The Family among the Australian Aborigines, a Sociological StudyMalinowski, Bronislaw
History
The Family among the Australian Aborigines, a Sociological Study
Malinowski, Bronislaw
Aboriginal Australians -- Social life and customs; Ethnology -- Australia; Families -- History
[358] To guard against misunderstanding I wish to
emphasize that such words and expressions as "proprietor,"
"ownership," "landed property," "rights to a tract of
country," etc., are not to be taken in the sense which
they possess in application to higher societies, to our
own society in particular. Their correct meaning will be
gathered from the following discussion. For the sake of
clearness and brevity it was sometimes needful, in the
text, to use the above expressions, instead of the more
correct ones like "possession," "claims to a country," etc.
The term "property" has a definite legal meaning, which
makes it impossible to apply it in its full sense to the
low society with which we are concerned.
Now let us review the statements, bearing in mind the exact meaning
given to the words Tribe, Local Group and Family. We have agreed to
call Local Group a unit owning in common a portion of country, and
we are asking how big this unit is in different tribes; if it lives
scattered or in a body; finally, what idea can we form of "land
ownership" in Australia.
_Statements._--The Kurnai were divided into five exogamous
"clans."[359] These were divided and subdivided several times,
"each subdivision having its own tract of hunting and food
ground, until the unit was a small group of kindred, frequently
an old man, his sons, married or unmarried, with their respective
wives and children." The author gives an instance of a family
claiming a certain island and the swans' eggs laid on it, as its
property,[360] and living under the authority of the oldest male
in the family. "Taking such a family[361] as the tribal unit of
the Kurnai, it was the aggregation of such families that formed
what may be called a division, inhabiting a large area, and the
aggregate of the divisions formed the clan."[362] This, and the
expression family as "tribal unit," shows that probably its members
lived actually together. It is a pity that Howitt does not give
even approximately the numbers. Again, in another place, he writes
of a "natural spread of families over a tract of country," and
of "elders as heads of families."[363] These "families" unite in
cases of mutual need for aid and protection[364] and in cases of
corroborees, initiations, etc.[365]--Here the local group was a
small unit of related persons. It claimed a certain territory and
exclusively used its products, and vested authority in its oldest
male. These local groups usually must have lived isolated from each
other, because of the exclusive right in using the given area.
Howitt mentions also the beginnings of individual claims to some
products (swan's eggs) being even transmitted by inheritance.[366]
[359] According to Howitt's terminology.
[360] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 73, 74.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account