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

80

Two scenarios illustrating the “in-between” are imaginable. These can be summarised
under the notions “arbitrary” for one, and “extensionist" for the other. Both probably
occurred simultaneously, although there are more reasons to believe in the prevalence of the
“exensionist" over the “arbitrary” scenario. The “arbitrary” scenario is adopted by Brooks and
was mentioned by others. The attribute, “arbitrary”, does not imply that the scenario or theory
itself is arbitrary, of course, but that the way sections were attributed during the “in—between”
is to some extent subjective or, as Brooks 1999 calls it, idiosyncratic. This scenario does not
necessitate, strictly speaking, the existence of networks and relations between groups. With
respect to the “arbitrary” scenario, it is worth quoting Brooks at length:

In spite of the highly formalized and structured accounts of matters relating
to sections that appear in most of the literature by Elkin, the Bemdts, Christensen
and other writers on the subject, it is of interest to note the widespread appearance
albeit in much smaller quantities of a rather different sort of material. The
Bemdts, for instance, writing about Ooldea, where social organization is ‘still
dominated by the alternate generation lines’ and un-correlated with the section
system, point out that section terms may be assigned to individuals purely on
the basis of physical appearance When two groups come into contact, ‘those
who have no section name. . .are placed in a row and named by their tribal “boss”
according to their [physical] appearance’.45

Brooks claims that he has, “even in the late 1990s, come across similar statements
associating particular section categories with such physical qualities”. I will not detail further
reports of such mechanisms, but just add that this approach is cognate to Brandenstein’s
theory on the substances of sections mentioned earlier, which claimed that the structural rules
inherent in the system were reflecting principles of the inheritance of human humours. Similar
comments were advanced by Gould l969b: 1 99 for generational moieties; he claimed that “the
naming of ‘sun’ and ‘shade’ divisions by the Gibson Desert Aborigines is probably related in
some way to the divisions ‘light-blooded’-‘dark-blooded’ . .. and light- and dark-complexion,
reported arnong Aboriginal societies from the eastern states of Australia and in the South
Australian desert”. Sackett 2001 also explains that some of the Cosmo Newberry native title
claimants say that the two generational moieties are associated with physical characteristics
such as “people with fair skins" for one, and “people with dark skins” for the other.

It may well have been that, in a very first step, sections were attributed to some people
according to physical appearances, and I do not say that Aboriginal people do not equate
social categories with physical or mental characteristics. What is at stake is whether such emic
theories were determinant in the attribution of section names to an entire community. It seems
evident that other members of a community were given sections in accordance with their
well-established kin relationships with others. If first contact with the system could have led
to the classification of individuals following “arbitIa.ry” mechanisms, these could have been

"5 Quotes within this quote are from Berndt Berndt l942—45:154.