ARMS. 253 



north coast by FlNSCH in Attack Harbour [1SS8 — 93, 216, PL 16, fig. 7], and in British N. G. 

 by D" Albertis [1S80, II, 125, 126]. 



Shields, apart from the ornamental breast shields (N°\ 388 — 391), hâve never been 

 reported of Papua Tâlandjang, and it is only by accident that some were met with in the 

 village of Thaë, in the district of Sëkâ. This village had, about 1890, to endure an attack by 

 people of the Arso tribe, who inhabit a more easterly district on German territory, and who 

 succeeded in setting the temple on fire, but with the further attack on the village suffered the 

 loss of some men and left hère some shields, which I still found in 1903 preserved in the com- 

 munity house. As appears from PI. XXVI, figs. 2 and 11 — 14, they exactly correspond, as to 

 shape and size, to the shields mentioned by PARKINSON [1900, 29, PI. XIX, figs. 17 — 19J 

 of the adjoining Berlin Harbour district, also by Erdweg [1902, 326, 327, fig. 226 a- — d] of 

 Tumleo, and by FlNSCH [188S— 93, 216, PI. 17, fig. 1] and PREUSS [1899, 175, fig. 4] of 

 Attack Harbour. According to FlNSCH they are made out of the wall-like roots of large trees. 

 The bulging out of the carved front surface, which PARKINSON mentions, would then be 

 accidentai, possibly caused by subséquent shrinking and, as a fact, with N°. 1265 of the 

 collection (PI. XXVI, fig. 11), the carved surface is strongly concave. 



The shield is carried on a loop of bark, up to ± 30cm. in length, for which 

 purpose. a little above the middle (in order to prevent its falling forward), two small, square 

 holes hâve been made, far enough away from each other, to prevent the leaning over 

 either to the left or to the right. When the left arm is passed through the loop and this is 

 slipped over the left shoulder, the feet are left exposed, as with shields of British N. G. (Annual 

 REPORT [1896 — 97, 37]). The projection on the top still offers some shelter for the head, 

 just the reverse as with the big shield illustrated by MACGREGOR [1897, 83]. Left to itself, 

 the shield would now hang down along the left side of the body, if it were not for the right 

 hole (supposing the shield being in use), which is usually placed a little higher, the right 

 part thus being turned more against, and the shield therefore more in front of, the body. 

 To make the handling of the shields more clear, I should mention the small, ridge-like projection, 

 to be found on the back of the right hand upper corner. The above named ethnographers do 

 not mention this projection, and yet it is an indispensable part of the shield. It is perforated, 

 and through its opening a loop, made of a strip of bark, is fastened, that must be grasped by 

 the left hand, which now governs the position of the shield. In fig. 2 of PL XXVI this 

 bark loop is partly visible. When using bow and arrow, the lower arm is simply put through 

 this loop, allowing the left hand to hold the bow. It goes without saying, that shields with 

 the bark loop at the right hand upper corner, are only fit for people who use the left hand 

 as bow-hand. Shield N°. 1264, however, has a perforated projection both at the right and at 

 the left hand upper corner, a clear proof that this shield was to be used also by people 

 who were left-handed. In this connection I quote ERDWEG [1902, 327], who mentions that 

 some Tumleo people shoot with the right, others with the left hand ; I myself never noticed 

 the shooting with the right hand used as bow-hand. That the shields should not be carried 

 flat against the body, as a powerful arrow sometimes passes two fingerbreadths through 

 the plank (ERDWEG [1. c] ), even if it is from i'/ 2 to 3 cm. thick, like the shields of the 

 collection, is practically illustrated by the broken-off arrow head, in the front edge of shield 

 N°. 1262. 



