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
The second part of our problem must now be faced: whenever there is a
certain number of families aggregated (permanently or temporarily),
what are the features of their social contact in daily life? What are
their dwellings? Do they belong to several families or only to one?
Are there any rules of camping, or do they camp quite promiscuously?
And if there are any customary rules, of what status are they the
expression? Besides the answers to these questions, we shall find
also that there are rules for occupying the huts, for eating, etc. In
general, all our questions will tend to elucidate whether there is
a quite unlimited, promiscuous social contact among the members of
an aggregate, or whether there are facts pointing to the isolation
and separation of the individual families. Undoubtedly there is a
difference between aggregation which is merely temporary and that which
is permanent; we shall try to find traces of this difference indicated
in the statements. These latter are not very rich in information. The
facts themselves seemed perhaps to the majority of our informants much
too commonplace and unimportant. But we owe to some of the deeper
and more conscientious observers highly interesting details in this
connection. More especially this remark applies to Howitt and some of
his correspondents. We begin with these statements.
_Statements._--We have a clear and detailed description of the
mode in which a camp was disposed amongst the Kurnai as well as
of the mode in which a hut was inhabited in this tribe.[461] As a
rule each hut was inhabited by a man and his wife. Even if some
families[462] were closely related,[463] a certain distance was
kept between their camps, which increased as the consanguinity
diminished.[464] A man's parents could occasionally sleep with
him and his wife in the same hut. But his sister-in-law or his
brother would not sleep in the same hut.[465] We see, therefore,
that each married couple occupied a separate hut, and that even
near relatives would not be admitted, especially if sexual jealousy
were possible. In the hut "custom regulates the position of the
individual. The husband and wife would sleep on the left-hand
side of the fire, the latter behind it, and close behind her the
children; nearest to them the little boy, if any, next to him the
little girl";[466] bigger children camped separately. We shall find
this statement confirmed by another set of facts. Similar rules
and customs applied as well to the Maneroo aborigines of New South
Wales (Murring)[467] as to the Wurunjerri[468] of East Victoria.
[461] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 208-210, and _Nat.
Tr._, pp. 773-776.
[462] I use the word family only in the sense of a man, his
wife or wives, and their offspring before reaching puberty.
[463] As in the example; _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 209.
[464] See this example and diagram in _Nat. Tr._, p. 774.
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