Peace be on you.
There are similar findings too which tell author is not alone in his claim (details can be different):
I don't doubt he's not alone in his claim. I doubt he is accurate in his claim. Further, the scholarship in the article you linked to was shoddy and poorly represented, so even if there IS a legitimate argument, that article didn't make it.
For example:
".....Andrew Lang was the first modern scholar to suggest the existence of primitive monotheism. He believed that monotheism had everywhere developed out of a lower animistic form of worship. However, Lang began to doubt the validity of this theory when he learned of the discovery of the existence of a belief in a High God among the primitive tribes of Southeast Australia. Upon studying these people and similar primitive tribes, he found clear evidence of the existence of a belief in a High God, usually existing alongside other mythical elements. He found that they did not regard the High God of these tribes as a spirit but as a being that really exists....."
Source:
Theistic and Animistic Beliefs of the Supernatural: High Gods, Supreme Being, Spirits and Ancestor Worship | Pursenla Ozukum - Academia.edu
Yep, I'm well aware of Andrew Lang, and his concepts, which later became Urmonotheismus. They've been pretty thoroughly rejected since they were originally formed, over a hundred years ago. Do you have anything more modern?
For what it's worth, consider EE Evans-Pritchard for comparison with Lang. His work in Theories of Primitive Religion are relevant to this discussion, I think. I'm massively paraphrasing here, but in short the cultural baggage and beliefs one brings to a study of other cultures directly impacts on how other cultures are interpreted.
Not even Christian apologists commonly support Lang's theories these days. That should be indicative.
Supreme Being Idea:
"
The Supreme Being of the Kulin tribes is called Bunjil; he dwells high in the heavens, beyond the 'dark heavens' (it is to this dark heaven that medicine men ascend, as to a mountain top); there another divine figure, Gargomitch, welcomes them and intercedes for them with Bunjil.....
It was Bunjil who created the earth, trees, animals and man himself (whom he fashioned of clay, breathing a soul into him through his nose, the mouth and the navel) But Bunjil, having given his son Bimbeal power of the earth and his daughter Karakarook power over the sky, has himself withdrawn from the world. He stays above the clouds, like a 'lord' with a great sword in his hand………………
Baiame, the supreme divinity among the tribes of South-East Australia (Kamilaroi, Wiradjuri, Euahlayi), dwells in the sky, beside a stream of water and receives the souls of the innocent. He sits on a crystal throne; the sun and moon are …. his eyes. Thunder is his voice; he causes the rain to fall; in this sense too he is the Creator. For Baiame is self created and has created everything from nothing.... Other tribes of the East coast (Muring etc) believe in a similar divine being, Daramulum.."
Source;
All About Heaven - Observations A-Z
You're indirectly referencing Mircea Eliade. He, at least, would better account for Bunjil not being human in nature or form. However, this research is again outdated. Eliade was a historian, not an anthropologist, and there have been plenty of repudiations of his work too. For now, I'll limit my offering to couple of quotes regarding him, but consider others such as Geoffrey Kirk, or Douglas Allen if you want further information.
Edmund Leach (1966) in reviewing Eliade's various publications;
Since Eliade professes to be an expert on archaic modes of thought he necessarily relies very heavily on anthropological sources and his formidable bibliographies convey the impression of enormous erudition. But here again the proliferation of titles arouses a certain skepticism. A man who publishes a dozen books within fifteen years and appends over a thousand references to at least three of them is probably learned in only a rather superficial sense, but Eliade’s long book lists at least indicate what he has not read [e.g., Mauss, Hertz, and Van Gennep] and in some cases this test is quite shattering….Whatever may be the explanation for this silence it can do Eliade no credit. I am not suggesting that his erudition is wholly fake but that his knowledge of the history of anthropology must be abysmal. This is not a subject which can be understood by reading predigested textbooks and scrabbling through an index to find an appropriate reference.
Source :
Sermons By a Man on a Ladder by Edmund R. Leach | The New York Review of Books
Tony Swain (1993) in reference to Eliade's claim that Aboriginal conception of time was cyclical;
The most sophisticated offender in this regard was Mircea Eliade. His reading of Aboriginal traditions was essentially in accord with his comparativist thesis that cyclical history is a mechanism for overcoming the terror of time.
In a remarkably Eurocentric reading of the ethnographies, Eliade has implied that throughout Australia people recognised a great first cause which amounted to a Supreme Being. His evidence for this claim was in fact confined to two regions, the seat of [colonial] invasion in the south-east, and the intensively missionized Hermannsburg area. Given the fact that the Aranda “High God” held himself particularly aloof from the world, Eliade saw his opportunity to “prove” the original universality of a single God.
What we are witnessing, of course, is Eliade’s own cultural projection, for as he revealed in his journals, the “secret message” in his history of religions was that “myths and religions, in all their variety, are the result of the vacuum left in the world by the retreat of God, his transformation intodeus otiousus.” Eliade thus bequeaths Aborigines [a worldview and Ancestral monism that they never possessed].
Source :
A Place for Strangers: Towards a History of Australian Aboriginal Being
Unsure on the relevance of this link, sorry. If it helps, I took subjects on Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islands culture at University, albeit reluctantly. Was always more interested in Native American history, for some reason.
2=
Indigenous Traditions - Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
"
Key Beliefs
- The earth is eternal, and so are the many ancestral figures / beings who inhabit it.
- These beings are often associated with particular animals, for example Kangaroo-men, Emu-men or Bowerbird-women.
- As they journeyed across the face of the Earth these powerful beings created human, plant and animal life; and they left traces of their journeys in the natural features of the land.
- They also connected particular groups of people with particular regions and languages.
- Some groups held belief in a supreme being.
- The Dreaming continues to control the natural world."
The point is that primitive people carry an idea of some sort of High Power. Obviously it has mixed up with other side belief.
This would take the loosest possible definition of what a High Power is, and require you to focus only on certain tribes. It's also worth considering that some tribes had exposure to Muslim beliefs well before any white settlers came to Australia.
Makassan contact with Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regina Ganter and Peta Stephenson, drawing on the work of Ian Mcintosh (2000), argue that aspects of Islam were creatively adapted by the Yolngu, and Muslim references survive in certain ceremonies and Dreaming stories today.
[6][27] Stephenson speculates that the Makassans may have also been the first to bring
Islam to
Australia.
[28][
better source needed]
According to anthropologist John Bradley from Monash University, "If you go to north-east Arnhem Land there is [a trace of Islam] in song, it is there in painting, it is there in dance, it is there in funeral rituals. It is patently obvious that there are borrowed items. With linguistic analysis as well, you're hearing hymns to Allah, or at least certain prayers to Allah."
[29]
You need to ask yourself why you're trying to prove this, and what it is you are trying to prove, exactly.
