|
[Note: this transcription was produced by an autoMatic OCR engine]
TABLE or CONTENTS
Foreword......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I.Introduction................................................10
I.a The four-section systeM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
I.b Section systeMs and history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Le HoMogeneity and heterogeneity in the Western Desert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
I.d Theoretical considerations on the question of diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
I.e Methodological preliMinaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
II. The spatial distribution ofindividual terMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
III.ThespatialdistributionofpairsofterMs.......................42
III.a First hypothesis: the identity Panaka - Yiparrka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
III.b Second hypothesis: the zone of extension and substitution of Paljeri . . . . .
IH.c Third hypothesis: Burgulu May be replaced by Milangka or Yiparrka . . . . . . . . . . .45
IH.d CoMbinations of four categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
IV. The spatial distribution of logical systeMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Na IMpossible Marriages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
IV.b The Pintupi, or the transition fl-oM four sections to eight subsections . . . . . . . . . . . .53
IV.c NyanguMarta: the inland and the coastal systeM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
IV.d The case of Laverton: first encounter between Waljen and MandjMdja . . . . . . . . . . 60
We The case of Kalgoorlie: second encounter between Waljen and Mandjindja . . . . . . . 62
V. The diffusion of section naMes: an overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
VI. Origin of section naMes and language or tribal naMes. . . . . . . . . . . . 67
VH. Distributional pattern of alternate generational Moieties. . . . . . . . . 71
VIII. Why and how did sections diffuse? A network approach . . . . . . . . 78
VIII.a How did sections difliise; how were they adopted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
VIII.b Why were sections adopted; why have they difliised? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
IX.Conclusion................................................90
a Statistical tools used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
b Stories explaining the anival of sections in the Rawlinson and Warburton Ranges . . 95
c Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
Referencescited..............................................101
|
| |