Indiginob

NOBART: ORIGINS 3,

Indiginob

Prof. Belle Ennde

For decades prudish anthropologists have speculated coyly about the purpose and origin of Aboriginal nobart. 

Mountford (1960, p. 81) recalls soberly how “a number of representations of human penes have found their way into various museum collections” while shy Campbell (1921, p. 145) refers to them as “secret articles.. or representations of the male organs of generation”.

 
The skilful indigenes of Australia Have long been producing wonderful dongs from stone, wood, clay and wax, but not telling anyone why. This has naturally unnerved the poor anthropologists who have been digging them up left, right and centre. The sharp eyed Balfour, records Mountford (1960, p. 81) uncovered what he believed to be a natural stone in the shape of a cock, but which the Nobservatory now suspects was an example of nobart left in wait for him by a sniggering artist. 
  

Various lines of speculation have been put forward by the learned Nobservers. Mountford (1960, p. 81) asserts “existing evidence suggests that these phallic objects are probably linked with some mythical beings” having been assured by various antipodean dwellers that a ritual involving gently striking the legendary cock of Borolo-Borolo actually improves ones eyesight, as opposed to the accepted European standard of “if you play with it, you’ll go blind”.  

Sources:

Mountford, C. P. "Phallic Objects of the Australian Aborigines" Man vol. 60 The Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain  and Ireland, 1960  http://www.jstor.org/stable/2795984 [04/ 04/ 2012]

Campbell, D "A Description of Certain Phallic Articles of the Australian Aborigines" Man vol. 21 The Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1921 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2839417 [04/ 04/ 2012]