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