Mr Opinion could be one of those as well. It is his lunchtime and his choice. The possibilities are endless.

A previous work colleague tells the story of the moderately senior manager, a branch head (?!) in a federal public service department who told the most outlandish stories about himself. There was a new grand and outlandish story (to others at least) whenever he was about. Two examples,

- this PS manager happened upon two robbers escaping in a car in Goulburn, NSW (near Canberra) and he managed to chase them down in his very hot sports car (a Mini?) and was thanked by police; and,

- another time he and his wife were setting off on a very expensive ship cruise. The sequel was that one of his staff had spotted him at home at the same time. How the fellow's wife cooperated with that, staying in the house with curtains pulled shut, goddess knows.

He too could have been an engineer, a sociologist or anything he chose and he would have done something with it!

What does it mean to 'own' land ? You can't carry it around. You can't occupy more than part of a square metre of it. But does 'ownership' mean different things to foragers, or pastoralists, or subsistence farmers with hand-tools, or to investors in capitalist enterprises using thousands of hectares ?

Yes. So what is the basis of 'ownership': does this vary also ? Again, yes. Foraging societies would have strict rules about intruders coming into their family or clan lands without permission (and some tribute), and would have stories about different parts of their own 'country'. They may share some of those stories, or parts of them, with other groups, as being descended from a common ancestor. Stories may be much more group-wide, perhaps with a commonly-shared core, indicating common ancestry, and extra bits relating only to specific clan lands, which only those clan members can know about. Of course, sites similarly.

Subsistence farmers would have long stories about ancestors farming that land since 'time immemorial'. They would know, through marriage and friendship, of the similar histories of neighbouring areas of land.

Modern farmers would be able to produce documents of grant, lease or purchase, validating their rights as owners or lessees. Banks would hold mortgage documents showing their stake in land.

So this thing called 'ownership' would vary from one type of society or economy to another. However, back in the early nineteenth century, even the British, with their broad experience by then of different land-use systems, may have puzzled over the relationship between foragers here and the land that they foraged on. Was it 'ownership' ? Then who was or were the owner/owners ? The entire group ? Of all of this land which they didn't seem to be using, just picking over ? So all the people in a group owned all the land together ?

That must have been difficult to grasp even then. Did they use the land ? Yes of course, so it was possible to recognise the right of foragers to use the land - which administrations did from around 1850.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Ownership and usufruct are governed by the laws and customs prevailing in a particular place at a particular time. In traditional Aboriginal society it mattered who you were and what your position was in the local kinship group. One traced his or her relationship to the land through descent. One had to know what moiety, clan or lineage one belonged to as well as understanding the intricate interrelationship between kinship, religion and custom.

The Europeans of the late 18th century did not understand this. For them ownership of property such as land was governed by the State. One could claim rights over property through inheritance but legality of such ownership was construed in terms of the written laws administered by the State apparatuses. These were non-existent in Australia at the time of contact.

Hi Mr Opinion,

Yeah, well, that's what I was suggesting. The British didn't have immediate, encyclopedic knowledge of moieties, clans, families and land boundaries across the country, nor much experience of similar concepts of land use and land ownership elsewhere. Bastards !

Of course they knew of such things as usufructuary rights - they still apply in Britain. They knew of rights of commons, but by definition, the right to use common land was not an ownership right, nor did it confer ownership: commons land remained commons, and still does, as the documentary series on the BBC, 'The Good Life', showed in detail.

However, it was 'owned' by the village or shire or whatever, and couldn't be alienated by even a lord or the king - come to think of it, it couldn't be alienated at all, even by the village. i.e. it was unsellable.

So was land in Australia customarily perceived as common land in a similar way ? I suppose a land lawyer or historian would have an idea. I don't think an anthropologist would have a clue.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Actually it is the anthropologist who has the skills and knowledge to best understand these things. Anthropology is the study of humankind in all of its manifestations and is particularly concerned with stateless societies.

When I said 18th century Europeans did not understand these things I was referring to the intricate interrelationships between culture, polity and economy in pre-literate societies. It is only the anthropologist who is skilled in this type of analysis.

Yeah, right. Why didn't Phillip bring a few out to act as a sort of Grand Council - bastard !

Can you recommend any anthropologist with expertise in customary land law these days ? Or one back in 1788, if possible ?

Joe