Australian Aborigines and meteorites 
99 
DISCUSSION 
In areas such as the Nullarbor Region, the 
available country rock is limestone. Field evidence 
from this region indicates that the majority of the 
discarded implements to be found there were 
brought into the region from outside. However, the 
Nullarbor contains one of the world's richest 
accumulations of meteorites, which are easily 
recognised in that terrain (Bevan 1992). Irrespective 
of whether the indigenous Aborigines of the 
Nullarbor (the Miming people) understood the 
extra-terrestrial nature of meteorites or attached 
any other significance to them, it seems 
inconceivable that they could have ignored this 
resource without investigating the potential of 
meteorites for practical purposes. 
In terms of their practical value, although 
meteoritic materials are unusually dense, many 
meteoritic stones are weak, friable materials and 
are not as resilient as many terrestrial igneous and 
sedimentary rocks such as granites, basalts, 
gabbros and quartzites. For this reason, aside from 
their rarity, meteoritic stones would have been 
generally of less practical use to Aborigines in 
antiquity than the more abundantly available 
terrestrial rocks. Nevertheless, some highly 
crystalline stony meteorites are equally suitable as 
some terrestrial igneous rocks for the manufacture 
of implements. 
Large iron meteorites cannot be moved easily, 
and Aborigines lacked the technology to remove 
small samples from compact iron meteorites that 
did not have natural cracks or fissures. Small iron 
meteorites could not be worked easily, although 
some, such as the abundantly available 
Mundrabilla irons, could have been used as 
throwing-stones. Because of their nickel contents 
(generally 5-25 wt % Ni) meteoritic iron is 
reasonably malleable and can be hot and cold 
worked. A number of examples of working of 
material in antiquity in other parts of the world, 
notably the Inuits of Greenland and the Hopewell 
Indians of America, are documented in the 
literature (see Buchwald 1975). 
However, Australian Aboriginal 'use' of objects 
extends beyond simple mechanical useage. Odd 
stones, such as tektites, were often collected and 
used as sacred objects, charms and healing stones 
(Baker 1957). A similar use of meteorites is 
suggested by the Huckitta, Thunda and 
Cranbourne meteorite examples, and by the 
unlocated example documented by Barker (1964). 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
Where clear recognition of meteoritic events and 
sites is afforded by Aboriginal legend, descriptions 
consistently convey a theme of awe and fear. 
Meteoritic masses or their impact sites, real or 
perceived, were to be avoided. Strehlow (D. Hugo, 
pers. comm.) notes that the Aranda of central 
Australia saw meteorites (meteors) as large 
venomous snakes called kulaia, with big fiery eyes. 
These fly through the air and fall into deep 
waterholes, for which reason the latter were to be 
avoided. However, it is interesting to note that 
rather than having heavenly origins, most celestial 
phenomena were believed by people such as the 
Aranda and Ngalia of central Australia, originally 
to have ascended into the skies from an earth-born 
existence (D. Hugo, pers. comm.). Nevertheless, the 
Walanari myth suggests that the Ngalia did indeed 
have knowledge of meteors and meteorites, and 
perhaps other astronomical objects. 
It is not known whether Aborigines witnessed 
the actual impact of tire crater-forming meteorite at 
the site now known as Henbury. From evidence 
provided by Mitchell in Alderman (1932a) that is 
descriptive of the kinds of phenomena expected 
with such a devastating event, it is possible that 
they did witness the impact. However, some of the 
mythical and legendary associations of meteorite 
impact structures such as Henbury are remote 
from descriptions of a cataclysmic event, but 
equate with a far milder set of occurrences 
(Mountford 1976). This suggests that in some cases 
there was no direct connection made by Aborigines 
between what must have been a spectacular and 
noisy atmospheric and terrestrial event, and the 
geological evidence for that event. 
In relation to the Henbury craters three questions 
arise; did Aborigines see the impact as such a 
terrifying event that they decided to ignore it; were 
their interpretations subsequently modified by 
intercourse with Europeans; or did they not see it 
at all? In the last case it would not be surprising 
that they failed to attribute the craters to an extra¬ 
terrestrial origin, given that these are not common 
occurrences. Moreover, if Aborigines witnessed the 
event from a distance, which is likely considering 
the sparse nature of their population, then they 
may not have related the atmospheric and 
terrestrial events. 
The discrepancy between Mitchell's account, 
reported in Alderman (1932a), of Aboriginal 
understanding of the Henbury craters, Alderman's 
(1932a) own account and the more traditional myth 
of the Aranda people documented by Mountford 
(1976) suggests that European influence may have 
introduced a meteoritic explanation of the event to 
the Aborigines that they subsequently adopted. 
However, a proper understanding of the 
mechanics of impact cratering was not generally 
available to meteoriticists until around 1932 (e.g., 
see Spencer 1932b) and was not popularly 
published until much later. 
The Paakantji example of New South Wales 
(Jones 1989) seems less equivocal. The description 
