Talk:Australian Aboriginal kinship

Australia: Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Aboriginal kinship is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Requested move

There's a new poll here that would (hopefully) end all this "Indigenous" vs. "Aborigine" controversy. Feel free to vote. Zarbat 09:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More skin systems

The system shown as 'pintupi' is identical to the systems in the north, from the Daly right across the Katherine region to the Gulf, though there are at least three sets of skin terms; Tjapangardi corresponds to Jangari in the sundown system, which corresponds to Gamarrang in the east. Similarly, Jungarrayi in the Pintupi system is the same as Jungurra in the Daly and Jimija in the centre. I have no idea how to do this, but I think this page needs a graph that shows the translation from system to system. I'm pretty certain that they're structurally identical to the Pintupi (Warlpiri) system, differing only in terminology.

unclear to me what a skin group is

"Determined by the skin of one's parents." What does THAT mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.17.12 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to chime in here, too. What does "Skin Group" mean? The article assumes that the reader knows what a "Skin Group" is. If someone would be so kind as to elaborate... Thanks! 63.167.255.156 (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

98.248.198.214 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first section of the article is called "The subsection or 'skin name' system". Is it that the connection between "skin name" and "skin group" is unclear? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly seems to be implied. The article also uses subsection and section interchangeably, which is confusing also. I may try and get everything set out in a less confusing order. Techhead7890 (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lardil kinship table is unclear

It's not clear how to complete the kinship table for the Lardil. If you pair the lines into father/son pairs going down the table, you get matricycles of length 2, not 4 (as stated below the table). Switching lines 4 and 5 of the table would fix this, but I have no idea if that is the correct fix. Does anybody know? 157.242.204.6 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Romeos and Juliets?

This article is missing a section to explain what happens when a man or woman decides to marry someone from a forbidden skin group. What would be the consequences for them and their children? And what about people who refuse to marry? What are the social prejudices related to these situations? Thanks 201.53.236.48 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a guess (OR therefore not suitable for the article on its own), but these skin group inheritance patterns appear to resemble the patterns for optimal avoidance of inbreeding. So I guess it'd be looked at like marrying your cousin. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is like asking what happens when a man in Western society marries his mother. It's against the rules and happens very rarely, so its hard to give a general description of what happens. I can say that where the relationship is purely classificatory (ie there's no actual blood relationship) it may not be too great a problem (in theory, anyway), much as when a Western man marries his step-sister, but still it seems wrong to many. Anyway, I don't think it's something that can go in the article as it would only be based on a few hearsay anecdotes. Dougg (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On visiting Kakadu, specifically the Ubirr Rock Art yesterday just outside of Jabiru, NT the Kakadu Ranger gave a really great talk discussing Aboriginal Skin groups. She has been working as a Kakadu ranger for over 15 years has many close ties to the local indigenous people but is not Aboriginal herself so she provided many disclaimers that her knowledge is still rudimentary, despite it being her area of professional knowledge and study. She passed on the story saying that Aboriginals are not to have intimate relations with people of the wrong skin group. She Down south in SA a man and a women had forbidden relations. As these relations are forbidden they were exiled from the group. Aboriginals are always of the land so they can't be exiled from the land but they can be exiled from the people of the land. As such they were hence forth exiled from all aboriginal contact even with other tribes. Culturally they would have known and understood this before they came together. Australia is a harsh land and to live on the land without support of other people is very hard and harsh. The couple moved a long way away from any other people and lived isolated on a small water source. After a number of years (of drought/poor rain?) the elders of the community knew that the water source the couple had gone to only had 7 years of water in it. Before the well ran dry the community send young people out to the couple and to tell them to come back. The couple was fearful to return as they knew they would be punished. The children passed on that they had been sent to bring them back and that the tribe would not punish them. The children passed on that many things had changed since white people had been affecting things and that now there were many relations that had not followed the skin laws and that the couple would be taken back in.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.125.255.250 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection or 'skin name' system

I, too, do not understand the jargon 'subsection'/'skin group'/'skin name'. Wikipedia is a resource for everyone, so jargon should be avoided. Probably, only a few added words would clarify this concept. But as it stands, the following questions naturally arise, and I don't even know if they are the right questions. This talk page, and all the pages using these 'skin' concepts, are in need of an expert who can explain what they mean.

Here are some of my questions: who invented the skin system, anthropologists or native peoples? What does it have to do with a person's skin? What is a 'subsection'? What quality of a human being defines membership in a 'subsection' (or how is it known what 'subsection' a person belongs to)?

I'm not looking for answers to these specific questions, but to improvements in the articles so such questions don't arise. David Spector (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made some changes to the text that hopefully answers your questions and makes it all clearer to those unfamiliar with such things. I've also changed most (all?) usages of 'skin' to 'subsection'. Let me know what you think. Dougg (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Aboriginal kinship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal vs Indigenous

Hi Ogress. The basis for my revert was two-fold. Aboriginal Australian kinship is particular to Aboriginal Australians, not all Indigenous Australians, which includes Torres Strait Islander peoples. Secondly, we always spell Indigenous with an initial capital when referring to peoples of Australia (See the draft style guide here.) The article on Indigenous customary law is in need of expansion and structuring, which I don't have time for now, but it does include both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Eddie Mabo was from the islands). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely impenetrable

Nothing on this entire page makes a lick of sense to someone who doesn't have an anthropology degree. 188.221.176.93 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]