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

72

the same GENERATIONAL level that, I believe, led Elkin and others to a misrepresentation of the
Aluridja kinship system. From a sociological point of view, people of the same GENERATIONAL
moiety consider one another as brothers and sisters, as opposed to their fathers and mothers
and to their sons and daughters of the other moiety. This principle is extrapolated to the
terminological usage. While a cross-cousin is always distinguished from a parallel-cousin,
these cross-cousins can also be considered, and called, as if they were brothers and sisters;
that is, they are co»GENERATIONALs. I have elsewhere 2002a, 2003 termed the context in which
distinct categories of kin are merged into sets that reflect the structure of GENERATIONAL moieties
the sociological context. The context in which terminological usage accords with specific
categories of kin I called interrelational. Here are two concrete examples taken from the

Ngaatjatjarra terminology to illustrate this distinction:

Example 1:

- Any mother’s brother is called kamuru in an interrelational context, as a mother’s
brother is of a distinct category from that of a father mama.

— However, this same mother’s brother may be called mama father in a sociological
context, as all males one generation above that of Ego, are part of the identical social
category alternate GENERATIONAL moiety. Calling him mama does not make him a
classificatory father, and certainly does not transform his children into siblings, but
reflects an identity based on the opposition of GENERATIONAL moieties.

Example 2:

- Any male cross-cousin of a male Ego may be called kurta brother in a sociological
context he is a "GENERATIONAL brother”, but this does not make him a classificatory
brother.

- This same person is called wazjiira cross—cousin in an interrelational context.

The structure defined by alternate GENERATIONAL levels penetrates deeply into everyday
practice. Expectations for distribution of goods in accordance with social rules and norms are
stronger between persons of opposite moieties, where the relationship always includes at least
some restraint or even avoidance. The unity or identity between persons of the same moiety,
on the other hand, leads to behaviour that does not usually reflect relations of hierarchy or of
opposition, but rather of reciprocity and identity. Laughren 1982277 reports for the Warlpiri
that “men's sporting teams were traditionally formed according to this division". Tonlcinson
1991 :75-76 notes for the Mardu that the alternate GENERATIONAL divisions are also important
in ceremonial activities, where ‘the two groups sit a short distance apart, and throughout the
proceedings their members joust verbally with each other in loud and light—hearted fashion”.
Stanton 1984:l68 similarly explains for the Mt. Margaret area that it “is the division of
alternating generation levels which is of greatest significance in ritual activities” see also
Laughren 1982. As the Bemdts formulated it: