves, saw the use to which it might be put, and designed the shape. It is therefore original on their part, and in this particular, they anticipated the European science of the recent century. (Powell 1868: 32)8

The next recorded date for throwing stones being accessioned into a museum collection was in 1869 when the Colonial Museum in Wellington, NZ (now Te Papa), accessioned a “battle stone” (FE 002241) collected by John Inglis. Inglis was based in the New Hebrides 1852-1877 as a Presbyterian missionary of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland. His only recorded contact with the island was when he sailed to London via Niue and New Zealand on the 1859 voyage with the Rev. George Turner (Turner 1861: 524). In 1869, however, he and his wife sailed from Aneityum, Vanuatu to Auckland on the Presbyterian ship the Dayspring. According to his reminiscences, these were often direct voyages and he does not record visiting Niue at that time (Inglis 1887). Perhaps the throwing stone had been given to him earlier by one of the LMS missionaries whom he knew well, and was then carried back to Auckland in 1869 and given the same year to the new museum.

An interesting example of distribution through a social network of friends and colleagues is recorded in 1946, when W.G. Wallace, the son of Alfred Russell Wallace, gave a stone (Oc1946,02.1) to the British Museum that had been given to his maternal grandfather, Wm. Mitten, by Thomas Powell—both of whom were amateur botanists. This example was been misidentified as a sling stone, most likely after it arrived at the Museum.

The later history of collecting and donation mirrored the involvement of colonial administrators and academic anthropologists whose careers brought them to Niue. Stephenson Percy Smith, who donated a stone to the Auckland Museum, was appointed in 1902 as Government Resident for Niue Island after its annexation by New Zealand. The stone (11713), however, was donated in 1890 so the nature of its acquisition is not clear; it was also accompanied by a sling and designated as a “sling with one stone”.9 Henry Greyshott Cornwall was Resident Commissioner from 1907 to 1918; at an uncertain date, he gave six sling stones (16862.1-6) to the Auckland Museum, of which five seem to be war stones and one (16862.2) weighing 160g, a true sling stone. A further six stones, three of which were accessioned in 1927 (10892/3, 1061), came through the anthropologist Dr Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), whose mother was Mäori. Buck joined the Bernice P. Bishop Museum in Honolulu in 1927, which suggests that on leaving New Zealand he decided to divest himself of

375

some of his impedimenta to the Auckland Museum. The anthropologist Edwin M. Loeb is recorded as giving five throwing stones to the Bishop Museum in Hawai‘i, which at present cannot be found.

None of the other donors would seem to have had direct connections with the island, except perhaps for a British Museum example that was “collected by the donor’s father and brother”, and given in 1891 by Miss E.K. Lister (Oc1938.1001.91). Another example is found in Harvard’s Peabody Museum (00-8-79/55392); it was collected during Alexander Agassiz’s voyage to the Pacific on the Albatross in 1899-1900. The accompanying note states “said to have been worn about the neck” and probably reflects information given by the Rev. Frank Lawes.

Ultimately then, we have the bare information that individuals brought items out of the field and presented them to friends and institutions. Other accessions have resulted as purchases directly from dealers (Te Papa OL 000107/S, State Museum of Victoria X2673-9) or as donations from collectors whose sources are unknown (Te Papa FE004896/1-11). As such, none of the stones in museum collections were the result of systematic ethnographic or museum initiated field collecting—as seen in other parts of the Pacific (O’Hanlon and Welsch 2000). This history makes more sense when interpreted according to the general history of contact between Niueans and Europeans. With missionaries as the first collectors of the stones—a practice consistent with persistent advocacy to end warfare—the manufacture and use of the stones of Niue was halted in a very short period of time. Murray recorded that warfare ceased by 1852 (Murray 1863: 367). By the late 19th century when the majority of the ethnographic museums are fully active and engaged in directed collecting, the stones had already left the island via missionaries, travellers and, presumably, traders, who circulated them as manifestations of the successful end to savage behaviour. The ethnographic collectors, however, also valued them for their evidence of technological ingenuity. In general, the manner in which the stones left the island resulted in a limited record accompanying the stones to their final destinations within museum collections.

A STONE’S THROW: THE SPECIFICS AND GENERALITIES OF NIUEAN THROWING PRACTICES

Niuean war stones are perhaps unique to the ethnographic record for the information that they provide. To our knowledge, stones thrown in conflict or in hunting around the world have never been picked up, measured and weighed (A.B. Isaac 1987: 4). Additionally, the Niuean war stones represent a considerable manufacturing effort—also true of some of the Pacific sling stones—which suggests that they had a meaning and importance beyond involvement in casual aggression. It may be possible by carefully collating

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones376

the various accounts, to reach some insight into the behaviour that informed them. The care given to their manufacture has also been a factor in their retention by collectors, thereby allowing us invaluable insight into the practice of throwing—an endeavour impossible without these material references.

The brief accounts of throwing practices made by the missionaries and travellers of the 19th century were later added to by the administrators and anthropologists of the early 20th century—S. Percy Smith and Edwin Loeb—who recorded and reconstructed the vanished throwing behaviour as far as they could from the generational memories of the descendants of the early 19th century warriors.10 Percy Smith spent four months on the island in 1902, which resulted in five articles in the Journal of the Polynesian Society (Smith 1902, 1903). Specifically, he devoted two short paragraphs to describing the stones, reporting them as being 4 to 5 inches maximum diameter, 3 to 4 inches in length, and that they were “made of coral, smooth, pointed and polished” (Smith 1902: 211). He then lists nine specific terms, including maka-uli (black stone), maka-geegee (made of Tridacna shell) and maka-poupou-ana (made of stalactite). He states that the stones were carried in large baskets, but also as many as 50 would be carried by the warriors in their girdles and that “when these were exhausted they took to the rough stones lying about, says my informant, Fakalagatoa” (Smith 1902: 211). He mentions the exotic black stones and adds that he thinks that the fatu-kala (not very smooth) may also be of basalt. In his illustration (Smith 1902: 212-13, Plate 7) that shows “manufactured articles”, he includes one throwing stone.

The anthropologist Edwin Loeb and his wife Harriet lived on Niue for almost seven months in 1923-24, during which time he recorded new information to add to that of Smith’s. However, as he wrote, “most of the information available in Niue takes the form of stereotyped traditions, handed down from family to family” (Loeb 1971: 129). He repeated information on dimensions and raw material directly from Smith and replicates Smith’s list of specific names (with a change to one), adding six more (Loeb 1971: 129). In regard to the carrying devices for the stones, the early accounts differ somewhat in their descriptions. The Rev. W.G. Lawes described a bag hung around the neck (W.G. Lawes 1862a, quoted in Powell 1868: 28). Williams (1837: 294), Percy Smith (1902: 211) and Loeb (1971: 129), however, all refer to belts or girdles, with Loeb naming them kafa and describing them as plaited like a mat, six to seven inches wide and four fathoms in length (Loeb 1971: 132). In combat, the belt was probably more efficient. Overall, accounts of early contact with Niueans—when combined with these anthropological descriptions—suggest the throwing stones were strictly reserved for fighting. All accounts agree that the stones were not used for hunting, as animal protein was obtained using fishing nets and bird bows.

377

When considering aggressive behaviour against humans it is useful to separate out what was practiced between fellow Niueans from that directed against outsiders. Captain Cook’s first impressions of savagery set the expected tone for subsequent intrusive interactions with the islanders, whether offshore or on the beaches on arrival (Cook 1774, Murray 1863: 361). The islanders had learned that such intrusions threatened the fabric of a society that inhabited a marginal environment whether the intruders were Tongan raiding parties or European blackbirders, or indeed missionaries who brought epidemic disease, which “…intensified an older fear, reported elsewhere in Polynesia and other parts of the world, of foreign spirits and foreign magic that belong to strangers and returning residents” (Luomala 1978: 147). A show of force was necessary or, as in the remembered history of Tongan raiders, clever deception followed by annihilation. Where strangers were concerned, unbridled defensive aggression may have been the only way to victory.

In examining the extent and frequency of the fighting between island factions, Smith stated that “conflicts were very frequent” and were conducted between the northern and southern populations (Smith 1902: 167-68). Internal fighting seems to have been governed by different mores. Loeb proposed the idea that,

…it was both a game and a business to the people of Niue. It was a game inasmuch as it was carried on under certain fixed conventions and with a definite technique to which both sides conformed. It was a business in regard to its general purpose, that of taking land from the opposing toa [‘warriors’]. (Loeb 1971: 128)

In her paper, “Symbolic slaying in Niue”, Katharine Luomala (1978: 149) wrote:

Conventions of fighting included trickery, duelling, and frightening of the enemy by hideous faces and menacing feints. Battles were often at night. While physical injury and loss of life were ordinarily comparatively light, the constant feuding kept Niue in turmoil.

According to the records, clubs and spears were also carried, but apart from a two-pronged spear used to guide the warriors, they were not part of these activities. Slings were not mentioned in this form of fighting.

Records also showed that the marginal environment of Niue was a key factor in shaping the practice of competitive warfare for scarce resources. Before contact, the island had limited fauna and few crops. This environmental history was explored in 2002 by archaeologists Richard Walter and Atholl Anderson, who consider Niue as “near the limits for long-term settlement viability” (Walter and Anderson 2002: 1). They recorded bones recovered from excavations and natural deposits in caves (Walter and Anderson 2002: 167). Only bones of the

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones378

Pacific rat (Rattus exulans) occur in any quantity, although a gecko is well represented in two caves and the Pacific flying fox (Pteropus tonganus) is represented by two bones. By far the preponderance of food debris resulted from avian fauna, fish and shellfish. Before contact, taro, arrowroot, yam, banana and sugarcane were cultivated. There is also evidence that the coconut may have been introduced as late as the early 18th century (Walter and Anderson 2002: 16). Probable post-contact additions were breadfruit, sweet potato, papaya, guava and citrus (Walter and Anderson 2002: 16). Moreover, the missionary Archibald Murray cited Turner’s description of a custom of “destroying all the plantations and fruit-trees of a person who dies, that they might go with him” (Murray 1874: 343). The eradication of this practice and the introduction of new sources of food meant that “the consequence is an abundance of food, such as they never had in heathenism” (Murray 1874: 343).

In thinking about the resources used to manufacture throwing stones, it is important to point out that the origin of most was the limestone caves—and this also seems to be reflected in the ritual meanings of the stones. Because even mild droughts had severe impact on survival, the warriors were continually skirmishing to increase the amount of land available to their families (Loeb 1971: 128). As Murray (1874: 323) reported, “the man who renders himself most formidable by warlike deeds was the man of greatest consideration.” Loeb gave a detailed description of the complicated ceremony and the ritual that preceded the actual fighting. The warriors slept for three nights away from their families. Particular named stones were integral to the preparation.11 He wrote:

The fighting stones all had special names and they were put in a kafa (girdle) which was plaited like a mat. The kafa was about six to seven inches wide and was customarily four fathoms in length. The third night before the war arrived they wound the kafa around their stomachs and slept in this manner during the night, neither eating or drinking. (Loeb 1971: 132)

After providing further details concerning the preparatory ritual, he quoted from some of the remembered war songs:

Koe makauli moe gege, fakataka us he matatuaTuki kihe ulu, tuki kile nifo, ke akie alelo he koko.Haku maka tuki kihe lagi.It is a black stone, and a gege stone leave them both together.Hit him on the head, hit him on the teeth, tear the tongue out of his throat.My stone will hit the sky. (Loeb 1971: 134)12

and from a song celebrating success in war:

379

Hoku maka pe ha afa to, malokokiholoiMy stones will come like the hurricane. (Loeb 1971: 136)

In associating throwing stones to the power of a hurricane, the songs also link the throwing stones to water—life-giving and scarce—a connection made more intriguing when considering that the stones are carved from the stalactites of the fresh-water caves, which were highly valued resources. Loeb discusses the role of the taula-atua ‘shaman’ in the pre-battle ritual, but not in detail; elsewhere he notes that the “taula-atua was the weather man of the olden days” (Loeb 1924: 396). The possibility should be considered that in taking land, the toa ‘warriors’ were not only interested in increasing crop acreage, but also in adding to the number of accessible water sources.

Furthermore, anthropologist Hilke Thode-Arora, author of Weavers of Men and Women… (2009), has pointed out that, for many Niueans even today, caves have connotations of ancestral spirits and of land rights linked to their presence. As throwing stones were often made from stalagmites/stalactites most likely from a cave in the warriors’ ancestral territory, these stones may have carried ancestral mana. If Loeb’s remark on named throwing stones is to be understood to mean that there were personalised throwing stones owned by individual warriors, this might also be interpreted in terms of close ties with land and ancestors (pers. comm. 2011, see also Thode Arora 2009: 38, 107).

Historical records indicate that Niuean fighting was rarely in pitched battles, but mostly in the forest between single warriors or groups who hoped for an element of surprise in encountering the enemy and who also hoped that a show of force would be enough to route them. This does not mean to imply, however, that there were not at times fights to the death. Percy Smith noted that “in the actual fight the braves from either side would challenge one another (fepalekoaki) to combat, and these toas did tau-mamate (fight to the death)” (Smith 1902: 212). It is in this kind of warfare that status weapons with mythical reputations, such as named swords (i.e., Dáinsleif and Kusanagi), play a role in intimidating opponents. We are drawn to suppose that some of the throwing stones now in museums might well have been the named stones carried by well-known toa and possessing an accumulated history of fearful use.

This could partly explain why so much effort was originally expended on their manufacture. Additionally and practically, if the battle area was conventionally small, then thrown stones could be retrieved by the victors. In his account of the fighting, the colonial administrator Basil Thomson was convinced that the islanders were not particularly warlike and that “your object in battle was not so much to crack your opponent’s skull as to

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones380

frighten him off the field” (Thomson 1902: 128). He reported that “the Niuean warrior contented himself with cutting off defenceless stragglers and slaying individuals by ambush” (Thomson 1902: 130). There are further indications that ambush was at times a preferred modus operandi. Thomson gives an account of a murder in 1887 not covered in the then penal code, adding that “the Pulangi Tau, or Council of War, that would have given the man short shrift in heathen days by telling off one of his judges to betray him into ambush, had long been dissolved” (Thomson 1902: 103-4).

The last known throwing stone on the island of Niue—now in the possession of Misa Kulatea—was found by his uncle years ago beside a skeleton in the forest. The bones were removed respectfully to a traditional burial cave (Kulatea, pers. comm. 1997). That throwing stone may be evidence of a successful ambush.

Some historic records from elsewhere include key information about normative practices for fighting distances when throwing stones. At a fundamental level, if fighting was initiated by throwing stones, then the distance between opposing groups would have been closer than if slings or spears were used.13 There is less leverage in the arm than the combination of arm and sling, so the lethal distance has to be less than that of sling stones and, probably, if the following instances are to be believed, no more than the length of a cricket pitch. It is worth pointing out that within the thick undergrowth common to the island, stones could be thrown from the hand more easily than with a sling, which needs more space. This also supports the thesis that encounters were not necessarily staged in formal fashion in the wider open areas, but also happened as marauding groups or single warriors came across each other in the forest, or on the edges of cultivated plots, themselves not particularly large.

In using comparative records to think through typical combat distances, we found a description from anthropologist and medical practitioner, Herbert Basedow, who recorded the training of Australian Aboriginal boys throwing mud balls standing about “half a chain apart”, that is, 11 yards [10.06 metres] (Basedow 1925: 75).14 Basil Thomson also wrote that Niuean King Tongia had commented to the effect that the battlefield of an historic duel “was no larger than the dining-room of a suburban villa” (Thomson 1902: 128). Turner, when describing the throwing behaviour of the inhabitants of Tana, New Hebrides, said that they threw the kawas “with deadly precision when their victim is within twenty yards of them” (Turner 1884: 312). Although repeated accuracy for distances as great as 100 metres has been observed historically (A.B. Isaac 1987: 8-9), the combination of force versus distance versus accuracy has not been adequately measured—and yet it is extremely important to understand these variables if the success of throwing by hand is to be gauged.

381

From other accounts gleaned from a range of historic cultural documents (A.B. Isaac 1987: 8), it seems that once the parties were engaged, the participants were continually on the move, so as not to be an easy target. In 1719, the traveller and naturalist, Peter Kolb, gave the following description of a Hottentot:

He is constantly moving, sometimes backwards or sideways, he stands upright one moment and is bending down the next, dancing to and fro all the time quite unexpectedly throwing the stone from his hand, and in spite of his grimaces, hits his chosen goal so accurately that one must say that the best marksman could not have hit the bulls eye more accurately. (Kolb 1719: 526)

Natural historian and writer, John George Wood recounted the behaviour of an Australian aboriginal confronted by an armed soldier.

By dodging about has prevented the enemy from taking direct aim... will hurl one [stone] after another with such rapidity that they seem to be poured from some machine; and as he throws them leaps from side to side so as to make the missiles converge from different directions upon the unfortunate object of his aim. (Wood 1870:41)

These accounts uncannily reflect John Williams’ depiction of the Niuean who had boarded the Messenger of Peace in 1830:

on reaching the deck the old man was most frantic in his gesticulations, leaping about from place to place, and using the most vociferous exclamations at everything he saw... we could not persuade him to stand still even for a single second. (Williams 1837: 295)

INCORPORATION INTO 19TH CENTURY KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS

In Victorian England, missionaries positioned Niue as a prime example of savagery overcome and civilised by Christianity. The name that Captain Cook had given to the Island in 1774 conveniently lent itself to hyperbole, celebrating the achievements of the London Missionary Society in ending warfare and, by implication, that such success deserved to be supported further by the faithful congregations at home. Archibald Murray had written of the islanders: “They realized most fully the idea one is accustomed to form of the savage—wild, fierce, ungovernable” (Murray 1863: 358). Later, Murray commented of the island,

…but, in a missionary point of view, it has of late years become possessed of great attractions, from the fact that a work has been accomplished upon it, through the instrumentality of Christian teachers, such as has few parallels in the history of missions. (Murray 1874: 314)

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones382

The Rev. William Gill, when recording his life’s work in the South Sea Islands, although he had not worked on Niue, still chose to use it as a shining example:

Such is ‘Savage’ Island. Eighty-two years ago it was discovered by Captain Cook; for fifty-six years after its discovery it was left to its heathenism; the first visit of mercy was made to it in 1830; and, during the space of sixteen years, frequent and unsuccessful attempts were made to induce the people to receive a Christian teacher. This was accomplished in 1846; the subsequent five years were years of toil and faith in the midst of trial and persecution; and NOW, as a result of these labours, we have, on this once Savage Island, the whole of the people under the influence of the Gospel of Christ. (Gill 1880: 238, emphasis in original)

These views are best summarised in a sentence by Rev. W. G. Lawes from a letter published in the Mission Magazine and Chronicle:

Savage Island furnishes, we believe, the only recorded instance in which a whole population of between four and five thousand have been brought within a few years, from a state of utter barbarism to the open profession of the Christian faith. (W.G. Lawes 1862b: 312)

It is notable that, eight years later Rev. Frank Lawes reversed this opinion, allowing the Niueans highly developed technological skills: “They are not the unthinking, unreasoning people that I imagined and in mechanical skill they are I think in advance of some neighbouring islands” (F. Lawes 1870). Indeed by the time of the traveller Thomas Hood’s visit a few months after the Rev. W.G. Lawes had first arrived, Hood observed that the islanders “had just finished and presented to Mr Lawes and his wife a sofa nicely made and inlaid with quaint imitations of birds and fishes in tortoiseshell and mother of pearl” (Hood 1863: 16). Would that we knew the whereabouts of the sofa today.

Terrifying as the islanders were to strangers, accounts suggest that the inhabitants were not without reason and could be persuaded not to kill intruders (Murray 1874: 317, Thomson 1902: 71). When Hood wrote after his 1862 visit to Niue on H.M.S Fawn, “I don’t remember ever being better pleased than with our reception at Savage Island… we left the shore of these highly interesting and pleasant people” (Hood 1863: 26), he was not just referring to the Rev. W.G. Lawes and his wife. Julius Brenchley, when visiting in 1865, was critical of the missionaries’ early stance, quoting Murray: “My last visit to the island was at the close of 1853. At that time it was much in the same state as when it was discovered by Cook. Now how changed! How marvellously changed!” (Brenchley 1873: 33). Brenchley then commented,

383

That it was ‘at that time’ much in the same state as when Cook saw it, it is easy for me to credit; but how Mr. Murray professing to believe in its extreme savagery at that period could say so, after having told us only a few pages before, when speaking of this year of similitude 1853, that ‘the desire for teachers is now universal, and we shall shortly occupy the island,’ would be inexplicable, were we not aware of the irresistible propensity of the missionaries to proclaim marvels, and, by means of vague generalities to give a semblance of support to their highly-coloured statements. (Brenchley 1873: 33)

That some missionaries exaggerated the savagery of the Niueans in order to magnify the success of their teaching is understandable. As we have seen, however, others were more measured in their approach. Powell in the extract quoted above referred to the throwing stones as a “remarkable illustration of the ingenuity of the people” and that the idea of them was “original on their part, and in this particular they anticipated the European science of the recent century” (Powell 1868: 32). High praise, followed by a further comparison: “[T]heir Fishing Nets are remarkable for their beauty of make.... Many ladies, in England, have inspected specimens; but all have confessed it was out of their power to exceed the beauty with which the work was executed” (Powell 1868: 33).

In order to communicate the gospel and translate the Bible, missionaries learned languages, and subsequently, in their observation of custom, a notable few contributed to the emergence of the discipline of ethnography (Colley 2003: 408-9). The Rev. George Turner wrote that he had endeavoured to contribute to ethnological science: “I have to some extent, followed the order of a list of queries respecting the human race, drawn up a number of years ago, by a committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science” (Turner 1861: 173). Thus, beyond the purpose of lauding themselves on their achievements in eradicating Niuean warfare and the subsequent success of Christianisation, some missionaries collected the throwing stones as part of their interests in learning about the societies in which they worked.

When they took furloughs in England, missionaries often took the opportunity to seek out and converse with men of science. The networks were wide and we give an encapsulating example. In 1880, the former Governor of New Zealand, Sir George Grey presented an inscribed copy of LMS missionary W. Wyatt Gill’s (1880) Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia with Illustrative Clan Songs to Edward Burnett Tylor, later Reader in Anthropology at Oxford.15 The copy is now in the Bodleian Library. Folded inside the cover is a letter from Gill himself who had just visited Tylor.16 Wyatt Gill, in referring to an invitation to breakfast with the polymath Sir John Lubbock, wrote about kinship terms, saying, “These tribal laws are of deep interest & are well observed even now (with some modifications, of

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones384

course).” At the end of the letter, he added, “I often think of myself as half a savage; so unmindful am I of the usages of civilized men.”

If we return to the first appearances of the Niuean war stones in England and elsewhere, it is apparent that as embodied by collections (British Museum 1866-67, Paris Exposition 1867, Auckland 1869), their introduction to the Western word is clustered in the decade of the 1860s. We suggest this was partly because of the newly arrived presence of the LMS on the Island. But it was also because of the emergence of new knowledge in England. The study of the past was evidenced by curiosity in the manufacture of lithics and in the evolution of behaviours such as hunting and warfare. In particular to this inquiry, Augustus Frank, who collected for the British Museum, was interested in the manufacture of stone tools and the Niuean war stones were unique examples of polished lithics in an unusual material. Together with Franks, the collector Christy also took a keen interest in and collected flaked and ground lithics.

The stones, therefore, mirrored and contributed to the emergent study of the history and evolution of weaponry in the 19th century. At the same time as the physical appearance of the war stones in England, Lieutenant-Colonel Lane Fox, the founder of the Pitt Rivers Museum at Oxford University, was investigating the development of weaponry to demonstrate evolutionary trends in design—a revolutionary innovation. In his Catalogue of the Anthropological Collection lent by Colonel Lane Fox for Exhibition in the Bethnal Green Branch of the South Kensington Museum, the Colonel wrote:

If the hand stone was the earliest, and possibly the only weapon employed by the first progenitors of our species, it is not surprising they should, in the course of ages, have acquired extraordinary skill in the use of it, and that in the hands of modern savages it should be found to be a more formidable instrument of offence than is the case with civilized man, by whom the practice of stone throwing has been gradually superseded, by the introduction of more suitable appliances, requiring less skill and training to use them with effect. (1874: 158)

Lane Fox continued with a reference to Turner’s rounded stones like a cannon ball from Savage Island. There were, however, no examples of war stones mentioned in the 1874 exhibits at the family museum set up by General Lane Fox Pitt Rivers, the Bethnal Green Museum, or in the huge collections that he gave to the Pitt-Rivers Museum 18 years later. Sir Richard Burton in his second chapter of the Book of the Sword, entitled “Man’s first weapon”, also quoted George Turner, “stones rounded like a cannon-ball, among the people of Savage Island” (Burton 1884: 18).17

Perhaps it is apt to note that in 1868 there was the first tour in England of a team of Aboriginal cricketers, whose abilities were a source of astonishment

385

for the critical public. Cricket player, W.G. Grace commented that some had shown “conspicuous skill at the game” (Mulvaney 1967: 56). Across the growing British Empire, cricket was increasingly played, so that finally, we reach an apotheosis of the Niueans’ fighting behaviour. Having been persuaded by Paulo to put aside their weapons, including war stones, they were taught how to play cricket, perhaps by one of the Lawes brothers or possibly by visiting sailors (Thomson 1902: 124), which they continue to do. Loeb (1971: 128) wrote that “the eleven villages today strive with each other on the cricket field”. Meanwhile, in European terms, the warriors’ stones became quiescent curios to be transported by missionaries and travellers to the museums and private collections of the Western world.

To summarise, conversion of the Niueans was not merely a religious process, but also a transformative one of inclusion into a rapidly growing Empire. Ultimately, the circulation of the stones mirrored the extraction and collection of resources, thus representing both the endless possibilities of the Empire, as well as shifting cultural polarities. As shown through ethnological endeavours, the stones also presented possibilities for the interpretation of these encounters and cultural practices using schemas for the study of humans more generally. As such, the stones began as symbols of savagery, yet later became absorbed into a social science context of ethnographic collections, which used the primitive frame to locate them within evolutionary paradigms.

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

There have been some extremely thorough archaeological surveys across the island (Trotter 1979, Walter and Anderson 2002). We frame their findings in the context of the island’s historically observed ethnography (Walter and Anderson 2002: 10-23). The archaeologists recorded 100 cave and open air sites, and subjected them all to detailed investigation, including test pits and more extensive excavation where appropriate. The number of material culture items that were retrieved was small: 37 items are listed—including pumice and coral abraders, two tooth ornaments, a shell adze, a worked Strombidae shell, a net weight, two drill bearings, an Asaphis shell scraper, a bone awl, an echinoderm spine abrader and spine drill. There were no throwing stones. These were also missing from the general discussion, except briefly in the section on “Historical observations”, which cites the missionary John Williams’s observations (Walter and Anderson 2002: 19).18

The archaeologists, moreover, did not include throwing stones in their descriptions of traditional artefacts and technology, nor was the concomitant behaviour considered in the discussions on adaptation to the environment and political organisation. It is only when reading the site reports that suggestive evidence begins to appear. Close to the windward coast, in the Ulupaka Cave

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones386

complex, stalactites had been smashed “from the roof to increase head room” but there was no further evidence of manufacturing activities (Walter and Anderson 2002: 38). In the centre of the island however, there is the Paluki Cave complex within which are small pools of water: “the rare combination of water and arable land would have encouraged settlement” (Walter and Anderson 2002: 64). In an island of short resources, fresh water pools would also have encouraged envy. In the nearby Anapulaki Cave the archaeologists again recorded numerous stalactites and stalagmites. “In the lower parts of the chambers and particularly against the walls, there are signs that many of these limestone formations have been cleared to provide headroom” (Walter and Anderson 2002: 66). They noted how limestone cobbles, presumably from the broken stalactites and stalagmites were strewn across the floor together with gravel and larger boulders. The cave walls showed signs of red and white pigment, and there was a thin layer of charcoal and organic sediment, implying human use of the cave, which included some burials. Among the fragmented faunal remains were “numerous large Tridacna shells… several of which were shattered and flaked” (Walter and Anderson 2002: 175). Pumice abraders and one coral abrader were also found. Walter and Anderson convincingly concluded that the artefacts were associated with manufacturing activities such as woodworking and the making of shell tools (Walter and Anderson 2002: 75). Additionally at least one of the abraders from Anapulaki could be likened to a “mower’s hone” (Walter and Anderson 2002: 91, Fig. 47), supporting our reading of Meade’s (1870) enigmatic text (see note 2).

It does not appear, however, that the limestone debris was examined to see if it could have contained blanks for the manufacture of war stones, nor was the flaked Tridacna debris examined with this purpose in mind. If we bring together the archaeology of Anapulaki Cave with Powell’s description of manufacture (Powell 1868: 32), it is hard to escape the conclusion that this was where some of the war stones had been made. Walter and Anderson noted that the presence of the cave seemed to be unknown to modern islanders. This would fit if it had been a place where powerful weapons were manufactured, perhaps with associated ritual—a secret place which the recently Christianised Niueans wanted to put out of mind and memory as part of their savage past.

THROWING THEM AWAY?

As early as 1829, the LMS missionary William Ellis expressed his unease about the next generation of Polynesians “growing up in total ignorance of all that distinguished their ancestors from themselves” (Ellis 1829: vii). Similarly, W.Wyatt Gill, who presented stones to the Oxford University Museum, wrote:

387

“I have been the more anxious to put these things on permanent record, as the correct knowledge of the past is rapidly fading away, and will probably soon become extinct” (Wyatt Gill 1880: vi). According to a critic of Victorian literature, Ann Colley, “a significant number of South Seas missionaries were keenly sensitive to the crises of memory—to the disappearance of traditions—and eventually functioned not only as the destroyers but also the preservers and protectors of a compromised culture” (Colley 2003:406). It is well recognised in the literature that missionaries simultaneously eradicated and preserved traditions. This tension is interpreted as a process necessary in the emergent critical frames that initiated the reflexivity needed in anthropology. As literary critic Christopher Herbert suggests, these tensions represent “the complementary fictions of the bigoted missionary and the enlightened ethnographer”, with the early missionaries notes and texts as “an extravagantly risky experiment with modern modes of thought” (Herbert 1991: 156, quoted in Colley 2003). He continues, “without fully realizing it themselves . . . their authors were engaged collectively in a project amounting to the invention of a new subjectivity” (Herbert 1991: 156). Even in the 1860s, as we have pointed out earlier, Powell (1868: 32) had recognised the Niueans skills of technological innovation. Similarly, when Wyatt Gill proffered himself to Rolleston as “half savage” he was admitting to an ability to see the world through the others’ eyes. This disjunct—or separation between self and self-as-other—ultimately leads to the missionaries’ writings and collections becoming part of a larger shift in European ideologies about the world and its plural histories (Wingfield 2011: 135).

We can also make a distinction between oral and object memory in Niue. When we look at oral traditions in the anthropological record, Niueans lived “virtually under a democracy, and were unacquainted with any system of divine chiefs, caste division of labour, or hereditary priesthood” (Loeb 1924: 393). Loeb continues by stating that the Niueans were “not given to the memorizing of lengthy genealogies” (Loeb 1924: 393). In her discussion of the LMS museum, Colley writes that “beneath the cabinets hid large baskets, some filled with stones collected by the indigenous people to indicate how many battles the Samoans had won” (Colley 2003: 411). In the case of the throwing stones, if they operated as mnemonics for particular toa, battles or individuals or, as suggested by Loeb, as named entities, memory of their history would disappear with their removal from the island, integral as they would have been to the important process of remembering—and then forgetting—the past.

When given an active role in how people shape their relationship to their past, the active process of forgetting plays a specific function. In discussing how this was enacted upon in colonial Papua New Guinea, Melissa Demian

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones388

observes that forgetting played an important role in allowing the development of necessary new relationships:

Forgetting-as-purposive-action, a phenomenon which has long been documented in societies of the Massim cultural area, is precisely the kind of social technique that enables a sense of movement between temporal dispensations. Forgetting requires of practitioners that they remove old relations from view in order to recognize new ones; it is in this moment of suppressing one set of relations in favour of another that a reflexive intent is revealed. (Demian 2006: 508)

[T]here is an acknowledgement not only that forgetting is the appropriate way to respond to loss in the context of death, but more importantly that there are particular actions through which forgetting is deliberately realized: it isn’t something you do by accident. (Demian 2006: 514)

In the case of the rapidity of the loss of throwing stones on Niue, the introduction of Christianity allowed a different set of relationships between people, people and their land and ultimately between people and objects representing their past. Translated more widely, this means the stones were released from their Niuean social network, resulting in their circulating more widely—which increased and diminished their power—reducing their efficacy in warfare, but increasing their notoriety beyond Niue. Yet, this may not have been the intention of their original keepers, who may have purposely been trying to remove and dis-empower them as the dismantled tools from an actively abandoned warfare practice.

* * *

The throwing stones of Niue are unique in providing insight into a technology and behaviour now relegated to the past. We can suggest that there was a constellation of specific factors that led to their rapid removal and subsequent retention in museums. Firstly, the arrival of missionaries into what was a small and isolated land area (i.e., an island). Secondly, the paucity of resources that had led to competition through warfare, followed by the desire for more peaceful life. And thirdly, tracing their new trajectory, the perception of throwing stones as a savage form of warfare and their subsequent use to depict the change from “savage” to Christian. Ultimately their status within the grand organising schemas for the history of human social evolution also contributed to their collection value.

Now, apart from one example, all other references and evidence to this behaviour are held in Western institutions and literature. Is this loss/forgetting

389

process a victim or an agent of history? If the stones had names and these now are truly lost, there has been power in actively forgetting their names and, thereby, accountability towards their care. Transferring the stones to missionaries with no knowledge of the names could be interpreted as Niueans removing themselves from the responsibilities that came with knowing about the stones’ powers. By bringing together historic records, archaeology and ethnography, we are able to examine different forms of knowledge about how the stones worked as physical weapons and, in general terms, their manufacture and value within Niuean culture. What is withheld, however, is insight into their personhood, as this particular relationship has been purposely broken. Like the Niuean belief that when someone leaves the island, they are treated as dead only to return as ghosts—the stones take on similar treatment and appear to be actively separated from contemporary island relations. Although they have agency as indicators of change, ultimately, they are indicators of a type of culturally transformative change that Niueans may have sought to control through removal rather than remembrance.

APPENDIX: THE MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

The throwing stones we located are held in museum collections in Britain (British Museum, Pitt Rivers Museum (Fig. 1), Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, World Museum Liverpool and the Maidstone Museum); Australia (State Museum Victoria); New Zealand (Te Papa and Auckland Museum); and the United States (Bishop Museum and the Peabody Museum Harvard).19 The table following lists the holdings of these museums, including data on where and when they had been collected, as well as their sizes and weights when recorded. Only one example of misallocation was found where a probable Niuean war stone in the Te Papa collection was sourced to the Cook Islands. Together with the Cook Island example, the total number of war hand stones in the ten museums numbered 94. Twenty-one of these records either have some data missing or the stones have not been securely identified as throwing stones.

We provide two graphs (Figs 2 and 3). Figure 2 shows the distribution of length versus breadth. Figure 3 shows the distribution of weights alone. The preferred length/breadth proportion clusters around 8:6 which, at a weight of 400-500 grams, fits very comfortably within the adult hand, although a few examples are spherical or almost spherical. It is not clear whether the preferred 8:6 proportion is a function of the choice of the collector—the lemon-shaped stones being more attractive and unusual—or whether it really does represent a targeted ideal on the part of the makers. The reader should bear this in mind when taking the written reports into account. Figure 3 demonstrates that the majority of the stones fall between 250-600g; the mean weight of 74 stones is 559g, and the median 430g. These numbers, however, include eight extremely large stones of over 1,000g. Whether these should also be included in the category of war hand stones is a matter for discussion. If they are excluded

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones390

Mus

eum

Acc

essi

on

num

ber

Wei

ght

in g

ram

sL

engt

h / B

read

th

to n

eare

st m

m.

Raw

mat

eria

lC

olle

ctor

/ P

revi

ous

Ow

ner

Don

orD

onat

ion

dat

e

Te

Pap

aM

useu

m o

fN

ew Z

eala

nd

Auc

klan

d

Stat

e M

useu

m

Vic

tori

a

Pea

body

Har

vard

Bis

hop

Haw

aii

Pit

t R

iver

s

Bri

tish

Mus

eum

Cam

brid

ge

Mus

eum

of A

rch

& A

nth.

Wor

ld M

useu

m

Liv

erpo

ol

Mai

dsto

ne

FE00

4896

/144

421

8 x

172

All

“sto

ne”

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/249

697

x 6

4al

thou

gh g

ener

alSi

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/3

474

93 x

63

note

men

tions

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/439

283

x 6

2st

alac

tite

as th

eSi

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/5

455

84 x

64

raw

mat

eria

l.Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/6

353

71 x

58

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/746

570

x 7

0Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/8

386

73 x

67

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/924

957

x 5

6Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/1

015

366

x 4

1Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/1

119

560

x 4

7Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0022

41

84 x

64

ston

eR

ev. J

. Ing

lisR

ev. J

. Ing

lis18

69O

L000

107/

S57

311

5 x

70st

one

Old

man

Col

lect

ion

Purc

hase

d19

4816

300.

120

075

x 4

7ba

salt/

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

250

098

x 6

2st

one

Judg

e F.

O.V

. Ach

eson

1630

0.3

220

74 x

49

stal

actit

e/lim

esto

neJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

415

064

x 4

6co

ral

Judg

e F.

O.V

. Ach

eson

1630

0.5

310

65 x

60

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

633

071

x 5

7ba

salt/

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

862.

1st

alac

tite

or v

olca

nic

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.2

160

64 x

45

basa

lt/st

one

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.3

430

72 x

62

stal

actit

e or

vol

cani

cM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

lM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

l16

862.

438

080

x 6

0st

alac

tite

or v

olca

nic

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.5

390

76 x

58

stal

actit

e or

vol

cani

cM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

lM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

l16

862.

630

076

x 5

7st

alac

tite/

limes

tone

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1171

384

012

2 x

77st

alag

mite

Mr P

ercy

Sm

ithM

r Per

cy S

mith

1890

1171

5.1

680

96 x

77

wor

ked

cora

l lim

esto

ne st

alag

mite

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.2

500

82 x

69

wor

ked

cora

l lim

esto

ne st

alag

mite

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.3

340

65 x

64

basa

lt/st

one

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.4

420

74 x

61

basa

lt/st

one

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

8213

410

76 x

62

limes

tone

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

8214

185

ston

eD

r Pet

er B

uck

Dr P

eter

Buc

k82

1532

781

x 6

0co

ral

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

1089

240

088

x 5

8st

alac

tite

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

1927

1089

344

068

x 6

4ba

salt/

ston

eD

r Pet

er B

uck

Dr P

eter

Buc

k 19

2710

6156

095

x 7

6ba

salt/

ston

eD

r Buc

kD

r Buc

k19

2731

6534

074

x 6

0ba

salt/

ston

eE.

J. C

unni

ngha

m19

2925

760.

183

stal

actit

e/lim

esto

neM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

0.2

210

81 x

52

cora

lM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

1.1

490

76 x

73

ston

eM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

1.2

76 x

57

ston

eM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

X26

7075

080

x 8

0ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

n?1

889

X26

7110

3510

0 x

90ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

nX

2672

1420

120

x 10

5ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

nX

2673

1560

140

x 10

0tra

nslu

cent

cal

cite

or c

arbo

nate

of l

ime

S. D

anne

ford

1892

X26

7416

0013

0 x

100

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2675

360

90 x

60

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2676

330

80 x

60

trans

luce

nt c

alci

teS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2677

480

90 x

65

opaq

ue c

alci

teS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2678

235

90 x

50

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2679

140

70 x

40?

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

7185

820

105

x 85

?ca

lcite

Unk

now

n?1

901

00-8

-70/

5539

239

293

x 6

0st

alac

tite

Ale

xand

er A

gass

izW

. McM

. Woo

dwor

th12

-23-

70/8

1721

408

80 x

64

stal

actit

ePu

rcha

se11

157

368

78 x

67

limes

tone

Purc

hase

1913

1115

848

276

x 6

7lim

esto

nePu

rcha

se19

1311

159

283

76 x

61

ston

ePu

rcha

se19

13B

.077

54st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

55st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

56st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

57st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

58st

alac

tite

as th

e?

Loeb

O20

37 (?

N10

539)

1887

.1.5

8152

580

x 6

5na

tive

stal

agm

iteR

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1887

.1.5

8236

080

x 5

5tri

dacn

a sh

ell

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.583

775

105

x 80

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.584

425

90 x

55

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.585

950

95 x

85

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.586

1550

145

x 95

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.587

500

90 x

65

trida

cna

shel

lR

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1887

.1.5

8828

080

x 6

0ba

salt,

“st

one

fore

ign

to is

land

”R

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1928

.68.

1572

5g10

5 x

75st

one

NB

lim

esto

ne?

Rev

. Wya

tt G

ill ?

187

5A

.W. F

rank

s 19

28.6

8.16

ston

e N

B li

mes

tone

? R

ev. W

yatt

Gill

? 1

875

A.W

. Fra

nks

Oc.

2013

1360

152

x 10

4st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.20

1415

8712

8 x

94st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.20

1582

212

0 x

73st

slag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c201

651

088

x 6

2st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.99

3776

510

6 x

71st

alag

mite

? R

ev. W

. Wya

tt G

illA

.W. F

rank

s 18.

11.7

618

76O

c191

0-29

722

1112

9 x

109

stal

agm

iteLM

SPu

rcha

se fr

om L

MS,

191

0O

c191

0-29

8ca

. 482

79st

alag

mite

LMS

Purc

hase

from

LM

S, 1

910

Oc1

938

1001

.91

454

86 x

60

trida

cna

“mad

e fr

om c

lam

shel

l”J.K

.B .

List

er 1

891

Mis

s E.K

. Lis

ter

1938

Oc1

944,

02.7

5176

513

0 x

78st

alag

mite

Mrs

W.G

. Bea

sley

Oc1

946,

02.1

652

106

x 72

stal

agm

iteR

ev. T

. Pow

ell F

.L.S

.W

.G. W

alla

ce19

01 E

.192

36

064

x 4

6st

alag

mite

Purc

hd fr

om d

ealer

Web

ster (

W.D

.) 19

0119

48.2

589

250

71 x

38

stal

actit

eA

uckl

and

Mus

eum

1948

1954

.109

400

71 x

47

shel

lL.

M.S

. not

e on

Bea

sley

labe

lH

arry

Bea

sley

(fro

m L

MS?

)19

5454

.111

.203

90 x

60

prob

ably

cal

cite

1954

54.1

11.2

0480

x 5

8de

nse

calc

ium

car

bona

teB

ough

t LM

S pe

r HD

Cot

ton

Bea

sley

from

LM

S19

54? ? 21

2Ast

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Bst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Cst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Dst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey

Tabl

e 1.

Lis

t of

mus

eum

s w

ith

thro

win

g st

ones

giv

ing

acce

ssio

n nu

mbe

r, w

eigh

t, le

ngth

/bre

adth

, raw

m

ater

ial,

coll

ecto

r, do

nor

and

date

of

dona

tion

.

391

Mus

eum

Acc

essi

on

num

ber

Wei

ght

in g

ram

sL

engt

h / B

read

th

to n

eare

st m

m.

Raw

mat

eria

lC

olle

ctor

/ P

revi

ous

Ow

ner

Don

orD

onat

ion

dat

e

Te

Pap

aM

useu

m o

fN

ew Z

eala

nd

Auc

klan

d

Stat

e M

useu

m

Vic

tori

a

Pea

body

Har

vard

Bis

hop

Haw

aii

Pit

t R

iver

s

Bri

tish

Mus

eum

Cam

brid

ge

Mus

eum

of A

rch

& A

nth.

Wor

ld M

useu

m

Liv

erpo

ol

Mai

dsto

ne

FE00

4896

/144

421

8 x

172

All

“sto

ne”

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/249

697

x 6

4al

thou

gh g

ener

alSi

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/3

474

93 x

63

note

men

tions

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/439

283

x 6

2st

alac

tite

as th

eSi

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/5

455

84 x

64

raw

mat

eria

l.Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/6

353

71 x

58

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/746

570

x 7

0Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/8

386

73 x

67

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/924

957

x 5

6Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/1

015

366

x 4

1Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/1

119

560

x 4

7Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0022

41

84 x

64

ston

eR

ev. J

. Ing

lisR

ev. J

. Ing

lis18

69O

L000

107/

S57

311

5 x

70st

one

Old

man

Col

lect

ion

Purc

hase

d19

4816

300.

120

075

x 4

7ba

salt/

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

250

098

x 6

2st

one

Judg

e F.

O.V

. Ach

eson

1630

0.3

220

74 x

49

stal

actit

e/lim

esto

neJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

415

064

x 4

6co

ral

Judg

e F.

O.V

. Ach

eson

1630

0.5

310

65 x

60

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

633

071

x 5

7ba

salt/

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

862.

1st

alac

tite

or v

olca

nic

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.2

160

64 x

45

basa

lt/st

one

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.3

430

72 x

62

stal

actit

e or

vol

cani

cM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

lM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

l16

862.

438

080

x 6

0st

alac

tite

or v

olca

nic

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.5

390

76 x

58

stal

actit

e or

vol

cani

cM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

lM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

l16

862.

630

076

x 5

7st

alac

tite/

limes

tone

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1171

384

012

2 x

77st

alag

mite

Mr P

ercy

Sm

ithM

r Per

cy S

mith

1890

1171

5.1

680

96 x

77

wor

ked

cora

l lim

esto

ne st

alag

mite

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.2

500

82 x

69

wor

ked

cora

l lim

esto

ne st

alag

mite

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.3

340

65 x

64

basa

lt/st

one

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.4

420

74 x

61

basa

lt/st

one

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

8213

410

76 x

62

limes

tone

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

8214

185

ston

eD

r Pet

er B

uck

Dr P

eter

Buc

k82

1532

781

x 6

0co

ral

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

1089

240

088

x 5

8st

alac

tite

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

1927

1089

344

068

x 6

4ba

salt/

ston

eD

r Pet

er B

uck

Dr P

eter

Buc

k 19

2710

6156

095

x 7

6ba

salt/

ston

eD

r Buc

kD

r Buc

k19

2731

6534

074

x 6

0ba

salt/

ston

eE.

J. C

unni

ngha

m19

2925

760.

183

stal

actit

e/lim

esto

neM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

0.2

210

81 x

52

cora

lM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

1.1

490

76 x

73

ston

eM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

1.2

76 x

57

ston

eM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

X26

7075

080

x 8

0ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

n?1

889

X26

7110

3510

0 x

90ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

nX

2672

1420

120

x 10

5ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

nX

2673

1560

140

x 10

0tra

nslu

cent

cal

cite

or c

arbo

nate

of l

ime

S. D

anne

ford

1892

X26

7416

0013

0 x

100

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2675

360

90 x

60

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2676

330

80 x

60

trans

luce

nt c

alci

teS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2677

480

90 x

65

opaq

ue c

alci

teS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2678

235

90 x

50

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2679

140

70 x

40?

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

7185

820

105

x 85

?ca

lcite

Unk

now

n?1

901

00-8

-70/

5539

239

293

x 6

0st

alac

tite

Ale

xand

er A

gass

izW

. McM

. Woo

dwor

th12

-23-

70/8

1721

408

80 x

64

stal

actit

ePu

rcha

se11

157

368

78 x

67

limes

tone

Purc

hase

1913

1115

848

276

x 6

7lim

esto

nePu

rcha

se19

1311

159

283

76 x

61

ston

ePu

rcha

se19

13B

.077

54st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

55st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

56st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

57st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

58st

alac

tite

as th

e?

Loeb

O20

37 (?

N10

539)

1887

.1.5

8152

580

x 6

5na

tive

stal

agm

iteR

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1887

.1.5

8236

080

x 5

5tri

dacn

a sh

ell

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.583

775

105

x 80

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.584

425

90 x

55

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.585

950

95 x

85

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.586

1550

145

x 95

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.587

500

90 x

65

trida

cna

shel

lR

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1887

.1.5

8828

080

x 6

0ba

salt,

“st

one

fore

ign

to is

land

”R

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1928

.68.

1572

5g10

5 x

75st

one

NB

lim

esto

ne?

Rev

. Wya

tt G

ill ?

187

5A

.W. F

rank

s 19

28.6

8.16

ston

e N

B li

mes

tone

? R

ev. W

yatt

Gill

? 1

875

A.W

. Fra

nks

Oc.

2013

1360

152

x 10

4st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.20

1415

8712

8 x

94st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.20

1582

212

0 x

73st

slag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c201

651

088

x 6

2st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.99

3776

510

6 x

71st

alag

mite

? R

ev. W

. Wya

tt G

illA

.W. F

rank

s 18.

11.7

618

76O

c191

0-29

722

1112

9 x

109

stal

agm

iteLM

SPu

rcha

se fr

om L

MS,

191

0O

c191

0-29

8ca

. 482

79st

alag

mite

LMS

Purc

hase

from

LM

S, 1

910

Oc1

938

1001

.91

454

86 x

60

trida

cna

“mad

e fr

om c

lam

shel

l”J.K

.B .

List

er 1

891

Mis

s E.K

. Lis

ter

1938

Oc1

944,

02.7

5176

513

0 x

78st

alag

mite

Mrs

W.G

. Bea

sley

Oc1

946,

02.1

652

106

x 72

stal

agm

iteR

ev. T

. Pow

ell F

.L.S

.W

.G. W

alla

ce19

01 E

.192

36

064

x 4

6st

alag

mite

Purc

hd fr

om d

ealer

Web

ster (

W.D

.) 19

0119

48.2

589

250

71 x

38

stal

actit

eA

uckl

and

Mus

eum

1948

1954

.109

400

71 x

47

shel

lL.

M.S

. not

e on

Bea

sley

labe

lH

arry

Bea

sley

(fro

m L

MS?

)19

5454

.111

.203

90 x

60

prob

ably

cal

cite

1954

54.1

11.2

0480

x 5

8de

nse

calc

ium

car

bona

teB

ough

t LM

S pe

r HD

Cot

ton

Bea

sley

from

LM

S19

54? ? 21

2Ast

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Bst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Cst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Dst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey

— c

onti

nued

ove

r pa

ge

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones392

Mus

eum

Acc

essi

on

num

ber

Wei

ght

in g

ram

sL

engt

h / B

read

th

to n

eare

st m

m.

Raw

mat

eria

lC

olle

ctor

/ P

revi

ous

Ow

ner

Don

orD

onat

ion

dat

e

Te

Pap

aM

useu

m o

fN

ew Z

eala

nd

Auc

klan

d

Stat

e M

useu

m

Vic

tori

a

Pea

body

Har

vard

Bis

hop

Haw

aii

Pit

t R

iver

s

Bri

tish

Mus

eum

Cam

brid

ge

Mus

eum

of A

rch

& A

nth.

Wor

ld M

useu

m

Liv

erpo

ol

Mai

dsto

ne

FE00

4896

/144

421

8 x

172

All

“sto

ne”

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/249

697

x 6

4al

thou

gh g

ener

alSi

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/3

474

93 x

63

note

men

tions

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/439

283

x 6

2st

alac

tite

as th

eSi

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/5

455

84 x

64

raw

mat

eria

l.Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/6

353

71 x

58

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/746

570

x 7

0Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/8

386

73 x

67

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/924

957

x 5

6Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/1

015

366

x 4

1Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/1

119

560

x 4

7Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0022

41

84 x

64

ston

eR

ev. J

. Ing

lisR

ev. J

. Ing

lis18

69O

L000

107/

S57

311

5 x

70st

one

Old

man

Col

lect

ion

Purc

hase

d19

4816

300.

120

075

x 4

7ba

salt/

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

250

098

x 6

2st

one

Judg

e F.

O.V

. Ach

eson

1630

0.3

220

74 x

49

stal

actit

e/lim

esto

neJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

415

064

x 4

6co

ral

Judg

e F.

O.V

. Ach

eson

1630

0.5

310

65 x

60

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

633

071

x 5

7ba

salt/

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

862.

1st

alac

tite

or v

olca

nic

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.2

160

64 x

45

basa

lt/st

one

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.3

430

72 x

62

stal

actit

e or

vol

cani

cM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

lM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

l16

862.

438

080

x 6

0st

alac

tite

or v

olca

nic

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.5

390

76 x

58

stal

actit

e or

vol

cani

cM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

lM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

l16

862.

630

076

x 5

7st

alac

tite/

limes

tone

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1171

384

012

2 x

77st

alag

mite

Mr P

ercy

Sm

ithM

r Per

cy S

mith

1890

1171

5.1

680

96 x

77

wor

ked

cora

l lim

esto

ne st

alag

mite

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.2

500

82 x

69

wor

ked

cora

l lim

esto

ne st

alag

mite

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.3

340

65 x

64

basa

lt/st

one

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.4

420

74 x

61

basa

lt/st

one

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

8213

410

76 x

62

limes

tone

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

8214

185

ston

eD

r Pet

er B

uck

Dr P

eter

Buc

k82

1532

781

x 6

0co

ral

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

1089

240

088

x 5

8st

alac

tite

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

1927

1089

344

068

x 6

4ba

salt/

ston

eD

r Pet

er B

uck

Dr P

eter

Buc

k 19

2710

6156

095

x 7

6ba

salt/

ston

eD

r Buc

kD

r Buc

k19

2731

6534

074

x 6

0ba

salt/

ston

eE.

J. C

unni

ngha

m19

2925

760.

183

stal

actit

e/lim

esto

neM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

0.2

210

81 x

52

cora

lM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

1.1

490

76 x

73

ston

eM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

1.2

76 x

57

ston

eM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

X26

7075

080

x 8

0ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

n?1

889

X26

7110

3510

0 x

90ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

nX

2672

1420

120

x 10

5ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

nX

2673

1560

140

x 10

0tra

nslu

cent

cal

cite

or c

arbo

nate

of l

ime

S. D

anne

ford

1892

X26

7416

0013

0 x

100

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2675

360

90 x

60

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2676

330

80 x

60

trans

luce

nt c

alci

teS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2677

480

90 x

65

opaq

ue c

alci

teS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2678

235

90 x

50

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2679

140

70 x

40?

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

7185

820

105

x 85

?ca

lcite

Unk

now

n?1

901

00-8

-70/

5539

239

293

x 6

0st

alac

tite

Ale

xand

er A

gass

izW

. McM

. Woo

dwor

th12

-23-

70/8

1721

408

80 x

64

stal

actit

ePu

rcha

se11

157

368

78 x

67

limes

tone

Purc

hase

1913

1115

848

276

x 6

7lim

esto

nePu

rcha

se19

1311

159

283

76 x

61

ston

ePu

rcha

se19

13B

.077

54st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

55st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

56st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

57st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

58st

alac

tite

as th

e?

Loeb

O20

37 (?

N10

539)

1887

.1.5

8152

580

x 6

5na

tive

stal

agm

iteR

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1887

.1.5

8236

080

x 5

5tri

dacn

a sh

ell

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.583

775

105

x 80

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.584

425

90 x

55

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.585

950

95 x

85

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.586

1550

145

x 95

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.587

500

90 x

65

trida

cna

shel

lR

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1887

.1.5

8828

080

x 6

0ba

salt,

“st

one

fore

ign

to is

land

”R

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1928

.68.

1572

5g10

5 x

75st

one

NB

lim

esto

ne?

Rev

. Wya

tt G

ill ?

187

5A

.W. F

rank

s 19

28.6

8.16

ston

e N

B li

mes

tone

? R

ev. W

yatt

Gill

? 1

875

A.W

. Fra

nks

Oc.

2013

1360

152

x 10

4st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.20

1415

8712

8 x

94st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.20

1582

212

0 x

73st

slag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c201

651

088

x 6

2st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.99

3776

510

6 x

71st

alag

mite

? R

ev. W

. Wya

tt G

illA

.W. F

rank

s 18.

11.7

618

76O

c191

0-29

722

1112

9 x

109

stal

agm

iteLM

SPu

rcha

se fr

om L

MS,

191

0O

c191

0-29

8ca

. 482

79st

alag

mite

LMS

Purc

hase

from

LM

S, 1

910

Oc1

938

1001

.91

454

86 x

60

trida

cna

“mad

e fr

om c

lam

shel

l”J.K

.B .

List

er 1

891

Mis

s E.K

. Lis

ter

1938

Oc1

944,

02.7

5176

513

0 x

78st

alag

mite

Mrs

W.G

. Bea

sley

Oc1

946,

02.1

652

106

x 72

stal

agm

iteR

ev. T

. Pow

ell F

.L.S

.W

.G. W

alla

ce19

01 E

.192

36

064

x 4

6st

alag

mite

Purc

hd fr

om d

ealer

Web

ster (

W.D

.) 19

0119

48.2

589

250

71 x

38

stal

actit

eA

uckl

and

Mus

eum

1948

1954

.109

400

71 x

47

shel

lL.

M.S

. not

e on

Bea

sley

labe

lH

arry

Bea

sley

(fro

m L

MS?

)19

5454

.111

.203

90 x

60

prob

ably

cal

cite

1954

54.1

11.2

0480

x 5

8de

nse

calc

ium

car

bona

teB

ough

t LM

S pe

r HD

Cot

ton

Bea

sley

from

LM

S19

54? ? 21

2Ast

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Bst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Cst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Dst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey

Mus

eum

Acc

essi

on

num

ber

Wei

ght

in g

ram

sL

engt

h / B

read

th

to n

eare

st m

m.

Raw

mat

eria

lC

olle

ctor

/ P

revi

ous

Ow

ner

Don

orD

onat

ion

dat

e

Te

Pap

aM

useu

m o

fN

ew Z

eala

nd

Auc

klan

d

Stat

e M

useu

m

Vic

tori

a

Pea

body

Har

vard

Bis

hop

Haw

aii

Pit

t R

iver

s

Bri

tish

Mus

eum

Cam

brid

ge

Mus

eum

of A

rch

& A

nth.

Wor

ld M

useu

m

Liv

erpo

ol

Mai

dsto

ne

FE00

4896

/144

421

8 x

172

All

“sto

ne”

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/249

697

x 6

4al

thou

gh g

ener

alSi

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/3

474

93 x

63

note

men

tions

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/439

283

x 6

2st

alac

tite

as th

eSi

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/5

455

84 x

64

raw

mat

eria

l.Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/6

353

71 x

58

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/746

570

x 7

0Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/8

386

73 x

67

Sir J

osep

h K

inse

yLa

dy K

inse

y an

d M

rs M

oore

1936

FE00

4896

/924

957

x 5

6Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/1

015

366

x 4

1Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0048

96/1

119

560

x 4

7Si

r Jos

eph

Kin

sey

Lady

Kin

sey

and

Mrs

Moo

re19

36FE

0022

41

84 x

64

ston

eR

ev. J

. Ing

lisR

ev. J

. Ing

lis18

69O

L000

107/

S57

311

5 x

70st

one

Old

man

Col

lect

ion

Purc

hase

d19

4816

300.

120

075

x 4

7ba

salt/

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

250

098

x 6

2st

one

Judg

e F.

O.V

. Ach

eson

1630

0.3

220

74 x

49

stal

actit

e/lim

esto

neJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

415

064

x 4

6co

ral

Judg

e F.

O.V

. Ach

eson

1630

0.5

310

65 x

60

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

300.

633

071

x 5

7ba

salt/

ston

eJu

dge

F.O

.V. A

ches

on16

862.

1st

alac

tite

or v

olca

nic

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.2

160

64 x

45

basa

lt/st

one

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.3

430

72 x

62

stal

actit

e or

vol

cani

cM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

lM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

l16

862.

438

080

x 6

0st

alac

tite

or v

olca

nic

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1686

2.5

390

76 x

58

stal

actit

e or

vol

cani

cM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

lM

r H.G

. Cor

nwal

l16

862.

630

076

x 5

7st

alac

tite/

limes

tone

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

Mr H

.G. C

ornw

all

1171

384

012

2 x

77st

alag

mite

Mr P

ercy

Sm

ithM

r Per

cy S

mith

1890

1171

5.1

680

96 x

77

wor

ked

cora

l lim

esto

ne st

alag

mite

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.2

500

82 x

69

wor

ked

cora

l lim

esto

ne st

alag

mite

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.3

340

65 x

64

basa

lt/st

one

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

1171

5.4

420

74 x

61

basa

lt/st

one

Mr T

.L. W

hite

1892

8213

410

76 x

62

limes

tone

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

8214

185

ston

eD

r Pet

er B

uck

Dr P

eter

Buc

k82

1532

781

x 6

0co

ral

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

1089

240

088

x 5

8st

alac

tite

Dr P

eter

Buc

kD

r Pet

er B

uck

1927

1089

344

068

x 6

4ba

salt/

ston

eD

r Pet

er B

uck

Dr P

eter

Buc

k 19

2710

6156

095

x 7

6ba

salt/

ston

eD

r Buc

kD

r Buc

k19

2731

6534

074

x 6

0ba

salt/

ston

eE.

J. C

unni

ngha

m19

2925

760.

183

stal

actit

e/lim

esto

neM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

0.2

210

81 x

52

cora

lM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

1.1

490

76 x

73

ston

eM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

2576

1.2

76 x

57

ston

eM

rs E

. Par

amor

e (T

e Pu

ke)

X26

7075

080

x 8

0ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

n?1

889

X26

7110

3510

0 x

90ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

nX

2672

1420

120

x 10

5ca

lcite

or s

tala

gmite

Unk

now

nX

2673

1560

140

x 10

0tra

nslu

cent

cal

cite

or c

arbo

nate

of l

ime

S. D

anne

ford

1892

X26

7416

0013

0 x

100

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2675

360

90 x

60

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2676

330

80 x

60

trans

luce

nt c

alci

teS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2677

480

90 x

65

opaq

ue c

alci

teS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2678

235

90 x

50

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

2679

140

70 x

40?

calc

iteS.

Dan

nefo

rd18

92X

7185

820

105

x 85

?ca

lcite

Unk

now

n?1

901

00-8

-70/

5539

239

293

x 6

0st

alac

tite

Ale

xand

er A

gass

izW

. McM

. Woo

dwor

th12

-23-

70/8

1721

408

80 x

64

stal

actit

ePu

rcha

se11

157

368

78 x

67

limes

tone

Purc

hase

1913

1115

848

276

x 6

7lim

esto

nePu

rcha

se19

1311

159

283

76 x

61

ston

ePu

rcha

se19

13B

.077

54st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

55st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

56st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

57st

one

? Lo

ebB

.077

58st

alac

tite

as th

e?

Loeb

O20

37 (?

N10

539)

1887

.1.5

8152

580

x 6

5na

tive

stal

agm

iteR

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1887

.1.5

8236

080

x 5

5tri

dacn

a sh

ell

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.583

775

105

x 80

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.584

425

90 x

55

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.585

950

95 x

85

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.586

1550

145

x 95

nativ

e st

alag

mite

Rev

. W.G

. Law

esG

eorg

e R

olle

ston

, dir.

OU

MN

H18

8618

87.1

.587

500

90 x

65

trida

cna

shel

lR

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1887

.1.5

8828

080

x 6

0ba

salt,

“st

one

fore

ign

to is

land

”R

ev. W

.G. L

awes

Geo

rge

Rol

lest

on, d

ir. O

UM

NH

1886

1928

.68.

1572

5g10

5 x

75st

one

NB

lim

esto

ne?

Rev

. Wya

tt G

ill ?

187

5A

.W. F

rank

s 19

28.6

8.16

ston

e N

B li

mes

tone

? R

ev. W

yatt

Gill

? 1

875

A.W

. Fra

nks

Oc.

2013

1360

152

x 10

4st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.20

1415

8712

8 x

94st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.20

1582

212

0 x

73st

slag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c201

651

088

x 6

2st

alag

mite

? R

ev. T

. Pow

ell

Chr

isty

Col

ln18

66O

c.99

3776

510

6 x

71st

alag

mite

? R

ev. W

. Wya

tt G

illA

.W. F

rank

s 18.

11.7

618

76O

c191

0-29

722

1112

9 x

109

stal

agm

iteLM

SPu

rcha

se fr

om L

MS,

191

0O

c191

0-29

8ca

. 482

79st

alag

mite

LMS

Purc

hase

from

LM

S, 1

910

Oc1

938

1001

.91

454

86 x

60

trida

cna

“mad

e fr

om c

lam

shel

l”J.K

.B .

List

er 1

891

Mis

s E.K

. Lis

ter

1938

Oc1

944,

02.7

5176

513

0 x

78st

alag

mite

Mrs

W.G

. Bea

sley

Oc1

946,

02.1

652

106

x 72

stal

agm

iteR

ev. T

. Pow

ell F

.L.S

.W

.G. W

alla

ce19

01 E

.192

36

064

x 4

6st

alag

mite

Purc

hd fr

om d

ealer

Web

ster (

W.D

.) 19

0119

48.2

589

250

71 x

38

stal

actit

eA

uckl

and

Mus

eum

1948

1954

.109

400

71 x

47

shel

lL.

M.S

. not

e on

Bea

sley

labe

lH

arry

Bea

sley

(fro

m L

MS?

)19

5454

.111

.203

90 x

60

prob

ably

cal

cite

1954

54.1

11.2

0480

x 5

8de

nse

calc

ium

car

bona

teB

ough

t LM

S pe

r HD

Cot

ton

Bea

sley

from

LM

S19

54? ? 21

2Ast

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Bst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Cst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey21

2Dst

alag

mite

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey 1

865

Juliu

s Bre

nchl

ey

393

A B

C D

F

H

I

E

G

J

0 5 cms 10

0 2 ins 4

Figure 1. Throwing stones in the collections of the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford. Redrawn from Figure 1, B. Isaac 1987.

A. 1887.1.588. Basalt. B. 1887.1.584. Stalagmite. C. 1887.1.585. Stalagmite. D. 1887.1.581. Stalagmite. E. 1887.1.583. Stalagmite. F. 1928.68.15. Stalagmite. G. 1887.1.586. Stalagmite. H. 1887.1.587. Tridacna.I. 1887.1.582. Tridacna. J. 1913.65.29. Originally identified as “Fusiform missile of stalagmite”, it is most likely of travertine, and a sling stone, possibly not from Niue.

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones394

Figure 2. Length/breadth in grams. The preferred proportions cluster around 8:6.

Figure 3. Distribution of weight by 50 gram interval.

395

the mean of the weights is 440g, and the median 425g. Barbara Isaac (1987: 9) had concluded that the largest of the stones supported the claim by the LMS missionary Thomas Powell (1868: 32) that specimens up to 3-4 lbs (1.4-1.8kg) had been thrown. However, Misa Kulatea, a holder of traditional knowledge on Niue, said that this was unlikely and that a stone of that dimension would have been a fishing weight (Kulatea, pers. comm. 1997).

Some of the smaller items might also have been used as sling stones, but even the smallest at 140g has the proportions of a throwing stone, not an elongated fusiform. We do not examine here the possible overlap in use of sling and throwing stones. In his online article summarising research on sling stones, Thom Richardson (n.d.) gives statistics that suggest the preferential weight is under 150g, although larger stones are also used, and it is possible that Niuean stones up to 250g or even larger were slung or thrown depending on circumstance. The proportions of sling stones from New Caledonia in the Te Papa Museum are much closer to 2:1 (8:4) L/B in overall dimensions.

The relevance of the stones’ weights to human throwing behaviour may be inferred from a paper by Alan Cannell (2002: 335-39), which describes experimenting with thrown stones, assessing impact energy vs. efficiency, concluding that the ideal mass selected by men will be around 500g. He suggests that with anything “...up to about 400g of mass, there is positive gain of impact energy for every additional gram thrown. After 600g, the gain is almost negligible, and the extra impact energy obtained is simply not worth the effort” (Cannell 2002: 336, Fig. 1). In addition to recording the free choice of a number of young men and women, Cannell supported these figures by looking at rock hand samples taken by geologists, and fragmentation grenades in use by NATO and US forces. Again, the preferred weights for men fell between 400-600g. It would seem therefore that the Savage Islanders in their manufacture of throwing stones were conforming to the particular principles of physics that underlie human stone-throwing behaviour. Moreover, the museum collections examined here widen the sample of known thrown stones, suggesting there are clear optimal sizes for modern humans. 20

The earliest accounts of the stones give stalagmitic/stalactitic limestone as the raw material (Powell 1868: 32; see also Brenchley 1873: 24). In the present day museum accession records, however, there are a variety of materials recorded, not all reliably. Sixty-nine percent (n=63) of securely identified stones are tagged as stalagmitic, stalactitic, calcite or worked coral limestone. Nine percent (n=9) are basalt; four percent (n=4) are of Tridacna shell; three percent (n=3) are given as coral. The remainder are classified as “stone”. Despite the volcanic origin of Niue, its subsequent geological history of immersion means that basalt is not obtainable on the island, but must have been imported from elsewhere. Only one of the basalt specimens was acquired in the 19th century (Pitt Rivers, 1887.1.588). The remainder seem to have been collected, or at least donated in the 20th century. Percy Smith (1902: 211) mentioned some war stones being black “and have been brought to the island as there is no such stone native to it”, but he is also mistaken in attributing most of the stones to coral; the one stone that he donated to the Auckland Museum (11713) is identified by the museum as stalagmite. The attribution to coral is puzzling since Niue does not have surrounding coral reefs.

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones396

These specimens could either be fossil coral or it may be that the term is short for coral limestone, in itself different from the stalagmites formed within the caves.

The method of manufacture is addressed most fully in one account, by Thomas Powell where he states that “these are pieces of either stalagmite or stalactite, or of both, which they used to break off from the floors or roofs of their water caves, and then rub them down, on other stones or rough coral, to the required size and shape” (Powell 1868: 32). Additionally, a note with four of the British Museum specimens indicates that the surfaces were rubbed smooth. When examined closely, some of the war stones show signs of abrasion (e.g., PRM 1887.1.584 and 586; CMAA 1901 E.192). Before the stones could be rubbed smooth, it is possible that blanks of raw material were flaked into a rough approximation. No such blanks are known. Finally, what explanation can be given for the unusual shape of the throwing stones? There is no existing information concerning the development of the missile, however the fusiform and oval shapes of sling stones from across the Pacific and elsewhere may allow for a spin when being thrown, and this may have been preserved in the morphology of the throwing stones. Additionally, the raw material of stalagmite lends itself to an elongated form. It is not clear which part of the Tridacna shell was used, but the fluting and folding would also lend itself to an elongated artefact.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the museum curators and collections management staff who provided so much of the data on which this paper rests: Safua Akeli (Curator Pacific Cultures, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa), Joshua Bell (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC), Sagale Buadromo (Director, Fiji Museum), Oliver Douglas (Assistant Curator, Museum of English Rural Life, Reading, UK), Giles Guthrie (Collections Manager, Maidstone Museum, UK), Rachel Hand (Curatorial Assistant for Anthropology, Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, UK), Robin Hekau (Director, Niue Museum), Adrienne Kaeppler (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC), Carol E Mayer (Head, Curatorial Department, UBC Museum of Anthropology, Canada), Zena McGreevy (Pitt Rivers Museum, UK), Natasha McKinney (Curator, Oceania Pacific Collections particularly Polynesia, British Museum, UK), Fuli Pereira (Pacific Curator, Auckland Museum, NZ), Lynne Heidi Stumpe (Curator of Oceanic Collections, National Museums, Liverpool, UK), Ron Vanderwal (Curator Emeritus, State Museum of Victoria, Australia). Chris Wingfield (Honorary Research Associate, Pitt Rivers Museum, UK) and Hilke Thode-Arora (Munich State Museum of Ethnology) have been most generous in sharing the results of their own research. We especially recognise the contribution of Misa Kulatea of Niue, who shared his deep knowledge of the island with Barbara Isaac in 1997. This visit was also made possible by a three-day anchorage off Niue by the Eye of the Wind, captain “Tiger” Timms.

397

NOTES

1. “…we hope to have the satisfaction of being perhaps the first Europeans who have seen anything of Niue…” (Hood 1863: 10). He was surprised to hear an Islander speaking English and to learn of the resident English missionary.

2. In the preface to Meade’s journals, his brother wrote, “They have been edited in moments taken from the pressure of constant work; and with the exception of a few trifling corrections, are printed almost as they appear in my Brother’s MS.” In his haste, did the brother omit the word “with” which, if inserted in the phrase “rounded with something like a mower’s hone” makes good sense?

3. In 1840 a party from the Samoan Mission, which had attempted to land against strong opposition, “were mercifully preserved, however, and returned to Samoa, bringing with them three natives and an immense quantity of war weapons, which they were glad to purchase, in order to disarm the noisy and ungovernable barbarians…” (Murray 1863: 361). The eventual disposition of these weapons is not known.

4. The guide was dated three years after Christy’s death when, according to the terms of his will, his collection was transferred to the British Museum, together with the funds for further purchases.

5. The four stones in the Maidstone Museum, 212A-D, were almost certainly similarly acquired by Brenchley during his 1865 voyage on HMS Curaçao.

6. As these items were purchased using the Christy funds they are designated as “Christy Collection” in the accession notes. 1866 is therefore the earliest recorded accession of throwing stones (Wingfield 2011: 130-31). All letters quoted are from the Christy Correspondence in the British Museum.

7. There are four stones acquired by the British Museum in 1866 associated with Powell, but only two are referenced in correspondence.

8. The Armstrong was a breach-loaded rifled gun, the shell of which had a conical point. It was used extensively in fighting by British troops against Mäori in 1863.

9. This is the only stone recorded as having been collected by Percy Smith. In his Plate 7 (Smith 1902: 212-15) the one stone on show is designated as a “Maka-pou-ana, throwing stone of Stalactite, polished”. In the text, this type of stone is identified as Maka-poupou-ana.

10. Basil Thomson, who visited briefly as a representative of the British Government to sign a Treaty of Secession, did not write about throwing (Thomson 1902). Apart from a short article on the Niuean canoe, Peter Buck (1911) also seems to not have written about the Island.

11. It is not clear whether the naming referred to the raw material used, as in the names listed by Percy Smith and Loeb, or whether the names were specific to individual stones. See discussion in text below.

12. The two stones mentioned in this song are the two most rare raw materials: basalt and Tridacna.

13. Richardson (n.d.) gives an average range for sling stones weighing 45-160g as 82-90m.

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones398

14. For further statistics, see Alan Cannell (2002: 336) who tested impact energy of projectiles. He limited his throwing experiments to ten metres and did not look at accuracy over varying ranges.

15. It was through the influence of Grey that the New Zealand Government published Wyatt Gill’s Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia.

16. The date of the letter is unclear: it is May 4th 1880 or 1886. Wyatt Gill was in England in both 1880 and 1886. Tylor was appointed as Keeper of the University Museum, Oxford, in 1883, so that the presentation of the book by Grey pre-dates Tylor’s residence in Oxford (see Wingfield 2009: 29).

17. Richard Burton includes “Eromanga” as a source for rounded stones for throwing according to Commander Byron of the Royal Navy. However we have been unable to find further evidence for this.

18. “Each of them had three or four spears, with his sling, and a belt full of large stones” is understandably interpreted as a “belt full of slingstones”. There is also brief reference to Turner’s “rounded stones like cannonballs”, and Meade’s “Round balls used as missiles” (Walter and Anderson 2002: 20-21).

19. To collect this information, museums were either visited, contacted by email or letter, or their databases, where accessible and inclusive, were searched online. A written query described the throwing stones, indicating that they might have been accessioned under the rubric of “war stones”, “war hand stones”, “fighting stones” or “battle stones”, and occasionally misidentified as “sling stones”. Where the online databases were examined, all Niuean objects were surveyed, and all Polynesian weaponry, in case of geographic misallocation. Altogether, out of 26 museums approached or surveyed online, ten had examples in their collections; six were known to have none; there was no response from ten.

20. It is also of interest to students of human evolution and hunting as it opens up the possibility of identifying possible weaponry among hitherto discarded debris, once allowance is made for differences in hominin morphology.

21. The same notes suggest that it was Powell who was responsible for their sale to the British Museum, so the information would seem to come from the same source.

REFERENCES

Basedow, H., 1925. The Australian Aboriginal. Adelaide: F.W. Preece and Sons.Bell, Joshua, in press. Expressions of kindly feeling: The London Missionary Society

Collections from the Papuan Gulf. In L. Bolton, N. Thomas, L. Bonshek and J. Adams (eds), Melanesia: Art and Encounter. London: British Museum Press. [To appear in 2012].

Brenchley, Julius L., 1873. Jottings During the Cruise of HMS Curaçoa among the South Sea Islands in the Year 1865. London: Longmans Green and Co.

Buck, Peter [Te Rangi Hiroa], 1911. Some notes on the small outrigger canoe of Niue-fekai. Dominion Museum Bulletin [Wellington], 3: 91-94.

Burton, Sir Richard, 1884. The Book of the Sword. London: Chattow and Windus.

399

Cannell, Alan, 2002. Throwing behaviour and the mass distribution of geological hand samples, hand grenades and Olduvian manuports. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29 (4): 335-39.

Colley, Ann, 2003. Colonies of memory. Victorian Literature and Culture, 31 (2): 404-27.

Cook, James, 1774. Journals II, 435, 22 June 1774. www.captcook-ne.co.uk/ccne/timeline/voyage2.htmDemian, Melissa, 2006. Reflecting on loss in Papua New Guinea. Ethnos, 71 (4):

507-32.Ellis, William, 1829. Polynesian Researches. London: Fisher, Son and Jackson.Franks, A.W., 1868. Guide to the Christy Collection of Prehistoric Antiquities and

Ethnography. London: Trustees of the British Museum.Gill, William, 1880. Autobiography of the Rev. Wm. Gill: A Record of his Life as a

Missionary in the South Sea Islands. London: Yates and Alexander.Gill, William Wyatt, 1880. Historical Sketches of Savage Life in Polynesia with

Illustrative Clan Songs. Wellington: G. Didsbury.Herbert, Christopher, 1991. Culture and Anomie. Ethnographic Imagination in the

Nineteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Hood, T.H., 1863. Notes of a Cruise in H.M.S. “Fawn” in the Western Pacific in the

Year 1862. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas. Hooper, Steven, 2008. Pacific Encounters: Art and Divinity in Polynesia 1760-1860.

Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Inglis, John, 1887. In the New Hebrides, Reminiscences of Missionary Life and

Work, especially in the Island of Aneityum, from 1850-1877. London: T. Nelson and Sons.

Isaac, A. Barbara, 1987. Throwing and human evolution. African Archaeological Review, 5: 3-17.

Isaac, Gwyn, in press. We’wha goes to Washington. In R. Harrison, S. Byrne, A. Clark and R. Torrence (eds), Reassembling the Collection: Indigenous Agency and Ethnographic Collections. Santa Fe: School of Advance Research Press.

Kolb, M.P., 1719. M. Peter Kolbens Reise an des Capo du Bonne Esperance, oder das Africanische Vorgeburge der Guten Hofnung: Nebst einer Ausfuhrlichen Beshreibung Desseleben, in Dreynen Theilen Abgeasset. Nurnburg: Peter Conrad Monath.

Lane Fox, Colonel [General Pitt Rivers], 1874. Catalogue of the Anthropological Collection lent by Colonel Lane Fox for Exhibition in the Bethnal Green Branch of the South Kensington Museum 1874. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Lawes, F., 1870. Letter dated August 26th 1870, Box 32/F6, Correspondence Inventory. Council of World Mission, SOAS.

Lawes, W. George, 1862a. Box 29/F4, Correspondence Inventory. Council of World Mission, SOAS. [Cited and quoted in Powell 1868: 28].

——1862b Mission Magazine and Chronicle, November, p. 312.Loeb, Edwin M., 1924. The shaman of Niue. American Anthropologist (n.s.), 26:

393-402.——1971 [1926]. History and Traditions of Niue. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin

32. Honolulu. [Kraus Reprint 1971].

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac

Unexpected Trajectories: A History of Niuean Throwing Stones400

Luomala, Katharine, 1978. Symbolic slaying in Niue. In N. Gunson (ed.), The Changing Pacific: Essays in Honour of H.E. Maude. Melbourne and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 142-73.

Meade, H., 1870. A Ride Through the Disturbed Districts of New Zealand: Together with Some Account of the South Sea Islands. Being Selections from the Journals and Letters of Lieut. the Honorable Herbert Meade, R.N. edited by his Brother. London: John Murray.

Mulvaney, D J., 1967. Cricket Walkabout. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.Murray, Archibald W., 1863. Missions in Western Polynesia: Being Historical Sketches

of these Missions from their Commencement to the Present Time. London: J.P. Snow.

——1874. Wonders in the Western Isles. London: Yates and Alexander.O’Hanlon, Michael and Robert Welsch, 2000. Hunting the Gatherers: Ethnographic

Collectors, Agents and Agency in Melanesia 1870s-1930s. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Powell, Rev. Thomas, 1868. Savage Island: A Brief Account of the Island of Niue and of the Work of the Gospel among its People. London: Unwin Brothers.

Richardson, Thom, n.d. The ballistics of the sling. In Slinging.Org: News and Information about the Ancient Weapon. Guides and Articles. Other Topics. http://slinging.org/index.php?page=the-ballistics-of-the-sling---thom-richardson

Smith, S. Percy, 1902. Niue Island and its people. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 11: 80-106, 163-78, 195-218.

——1903. Niue Island and its people. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 12: 1-31, 85-119.

Sparrmann, Anders, 1944. A Voyage Round the World with Captain James Cook in H.M.S. Resolution. Translated from the Swedish by Huldine Bennish and Averil Mackenzie-Griere. London: Golden Cockerel Press.

Thode-Arora, Hilke, 2009. Weavers of Men and Women. Niuean Weaving and its Social Implications. Berlin: Reimer.

Thomson, Basil, 1902. Savage Island: An Account of a Sojourn in Niue and Tonga. London: A.J. Murray.

Trotter, M.M., 1979. Niue Island Archaeological Survey. Canterbury Museum Bulletin No. 7. Christchurch.

Turner, Rev. George, 1861. Nineteen Years in Polynesia: Missionary Life, Travels, and Researches in the Islands of the Pacific. London: John Snow.

——1884. Samoa a Hundred Years Ago and Long Before. London: MacMillan and Co.Walter, Richard and Atholl Anderson, 2002. The Archaeology of Niue Island West

Polynesia. Bishop Museum Bulletin in Anthropology 10. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

Williams, John, 1837. A Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea Islands. London: John Snow.

Wingfield, Chris, 2009. Is the heart at home? E.B. Tylor collections from Somerset. Journal of Museum Ethnography, 22: 22-28.

401

——2011. Placing Britain in the British Museum: Encompassing the Other. In P. Aronsson, A.B. Amundsen and S. Knell (eds), National Museums. London: Routledge, pp. 123-37.

——in prep. The Moving Objects of the London Missionary Society. PhD thesis to be submitted to University of Birmingham, 2012.

Wood, John George, 1870. The Natural History of Man. Hartford, Connecticut: American Publishing Company.

York, Robert and Gigi York, 2011. Slings and Slingstones: The Forgotten Weapons of Oceania and the Americas. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

ABSTRACT

Before the arrival of the first missionaries, Niuean warriors fought with stones carefully modified for throwing. This practice, much feared by sailors and missionaries, became a symbol of the primitiveness of the “Savage Island” (Cook 1774). By 1853, following Christian conversion, the practice of throwing stones had come to an end. In so far as it is possible with the limited records available, we reconstruct the original behaviour, as well as the intriguing trajectories the stones took as they left the island and were later collected by and housed in museums. We track this dispersal process, as well as the incorporation of the stones into 19th century anthropological thinking. Today, there is only one stone known on the island, and none are known to have been found in archaeological surveys. This impels us to address the scale of loss represented by these now geographically remote objects of the past.

Keywords: Niue, throwing stones, missionaries, museum collections.

Barbara Isaac and Gwyneira Isaac