So far as my enquiries have gone I have not been able to
find out that the interference by a Ngurung-aeta, as spoken of by Buckley
would not be effective. The Kulin would not have refused to obey
such an interference, uinless in a case (of such tribal moment) when public
opinion happened to be against him . Even in the case of the ceremonial
expiations as I shall have occasion to mention later on such interference
by the headman of one side would be effective in staying the hands of his
own men,or (?) (?) (?) others.
Among the Kulin there was a headman in each local group, and
some one of them was recignised as the head of all. some were
great fighting men, some great medicine men, others were orators, was
a renowned maker of songs and was considered the greatest of
all. (p -)
If a headman had a son who was respected by the tribespeople
he also would become a Ngurung-aeta intime. But if he were, from the
native point of view, a bad man, or if people did not like him, they
would get someone else, and most likely the relative of some former
headman, such as his brother or brothers son.
A Headman could order the young men of the camp to do things for him and they would obey him. The headman might, as I have heard it put, say "Now all you young men go out and get plenty of 'possums, and give
the m to the old people, not raw, but cooked". similarly the Ngurung-aeta's
wife could order the young women about.
Each Headman had another man, "standing beside him", as they put it, to whom he gave "his words". This means that there was a second man of somewhat less authority, who was his comrade or henchman, who accompanied him when he went anywhere, who was his mouthpiece and delivered his orders to those whom it concerened.
When the headman went out to hunt with his henchmen or perhaps withtwo
of them, if he killed game, (?) a wallaby, he would give it to one of
Nobody has written a note for this page yet
Please sign in to write a note for this page