> reports of non-Western
> societies by Western explorers of that period need to be read with
> great skepticism. Their methodology, to say the least, was not terribly
> sophisticated.
David Collins and Watkin Tench were well-educated and intelligent people, something which becomes clear from their writings. They were at least "in the field", at the earliest possible stage, as opposed to the first relevant anthropological studies, which tended not to be based on fieldwork and came many years later.
> In particular, what they called "property" (an English
> word, which already had a specifically capitalist meaning at that time)
On what are you basing this assertion? According to the Online Etymology Dictionary [ http://www.etymonline.com/p10etym.htm ]
"property - c.1300, "nature, quality," later "possession," from O.Fr. propreté, from L. proprietatem (nom. proprietas) "special character," from proprius "one's own, special" (see proper)."
To me the broad meaning appears to have changed little in 700 years.
> Similarly in the Americas, of course. The Europeans (in some cases, at
> least) recognized tribal land property claims and paid various sums for
> land, but of course, from their point of view, the whole thing was
> basically a matter of what Marx called primitive accumulation, and it
> was entirely up to the consciences of the Europeans whether they paid
> anything at all, or just occupied the land.
There were very few cases in Australia where payment occurred, John Batman's "lease" of an area at Port Phillip Bay in 1835 being the only well-known example, and one which the authorities quickly annulled. [ http://www.whitehat.com.au/Melbourne/People/Batman.html ]
> But my question is, when they used the English word "property," just
> what were they referring to in aboriginal terms? And what was this
> fellow Bennelong's position in his society -- was he a representative
> example, or did he have some sort of special status?
Bennelong is famous as a senior man (and friend of the settlers) in the area that is now central Sydney --- that is the point, that "class" and "property" go hand in hand.
> I think the "primitive communism" concept (which after all also dates
> from a period preceding the rise of scientific anthropology) has been
> pretty well blasted out of the water by now. I need to get back to
> Sahlin's _Stone Age Economics,_ which is one of the many books I
> started a long time ago and never finished. (I note by a quick look at
> the index that he was an anthropologist who was brave enough to use the
> word "property.")