[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