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

90

IX. Conclusion

The nature of the notions and tools developed and used in this study, such as valeur of a
section or lines of regression, are unable to provide us with an understanding of actual local
scenes in which hrnnan interaction is or was embedded. The study has, therefore, to be taken
for what it is: not a sociological study of human behaviour or social structure, not the analysis
of Aboriginal identity, not the recollection of actual historical events, but an experiment in
ways and modes of asking questions and in proposing, even if partial, answers to particular,
but nevertheless important, historically testified series of events. It does not provide the reader
with an insight into everyday interaction and meaning, but it opens doorways to understanding
Western Desert culture and people as inherently dynamic, curious, open to things from
abroad.

The principal questions addressed in this study have been directed to uncovering a logic of
diffusion and substitution of section names from the Pi1bara—Kimberley areas into the Western
Desert, and to interpreting this logic as a succession of logical and historical events. We
have seen that the principle of section combinations adapts itself well to situations in which
different terminological systems meet, and that adjustments and transformations are in some
cases necessary and inevitable if the structural integrity of these systems is to be maintained
over time and space. Moreover, we have seen that some section names, such as Tjamrru and
Yiparrka, seem to have diffused into and over the Western Desert from the South-West, the
area where McConvell 1996 estimates the western section system to have originated.

We have also seen that there is a certain logic in the rules of substitution, such that, for
example, if two sections in a given region may substitute for each other, they characterise
a relational identity and are not ruled by filiation or marriage. Yet we have also seen that
the valeur of a section may vary along routes of diffusion. Comparing two sections whose
originally identical valeur has been transformed following two routes becomes very diflicult.
Recall the example of Paljeri which, on the one hand, has a valeur of difiusion Milangka and
Tjarurru, but is replaced by Burgulu following another route. The logic is such that the two
valeurs of Paljeri that meet again are treated as difierent, as not having the same logic any
more. The valeur has “lost memory” of its earlier combinations with other names.

I now return briefly to Brandenstein’s thesis, according to which the names of sections
translate psychological states and inherited humours, a thesis that is, in some respects, similar
to the processes of section attribution I have termed “arbitrary”, where people are given
section names in accordance with physical characteristics. If the meanings of section names
are eflectively humours transmitted from generation to generation, although we have seen
how actors juggle those names and transform and change their structural position, one must
conclude that either the "genetic laws” to which Brandenstein makes reference are different
from region to region, or, simply, and others have argued si.tni1arly,5’ that the theory of
Brandenstein has only a very local foundation.

51 See the strong critique made by McConvell l985b.