Economy, Society, and Myth in Aboriginal Australia

Author(s): Aram A. Yengoyan

Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 8 (1979), pp. 393-415
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155626
Accessed: 01/10/2009 13:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org
Ann.Rev.Anthropol1979.8:393-415
Copyrght0 1979 byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved

ECONOMY, SOCIETY, AND .9639

MYTH IN ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA
Aram A. Yengoyan
Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Michigan,
Ann Arbor,Michigan48109

INTRODUCTION
Throughoutthe anthropological world,the studyof the Aboriginalpopula-
tion of Australiahasalwayshada centralandpivotalposition.Manyof our
theorieshavebeengeneratedfromthe ethnographyof this uniqueculture,
and theoriesdevelopedoutsideof the Aboriginalcontext have had to be
tested against that corpus of ethnographicdetail. Yet the interest in
Aboriginalshas gonemuchbeyondstrictlyanthropological concerns.Early
philosophicaltreatises,the Westernconceptionof manin nature,the whole
ideaof man'sevolution,andthe verynatureof ourinquiriesinto the notion
of "primitiveness" havedealtwiththe problemof definingwho the Aborigi-
nals are,what they mean,and what they tell us aboutourselves.Fromthe
days of Rousseauonward,the questionof humannaturehas been critical
to our understanding of the anthropologicalmessage.It is no wonderthat
Burridge(9, p. 150)can statethat "Insightsof this kind,pushingourselves
into othernessandincorporating othernessinto ourselves,arethe verystuff
of anthropology."For if anthropologyis the understandingor even the
appropriation of the other,thenthe Aboriginalin Australiais in somesense
the "idealother."
If culturaldistanceis conceivedof as the other extremefrom Western
culture,surelya culturalsystemwhichhas complexcosmologies,superinci-
sion, subincision,tooth evulsion,body scarification,denialof physiological
paternity,mythic time, totemism,and elaboratemarriagesystems,all of
which are combinedin variousways in each culture,would emergeas the
primecandidate-for the "idealother."
The aim of this essay is to discuss recent developmentsin the social
anthropologyof AboriginalAustralianculture.Given the vast amountof
393
0084-6570/79/10 15-0393$0 1.00
394 YENGOYAN

literature,both past and present,it is virtuallyimpossibleto do fulljustice

to the problem.Not onlyhavescoresof volumesbeenwrittenon the subject,
but also the use of Aboriginalethnographicdatain theoryis so widespread
thatit wouldbe foolishto tryto unravelandappraiseall thathastranspired.
In approachingthissurvey,I will startwitha briefoverviewof the historical
dimensionof the study of Aboriginals.The second part of the essay will
enumeratea numberof aspects in which critical work and theoretical
argumentationhave broughtforth renewedinterestin old problems.It
coversfourgeneraltopicswhichare as follows:Economyand LocalOrga-
nization;Population,Kinship,and Social Organization;Religion,Myth,
and Symbolism;Aboriginalsin the Contextof AustralianSociety.The last
sectionof the essaywill discusssome generalethnographicand theoretical
issues as they relateto anthropologicalinterpretation.

HISTORICAL DIMENSION
AboriginalAustraliansocietieshave always had a privilegedposition in
anthropologicaltheory and ethnography,and in all likelihoodthis will
continue in the future. One could write virtuallythe entire history of
anthropologicalthoughtin terms of AboriginalAustralia,for there is no
anthropologicaltheoryor interpretationwhich has not dealtwith the eth-
nographyof thesecultures.Fromthe earliestbeginningsof anthropological
inquiryin the middleof the nineteenthcentury,questionsof culturalevolu-
tionismand socialorganizationhavebeencriticallydealtwith by Morgan,
Tylor, Lubbock,and Marx,using the Aboriginalethnographyas reported
throughearlytravelaccounts,andlaterin the worksof SpencerandGillen,
R. H. Mathews,Carl Strehlow,and numerousearly observers.
With the beginningof this century, anthropologicaland sociological
understandingof the Aboriginalmaterialswas focusedon the generalna-
tureof societyandthe relationshipof the familyto the surroundingculture.
By the early1930sthe systematicandcomparativestudyof humansocieties
had enteredwhat might be called the classic phase of Britishsocial an-
thropology.Durkheim(10), soon followedby Malinowski(41) and Rad-
cliffe-Brown(61), concludedthat the evidenceof Aboriginalsocietiesmust
be the criticaltest for any understandingof how societiesworkedand that
this rich body of ethnographicinformationcould be the basis for a truly
comparativescience.Throughthe 1930s,aspectsof Aboriginalkinshipand
social organizationwere discussednot only by Britishsocial anthropolo-
gists, but also by Kroeber(33), Lowie (37), and Goldenweiser(16), who
were fully involvedtryingto relatethis corpusof informationto general
anthropologicalconcerns.It was also duringthe 1920sand 1930sthat new
fieldworkwas initiatedamongAboriginals,and this in turn led to revised
interpretations of socialorganizationas well as to the emergenceof interest
 AUSTRALIANABORIGINALS(CULTURAL) 395

in mythology,religion,cosmology,and psychology.The works of Elkin

(11-13), basedon his fieldstudiesin the WesternDesertand the Kimber-
leys, added new insightto our understandingof totemism,religion,and
kinship.Warner(92) wroteA Black Civilization,basedon workamongthe
Murnginand other easternArnhem Land societies,and the insight and
controversiesover the "Murngincase"are still centralto currentdebates.
Stanner(78) workedamongthe Murinbata,and soon after,his most origi-
nal and creativeinsightinto Aboriginalreligionwas published.It was also
during this period that Roheim (64, 65) did fieldworkin Australiaand
publisheda numberof works which still have a strong fascinationfor
studentsof comparativepsychologyand Freudiantheory.All of the afore-
mentionedfieldworkers andtheoristscontributedfundamentalinformation
and insightto the studyof AboriginalAustraliancultures,and no student
of this field can ignoretheir classic works.
Whilemostof the aboveworksarecriticalbothto the theoryandethnog-
raphy,anothertraditionalso existedwhich stressedethnographicobserva-
tion and descriptionwhilekeepingtheoreticalinterestssecondary.Tindale
did fieldworkfromthe early1920sto the 1960sandpublisheda voluminous
numberof papersbasedon datafromGrooteEylandtto northernQueens-
land as well as on workdonein the WesternDesertand amonghalf-castes
in Tasmania.The most generalstatementby Tindale (88) was recently
published.Strehlowcontinuedhis father'sinterestin the Arandaand has
done fieldworkamong the Aranda for over 40 years. Mountford,who
workedprimarilyin the WesternDesert as well as in northernArnhem
Landfor 30 years,recentlypublishedhis most comprehensive statementon
his work(51). Ronaldand CatherineBerndt(4-6) haveworkedfor nearly
40 yearsamongvarioussocietiesin ArnhemLandas well as in westernand
southernAustralia,andtheirpublicationsrangefromdescriptiveaccounts
to theoreticalstatements.Theirrecentworkon love songs(3) is the firstof
its kind and one whichwill introducea new dimensionto the problemof
emotionalityamongAboriginalAustralians.
By the late 1950sand early 1960s,some scholarswere statingthat no
furtherethnographicfieldworkcould be done and that a phaseof "salvage
ethnography"mustensue.It was assumedthat sincethe impactof change
was so widespreadanddominant,noneof the Aboriginalsocietiescouldbe
considered"pristine";once the tribal way of life had changedthrough
contact and assimilation,the "real basis" of society could no longer be
described.The studyof economicorganization,modesof hunting,gather-
ing, and fishing,and the ascertainmentof the structureof local group
compositioncouldno longerbe accomplisheddueto depopulation,contact,
and the appropriationof lands and resourcesby the dominantEuropean
society. Thereis no doubtthat most culturalfactorswhich we call "eco-
nomic and materialculture"can no longerbe studiedadequately.Yet it
396 YENGOYAN

mustbe stressedthatAboriginalsociety,whereit has beenableto makethe

transitionwithout seriouspopulationdisturbanceand economicdisloca-
tion, can be studied.Currentwidespreadinterestin myth,religion,symbol-
ism, kinship and social organization,and problemsof structuralismall
indicate that the viabilityof these societies is high and a continuityof
culturalform is intact.
Duringthe late 1950sand after,some of the most criticaland insightful
ethnographyappearedin the worksof Meggitt(43, 46), the Berndts(4-6),
L. R. Hiatt(27, 30), Pilling(24), who followedup earlyinvestigationsdone
by Hart (22-24); Goodale (17, 18), Reay (62, 63), Beckett (1, 2), and
Falkenberg(14). Sincethis body of workappeared,anothergenerationof
fieldworkers has studiedAboriginalcultures,andsomeof theirfindingswill
be discussedin this essay. It is clear that the viabilityof anthropological
investigationsis strong and that many problems,both in terms of the
Aboriginalcontextper se and anthropologicaltheoryin general,will con-
tinue to be pursued.

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
Sincethe early1960s,newdataanda rethinkingof anthropological theories
have broughtforth a florescenceof work on the Australian Aboriginal.
Much of the impetusfor this work came with the establishmentof the
AustralianInstituteof AboriginalStudies,whichrepresentedthe firsttime
the Australiangovernmenthad directlyinvolveditself in fundingresearch
on Aboriginalcultures.
Anthropologicalinterestduringthe last 20 years has hoveredaround
Aboriginaleconomyandculturaladaptationto the structureof cosmologies
and belief systems.
Economy and Local Organization
Of all aspectsof Aboriginalsociety, economicpursuitsand the socioeco-
nomicunitsinvolvedwith subsistencearethe most difficultto dealwith. In
partthis is due to the early,shatteringeffectsof the colonialexperienceon
Aboriginallife, but even when the cultureswere not totally disrupted,
economicand populationfactorsderivingfrom the impactof colonialism
havecontinuouslybroughtaboutdemographicdisplacementanda marked
decline in traditionalmodes of economiclife. Except for the pioneering
work of Mountfordand his ethnographicteam in ArnhemLand(50) and
Worsley's(93) study of food utilizationamongthe inhabitantsof Groote
Eylandt,most of the workon economicproductionand consumptionhas
beendoneby archaeologists. Gould's(19) studiesin the WesternDesertare
among the most recent work in this vein, and his accounts have been
 AUSTRALIANABORIGINALS(CULTURAL) 397

supplementedby the work of Betty Hiatt (25) and Rhys Jones(32), who
have attemptedto ascertainthrougharchaeologicalinvestigationthe basic
featuresof economicproductionamongthe Aboriginalsof Tasmania.
Although work is limited,a numberof criticalfactorshave emerged.
Almostall recentworkand reanalysisindicatethat the basisof Aboriginal
economyin both the interiordesertareasand in the tropicalcoastalareas
of Arnhem Land and Queenslandwas the gatheringand collecting of
vegetablefoodswhichformedthe bulkof the day-to-daydiet. Meggitt(44)
concludesthat 70 to 80 percentof the dietwas composedof vegetablefoods
and that the majorityof these foods were providedthroughthe labor of
women. Although hunting was the dominantculturalconcern and the
principalworkof males,the overallcontributionof meat throughhunting
was minimaland highly variablein termsof daily consumption.
The vegetalbasisof Aboriginaldiets not only representsanotheraspect
of environmentalconstraints,but also indicatesthat theremust havebeen
basicregionaldifferences as to the kindsof florawhichwereexploited.Seeds
and seed-grindingtechnologieswereonly criticalin the morearidareasof
centraland interiorAustralia;consequently,the wide spectrumof floral
speciesin the coastalandinteriorcoastallocalitiesof continentalAustralia
indicatesthat an increasingvariabilityexisted in terms of consumption
patterns.The utilizationof roots,fruits,and nuts amongmost tropicaland
semitemperate huntersandgatherersindicatethatdietaryvariabilityshould
relateto the questionof speciationand the densityof differentspeciesin
these particularenvironmentalconfines.
If vegetablematterprovidedthe bulkof the diet,the importanceof game
and fishingactivitiesmust be understoodin terms of the whole dietary
complex.The huntingof large macropodsthroughoutthe continent,the
stresson marinelife exploitationin variousregions,and the elaborationof
specific technologies all indicate that microenvironmentaladaptation
should be basic to understandinghow Aboriginalpopulationssupported
themselves.Withinvirtuallyany type of ecologicalniche, archaeologists
have found differentassemblagesof tools which must have been used to-
ward the exploitationof divergentsourcesof food. This regionalismwas
most markedand has been thoroughlydiscussedby Lawrence(34), but
despitethis, one can still characterizea basicformof exploitationthat was
commonto peoplesthroughoutthe continent.Generalizedtool kits which
could compensatefor variationsin collecting,gathering,hunting,fishing,
and trappingwerecommonand indicatea unityof humanactivitieswhich
we may referto as Aboriginalsubsistencetechniquesand economy.
Overthe past20 years,the questionof localorganizationamongAborigi-
nals has drawnmuch attentionand, as would be expected,much contro-
versy.From Radcliffe-Brown (61) and later Steward(82), the idea of the
398 YENGOYAN

patrilineal,patrilocal,and exogamousbandor hordebecamethe common

frameworkfor describingthe structureand compositionof local organiza-
tion. In the 1960s,this viewwas challengedby Meggitt(43) and Hiatt(26,
28), and in turn the classic position was defendedby Stanner(76) and
Birdsell(7). Meggitt and Hiatt speculatedthat the horde as definedby
Radcliffe-Brown probablyneverexistedin termsof the formalproperties
whichRadcliffe-Brown attributedto it. Furthermore,they statedthat even
if we hadcompletedata,the compositionof hordeswasso variablethatany
claimsfor the specificexistenceof a particularkind of socialorganization,
let alonefor the universalityof suchsocialorganization,mustbe considered
carefully.Nevertheless,Meggittand Hiatt held that communitiesranging
from200 to 300 individualsmighthavebeenthe basisof local organization
from which small task groupsmoved over the terrain.
In responseto thesesuggestions,Stanner(76) establishedthe conceptsof
estateandrange.Estatespertainto sacredlocalitieswhicharethe ancestral
home of clans and totemicunits. Such localitiesare sacredand in theory
are only accessibleto individualswho have a claim throughdescentand
who are membersof particularclans and totemicunits.The rangeis com-
posedof the areaswhichmembersof differenttotemicor clan groupscould
enterand cross for purposesof economicexploitation.Undernormalcir-
cumstancesthe individualsof a particularestateformeda coregroupbased
on membershipin the samepatrilinealdescentgroup.The rangewas com-
posed of the specificresourcesaround the estates which these descent
groupsnormallyexploited.The borderareasof differentrangesintersected,
and it can be demonstratedthat such boundarieswerenot rigidovertime.
Thus, bandsfromdifferentpatrilinealdescentgroupswould mutuallyex-
ploit adjacentareas as long as they avoided sacred and ancestralsites.
Interspersedbetweenrangesand estateswere areaswhich differentlocal
groupsexploitedwithoutreferenceto differentialtitle and rights.
At this stage in our inquiry,it is nearlyimpossibleto reconstructthe
pristinepattern,and in all probabilitythe pristinesituationneverexisted.
Rather,it is quite possiblethat variancein structureand compositionof
local groups was fundamentaldue to regionaland microenvironmental
differences.Since householdstructureand compositionand rules of resi-
dence are knownto be the most adaptiveaspectsof social organizationas
it relatesto economicimperatives,we should expect such variation.The
stabilityof local group structurenot only must be seen to derive from
environmentaland economicforces, but also must be interpretedas an
expressionof totemicand religiousphilosophieswhichare imperativesfor
all Aboriginalcultures.Aboriginalphilosophyas manifestin myth, cos-
mology, and totemismhas a numberof critical axioms that should be
stressedas they referto the questionof local groups.Oneof the underlying
 AUSTRALIANABORIGINALS(CULTURAL) 399

themesin Aboriginalthoughtis the continuouscollapsingof the natural

intothe supernatural andthe supernatural into the natural.In fact,virtually
everythingin the supernatural sphereof life has a naturalcounterpart,and
vice versa. It could thereforebe arguedwith much justificationthat the
natural/supernatural distinction,whichis so basicin Westernthought,has
no relevancein Aboriginalcultureand only dividesthe continuityof cul-
tural form into arbitraryand meaninglesscategoriesand contrasts.In
understanding what this means,it must be noted that for most Aboriginal
culturesthe terrainas expressedthroughlocality,residence,and livelihood
is not only a territorialphenomenon,but also a spiritualforcewhichrelates
to the wholequestionof existenceandbeing.Thus,the structuringof local
groupsmust be interpretedas a sourceof emotionalsustenancebasedon
totemic ideologies.These ideologies and their correspondingemotional
expressionsformthe "real"basisof whatlocalityis as a structuralprocess
and what continuitymeans.Once this is establishedthen the processesof
groupcomposition,intergroupaffiliations,and residentialchangesmustbe
viewedas meansthroughwhichindividualsandgroupscopewithproblems
of economicproduction,consumption,and distribution.It is no wonder
that virtuallyeveryethnographerhas found discrepanciesbetweenstruc-
tureand composition.The structurehas its sourcein totemicand religious
imperatives,whilethe compositionrepresentsthe interactionof this struc-
ture and economicimperatives.
The totemicbasisof landand spatialmobilitymeantthatthe verysource
of existence,be it spiritualor emotional,was nearly always expressed
throughties to the soil.Thisemotionalattachmentto landis well expressed
by Strehlow(84, p. 145) when he states, "Theirsupernaturalbeingswere
not livingin the sky,farbeyondhumanreach:the immortalsweredwelling
in their very midst, and had done so from all eternity."Yet it must be
realizedthat this tight link betweenthe supernaturaland the naturaldid
not createa "straightjacket" which limitedand curtailedspatialmobility.
Local groupswereinterconnectedwith one anotherthroughbondsof kin-
ship, throughcommonties basedon sectionand subsectioncategories,and
throughmutualbondsbasedon ritualgroups.Socialorganizationdid pos-
sess adequateflexibilitythroughwhichindividualsand groupscouldmove
fromlocal groupto local group,or frompoor refugeareasto environmen-
tally betterendowedareasduringconditionsof drought.Sincedroughtis
the basic rule throughoutmost of centralAustralia,local groupshad to
maintainties whichcouldbe activatedduringperiodsof stress.In my own
fieldworkamongthe Pitjantjatjara, the numberof casesin whichindividuals
and groupsmoved beyondthe normal confinesof the Mann-Musgrave-
PetermannRanges was so great that one could only concludethat the
adherenceto strictboundariesby local groupswas basicallythe exception.
400 YENGOYAN

Over the past years, a numberof writerssuch as Strehlow(83-85) and

Yengoyan(94-100) havediscussedthe processesby whichpopulationdis-
persionand resourcedeploymentoccurred.
Another means of establishinghow local groupsrelatedto their own
totemiclocalitieswhilebeingableto moveout and coverhundredsof miles
of territoryis throughan understandingof what constitutesgeographic
knowledge.Again amongthe Pitjantjatjara it was noted that geographic
knowledgein termsof one'sparticulartotemicsiteswasbasedon a detailed
acquaintancewithparticulareventsin the mythichistoryof thatsite.Thus,
not only knowledgewas limited to qualitativecategorieswhich yielded
particularcases, but also the detailed variancewas critical and always
transmitted.Onceindividualsmovedto adjacentareasand localitiesaway
from their own totemicsites, detailedgeographicknowledgebecamepri-
marily qualitativein that the possible existenceof vegetablefoods was
determinedby generalprinciplesfromwhichone couldpredictwhatkinds
of yieldswouldoccur.Thesemicroshiftsin how geographicalknowledgeis
maintained,transmitted,andutilizedarein partan expressionof socialand
spatialdistancefromparticulartotemicsites. Microdifferences indicatethe
degreeof experienceandknowledgewhichone possessesas one movesfrom
locality to locality.
Seasonalityin economicand culturalfactorsoccursamongthose tribes
whichoccupycoastalareasas well as someof the interiorcoastalvicinities.
Throughoutthe coastalareas,almost all tribalunits are characterizedby
changesin economicactivity,types of foods consumedand variationsin
settlementpatternsas thesefactorsrelateto climaticchange.The shiftsin
settlementandeconomyin CapeYorkarewell describedby Thomson(87);
and throughoutAustralia,Lawrence(34) has documentedthe varioussea-
sonaladjustmentsmadeby the riverinetribesof southeastAustraliaas well
as by marinegroupsof New South Wales.
While seasonalityis criticalon the fringesof the continent,the interior
desertareasare minimallyaffectedby seasonalshifts.The most important
geographicaldifferencein the centeris the contrastbetweenthe mountain
ranges,spinifexareas,andthe interveningdeserts.Faunaland floraldiffer-
ences betweenthese environmentalareas were expressedin the ways in
whichAboriginalsadaptedto eachcontext.The desertgroupshavea more
limitedfloralandfaunalbaseto exploit,and the meansof exploitationalso
differfromthosegroupswhichsurviveon the ranges.Nets andtraps,which
are utilizedby the Arandathroughthe collectiveeffortsof a numberof
individuals,were absent among the desert groups which almost always
huntedon a more individualbasis.
Theoretically,the questionof economyand local organizationshouldbe
understoodin terms of certainstructuraltendencieswhich characterize
Aboriginalsociety. Maddock(39) has stressedthe idea that Aboriginal
 AUSTRALIANABORIGINALS(CULTURAL) 401

societyoperateswithintwo basicmodes.Oneis the pushtoward"universal-

ity" in whichties andnetworksare continuouslyregeneratedand extended
outward.This is accomplishedthroughthe majormeansof exchange(e.g.
marital,ritual,and economic).The universalistictendencynot only inter-
connectslocalgroupsbutalsoexpandstiesbeyondtribalboundaries.Mutu-
alism and hospitalityas an expressionof universalistictendenciesare not
only economicimperativesthroughwhichpopulationsurvivalandmobility
occur,but arealso definitereligiousimpulseswhichmaintainthe expansive
qualityof Aboriginalculture.Strehlow(84) notesthat hospitalitywas ex-
tendedto less fortunategroupsthroughoutcentralAustralia,not simplyas
an act of charity,but also as the fulfillmentof an obligationwhich rested
on tradition.The obligatorybasisof hospitalityis revealedby the trackings
of mythic ancestralbeingsas they meanderedover thousandsof miles in
centralAustralia.Mythictrailscrossedovermanylocalareasandprovided
linkagesin which all groupsarticulatedwith one another.
Whileuniversalismoccursthroughmanyforms,the secondtendencyis
particularism,a featurewhichis promulgatedthroughprinciplesof exclu-
sion. Estates,totemicsites,and virtuallyall aspectsof the sacredaremain-
tainedeitherthroughtotal exclusionof outsidersor throughexchangesin
which outsidersassist in maintainingthese sites while being unable to
participatein ritualactivities.The basisof particularismis primarilyin the
religiousdomain,but its implicationsare far-reaching.
RecentlyTurner(91) characterizedAboriginalsocietyand its modesof
productionas a "productiongroupdiversitysystem"in whichstructurally
differentiatedanddiverseproductiongroupsarecreatedthroughthe opera-
tion of principlesof linealityand exclusion,as these are expressedin the
patrilinealclan and varioustypes of marriagearrangements.Ties linking
estatestogetherfor resourceexploitationare an expressionof the tendency
towardoutwardexpansion,but the centrifugalforces are simultaneously
counterbalanced by patrilinealityand adherenceto ancestralsacredlocali-
ties which maintaina centripetalfocus which continouslywork back to-
wardsthe center.Turner'sanalysis,which he later comparesto the Cree
as anotheralternative,is most insightfulin termsof elicitingthe formsof
structuralcontradictionswhichpermeateAboriginalsocietyas it adaptsto
situationsof economicsurvivaland populationdispersal.Contradictions
are statementsof how a highly structuredsociety maintainsits coherence
whileat the sametimepromotingorganizationalvariabilityin the questfor
humansurvival.

Population, Kinship, and Social Organization

Whatever else Aboriginal society is known for, kinship has always domi-
natedour attention.The formalfoundationsof AboriginalAustraliankin-
shipweredelineatedby Radcliffe-Brown,
who basedhis theoreticalfindings
402 YENGOYAN

on the solid foundationsof numerouspredecessors.In stressingrules and

structuralprinciples,Radcliffe-Brown establisheda numberof formalprop-
ertieswhich still underwritethe study of Aboriginalkinshipsystems,and
from these propertiesa seriesof types (i.e. Aranda,Kariera,etc) were set
forthas a meansof organizingthe body of enthnographicdataon kinship
and as a way of systemizingthe problemsof transformations fromone type
to another.Formalisticaccountsstressstructuraldiscreteness,thusrelegat-
ing the influenceof nonkinshipculturalfeaturesto a secondaryposition
which in many cases justifiedtheir exclusionfrom theoreticalconsider-
ations. Furthermore,the earlyinterpretationsstressdescentas a primary
kinshipprocess,butlaterworkby Levi-Strauss(36) balancedthe theoretical
argumentationin favor of alliancetheoriesin which marriagebonds not
only determinethe discreteelementswithinsocietiesbut also generatethe
total socialstructure.Duringthe past 20 years,the debatebetweenalliance
theoristsand descenttheoristshas utilizedthe Australiandatain attempt-
ing to developtheirrespectivearguments.Thusnot only havethe Murngin
gaineda placein ethnographichistory,but now the Wik Monkanof Cape
Yorkarealsopartof anotherlengthytheoreticaldebate(see 42, 57, 70, 87).
Over the past 20 years of work on kinship,at least three themeshave
emerged.The first is the dominantconcernwith developingdescriptions
and analyticschemesfor devisingformal sets of rules for studyingand
understandingkinship,both as sets of categoriesand as behavioralat-
tributes.A secondconcerninvolvesthe relationshipbetweenkinshipand
the whole of Aboriginalculture.Here the aim is not only to comprehend
kinshipas a systemuntoitself,but also to understandkinshipas partof the
largersystem of symboliccoherenceand cosmologicalaxioms. The last
themeis concernedwith questionsof how kinshipand social structureare
constrainedby ecologicaland demographicparameters.
The analysisof kinshipas sets of formalruleswhichgeneratethe whole
socialsystemis best exemplifiedin the recentworkof Scheffier(71). Given
the initialassumptionthat relationsbasedon genealogicalconnectionsand
classificationsare universalthroughoutAustralia,it is claimedthat kin
classificationsare not only universalbut are the verybasisof social struc-
ture. This positionhas beenhotly debatedover the past 50 years,not only
within the Aboriginalcontext, but also in the largerdomainof kinship
studies,the relationshipof kinshipto social structureand behavior.There
is no needto discussthe variouspointsof view here,but it shouldbe noted
that the underlyingassumptionof kinshipas genealogicalconnectionshas
alwaysbeenpivotalin ourunderstanding of how kinshipworksin Aborigi-
nal society. Radcliffe-Brown stressedthis positionin his early work, and
Scheffierhas advancedour understandingof the implicationsof Radcliffe-
Brown'scontention.Furthermore,if kinshipas genealogicalconnectionis
 AUSTRALIANABORIGINALS(CULTURAL) 403

the basisof socialstructure,then the existenceof marriagesystems,section

categories,moieties,etc can be generatedfromthe structureand operation
of kinship.This is not to say that otherfeaturesof Aboriginalsocialstruc-
ture are to be understoodas epiphenomenawhich are superfluousto kin-
ship. Basicallysections,moieties,semimoieties,etc areindicesor summary
expressionsof kinshiprelations.In each case, kinshipis categorizedby
differentlines, some of which might be consideredas primarilysocial,
othersas religious,ritualistic,or totemisticin nature.The polysemicaspect
of kinshipterms,categories,and usageprovidesthe basisupon which the
socialstructurearticulatesand reproducesitself. Scheffier(71, pp. 523-24)
notesthat whereasRadcliffe-Brown dealtwith the patrilinealclanandlines
of descentas partlyseparatefromkinshipandgenealogy,whilearguingthat
the patrilinealbandwas the basisof socialstructure,in realitylocal groups
and descentare structurallyderivedand dependenton culturallydefined
kinshipcategoriesas they are extendedthroughoutthe whole of society.
Yet kinship as a system is culturallyanimatedthroughcosmological
axiomsand arrangements of symboliccoherencewhichprovideemotional
sustenanceto membersof everyAboriginalsociety.In a brilliantreanalysis
of his Walbirimaterial,Meggitt(48) demonstratesthe intricateconnections
betweenWalbirikin categoriesand relationsand the impactof the dream-
time experienceon sociallife. ThroughoutWalbiriculture,the initialsepa-
rationof all life and substanceinto the noumenal,whichis equatedto the
sacred and maleness,and the phenomenal,which is associatedwith the
profaneandfemaleness,providesa seriesof linkswhichinterconnectmoie-
ties to sections/subsectionsand eventuallyto age grades,femaleceremo-
nies, and male cult lodges. If kinship is the dominantvehicle of social
expression,thenthe basisandmeaningof this expressionrestsin the realm
of cosmology and ontology. Causationemanatesfrom the Dreamtime,
graduallyworkingitself through the kinship system, and is materially
expressedin the differentialutilizationof land, resources,and nativegeo-
graphicalcategories.Meggitt'sanalysisis supportedby other interpreta-
tions such as Strehlow'saccountsof the Aranda,Hiatt'sunderstandingof
the Gidjingali,andMaddock's(38-40) descriptionof the Dalabon.Scheffier
(71, p. 524) also stressesthat there are no criticaldifferencesbetweenhis
interpretationand Meggitt'sanalysisof cosmologicalcoherenceand kin-
ship. In all of the recentwritingson Aboriginalkinship,one readilynotes
a growinginterestin relatingquestionsof structuralformalismto ques-
tions of meaning and symbolic understanding.The works of Peterson
(58, 59), Shapiro(72, 73), and Turner(90) especiallyindicatethis growing
tendency.
Whilekinshipsystemsandsocialorganizationarebasedon formalprop-
ertiesof categorization,descent,and marriage,the full comprehensionof
404 YENGOYAN

kingroupcompositionandmarriageratesdependson ecologicalanddemo-
graphicvariableswhichareembeddedin the systemof rulesandbehavior.
ThroughoutAboriginalAustralia,the realmof behaviorandits relationship
to structuralrules has alwaysbeen of interestto social anthropologists.
Durkheim,Radcliffe-Brown, and Levi-Straussall assumedthat rules and
behaviorwereisomorphicandthat therewas alwaysa close fit betweenthe
two. Otherinterpretations have stressedthat behavioris the basisof rules,
thus implyingthat changesin behaviorshouldreflectchangesin structural
rules. Finally,anotherinterpretationhas it that behavioris an expression
of rules which are paramount.Thereforebehaviorwhich deviatesfrom
eitherverbalizedor nonverbalized rulesis alwaysrecastto approximatethe
rule.Of thesethreepositions,the latterinterpretation mostoftencharacter-
izes the structureand workingsof Aboriginalsociety.Sincerules,whether
they concernmarriage,kinship,ritual, or totemic beliefs, are based on
cosmologicalandontologicalaxiomsas establishedin the Dreamtime,such
principlesare takenas culturalgivensand are neitherquestionednor de-
bated as to their pristinestatus.
How ruleswork"on the ground"is anotherquestion.EveryAboriginal
societyrecognizesthe possibilitythat thingswill not workalongideallines,
and this realizationnecessitatesmechanismsby which behavioralfluctua-
tionsandvariationscanbe recastbackontostructure.Onecasewillbe given
to demonstratethe forceanddominationof rules.Amongthe Pitjantjatjara
of the WesternDesert, marriageswhich deviatefrom the rule do occur
either as unionswhich are in completeviolationof the rule or as unions
whichmightbe consideredas optional.Someof theseunionsaresimplyleft
as is; but in most cases after a marriageis consummated,genealogical
changesoccurwhich have the effectof producing"correct"marriages.In
suchcases,the kinshipcategoryof a personin the secondascendinggenera-
tion is changedto makethe marriage"comeout right."But in no case is
the rule ever changedto accommodateto behavior.
Demographicconstraintshavebeenrelatedto marriagesystems,and,in
general,the conclusionis that constraintsdo not determinethe presenceor
absenceof a rule. Nevertheless,they do have a markedimpact on the
statisticalfrequencyin whichmarriagesof differentdegreesof correctness
occur. The worksof Rose (66), Reay (62, 63), Goodale(17, 18), Meggitt
(43, 45, 47), andYengoyan(95, 97, 98) havedemonstratedthat population
in ageof marriage,infanticiderates,andimbalancesin the
size, differentials
sex ratiohavea criticalimpacton the determinationof how theserulesare
behaviorallyexpressed.The fluctuationsin marriageratesovertimewithin
any societymustbe relatedto demographicimbalancesand spatialfactors
which renderbehavioralvariability.
 AUSTRALIANABORIGINALS(CULTURAL) 405

Religion,Myth, and Symbolism

If kinshiphasbeenthe mostfertileareaof interestto socialanthropologists,
religionhas probablybeenthe most difficultaspector featureof Aboriginal
cultureto understandandinterpret.In part,this is dueto the limitednature
compre-
of the ethnographicaccounts,but also this lack of anthropological
hensionresultsfromthe perennialconfusionin Westernthoughtas to what
religionmeansand how it is to be dealt with. As Stanner(77) pointsout,
even Spencerand Gillen, after describingnumerousArandaceremonies,
beliefs,and cosmologicalfeatures,seldomuse the termreligionin referring
to the richnessof the data and its interpretation.Durkheimconceivedof
these rites and belief systemsas "expressingthe religiousprinciple,"but
probablynot as being religionin any Europeansense. By the 1920s and
1930s, the empiricalfoundationsfor the study of Aboriginalreligion
emergedfromthe worksof Elkin,Warner,Strehlow,and Thomson.Over
the next decades, the accounts of Stanner, Ronald Berndt, Catherine
Berndt,and McConnelthroughthe 1940sand onwardcontributedto the
data and interpretation.By the 1960s, Meggitt,Hiatt, and Munn added
anotherdimensionto anthropologicalinterpretationand contributednew
insightsto the ethnographiccorpus.
Overthe past 50 years,the workof Stanner(74-80) standsout as among
the most insightfuland perceptive,in regardsboth to his understandingof
native categoriesof thoughtand to what this thoughtmeansin terms of
belief,rites,andbehavior.Stanner's(77) articleon religion,totemism,and
symbolismis probablythe single most importantpiece written on the
generalfeaturesandproblemsinvolvedin studyingAboriginalreligionand
thought,whilehis lengthymonographOnAboriginalReligionis a mustfor
any student of religion.In stressingthe vitality of Aboriginalreligion,
Stanneremphaticallysupportsthe positionthat the eternalaspectof the
Aboriginalreligionas expressedthroughthe Dreamingis centralin com-
biningall aspectsof Aboriginalreligiontogetheras a unifiedthoughtpro-
cess. Questions of eschatology, aetiology, and ontology are not only
interrelated,but the veryforcewhichthey have on societymustbe seen as
an expressionof the ultimatecausativeinfluencesof the Dreamtimeduring
which thought,mind,and cultureworkthemselvesonto the sphereof life.
It is this onenessof thought,belief,and expressionthroughtime and space
which makesWesterntheologicaland scientificcontrastsand distinctions
irrelevantand inappropriate to the Aboriginalcontext.Christiantheology
is predicatedon contrastivemodesof thoughtas can be seenin its preoccu-
pation with questionsof damnationand salvation,and in the dichotomy
betweenthe spiritual/ideal/mentaland the material;moreover,the sacred
406 YENGOYAN

and profanedistinction,thoughusefulfor understanding,is anotherform

of contrastbasedon the Westernmodel.ThroughoutAboriginalreligion,
statementsof spiritualmeaningand contentariseout of the Dreaming,an
experiencewhichall Aboriginalsinherit(but cannotdisinherit).This expe-
rience not only is the basis of emotionalsustenance,but it providesthe
majorvehicleby which moralityis regeneratedthroughtime.
Not only doesmoralityresultfromthe Dreaming,butvirtuallyall behav-
ior is an expressionof a well-developedsense of moral conduct which
providesthe basis for all human imperatives.The sacredquality of the
moralis neverdebatednor is it compromisedin the rigorsof everydaylife.
Thecodeof moralityis basedon mythandliturgy,two areaswhichembrace
almost every aspectof Aboriginalsociety. In fact, the isomorphicfit be-
tween the naturaland supernaturalmeans that all natureis coded and
chargedby the sacred,while the sacredis everywherewithinthe physical
landscape.Mythsandmythictrackingscrossovernumeroustribalbounda-
ries and over thousandsof miles, and everyparticularform and featureof
the terrainhas a well-developed"story"behindit.
Onthe levelof interpersonal behavior,the moralbasisof conductgoverns
almost every sphereof life. In Westernthought,we have alwaysmade a
clear-cutdivisionbetweenbehaviorandmoralitywhichunderwritesbehav-
ior, and this split servesas an expressionof emergingsecularismand indi-
vidualism.In Aboriginalsociety,everyindividualis responsiblefor his/her
behavior,since behavioris the enactmentof the moral.
Mythis the basisof religionas well as the centralfeatureof the symbolic
system.Not only does mythpermeateall aspectsof Aboriginalcultureand
society,but mythprovidesthe ontologicalcharacteristics whichgivemean-
ing to humanaction.Throughethnographicanalysisand theoreticaldis-
cussions,Hiatt(31) has stressedthat purelyfunctionalaccountsand inter-
pretationsof mythandritualare limitingandpreventour graspingthe full
impactof mython Aboriginalsociety.Sincefunctionalismcommonlyinter-
pretsmyth and ritualas counterpartsof one another,it fails to explainthe
Aboriginalcontext in which most myths are ritelessand most rites are
mythless. Stanner(78, 79) noted this and recognizedthat the dynamic
qualityof Aboriginalreligionrestedprimarilyin its abilityto relatediffer-
ences in one culturalsphereto those in another.Thus, myth and ritual
providedifferentmessages,andit becomescriticalto understandhow these
messagesconstraineach other.
Beyondthis, a purelyfunctionalapproachto myth as a charterwhich
underwritessocietyis simplynot very powerful.As Hiatt (31) notes, the
negativeelementin Aboriginalrites and myths, whetherit is represented
as the deceiveror the antagonist,is commonlythe one who survivesand
comes out ahead.Therefore,it is clearthat while functionalanalysismay
 AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINALS (CULTURAL) 407

be of some utility, it cannot establishwhat myth and rites mean to the

participants.The structureof myth may have a logic, and probablydoes,
but purelystructuraland/or functionalinterpretations, whichadvancethe
notionof promotingsocialsolidarityor in the classicLevi-Straussian binary
oppositions,tell us almostnothing of particularontologieswhich under-
score the mythic and ritualdrama.
In invokingthe ontologicalqualityof mythicsubstance,we must return
to the thought-provoking work of Stanner(78) and his interpretationof
Murinbatarealities.For the Murinbata,Stanner(78, p. 37) notes that life
is seen as "ajoyousthingwith maggotsat the centre."Lifeis construedas
goodandbenevolent,buteachcourseandtwistin life hasnumerouspainful
sufferingswhichmustbe understoodand enduredby eachindividual.This
is the underlyingculturalmessage,a philosophyof life which is mirrored
in the mythsand ritesof the Murinbata.It is this philosophyof life which
providesemotionalmeaningto individuals,and at the same time it is this
qualitywhichanimatesmyth and rituals.The brillianceof this interpreta-
tion is the basis of Hiatt's (30, 31) recent attemptto relate questionsof
ontogenyto modelsof ontology.In developingthisbroadperspective,Hiatt
(30, 31) notes that the Freudiancomplexof separationanxiety,as under-
stoodby R6heim,mightprovidethe coherencein whichmythcoulddemar-
cate the significantlinkagefor understandinghumanontogenies.
Just as questionsof ontogenymust be relatedto ontologicalprocesses,
symbolic inquiriesalso representanothermeans of understandinghow
ontologiesareconstructedand whatthey mean.AgainStanner(77) has set
forth the basic issue concerningsymbolismin arguingthat Aboriginal
symbols are expressionsand conceptualizationswhich are inferableand
partlyperceivablein the religionwhile not beingin themselves"religion."
In this sense,symbolicequationsare a meansof tryingto comprehendthe
basicmetaphysicalqualitiesof religion.Religionas the internalontological
core is expressedin many ways, most of which occur throughsymbolic
thoughtas manifestin ritual,music,drama,art, and aboveall in language.
Buildingon this foundation,the work of Nancy Munn(52, 53) brilliantly
revealsthe basic vehicleswhich Aboriginalswork throughin generating
and fully animatingthe very essenceof what religionis and how religious
experiencestakeplace.Accordingto Munn,the mechanismsby whichinner
subjectivityis externalizedand objectifiedonto the social plane and the
geographiclandscapeis best exemplifiedby subject-object transformations
in myth andin the meaningof graphicdesignsas partof Walbiriiconogra-
phy.
The centralityof ontologicalforcesexpressedin Aboriginalcultureis best
exemplifiedin the corpusof Arandaethnography.Strehlow(86) has noted
the Aboriginalperceptionof the timelessquality of life, a life that was
408 YENGOYAN

unfoldedonce and for all time. The most conclusivestatementpertaining

to these eternalfeaturesis Strehlow's(86, p. 658):"Therewereno prophe-
cies; no changeswere envisagedfor the future.The work of the totemic
ancestorswas believedto havebeendone for all time."Not only is culture
encodedthroughtime, but the dominanceof ontologicalfeatures,such as
the close emotionaltie to land and the basic male/femaledichotomy,is
centralto a philosophyof life whichpenetratesas myth,ritual,kinship,and
behavior.
The male/femaleoppositionunderwritesmostAboriginalculturesandis
continuouslyexpressedin variousculturalforms.Meggitt(43, 48), Munn
(52, 53), andPeterson(58, 59) havedemarcatedthe variouswaysin which
this male/femaleoppositionpermeatesWalbiriculture,while Hiatt (30)
and Hamilton(21) havediscussedthe centralityof maledominanceamong
the Gidjingali.Yengoyan(101) has discussedthe symbolic contrast of
male/femalethroughoutAustraliaas it relatesto categorizationof nature
and culture.The emotionalbasis of male to femaleas part of familyand
group dynamicshas been minimallystressed,but recentwork by R. M.
Berndt (3) and Myers (54-56) should add new understandingto these
problems.
Throughoutthis chapter,the importanceof totemicbehaviorhas been
stressedas it relatesto religionthroughtime and to the emotionalqualities
which tie humansto one anotherand to their surroundings.Totemismas
a generalcategoryhas been rightfullycriticizedby Stanner(77) for both
theoreticaland parochialreasons.Therefore,in addressingthis old issue,
Stannerattemptsto clarifywhat "totemism"has meantwithinanthropo-
logical historyand theory.In turn, Stannerfocuseson the importanceof
"totems"to the ontologicalunderstandingof continuitywhich is main-
tained throughassociationsof events in the past and generatedinto the
presentandfuture.Thetotemis the expressionof the socialas it worksback
onto eternal time. In whateverform the totem occurs and whateverit
accomplishes,the point is that totems are real. They do have a very basic
existence to humans, since virtually everythingis perceivedas having
totemic significance.
The reasonwhy the actualexistenceof totems must be stressedis that
recent interpretationsby Levi-Strauss(35) argue that totemismor "so-
calledtotemism"is at worstan illusionor at best a null category.Whatever
the case, the structuralpositioninterpretstotemismas an expressionof
somethingelse, and thus realityis seen to exist only at a moregeneralized
levelof categorization.Althoughthe structuralinterpretation mightpossess
an intellectualappeal,it debases,distorts,and bankruptsthe most vital
forcein Aboriginalreligion.Onthispoint,the cogentanalysisof the totemic
 AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINALS (CULTURAL) 409

argumentby Hiatt (29) and Meggitt(48) mustbe readin conjunctionwith

the structuralistinterpretation.It is clearfrom the ethnographicevidence
thatin no waycanonedismisstotemsandtotemismin AboriginalAustralia
as an "illusion."
Aboriginalsin the Contextof AustralianSociety
Sincethe initialcontactperiodin the late eighteenthcentury,the European
impacton Aboriginalculturecan only be describedas devastating.From
an estimatedpopulationof 250,000 to 300,000 at time of contact, the
numberof Aboriginalsdeclinedto nearly40,000 by the late 1930s. The
historicaleventsand processesof nearly200 years of contact are replete
with cases in whichAboriginalswereexterminatedby directphysicalvio-
lence or throughthe effectsof endemicdiseaseand faminewhich spread
throughoutthe continentsoonafterthe arrivalof Europeans.By the 1860s,
the last of the AboriginalTasmanianshad died. At the beginningof this
century,the coastal and interiorcoastal groups of Victoria,New South
Wales, SouthAustralia,Queensland,and West Australiawere in various
phasesof culturaldecay.
ThroughoutcentralAustralia,ArnhemLand,andnorthernQueensland,
mostof the Aboriginalsocietiesmaintainedtheirtraditionalwayof lifeeven
thoughthe huntingand gatheringeconomywas no longerpracticedas the
sole meansof support.By the 1950s,societieswhichwereableto resistthe
initialonslaughtbroughtaboutby populationdeclinerespondedin different
ways (and in generalthis led to the survivalof their culture).Walbiri
populationincreasedto 1700 by the early 1970s and the Pitjantjatjara
populationincreasedto about 800. While variousstages of physicaland
culturaldislocationoccurredin ArnhemLand, most of the region'ssoci-
eties havesurvived.And throughoutthe WesternDesert,manyAboriginal
societiessurvivedand have maintainedtheir culturalvitality.
Documentationof contactandchangebetweenAboriginalandEuropean
societyis ample,but relativelyfew broadinterpretiveaccountsexist which
highlight the policies and adaptationsthat occurredover 200 years of
contact.Thebestinterpretation of the historicalprocessis Rowley's(67-69)
three-volumestudyof policyand practiceduringthe colonialand national
periodsof Australianpoliticalgrowth.Rowleynot only discussesthe colo-
nialpolicieswhichintensifiedthe destructionof Aboriginalsociety,but also
pointsout how issuesof racism,landrights,wagesandunemployment,and
relativedeprivationcharacterizethe plight of Aboriginalsin the 1970s.
While racismin one form or anotherunderwritesthe basic attitudesthat
whites maintaintoward Aboriginals,most of its forms take expression
throughissuespertainingto economicopportunity.Thebestexampleof this
410 YENGOYAN

mixtureof racismand differentialeconomicaccessis the cattleindustryof

northernAustralia,wherereportafterreportindicatesthatAboriginalsare
not only underpaidto a markeddegree,but also sufferchronicunemploy-
ment, underemployment, and deliberatesocial and personalabuse(81).
WhileAustralianpolicyhas variedfromcompleteintegrationto cultural
assimilationto social accommodationto "cushioningthe dying pillow,"
none of these policieshave alleviatedthe currentsocioeconomiccondition
of the Aboriginals.The literatureon this subjectis vast,whetherit explores
State-levelpolicy or the nationalpolicy emanatingfrom Canberra.
On the local level,a numberof accountsindicatedifferentresponsesand
patternsof interactionthroughwhich local Aboriginalcommunitieshave
maintainedtheirculturalviability.Tomkinson(89) demonstrateshow the
Mandjildjara of Jigalong,WestAustralia,overcamethe forcesof Apostolic
Christianity,not by accommodatingto Christianthemes,but throughthe
maintenanceof theirownreligionwhosebasicaxiomsaresimplynot repre-
sentedin Christianity.It shouldbe notedthatamongthe Mandjildjara rates
of religiousconversionto variousChristiandenominationsare quite low
and that, in general,Christiandogma has had minimalimpacton those
Aboriginalsocietieswhose culturaltraditionshave not been eroded.The
Walbiriand Pitjantjatjara also demonstratethis generalpattern.In con-
trast,the Arandasuccumbedto Christianityafternearly100yearsof mis-
sionaryactivities.Yet Strehlownotes that Christianityper se was never
ideologicallyacceptableto the Aranda;rather,the economicconsequences
of conversionwere importantinducementsto at least "hearout" Chris-
tianity.
Writingaboutthe cornerarea of New South Wales,Beckett(1, 2) has
demonstratedhow half-castecommunitiesevolve in the context of white
society. Beckett notes that after many decades of contact and change,
kinshipis still the basic idiom which governsbehaviorand mobility.Any
type of success and monetaryaccumulationamong local individualsis
siphonedoff throughthe dynamicsof kinship.
Besides the historicaldimension,a numberof insightfulworks have
appearedrecently,pertainingto urbanAborigines(15),healthandmedicine
(49), educationand employment(8), and the relationshipbetweenlegal
normsand the growthof politicalconsciousness.Whateverthe arguments
are, the role of Aboriginalswithin the politicaleconomyof Australiais
marginalat best and nonexistentat worst.Yet over the past decade,issues
of Aboriginallandclaims,rightsof accessto traditionalterritorialsites,and
a greaterinterestin self-ruleand politicalconsciousnessare slowly emerg-
ing. The windsof changeare now openlyexpressedamongAboriginalsas
well as amongsomesegmentsof the dominantsociety.But it mightbe too
little, too late.
 AUSTRALIANABORIGINALS(CULTURAL) 411

CONCLUSION
Understandingthe AboriginalAustralianhas alwaysbeena centralinterest
in anthropology,both in termsof theoryconstructionor in the utilization
of Aboriginalethnographyfor comparativepurposes.In some directions,
the Aboriginaldoes typify human societies,and they are comparableto
modeof production.
otherculturesbasedon the hunting-gathering-fishing
At the same time, Aboriginal culture in terms of its general features as well
as particularhistorical adaptationsis highly unique in regards to its
overelaboration of mostaspectsof culture.Althoughanthropological expla-
nationsof the Aboriginalethnographiccorpushas had varyingdegreesof
success,overallour attemptsand concernsmight profitby relatingsocial
anthropologicalinquirieswith other forms of explanationand under-
standing.
Oneof the mostfruitfulareasof inquiryis to ascertainhow languageand
cultureare expressionsof Aboriginalepistemologyand ontology.If myth
is the dominantreligiousfocus, then we should postulatea relationship
between particulargrammaticalstructuresand myth. As stated earlier,
Aboriginalcultureis eternallypossessedby each individual,and myth is
dailyexpressionof the eternal.The languageof mythrequiresgrammatical
structureswhich continuouslymaintainmyth as a living thing that is not
relegatedto the secularpast.AmongmanycentralAustralianculturesmyth
is expressedin the imperfectivetense or aspect. The imperfectiveis a
statementof ongoingactionand eventswhichneverreacha finality.In the
eaglehawkmyths,eaglehawkwas fallingoff a branchbut neverfell off, a
conditionindicatingthe continuityof action.It is this continuityof action
which emergesinto the presentand the futureand combinesall time and
thought into a single coherence.Languagestructuresprovideone of the
essentialimperativeswhich expressthe onenessof life.
The implicationsof the relationshipof linguisticstructureon the sacred
havea far-reaching effectbeyondthe Australiancase.It wouldbe of interest
to determine if the imperfective is commonly the language of myth, espe-
cially if myth is the centralfocus of epistemology.A recentreanalysisof
narrative and tense in the Old Testament seems to indicate that the imper-
fective was also the basic vehicle in conveying the impact of the original
message(60). After generationsof translationsof the Old Testament,the
original language structure has been much modified and distorted.
It is a tribute that the Aboriginal in Australia has maintained the richness
of language, cultural content, and formal structures through decades of
change. The internal complexity of structure and content, the elaboration
of oppositionsand inversions,and the perseveranceof the societyin times
of change and culturaldecay must be understoodas testimonialsto the
412 YENGOYAN

existenceof a highlycreativeculturalform.It is this totalculturalformand

structurewhich continuouslybafflesthe attemptsof anthropologiststo
understand what it really is and what it really means. Yet we are no better
or worsethan other disciplines.Virtuallyall Aboriginalswho possessthe
eternalthroughtheirtotemswould take delightin refutingTillich'sstate-
ment that "thereare no societieswhich possessthe eternal."
And, of course,Aboriginalsalso take pleasurein knowingthat the cre-
ativityandoriginalityof culturalsubstanceand formaretrulythe working
of the eternal.Hale (20, p. 482), after finallyunderstandingsome of the
principlesof ritual associationsin tfiliwiri, remarkedto a Walbiriman:
"You certainlyhave somethinghere!"The Walbiriadultreplied:"Indeed
we have!"
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thankAlton L. Becker,RobbinsBurling,David Edwards,Ken

George,KennethHale, and WilliamKelleherfor discussingvariousissues
with me and for readingpartsof this essay.Thesepeoplehavealwaysbeen
a source of stimulationand provocation.I extend special thanks to the
RackhamSchool of GraduateStudiesat the Universityof Michiganfor
providingspatialassistance,and to Jan Opdykefor sufferingthroughthe
typingof my numerousdrafts.
Literature Cited
1. Beckett, J. R. 1958. Marginal men: A fieldwork conducted since 1930. Curr.
study of two half-caste Aborigines. Anthropol. 11:115-42
Oceania 29:91-108 8. Broom, L., Jones, F. L. 1973. A Blanket
2. Beckett, J. R. 1965. Kinship, mobility a Year. Canberra: Aust. Natl. Univ.
and community among part-Aborigines Press. 98 pp.
in rural Australia. Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 9. Burridge, K. 1973. Encountering
6:7-23 Aborigines: and the Aus-
Anthropology
3. Berndt, R. M. 1978. Love Songs ofArn- tralian AboriginaL New York: Perga-
hem Land. Chicago: Univ. Chicago mon. 260 pp.
Press. 244 pp. 10. Durkheim, E. 1915. The Elementary
4. Berndt, R. M., Berndt, C. H. 1945. Formsof the ReligiousLife:A Studyin
A preliminary report of field work in ReligiousSociology.London: Allen &
the Ooldea Region, westernSouth Aus- Unwin. 507 pp.
tralia Sydney: Oceania Bound Off- 11. Elkin, A. P. 1938. Studies in Australian
print. 343 pp. Totemism. Oceania Monogr. No. 2.
5. Berndt, R. M., Berndt, C. H. 1964. The Sydney. 209 pp.
Worldof the FirstAustralians:An Intro- 12. Elkin, A. P. 1938-1940. Kinship in
duction to the Traditional Life of the South Australia. Oceania 8:419-52,
Australian Aborigines. Sydney: Smith. 9:41-78, 10:198-234, 10:295-399, 10:
509 pp. 369-89
6. Berndt, R. M., Berndt, C. H. 1970. 13. Elkin, A. P. 1964. The Australian
Man, Land and Myth in North Aus- How to UnderstandThem.
Aborigines:
tralia: The GunwingguPeople. Sydney: Sydney: Angus & Robertson. 393 pp.
Smith. 262 pp. 14. Falkenberg, J. 1962. Kin and Totem:
7. Birdsell, J. B. 1970. Local group com- GroupRelationsof AustralianAborig-
position among the Australian Aborigi- ines in the Port Keats District. Oslo:
nes: A critique of the evidence from Oslo Univ. Press. 271 pp.
 AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINALS (CULTURAL)
15. Gale, F. 1972. Urban Aborigines. Can-
berra: Aust. Natl. Univ. Press. 283 pp.
16. Goldenweiser, A. 1922. Early Civiliza-
tion: An Introduction to Anthropology.
New York: Knopf. 428 pp.
17. Goodale, J. C. 1962. Marriagecontracts
among the Tiwi. Ethnology 1:452-66
18. Goodale, J. C. 1971. Tiwi Wives: A
Study of the Womenof Melville Island,
North Australia Seattle: Univ. Wash-
ington Press. 368 pp.
19. Gould, R. A. 1969. Subsistence behav-
iour among the Western Desert Aborig-
ines of Australia. Oceania 39:253-74
20. Hale, K. L. 1971. A note on the Walbiri
tradition of antonymy. In Semantics:
An InterdisciplinaryReader in Philoso-
phy, Linguistics and Psychology, ed. D.
D. Steinberg,L. A. Jakobovits,pp. 472-
82. New York: CambridgeUniv. Press.
603 pp.
21. Hamilton, A. 1968. Aboriginal models
of male-female relationships. Unpub-
lished manuscript. Dep. Anthropol.,
Univ. Sydney
22. Hart, C. W. M. 1930. The Tiwi of Mel-
ville and Bathurst Islands. Oceania
1:167-80
23. Hart, C. W. M. 1954. The sons of
Turimpi. Am. Anthropol. 56:242-61
24. Hart, C. W. M., Pilling, A. R. 1960. The
Tiwi of North Australia. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 118 pp.
25. Hiatt, B. 1967. The food quest and the
economy of the Tasmanian Aborigines.
Oceania 38:99-133, 190-219
26. Hiatt, L. R. 1962. Local organization
among the Australian Aborigines.
Oceania 32:267-86
27. Hiatt, L. R. 1965. Kinship and Conflict:
A Study of theAboriginal Communityin
Northern Arnhem Land. Canberra:
Aust. Natl. Univ. Press. 162 pp.
28. Hiatt, L. R. 1966. The lost horde.
Oceania 37:81-92
29. Hiatt, L. R. 1969. Totemism tomorrow:
The future of an illusion. Mankind
7:83-93
30. Hiatt, L. R. 1971. Secret pseudo-pro-
creation rites among the Australian
Aborigines. In Anthropologyin Oceania:
Essays presented to Ian Hogbin, ed. L.
R. Hiatt, C. Jayawardena, pp. 77-88.
San Francisco: Chandler. 290 pp.
31. Hiatt, L. R. 1975. Introduction. In Aus-
tralian Aboriginal Mythology:Essays in
Honour of W E. H. Stanner, ed. L. R.
Hiatt, pp. 1-23. Canberra: Aust. Inst.
Aboriginal Stud. 213 pp.
32. Jones, R. 1971. The demography of
hunters and farmers in Tasmania. In
Aboriginal Man and Environment in
413
Australia, ed. D. J. Mulvaney, J. Gol-
son, pp. 271-87. Canberra:Aust. Natl.
Univ. Press. 389 pp.
33. Kroeber, A. L. 1938. Basic and second-
ary patterns of social structure. J. R.
Anthropol.Inst. 68:299-309
34. Lawrence,R. 1968.AboriginalHabitat
and Economy. Occas. Pap. No. 6, Dep.
Geogr. Canberra:Aust. Natl. Univ. 290
PP.
35. Levi-Strauss, C. 1962. Totemism. Bos-
ton: Beacon. 116 pp.
36. Levi-Strauss, C. 1969. The Elementary
Structuresof Kinship.Boston:Beacon.
541 pp.
37. Lowie,R. 1920.PrimitiveSociety.New
York: Liveright. 463 pp.
38. Maddock, K. 1970. Myths of the acqui-
sition of fire in Northern and Eastern
Australia.In AustralianAboriginalAn-
thropology, ed. R. M. Berndt, pp. 174-
99. Perth: Univ. Western Australia
Press. 341 pp.
39. Maddock, K. 1972. The Australian
A Portraitof TheirSociety.
Aborigines:
London: Penguin Press. 210 pp.
40. Maddock, K. 1975. The Emu Anomaly.
See Ref. 31, pp. 102-22
41. Malinowski, B. 1913. The Family
AmongtheAustralianAborigines.Lon-
don: Hodder. 322 pp. (Reprinted with
an introduction by J. A. Barnes. New
York: Schoken Books, 1963).
42. McKnight, D. 1971. Some problems
concerning the Wik-mungkan. In Re-
thinkingKinshipand Marriage,ed. R.
Needham, pp. 145-80. London: Tavis-
tock. 276 pp.
43. Meggitt,M. J. 1962. DesertPeople:A
Studyof the WalbiriAborigines
of Cen-
tral Australia Sydney: Angus & Rob-
ertson. 348 pp.
44. Meggitt,M. J. 1964.Aboriginalfood-
gatherersof tropical Australia.Proc.
and Papers9th Tech.Meet. I. U CN.,
Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 30-37. Morges
(Vaud), Switzerland: Int. Union Con-
serv. Nat. Natl. Resour.
45. Meggitt, M. J. 1965. Marriage among
the Walbiri of Central Australia: A sta-
tistical examination. In Aboriginal Man
inAustralia:Essaysof Honourof Emeri-
tus ProfessorA. P. Elkin, ed. R. M.
Berndt, C. H. Berndt, pp. 146-66. Syd-
ney: Angus & Robertson. 491 pp.
46. Meggitt, M. J. 1967. GadjariAmong the
of CentralAustralia.
WalbiriAborigines
Oceania Monogr. No. 14. Sydney: Syd-
-ney Univ. Press. 129 pp.
47. Meggitt, M. J. 1968. Marriage classes
and demography in Central Australia.
In Man the Hunter, ed. R. B. Lee, 1.
414 YENGOYAN
DeVore, pp. 176-84. Chicago: Aldine.
415 pp.
48. Meggitt, M. J. 1972. Understanding
Australian Aboriginal society: kinship
systems or cultural categories? In Kin-
ship Studiesin the MorganCentennial
Year, ed. P. Reining, pp. 64-87. Wash-
ington DC: Anthropol. Soc. Washing-
ton. 190 pp.
49. Moodie, P. M. 1973. AboriginalHealth.
Canberra: Aust. Natl. Univ. Press.
307 pp.
50. Mountford, C. P., ed. 1960 Records of
ScientificEx-
the American-Australian
peditionto ArnhemLand, Vol.2, An-
thropologyand Nutrition.Melbourne:
Melbourne Univ. Press. 297 pp.
51. Mountford, C. P. 1976. Nomads of the
Australian Desert. Adelaide: Rigby.
628 pp.
52. Munn, N. D. 1970. The transformation
of subjects into objects in Walbiri and
Pitjantjatjara myth. See Ref. 39, pp.
142-63
53. Munn, N. D. 1973. Walbiri Iconogra-
phy: GraphicRepresentation and Cul-
turalSymbolismin a CentralAustralian
Society. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.
234 pp.
54. Myers, F. R. 1976. "To have and to
hold":A studyofpersistence andchange
in Pintupisociallife. PhD thesis.Bryn
Mawr Coll. Bryn Mawr, Pa. 578 pp.
55. Myers, F. R. n.d. Emotions and the self:
andpoliticalor-
A theoryof personhood
der amongPintupiAborigine&Unpub-
lished paper
56. Myers, F. R. n.d. Ideology and experi-
ence:Theculturalbasisofpoliticsin Pin-
tupi life. Unpublished paper
57. Needham, R. 1962. Genealogy and cat-
egory in Wikmunkansociety. Ethnology
1:223-64
58. Peterson, N. 1969. Secular and ritual
links: Two basic and opposed principles
of Australian social organization as il-
lustrated by Walbiriethnography. Man-
kind 7:27-35
59. Peterson, N. 1970. Totemism yesterday:
Sentiment and local organization
among the Australian Aborigines. Man
(n.s.) 7:12-32
60. Price, R. 1978. A Palpable God: Thirty
from the Bible with
StoriesTranslated
an Essayon theOriginsandLifeof Nar-
rative. New York: Atheneum. 195 pp.
61. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1931. The So-
of AustralianTribes.
cial Organization
Oceania Monogr. No. I.Sydney: Sydney
Univ. Press. 124 pp.
62. Reay, M. 1962. Subsections at Bor-
roloola. Oceania 33:90-115
63. Reay, M., ed. 1964. AboriginesNow.
Sydney:Angus& Robertson.175 pp.
64. Roheim, G. 1945. The Eternal Ones of
theDream.New York:Int.Univ.Press.
270 pp.
65. Roheim, G. 1974. Children of the
Desert. New York: Harper & Row.
262 pp.
66. Rose, F. G. G. 1960. Classification of
Kin, Age Structure and Marriage
Amongst the GrooteEylandt Aborigines:
A Study in Method and a TheoryofAus-
tralian Kinship. New York: Pergamon.
572 pp.
67. Rowley, C. D. 1970. The Destruction of
Aboriginal Society. Canberra: Aust.
Natl. Univ. Press.430 pp.
68. Rowley, C. D. 1971. Outcasts in White
Australia.Canberra:Aust. Natl. Univ.
Press.472 pp.
69. Rowley,C. D. 1971. TheRemoteAbo-
rigines. Canberra:Aust. Natl. Univ.
Press.379 pp.
70. Scheffier,H. W. 1972. Afterword.In
Kinship and Behaviour in North
Queensland: A Preliminary Account of
Kinship and Social Organization on
Cape York Peninsula, by D. F. Thom-
son, pp. 37-52. Canberra:Aust. Inst.
AboriginalStud. 59 pp.
71. Scheffier,H. W. 1978. AustralianKin
Classification. New York: Cambridge
Univ. Press.569 pp.
72. Shapiro,W. 1968.The exchangeof sis-
ter's daughter'sdaughtersin northeast
Arnhem Land. Southwest.J. Anthropol.
24:346-53
73. Shapiro,W. 1970.Local exogamyand
the wife's motherin AboriginalAus-
tralia.See Ref. 39, pp. 51-69
74. Stanner,W. E. H. 1936.Murinbatakin-
ship and totemism.Oceania7:186-216
75. Stanner,W. E. H. 1958.The dreaming.
In Reader in ComparativeReligion, ed.
W. A. Lessa,E. Z. Vogt, pp. 513-23.
New York:Harper& Row. 656 pp.
76. Stanner,W. E. H. 1965.Aboriginalter-
Estate,range,do-
ritorialorganization:
main and regime.Oceania36:1-26
77. Stanner, W. E. H. 1965. Religion,
totemismand symbolism.See Ref. 45,
pp. 207-37
78. Stanner,W. E. H. 1966.OnAboriginal
Religion. Oceania Monogr. No. 11.
Sydney:SydneyUniv. Press. 171 pp.
79. Stanner,W. E. H. 1967.Reflectionson
Durkheimand Aboriginalreligion.In
Social Organization:Essays Presented to
Raymond Firth, ed. M. Freedman, pp.
217-40. London:Cass. 300 pp.
80. Stanner, W. E. H. 1969. After the
Dreaming: Black and White Australi-
 AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINALS (CULTURAL)
ans. Sydney: Aust. Broadcast. Comm.
63 pp.
81. Stevens, F. 1974. Aborigines in the
Northern TerritoryCattle Industry.
Canberra:Aust. Natl. Univ. 226 pp.
82. Steward, J. H. 1955. Theoryof Culture
Change:TheMethodology
of Multilin-
ear Evolution. Urbana: Univ. Illinois
Press. 244 pp. (Note: The three articles
on band organization in this volume
were first published as a single article in
1936.)
83. Strehlow, T. G. H. 1947. Aranda Tradi-
tions. Melbourne: Melbourne Univ.
Press. 181 pp.
84. Strehlow, T. G. H. 1965. Culture, social
structure, and environment in Aborigi-
nal Central Australia. See Ref. 45, pp.
121-45
85. Strehlow, T. G. H. 1970. Geography
and the totemic landscape in Central
Australia: A functional study. See. Ref.
39, pp. 92-140
86. Strehlow, T. G. H. 1971. Songs of Cen-
tral Australia Sydney: Angus & Rob-
ertson. 775 pp.
87. Thomson, D. F. 1972. See Ref. 70, pp.
3-36
88. Tindale, N. B. 1974. Aboriginal Tribes
of Australia:Their Terrain,Environ-
mental Controls,Distribution,Limits
and Proper Names. Berkeley: Univ.
California Press. Two vols. 404 pp.
89. Tomkinson, R. 1974. The Jigalong
Mob:AboriginalVictorsof the Desert
Crusade. Menlo Park: Cummings.
166 pp.
90. Turner, D. H. 1974. Tradition and
A Studyof Aborigines
Transformation:
in the GrooteEylandtArea, Northern
Australia. Canberra: Aust. Inst. Abo-
riginal Stud. 224 pp.
91. Turner, D. H. 1978. Dialectics in tradi-
tion:Myth and socialstructurein two
societies.Occas. Pap.
hunter-gatherer
No. 36, R. Anthropol. Inst. 46 pp.
415
92. Warner, W. L. 1958. A Black Civiliza-
tion: A Study of an Australian Tribe.
New York: Harper. 618 pp. (First edi-
tion 1937)
93. Worsley, P. M. 1961. The utilization of
food resources by an Australian
Aboriginal tribe. Acta Ethnogr. 10:
153-90
94. Yengoyan, A. A. 1967. A comparison
of certain marriagefeaturesbetween the
Pitjandjara and other groups of the
Western Desert with the northern
groups, also some comments on the red
ochre ceremonies. J. Anthropol. Soc. S.
Aust. 5:16-19
95. Yengoyan, A. A. 1968. Demographic
and ecological influences on Aboriginal
Australian marriage sections. See Ref.
47, pp. 185-99
96. Yengoyan, A. A. 1968. Australian sec-
tion systems-demographic compo-
nents and interactional similarities with
the Kung Bushmen. Proc. Int. Congr.
Anthropol. Ethnol. Sci., 8th, Tokyo 3:
256-60
97. Yengoyan, A. A. 1970. Demographic
factors in Pitjandjara social organiza-
tion. See Ref. 39, pp. 70-91
98. Yengoyan, A. A. 1972. Biological and
demographic components in Aboriginal
Australian socio-economic organiza-
tion. Oceania 43:85-95
99. Yengoyan, A. A. 1972. Ritual and ex-
change in Aboriginal Australia: An
adaptive interpretation of male initia-
tion rites. In Social Exchange and In -
teraction, ed. E. N. Wilmsen, pp. 5-9.
Anthropol. Pap. No. 46, Univ. Michi-
gan Mus. Anthropol. 147 pp.
100. Yengoyan, A. A. 1976. Structure, event
and ecology in Aboriginal Australia: A
comparative viewpoint. In Tribes and
Boundaries in Australia, ed. N. Peter-
son, pp. 121-32. Canberra:Aust. Inst.
Aboriginal Stud. 250 pp.
101. Yengoyan, A. A. 1978. Copulation,
conception and deception in Aboriginal
Australia. Rev. Anthropol. 5:107-15