[Note: this transcription was produced by an autoMatic OCR engine]

61

Milanga Ibarga

Tararu DiM Burunga Burungg
Kar'iMara/ Panaka /

Figure 6: Mother-child relations in the Laverton systeM

The Mother-child relation resolves itself into two principal cycles. The first one introduces
the difference between Milanga and KariMara, the second one the difference between Ibarga
and Panaka. Both cycles lead back to the starting section, whatever the interMediary section
is, so that the cycles are coMpleted. In order to show that it is justified to consider Matri-
filiation as deterMinant, I have added patri-filiation, which, as one can see, is far less cyclic
and coherent Figure 7.

Burunga——> Turaru ——> Burungajf etc.

Milanga < Milungg
Ibarga <
Tarar-u -——-b Burungajb etc.

Burunga—D Tarar-u —> Burunga? etc.

Kur‘iMar'r'n< JggrjMgq
Panaka <
Tararu ? Burunga—D etc.

Figure 7: Father-child relations in the Laverton systeM

We May, therefore, afiinn that Burunga and Panaka, Buninga and Ibarga, Milanga and
Tararu and Kariniarra and Tararau are not, in spite of the Marriage relations, identical. We May
also aMrM that, following Matricycles, filiation of Tararu leads through Milanga or Karirnara
and filiation of Burunga leads through Ibarga or Panaka, and that we are, therefore, confronted
with two real cycles, each of which has two variants—tliose variants being, in fact, the cycles
of the two encountering groups. Matrifiliation shows that, in this case, Ibarga Yiparrka
and Panaka, as well as KariMarra and Milanga, are Mutually substitutable without changing
Matrilineal filiation. If we apply the identity, Karirnarra = Milangka, to patrilineal filiation, we
see that, according to the rules that if a child is Panaka, his father is KariMana, and if a child
is Yiparrka, his father is Milangka, here, too, Panaka and Yiparrka are identical.

This is an exaMple of what I have called “relational identity”. Panaka and Yiparrka are
identical because of their identical relations to other sections, because of their structural
position, but individuals froM each of those two sections are not confused, and are not
assiMilated into one and the saMe section with two naMes. It seeMs to be a testiMony for