Woggabaliri

[Chaz Pendlebury]

I found this link of an ABC radio interview Ken Edwards did back in 2001, so he's been working on this project of re-discovering indigenous games for a long time (and by the way, I'm quite happy about such a project existing).

But it's curious that something with the unfortunate name of Woggabaliri arises out of thin air, never, ever been heard of before, just in time to get a mention in Australia's bid to host the World cup in 2022, as some sort of evidence of the long heritage of soccer in Australia!! Even worse, it's almost insinuating that the world's very first football was invented in Australia (that may be true - but you better have your story straight if someone asks the obvious question!!)

http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s271017.htm

I would think that each of Australia's rivals to host the WC in 2022 would be extremely interested in this sudden discovery of Woggabaliri.

One positive, we can forget about worrying whether we should use soccer or football, and we can call it henceforth Woggabaliri.

"KEN EDWARDS: A game similar to touch football called baroinchin, which was played with a small ball made out of kangaroo hide stuffed with fir, and it was played by girls and boys in a cleared area. And at the end of each end of the playing area was a pole put in the ground. And in the game, when you ran along and were touched, you had to throw the ball up and away from you, hopefully to someone in your team. And if they ran past the post at your end of the field, they had the honour of taking the post out of the ground and cutting a notch in it, to indicate they scored, I guess. And it was played continuously, with people swapping in and out of the game all afternoon."

Wow, touch footy too! How could anyone have read this and not have demanded to see the evidence?

 

[ian 13]

Ken Edwards, from Meanjin blog last year

As an observer of the so-called ‘Marngrook Debate’ and having read almost all the available material I am disappointed to see some of the hostility and inaccuracies that have become part of the ongoing ‘war.’ However, as someone who has been researching traditional indigenous games for many years I am now a reluctant contributor to the debate about the role of the game of marngrook in the codification of Australian football.

I notice that in my very extensive collection of information that I have almost 1000 accounts of ball games from all parts of Australia. It is interesting to note that particular types of ball games were played in different areas. For example, the game of buroinjin played in south-east Queensland was a passing game played in mixed gender teams of around eight players and has many similarities to the game of touch football (rugby). In some areas passing and catching games were predominant and in southern parts of Australia games with kicking and to a lesser extent passing were common. The nature of the societies, the cultural heritage of the people, and seasonal and geographical factors may have had roles in the differences.

I have seen film from Central Australia in the 1930s that shows Aboriginal people playing the game that to me is close to how marngrook has been commonly reported. I also have information about ball games in southern parts of Australia that pre-date the descriptions I see used in the discussions about marngrook.

As an Queenslander and ‘outsider’ to the largely Victorian debate over the role of marngrook I have nevertheless sought to find out as much as I can about traditional games and have diligently collected all the materials on the marngrook debate and have even undertaken a tour throughout the areas that seem to be the focus of the claims and counter-claims. I have visited local history societies, read pioneer reminiscences and newspapers and sought to find out information from various indigenous people. During my trips I was able to add to my information but would have to say I uncovered nothing that overwhelmingly supports – or does not support for that matter – the role of marngrook in the codification of Australian football (then Victorian rules).

I would be happy to endorse the marngrook as having a role in the codification of AFL but I do not feel that I could do so with any confidence with the information that I currently have and I feel has been presented by others. This is not to say that there may not be a ‘lost’ connection but in continuing to exhaust sources of information on traditional games I am always ready for a surprise. For example, I interviewed an Aboriginal elder in Dalby some time ago who was able to provide me with songs and games played by children while travelling to the regular Bunya nut festivals at the Bunya Mountains. Many of the descriptions she provided fitted in closely with some quite obscure archival written records I had found. People with oral traditions regarding information about marngrook may be found and I would be pleased to hear of these. I recognise that there is a traditional and collective memory of ball games in some areas that has been transmitted down through the generations. I also know that some of this ‘memory’ actually relates to games introduced by Europeans and this information needs to be scrutinised.

I have collected different accounts of the same ball game from the particular geographical location made by different people. Although there are some discrepancies in descriptions – which can at times be explained by the background of the observers – there is also the point that the very nature of the games undertaken often had ‘rules’ that could be changed during a game and/or each time it was undertaken – much like backyard games of cricket with changes to the rules. This clearly did occur in some areas but I would concede that some games showed a degree of similarity in form over time.

I respect the different viewpoints people have about the role of marngrook and support the idea of finding evidence of a connection to Australian football. However, I am disappointed to see some of the personal attacks and even ‘sensationalising’ of comments to make it appear that professional incompetence or even racism might be a ‘hidden’ factor in holding a particular viewpoint.

Gillian Hibbins has never denied the existence of traditional indigenous games and I acknowledge that Cazaly recognises this. Because of the universal nature of games in Aboriginal societies it is right for Hibbins to indicate that a ball game was possibly played near the area in which one of the ‘founders’ (Tom Wills) of Australian football grew up. I have read nothing by Hibbins that suggests that it was not possible for Wills to have played with the local Aboriginal people in their games. Her oversight was not to indicate a lack of written or oral records. Cazaly is inaccurate in her comments about the comments of Hibbins and I feel goes a bit too far in her criticism without providing her own measures of proof.

It would be nice to say that Wills played with the local Aboriginal people and took away from them ideas for Australian football but it is not something that Hibbins or anyone should be prepared to say without irrefutable evidence. Speculate of course but be careful about being definitive. In my records I many have accounts of European children and adults engaging with Aboriginal people in games of all sorts and events such as wrestling contests but who did not take anything further from the experience. Wills may have been ‘culturally or game blind’ but currently there is not the historical evidence to make a clear connection between any experience Wills might have had playing marngrook and its contribution towards the codification of Australian football.

When asked my opinion on the marngrook debate I have said that both sides need to do further research and I hold to this view. Based on the way that the groups have polarised it would appear to me that the issue may never be resolved conclusively using current information and interpretations. I do think the attack by Ciannon Cazaly on Gillian Hibbins was unfortunate and unfair. I believe that Hibbins is a conscientious and accurate researcher who has made logical and considered assumptions based on the information she has reviewed (and this seems to be supported by the AFL and their recent 150th year publication). At the same time I acknowledge that people such Jim Poulter make quite different interpretations from similar information. I also sympathise with Aboriginal people who might feel that their oral traditions and the ‘rightful’ recognition in the development of Australian football are questioned and would encourage them to present more evidence. I personally find it of interest that a kicking based game was developed in Victoria and that some local Aboriginal groups also had kicking games but the situation was no different to a great many other parts of Australia.

I would like to direct readers to the comments by Roy Hay who has also responded to the article by Cazaly. He specifically outlines the distinction between various contributing factors, connections and the codification of a sport. It is worth people remembering that the real point of contention has been that marngrook was a direct contributor to the origins and codification of Australian rules football.

It is my belief that some of the comments made by Ciannon Cazaly in her article were a little too much concerned with ‘playing the person’ (Hibbins) and as such do not contribute towards a sensible and rational discussion in the so-called ‘Footy Wars.’

Ken Edwards
Posted by Ken Edwards 12/05/09 at 06:08PM

 

[greennick]

This source is used for a few strange claims (like that it is the oldest indigenous game). Anyone got a copy of it?

Tim Hilferti, The Australian Game The Advertiser Pg 79 October 24, 2010

 

[greennick]

BSE,
It seems that the ASC liked the look of his book and decided to run with it.

I thought they commissioned the book?

 

[Barkly St End]

ian13
interesting contribution to the thread, but none of us would disagree with either Edwards or Hibbins on this point - there is no one on this thread arguing that marn grook contributed to the development of Australian football, there is insufficient evidence to make such a conclusion, we all accept that.

But the important point is that marn grook existed, it was well documented, its existence has never been in question.

So curiously:
1. how is it possible that marn grook didn't get a mention in Ken Edwards' book on indigenous games?
2. why is ausport appropriating the language of marn grook to describe Woggabaliri?
3. why are people using a famous etching of a game being played in Victoria as proof that something called Woggabaliri existed?

These are the curious little things that are occurring in and around this particular issue. Even if Ken Edwards is blameless, others are taking what he has written and extrapolating out to fit a very clear agenda.

Despite Ken Edwards' bona fides, on the question of Woggabaliri, there is a very strong likelihood that someone has fed him a line, because there appears to be zero evidence of the existence of it except for his book, and there appears to be very little in the way of referencing in relation to Woggabaliri.

The other odd thing is that he himself mentions all these variations, many of which have a decidedly modern ring to them. Very curious.

 

[mighty tiges]

This source is used for a few strange claims (like that it is the oldest indigenous game). Anyone got a copy of it?

Tim Hilferti, The Australian Game The Advertiser Pg 79 October 24, 2010

newstext.com.au has record of every News Ltd publication story online from the past 20 years or so.

That article in the Sunday Mail just repeats the FFA and ASC's dodgy claims.


The Australian game
FFA highlights indigenous soccer ties
By TIM HILFERTY
Sunday Mail
24 OCT 2010, Page 79


AUSTRALIA'S World Cup bid book features a bold claim that soccer is the national game - with a history stretching back thousands of years.

The Sunday Mail has learned Football Federation Australia's World Cup bid book for the 2022 event includes references to an indigenous game called woggabaliri.

In a claim sure to annoy their rivals at the AFL - who often refer to the Aboriginal game of marn grook - the FFA says the sport of woggabaliri proves soccer is indeed an Australian game. Recognised by the Australian Sports Commission but until now virtually unknown in the wider community, woggabaliri is described as a "co-operative kicking volley game to see how many times the ball can be kept in the air before contacting the ground''.

Similar to the UK playground game of "keepie uppie'', it featured a ball made of possum fur and was mainly played around the Bogan and Lachlan River areas of New South Wales.

"We've included woggabaliri in our bid book to show that football is part of our national heritage,'' FFA media relations head Rod Allen said. "We've had some great indigenous players, from Charlie Perkins to David Williams and Travis Dodd, and we'd hope a wider knowledge of woggabaliri might encourage more indigenous kids to play football.

"We'd also hope that it goes some way to convincing FIFA to hold the world's biggest sporting event on the only continent that hasn't hosted it.''

The name of the sport was taken from the Wiradyura language word for "play''. It was a non-competitive sport played for the sheer joy of it.

In contrast, marn grook, which translates as "game ball'', involved high marking and it has been claimed was one of the influences behind Australian football.

One of the earliest references to an Aboriginal ball game is an 1857 etching now housed at the Haddon Library at Cambridge University.

It depicts a group of Aboriginal children kicking a ball, and the accompanying text says the object of the game was to "never let the ball hit the ground''.

Although the image has sometimes been associated with marn grook, it appears the game depicted is woggabaliri.
Caption: Origin: An 1857 etching showing Aboriginal children (centre, in the background) playing football
Illus: Photo: art - aboriginal children play football in 1857 etching

 

[Righteo]

How much would this impact the credibility of Australia's WC bid if this was exposed as fraudulent? Sounds very dodgy; superb investigation

 

[Pie eyed]

I thought they commissioned the book?

According to the woman in charge of the indigenous sports section, the ASC "commissioned Edwards to travel the remote areas and collect information on and document indigenous games".
I spoke to her personally over the phone yesterday.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

newstext.com.au has record of every News Ltd publication story online from the past 20 years or so.

That article in the Sunday Mail just repeats the FFA and ASC's dodgy claims.


The Australian game
FFA highlights indigenous soccer ties
By TIM HILFERTY
Sunday Mail
24 OCT 2010, Page 79


AUSTRALIA'S World Cup bid book features a bold claim that soccer is the national game - with a history stretching back thousands of years.

The Sunday Mail has learned Football Federation Australia's World Cup bid book for the 2022 event includes references to an indigenous game called woggabaliri.

In a claim sure to annoy their rivals at the AFL - who often refer to the Aboriginal game of marn grook - the FFA says the sport of woggabaliri proves soccer is indeed an Australian game. Recognised by the Australian Sports Commission but until now virtually unknown in the wider community, woggabaliri is described as a "co-operative kicking volley game to see how many times the ball can be kept in the air before contacting the ground''.

Similar to the UK playground game of "keepie uppie'', it featured a ball made of possum fur and was mainly played around the Bogan and Lachlan River areas of New South Wales.

"We've included woggabaliri in our bid book to show that football is part of our national heritage,'' FFA media relations head Rod Allen said. "We've had some great indigenous players, from Charlie Perkins to David Williams and Travis Dodd, and we'd hope a wider knowledge of woggabaliri might encourage more indigenous kids to play football.

"We'd also hope that it goes some way to convincing FIFA to hold the world's biggest sporting event on the only continent that hasn't hosted it.''

The name of the sport was taken from the Wiradyura language word for "play''. It was a non-competitive sport played for the sheer joy of it.

In contrast, marn grook, which translates as "game ball'', involved high marking and it has been claimed was one of the influences behind Australian football.

One of the earliest references to an Aboriginal ball game is an 1857 etching now housed at the Haddon Library at Cambridge University.

It depicts a group of Aboriginal children kicking a ball, and the accompanying text says the object of the game was to "never let the ball hit the ground''.

Although the image has sometimes been associated with marn grook, it appears the game depicted is woggabaliri.
Caption: Origin: An 1857 etching showing Aboriginal children (centre, in the background) playing football
Illus: Photo: art - aboriginal children play football in 1857 etching

What an embarrassment for Tim Hilferty.....just goes to show the degradation of journalism in the country and the number of low grade critical thinkers...a professional would have asked for some evidence....he mujst be a cadet....

...i'd always thought that aborigines lacked a numbering system but apparently they had one....

it would have been interesting to watch the counter while the others were playing "Woggabaliri".....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_enumeration

And, given the lack of any evidence presented so far, you wonder what old Kenny Edwards was basing it on....apparently a lot of the games were derived from speaking to aboriginal communities, but how could any discussions with aborigines who no longer even speak the language, validate the traditional existence of this game (to the extent that they new the crucial rule of not using your hands?)?

Kenny?

And why no Marn Grook Kenny?

Kenny?

 

[.Shotties.]

If he is not a fraud he would have been here and defended himself...he would have provided us with his evidence but he hasn't

Er....

 

[The_Ru]

It would appear that Dr Ken Edwards is now at USQ. This has his contact details.

Interestingly, he does not appear to be an historian, but rather a Phys. Ed. teacher. It would be unusual in academic circles for someone with no background in history to write a definitive book in the area.

Edit: His PhD thesis (published 1978 at UQ) was on Aboriginal cricketer Eddie Gilbert. So he clearly has been working in indigenous sports history for some time.

 

[Hawkers]

I thought they commissioned the book?

According to the woman in charge of the indigenous sports section, the ASC "commissioned Edwards to travel the remote areas and collect information on and document indigenous games".
I spoke to her personally over the phone yesterday.

I don't have the book one me now but it mentions nothing of the ASC in it.
On the ASC website though it appears as if they have collated all of their PDF's on Aboriginal games into a soft copy book called 'Yulunga'
see here http://www.ausport.gov.au/participating/indigenous/resources/games_and_activities/full_resource

Each of the PDF's (well the two I looked at) on that page have a foreward in them that acknowledges the research of Ken Edwards.
Once again the blurb about him in there is almost word for word of his book published years ago (just like the descriptions of the games)

 

[Barkly St End]

Not sure at all about his bona fides, I think he is a fraud and I think the ASC have used him willfully with "plausible" deniability

If he is not a fraud he would have been here and defended himself...he would have provided us with his evidence but he hasn't

Bona fides in terms of being an academic.

But I agree that his background is not as a historian nor as an expert in indigenous languages - which suggests his book is not an authoratitive source (as we've already worked out).

Even an amatuer like me has discovered that woggabaliri is a ngunawal word and not a wiradjuri word.

And it's beyond me why people keep referring to an etching made in Victoria as proof of a game supposedly played in cental NSW!

 

[Barkly St End]

I should add, for the moment, I don't believe there has been foul play on the part of Ken Edwards - I just reckon he has been completely sucked in by a good ol' fashioned case of Australian larrikinism - and to the shame and humiliation of the Australian government - this act of larrikinism has been taken up as serious history by both ausport and Australia's WC bid.

In both cases, the embarassment is worsened because both are using dodgy hitorical claims to support their respective agendas, which, at the end of the day, boils down to getting their hands on as much taxpayer money as possible.

In the case of ausport, they are even more culpable by stretching the story beyond all belief (oldest game to have been played in Australia, etc).

 

[Barkly St End]

And, given the lack of any evidence presented so far, you wonder what old Kenny Edwards was basing it on....apparently a lot of the games were derived from speaking to aboriginal communities, but how could any discussions with aborigines who no longer even speak the language, validate the traditional existence of this game (to the extent that they new the crucial rule of not using your hands?)?

All true - he is neither a historian or an expert in indigenous languages.

Also true that his "variations" (ostensibly from the oral accounts, but we don't know), have a striking modern ring to them, and the example you give is but one of many.

 

[mustapha]

Edit: His PhD thesis (published 1978 at UQ) was on Aboriginal cricketer Eddie Gilbert. So he clearly has been working in indigenous sports history for some time.

Who to believe?

Someone who has been researching indigenous sports history for several decades or a small band of fanatics who have devoted their lives to an anti world cup campaign over the last year?

 

[Barkly St End]

Who to believe?

Someone who has been researching indigenous sports history for several decades or a small band of fanatics who have devoted their lives to an anti world cup campaign over the last year?

Cute.

His background is Human movement (or something), he's not a historian and he's not an expert in indigenous languages.

Even I was able to uncover he was incorrect in saying that Woggabaliri was a Wiradjuri word for "play" (it's a ngunawal word) - surely he could have at least got that bit right!

His short entry on Woggabaliri is not referenced, it doesn't even provide a short background on who he got the story from, e.g. I ran into a mob of blackfellas camping by the Bogan River, and saw them playing this game, and they told me they're great-grandfather told me about it, etc. And frankly, his "variations" are obviously a modern invention (use of numbers, etc)

No doubt he had no idea that a Commonwealth governemnt instrumentality would use his meagre "research" as a basis for creating a whole new narrative around Woggabaliri for the means of extracting more government funding AND the government backed bid would use this story as a selling point to the world as to why Australia should be given the world cup.

They have even made up this story about Woggabaliri being the oldest game in Australia!! These are Government bodies creating myths - for what purpose?

I've checked the NLA archives on newspapers, journals, magazines and letters - nothing. I even have access to other extensive library data bases not available to the public - nothing.

Do you honestly believe this story about Woggabaliri?

 

[Subprime]

Who to believe?

Someone who has been researching indigenous sports history for several decades or a small band of fanatics who have devoted their lives to an anti world cup campaign over the last year?

I'd love to know what you believe.

Please expand on your belief.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Cute.

His background is Human movement (or something), he's not a historian and he's not an expert in indigenous languages.

Even I was able to uncover he was incorrect in saying that Woggabaliri was a Wiradjuri word for "play" (it's a ngunawal word) - surely he could have at least got that bit right!

His short entry on Woggabaliri is not referenced, it doesn't even provide a short background on who he got the story from, e.g. I ran into a mob of blackfellas camping by the Bogan River, and saw them playing this game, and they told me they're great-grandfather told me about it, etc. And frankly, his "variations" are obviously a modern invention (use of numbers, etc)

No doubt he had no idea that a Commonwealth governemnt instrumentality would use his meagre "research" as a basis for creating a whole new narrative around Woggabaliri for the means of extracting more government funding AND the government backed bid would use this story as a selling point to the world as to why Australia should be given the world cup.

They have even made up this story about Woggabaliri being the oldest game in Australia!! These are Government bodies creating myths - for what purpose?

I've checked the NLA archives on newspapers, journals, magazines and letters - nothing. I even have access to other extensive library data bases not available to the public - nothing.

Do you honestly believe this story about Woggabaliri?

Isn't it also amazing, that Aborignals in Queensland played a game similar to Rugby and that those in New South Wales played a game similar to Association Football. It's almost like they knew which sports the europeans who settled there would play.

 

[Barkly St End]

I'd love to be able to forward Chaz's excellent OP to a few people who would be interested in following up for the purposes of tansparency and some investigative rigour.

Does anyone know any worthwhile email addresses to whom we can send a link to Chaz's OP? People like Martin Flanagan, or Geoffrey Blainey, or maybe someone who can get stuck into Government for creating stories for the purpose of being PC and extracting taxpayer dollars - there are political correspondents who would be interested in a story like that.

I should add, some are trying to make this an argument between aussie rules support of marn grook and soccer support of Woggabaliri. It's nonsense - this isn't an aussie rules vs soccer thing, even soccer fans on their own forums believe it's a piss take and want nothing to do with the story.

This is about an obvious hoax that has gone so far that Government bodies are relying on it, and that we're even trying to sell the story overseas to gain something valuable - the government has entered very dangerous territory here.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

Who to believe?

Someone who has been researching indigenous sports history for several decades or a small band of fanatics who have devoted their lives to an anti world cup campaign over the last year?

So you still believe this, Mustafa?

A small band of fanatics? Why can't you address the issue rather than a cheap, hollow dismissal and personal attack?

Read my opening post if you want to know why I am disgusted by this. And yes, I compare my research skills very favourably to Ken Edwards, a man who has discovered a host of games that uncannily resemble modern games. And he still hasn't emmerged to defend himself.

If he had any integrity he would scan all his "evidence" about the existence of this Woggabaliri, and let people more qualified than him (i.e. historians, socioligists, linguists etc) decide.

The soccer folk still clinging to this are really failing to demonstrate the "sophistication" that apparently comes with following the european game ahead of the Australian game!

 

[Pie eyed]

Who to believe?

Someone who has been researching indigenous sports history for several decades or a small band of fanatics who have devoted their lives to an anti world cup campaign over the last year?

I think most are simply looking for any evidence to support the claims, which despite your asertion of decades of research, seemed to have conveniently popped up almost overnight, unsupported by any parallel research, and which basically makes the claim that a tribe in NSW or maybe QLD Australia invented soccer using an etching by a European observing a game in VIC Australia as the primary evidence.

 

[mustapha]

So you still believe this, Mustafa?

A small band of fanatics? Why can't you address the issue rather than a cheap, hollow dismissal and personal attack?

Read my opening post if you want to know why I am disgusted by this. And yes, I compare my research skills very favourably to Ken Edwards, a man who has discovered a host of games that uncannily resemble modern games. And he still hasn't emmerged to defend himself.

If he had any integrity he would scan all his "evidence" about the existence of this Woggabaliri, and let people more qualified than him (i.e. historians, socioligists, linguists etc) decide.

The soccer folk still clinging to this are really failing to demonstrate the "sophistication" that apparently comes with following the european game ahead of the Australian game!

I don't believe in Woggabaliri. I don't dismiss that it could have existed. It's hard to be sure of many indigenous customs when there were so many different tribes, different stages of settlement, different languages etc.

Are soccer folk really clinging to this? The only people who seem to be upset are the same people who spend their days trying to discredit the world cup bid. How can you be so dismissive of Ken Edwards when he has spent so much time actually researching and visiting aboriginal communities? He is not sitting at home taking pot shots on the internet.

You are demanding that he drops what ever he is doing to answer some critics on Bigfooty. Maybe he is on a holiday. Maybe he is in hospital. He could be anywhere.

I don't know about Ken Edwards' agenda but I know about the agenda of the anti world cup brigade. This agenda seems to be the cause of my dismissive attitude. If you are just a concerned citizen who is worried about historical inaccuracies, I apologize.

 

[Barkly St End]

I don't know about Ken Edwards' agenda but I know about the agenda of the anti world cup brigade. This agenda seems to be the cause of my dismissive attitude. If you are just a concerned citizen who is worried about historical inaccuracies, I apologize.

Speaking of agendas, the most worrying bit is the agenda of ausports, to rely solely on Edwards's meagre research, unreferenced, to create a whole story that appears to have no other purpose than to extract taxpayer funds.

And the government backed WC bid has made a very bold claim about Woggabaliri, for the eyes of the world - so when something gets this amount of attention, Edwards better hope that all this wasn't the result of a practical joke.

Not just Edwards in fact, the government is going to look pretty stupid having its name attached to this invention, not once, but twice, the latter in a high stakes game, where rivals would most certainly use knowledge of a fake story to discredit the bid.

By the way, you are very incorrect about Chaz, he was not ante soccer and in fact is a Heart member.

I don't see this as an aussie rules versus soccer thing at all - all the soccer forums are pissing themselves laughing at what is an obvious hoax.

 

[Barkly St End]

Our discusion has been referred to on the Footy Almanac:
http://footyalmanac.com.au/?p=17061

Any broader exposure is welcome, although I think this OP is incorrect on two fronts:
1. our discussion has not been venomous or hot under the collar that I can see, Chaz's OP was well written and to the point, and many of us have added bits and pieces to it, and on the whole, it is obvious that nothing exists beyond a brief mention in Edwards' book, and that he may have got some pertinent facts wrong.

2. he feels we are interested in proviing marn grook is the oldest game - not true - most of us have said straight out that's impossible to prove, it's not even a consideration, we are focusing on the paucity of evidence surrounding this game, the likelihood that it's a hoax, and the embarassment that two high level Government bodies have gilded the lily with reference to the game in the hope of financial gain.

They are also silly to keep referring to that etching from Victoria as some sort of proof that this game existed in central NSW.