131. Here are designs, many of which evidently have the object of

representing animals, plants, the heads of men, etc., though of course all are very conventional. [360] _Nat. Tr.,_ p. 617; _Nor. Tr.,_ p. 716 ff. [361] _Nat. Tr._, p. 145; Strehlow, II, p. 80. [362] _Nat. Tr._, p. 151. [363] _Ibid._, p. 346. [364] It cannot be doubted that these designs and paintings also have an æsthetic character; here is the first form of art. Since they are also, and even above all, a written language, it follows that the origins of design and those of writing are one. It even becomes clear that men commenced designing, not so much to fix upon wood or stone beautiful forms which charm the senses, as to translate his thought into matter (_cf._ Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes_, I, p. 405; Dorsey, _Siouan Cults_, pp. 394 ff.). [365] See the cases in Taplin, _The Narrinyeri_, p. 63; Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 146, 769; Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 169; Roth, _Superstition, Magic and Medicine_, § 150; Wyatt, _Adelaide and Encounter Bay Tribe_, in Woods, p. 168; Meyer, _ibid._, p. 186. [366] This is the case with the Warramunga (_Nor. Tr._, p. 168). [367] For example, among the Warramunga, the Urabunna, the Wonghibon, the Yuin, the Wotjobaluk, the Buandik, Ngeumba, etc. [368] Among the Kaitish, if a man of the clan eats too much of his totem, the members of the other phratry have recourse to a magic operation which is expected to kill him (_Nor. Tr._, p. 284; cf. _Nat. Tr._, p. 204; Langloh Parker, _The Euahlavi Tribe_, p. 20). [369] _Nat. Tr._, p. 202, n.; Strehlow, II, p. 58. [370] _Nor. Tr._, p. 173. [371] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 207 ff. [372] See above, p. 128. [373] It should also be borne in mind that in these myths the ancestors are never represented as nourishing themselves _regularly_ with their totem. Consumption of this sort is, on the contrary, the exception. Their ordinary food, according to Strehlow, was the same as that of the corresponding animal (see Strehlow, I, p. 4). [374] Also, this whole theory rests upon an entirely arbitrary hypothesis: Spencer and Gillen, as well as Frazer, admit that the tribes of central Australia, and especially the Arunta, represent the most archaic and consequently the purest form of totemism. We shall presently say why this conjecture seems to us to be contrary to all probability. It is even probable that these authors would not have accepted their thesis so readily if they had not refused to regard totemism as a religion and if they had not consequently misunderstood the sacred character of the totem. [375] Taplin, _The Narrinyeri_, p. 64; Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 145 and 147; Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 202; Grey, _loc. cit._; Curr, III, p. 462. [376] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 160, 167. It is not enough that the intermediary be of another totem: as we shall see, every totem of a phratry is forbidden in a certain measure for the members of the phratry who are of a different totem. [377] _Nor. Tr._, p. 167. We can now explain more easily how it happens that when an interdiction is not observed, it is the other phratry which revenges this sacrilege (see above, p. 129, n. 2). It is because it has an interest in seeing that the rule is observed. In fact, they believe that when the rule is broken, the totemic species may not reproduce abundantly. Now the members of the other phratry consume it regularly: therefore it is they who are affected. That is why they revenge themselves. [378] This is the case among the Loritja (Strehlow, II, pp. 60, 61), the Worgaia, the Warramunga, the Walpari, the Mara, the Anula and the Binbinga (_Nor. Tr._, pp. 166, 167, 171, 173). It may be eaten by a Warramunga or a Walpari, but only when offered by a member of the other phratry. Spencer and Gillen remark (p. 167, n.), that in this regard the paternal and the maternal totems appear to be under different rules. It is true that in both cases the offer must come from the other phratry. But when it is a question of the paternal totem, or the totem properly so-called, this phratry is the one to which the totem does not belong; for the maternal totem, the contrary is the case. Probably the principle was first established for the former, then mechanically extended to the other, though the situation was different. When the rule had once become established that the prohibition protecting the totem could be neglected only on the invitation of the other phratry, it was applied also to the maternal totem. [379] For example, among the Warramunga (_Nor. Tr._, p. 166), the Wotjobaluk, the Buandik, the Kurnai (Howitt, pp. 146 f.) and the Narrinyeri (Taplin, _The Narrinyeri_, p. 63). [380] Even this is not always the case. An Arunta of the Mosquito totem must not kill this insect, even when it bothers him: he must confine himself to driving it away (Strehlow, II, p. 58; cf. Taplin, p. 63). [381] Among the Kaitish and the Unmatjera (_Nor. Tr._, p. 160). It even happens that in certain cases an old man gives a young one of a different totem one of his churinga, so that he may kill the donor's totem more easily (_ibid._, p. 272). [382] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 146; Grey, _op. cit._, II, p. 228; Casalis, _Basoutos_, p. 221. Among these latter, "one must be purified after committing such a sacrilege." [383] Strehlow, II, pp. 58, 59, 61. [384] Dorsey, _Omaha Sociology, IIIrd Rep._, pp. 225, 231. [385] Casalis, _ibid._ [386] Even among the Omaha, it is not certain that the interdictions of contact, certain examples of which we have just cited, are really of a totemic nature, for many of them have no direct connection with the animal that serves as totem of the clan. Thus in the sub-clan of the Eagle, the characteristic interdiction is against touching the head of a buffalo (Dorsey, _op. cit._, p. 239); in another sub-clan with the same totem, they must not touch verdigris, charcoal, etc. (_ibid._, p. 245). We do not mention other interdictions mentioned by Frazer, such as those of naming or looking at the animal or plant, for it is still less certain that they are of totemic origin, except perhaps for certain facts observed among the Bechuana (_Totemism_, pp. 12-13). Frazer admits too readily--and in this regard, he has imitators--that the prohibitions against eating or touching an animal depend upon totemic beliefs. However, there is one case in Australia, where the sight of the animal seems to be forbidden. According to Strehlow (II, p. 59), among the Arunta and the Loritja, a man who has the moon as totem must not look at it very long, or he would be likely to die at the hand of an enemy. But we believe that this is a unique case. We must not forget, also, that astronomical totems were probably not primitive in Australia, so this prohibition may be the product of a complex elaboration. This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that among the Euahlayi, looking at the moon is forbidden to all mothers and children, no matter what their totems may be (L. Parker, _The Euahlayi_, p. 53). [387] See Bk. III, ch. ii, § 2. [388] Perhaps there is no religion which makes man an exclusively profane being. For the Christian, the soul which each of us has within him and which constitutes the very essence of our being, has something sacred about it. We shall see that this conception of the soul is as old as religious thought itself. The place of man in the hierarchy of sacred things is more or less elevated. [389] _Nat. Tr._, p. 202. [390] Taplin, _The Narrinyeri_, pp. 59-61. [391] Among certain clans of the Warramunga, for example (_Nor. Tr._, p. 162). [392] Among the Urabunna (_Nor. Tr._, p. 147). Even when they tell us that the first beings were men, these are really only semi-human, and have an animal nature at the same time. This is the case with certain Unmatjera (_ibid._, pp. 153-154). Here we find ways of thought whose confusion disconcerts us, but which must be accepted as they are. We would denature them if we tried to introduce a clarity that is foreign to them (cf. _Nat. Tr._, p. 119). [393] Among the Arunta (_Nat. Tr._, pp. 388 ff.); and among certain Unmatjera (_Nor. Tr._, p. 153). [394] _Nat. Tr._, p. 389. Cf. Strehlow, I, pp. 2-7. [395] _Nat. Tr._, p. 389; Strehlow, I, pp. 2 ff. Undoubtedly there is an echo of the initiation rites in this mythical theme. The initiation also has the object of making the young man into a complete man, and on the other hand, it also implies actual surgical operations (circumcision, sub-incision, the extraction of teeth, etc.). The processes which served to form the first men would naturally be conceived on the same model. [396] This the case with the nine clans of the Moqui (Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes_, IV, p. 86), the Crain clan among the Ojibway (Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 180), and the Nootka clans (Boas, _VIth Rep. on the N.W. Tribes of Canada_, p. 43), etc. [397] It is thus that the Turtle clan of the Iroquois took form. A group of turtles had been forced to leave the lake where they dwelt and seek another home. One of them, which was larger than the others, stood this exercise very badly owing to the heat. It made such violent efforts that it got out of its shell. The process of transformation, being once commenced, went on by itself and the turtle finally became a man who was the ancestor of the clan (Erminnie A. Smith, _The Myths of the Iroquois, IInd Report_, p. 77). The Crab clan of the Choctaw was formed in a similar manner. Some men surprised a certain number of crabs that lived in the neighbourhood, took them home with them, taught them to talk and to walk, and finally adopted them into their society (Catlin, _North American Indians_, II, p. 128). [398] For example, here is a legend of the Tsimshian. In the course of a hunt, an Indian met a black bear which took him to its home, and taught him to catch salmon and build canoes. The man stayed with the bear for two years, and then returned to his native village. But the people were afraid of him, because he was just like a bear. He could not talk or eat anything except raw food. Then he was rubbed with magic herbs and gradually regained his original form. After that, whenever he was in trouble, he called upon his bear friends, who came to aid him. He built a house and painted a bear on the foundation. His sister made a blanket for the dance, upon which a bear was designed. That is why the descendants of this sister had the bear as their emblem (Boas, _Kwakiutl_, p. 323. Cf. _Vth Rep. on the N.W. Tribes of Canada_, pp. 23, 29 ff.; Hill Tout, _Report on the Ethnology of the Statlumh of British Columbia_, in _J.A.I._, 1905, XXXV, p. 150). Thus we see the inconveniences in making this mystical relationship between the man and the animal the distinctive characteristic of totemism, as M. Van Gennep proposes (_Totémisme et méthode comparative_, in _Revue de l'histoire des religions_, Vol. LVIII, July, 1908, p. 55). This relationship is a mythical representation of otherwise profound facts; but it may be omitted without causing the disappearance of the essential traits of totemism. Undoubtedly there are always close bonds between the people of the clan and the totemic animal, but these are not necessarily bonds of blood-relationship, though they are frequently conceived in this form. [399] There are also some Tlinkit myths in which the relationship of descent between the man and the animal is still more carefully stated. It is said that the clan is descended from a mixed union, if we may so speak, that is to say, one where either the husband or the wife was an animal of the species whose name the clan bears (see Swanton, _Social Condition, Beliefs, etc., of the Tlinkit Indians_, _XXVIth Rep._, pp. 415-418). [400] _Nat. Tr._, p. 284. [401] _Ibid._, p. 179. [402] See Bk. III, ch. ii. Cf. _Nat. Tr._, pp. 184, 201. [403] _Ibid._, pp. 204, 262, 284. [404] Among the Dieri and the Parnkalla. See Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 658, 661, 668, 669-671. [405] Among the Warramunga, the blood from the circumcision is drunk by the mother (_Nor. Tr._, p. 352). Among the Binbinga, the blood on the knife which was used in the sub-incision must be licked off by the initiate (_ibid._, p. 368). In general, the blood coming from the genital organs is regarded as especially sacred (_Nat. Tr._, p. 464; _Nor. Tr._, p. 598). [406] _Nat. Tr._, p. 268. [407] _Ibid._, pp. 144, 568. [408] _Ibid._, pp. 442, 464. This myth is quite common in Australia. [409] _Nat. Tr._, p. 627. [410] _Ibid._, p. 466. [411] _Ibid._ It is believed that if all these formalities are not rigorously observed, grave calamities will fall upon the individual. [412] _Nat. Tr._, p. 538; _Nor. Tr._, p. 604. [413] After the foreskin has been detached by circumcision, it is sometimes hidden, just like the blood; it has special virtues; for example, it assures the fecundity of certain animal and vegetable species (_Nor. Tr._, pp. 353 f.). The whiskers are mixed with the hair, and treated as such (_ibid._, pp. 604, 544). They also play a part in the myths (_ibid._, p. 158). As for the fat, its sacred character is shown by the use made of it in certain funeral rites. [414] This is not saying that the woman is absolutely profane. In the myths, at least among the Arunta, she plays a religious rôle much more important than she does in reality (_Nat. Tr._, pp. 195 f.). Even now she takes part in certain initiation rites. Finally, her blood has religious virtues (see _Nat. Tr._, p. 464; cf. _La prohibition de l'inceste et ses origines_, _Année Sociol._, I, pp. 41 ff.). It is upon this complex situation of the woman that the exogamic restrictions depend. We do not speak of them here because they concern the problem of domestic and matrimonial organization more directly than the present one. [415] _Nat. Tr._, p. 460. [416] Among the Wakelbura, according to Howitt, p. 146; among the Bechuana, according to Casalis, _Basoutos_, p. 221. [417] Among the Buandik and Kurnai (Howitt, _ibid._); among the Arunta (Strehlow, II, p. 58). [418] Howitt, _ibid._ [419] In the Tully River district, says Roth (_Superstition, Magic and Medicine_, in _North Queensland Ethnography_, No. 5, § 74), as an individual goes to sleep or gets up in the morning, he pronounces in a rather low voice the name of the animal after which he is named himself. The purpose of this practice is to make the man clever or lucky in the hunt, or be forewarned of the dangers to which he may be exposed from this animal. For example, a man who has a species of serpent as his totem is protected from bites if this invocation has been made regularly. [420] Taplin, _Narrinyeri_, p. 64; Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 147; Roth, _loc. cit._ [421] Strehlow, II, p. 58. [422] Howitt, p. 148. [423] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 159-160. [424] _Ibid._ [425] _Ibid._, p. 225; _Nat. Tr._, pp. 202, 203. [426] A. L. P. Cameron, _On Two Queensland Tribes_, in _Science of Man, Australasian Anthropological Journal_, 1904, VII, 28, col. I. [427] _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 170. [428] _Notes on some Australian Tribes_, _J.A.I._, XIII, p. 300. [429] In Curr, _Australian Race_, III, p. 45; Brough Smyth, _The Aborigines of Victoria_, I, p. 91; Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 168. [430] Durkheim and Mauss, _De quelques formes primitives de classification_, in _Année Sociol._, VI, pp. 1 ff. [431] Curr, III, p. 461. [432] Curr and Fison were both informed by the same person, D. S. Stewart. [433] Mathews, _Aboriginal Tribes of N.S. Wales and Victoria_, in _Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of N.S. Wales_, XXXVIII, pp. 287 f.; Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 121. [434] The feminine form of the names given by Mathews is Gurogigurk and Gamatykurk. These are the forms which Howitt reproduces, with a slightly different orthography. The names are also equivalent to those used by the Mount Gambier tribe (Kumite and Kroki). [435] The native name of this clan is Dyàlup, which Mathews does not translate. This word appears to be identical with Jallup, by which Howitt designates a sub-clan of the same tribe, and which he translates "mussel." That is why we think we can hazard this translation. [436] This is the translation of Howitt; Mathews renders the word Wartwurt, "heat of the midday sun." [437] The tables of Mathews and Howitt disagree on many important points. It even seems that clans attributed by Howitt to the Kroki phratry are given to the Gamutch phratry by Mathews, and inversely. This proves the great difficulties that these observations present. But these differences are without interest for our present question. [438] Mrs. Langloh Parker, _The Euahlayi Tribe_, pp. 12 ff. [439] The facts will be found below. [440] Carr, III, p. 27. Cf. Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 112. We are merely mentioning the most characteristic facts. For details, one may refer to the memoir already mentioned on _Les classifications primitives_. [441] _Ibid._, pp. 34 ff. [442] Swanton, _The Haida_, pp. 13-14, 17, 22. [443] This is especially clear among the Haida. Swanton says that with them every animal has two aspects. First, it is an ordinary animal to be hunted and eaten; but it is also a supernatural being in the animal's form, upon which men depend. The mythical beings corresponding to cosmic phenomena have the same ambiguity (Swanton, _ibid._, 16, 14, 25). [444] See above, p. 142. This is the case among the Gournditch-mara (Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 124), in the tribes studied by Cameron near the Dead Lake, and among the Wotjobaluk (_ibid._, pp. 125, 250). [445] J. Mathews, _Two Representative Tribes_, p. 139; Thomas, _Kinship and Marriage_, pp. 53 f. [446] Among the Osage, for example (see Dorsey, _Siouan Sociology_, in _XVth Rep._, pp. 233 ff.). [447] At Mabuiag, an island in Torrès' Strait (Haddon, _Head Hunters_, p. 132), the same opposition is found between the two phratries of the Arunta: one includes the men of a water totem, the other those of earth (Strehlow, I, p. 6). [448] Among the Iroquois there is a sort of tournament between the two phratries (Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 94). Among the Haida, says Swanton, the members of the two phratries of the Eagle and the Crow "are frequently considered as avowed enemies. Husband and wife (who must be of different phratries) do not hesitate to betray each other" (_The Haida_, p. 62). In Australia this hostility is carried into the myths. The two animals serving the phratries as totems are frequently represented as in a perpetual war against each other (see J. Mathews, _Eaglehawk and Crow, a study of Australian Aborigines_, pp. 14 ff.). In games, each phratry is the natural rival of the other (Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 770). [449] So Thomas has wrongly urged against our theory of the origin of the phratries its inability to explain their opposition (_Kinship and Marriage_, p. 69). We do not believe that it is necessary to connect this opposition to that of the profane and the sacred (see Hertz, _La prééminence de la main droite_, in the _Revue Philosophique_, Dec., 1909, p. 559). The things of one phratry are not profane for the other; both are a part of the same religious system (see below, p. 155). [450] For example, the clan of the Tea-tree includes the grasses, and consequently herbivorous animals (see _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 169). This is undoubtedly the explanation of a particularity of the totemic emblems of North America pointed out by Boas. "Among the Tlinkit," he says, "and all the other tribes of the coast, the emblem of a group includes the animals serving as food to the one whose name the group bears" (_Fifth Rep. of the Committee, etc., British Association for the Advancement of Science_, p. 25). [451] Thus, among the Arunta, frogs are connected with the totem of the gum-tree, because they are frequently found in the cavities of this tree; water is related to the water-hen; with the kangaroo is associated a sort of parrot frequently seen flying about this animal (Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 146-147, 448). [452] One of the signs of this primitive lack of distinction is that territorial bases are sometimes assigned to the classes just as to the social divisions with which they were at first confounded. Thus, among the Wotjobaluk in Australia and the Zuñi in America, things are ideally distributed among the different regions of space, just as the clans are. Now this regional distribution of things and that of the clans coincide (see _De quelques formes primitives de classification_, pp. 34 ff.). Classifications keep something of this special character even among relatively advanced peoples, as for example, in China (_ibid._, pp. 55 ff.). [453] Bridgmann, _in_ Brough Smyth, _The Aborigines of Victoria_, I, p. 91. [454] Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 168; Howitt, _Further Notes on the Australian Class Systems, J.A.I._, XVIII, p. 60. [455] Curr, III, p. 461. This is about the Mount Gambier tribe. [456] Howitt, _On some Australian Beliefs, J.A.I._, XIII, p. 191, n. 1. [457] Howitt, _Notes on Australian Message Sticks, J.A.I._, XVIII, p. 326; _Further Notes, J.A.I._, XVIII, p. 61, n. 3. [458] Curr, III, p. 28. [459] Mathews, _Ethnological Notes on the Aboriginal Tribes of N.S. Wales and Victoria_, in _Journ. and Proceed. of the Royal Soc. of N.S. Wales_, XXXVIII, p. 294. [460] Cf. Curr, III, p. 461; and Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 146. The expressions _Tooman_ and _Wingo_ are applied to the one and the other. [461] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 123. [462] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 447 ff.; cf. Strehlow, III, pp. xii ff. [463] Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 169. [464] Curr, III, p. 462. [465] Mrs. Parker, _The Euahlayi Tribe_, p. 20. [466] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, p. 151; _Nat. Tr._, p. 447; Strehlow, III, p. xii. [467] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 449. [468] However, there are certain tribes in Queensland where the things thus attributed to a social group are not forbidden for the members of the group: this is notably the case with the Wakelbura. It is to be remembered that in this society, it is the matrimonial classes that serve as the framework of the classification (see above, p. 144). Not only are the men of one class allowed to eat the animals attributed to this class, but _they may eat no others_. All other food is forbidden them (Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 113; Curr, III, p. 27). But we must not conclude from this that these animals are considered profane. In fact, it should be noticed that the individual not only has the privilege of eating them, but that he is compelled to do so, for he cannot nourish himself otherwise. Now the imperative nature of this rule is a sure sign that we are in the presence of things having a religious nature, only this has given rise to a positive obligation rather than the negative one known as an interdiction. Perhaps it is not quite impossible to see how this deviation came about. We have seen above (p. 140) that every individual is thought to have a sort of property-right over his totem and consequently over the things dependent upon it. Perhaps, under the influence of special circumstances, this aspect of the totemic relation was developed, and they naturally came to believe that only the members of the clan had the right of disposing of their totem and all that is connected with it, and that others, on the contrary, did not have the right of touching it. Under these circumstances, a tribe could nourish itself only on the food attributed to it. [469] Mrs. Parker uses the expression "multiplex totems." [470] As examples, see the Euahlayi tribe in Mrs. Parker's book (pp. 15 ff.) and the Wotjobaluk (Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 121 ff.; cf. the above-mentioned article of Mathews). [471] See the examples in Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 122. [472] See our _De quelques formes primitives de classification_, p. 28, n. 2. [473] Strehlow, II, pp. 61-72. [474] _Nat. Tr._, p. 112. [475] See especially _Nat. Tr._, p. 447, and _Nor. Tr._, p. 151. [476] Strehlow, III, pp. xiii-xviii. It sometimes happens that the same secondary totems are attached to two or three principal totems at the same time. This is undoubtedly because Strehlow has not been able to establish with certainty which is the principal totem. Two interesting facts which appear from this table confirm certain propositions which we had already formulated. First, the principal totems are nearly all animals, with but rare exceptions. Also, stars are always only secondary or associated totems. This is another proof that these latter were only slowly advanced to the rank of totems and that at first the principal totems were preferably chosen from the animal kingdom. [477] According to the myth, the associate totems served as food to the men of the principal totem in the fabulous times, or, when these are trees, they gave their shade (Strehlow, III, p. xii; Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 403). The fact that the associate totems are believed to have been eaten does not imply that they are considered profane; for in the mythical period, the principal totem itself was consumed by the ancestors, the founders of the clan, according to the belief. [478] Thus in the Wild Cat clan, the designs carved on the churinga represent the Hakea tree, which is a distinct totem to-day (Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 147 f.). Strehlow (III, p. xii, n. 4) says that this is frequent. [479] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, p. 182; _Nat. Tr._, pp. 151 and 297. [480] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 151 and 158. [481] _Ibid._, pp. 448 and 449. [482] Thus Spencer and Gillen speak of a pigeon called Inturrita, sometimes as a principal totem (_Nat. Tr._, p. 410), sometimes as an associate totem (_ibid._, p. 448). [483] Howitt, _Further Notes_, pp. 63-64. [484] Thus it comes about that the clan has frequently been confounded with the tribe. This confusion, which frequently introduces trouble into the writings of ethnologists, has been made especially by Curr (I, pp. 61 ff.). [485] This is the case especially among the Warramunga (_Nor. Tr._, p. 298). [486] See, for example, Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 380 and _passim_. [487] One might even ask if tribal totems do not exist sometimes. Thus, among the Arunta, there is an animal, the wild cat, which serves as totem to a particular clan, but which is forbidden for the whole tribe; even the people of other clans can eat it only very moderately (_Nat. Tr._, p. 168). But we believe that it would be an abuse to speak of a tribal totem in this case, for it does not follow from the fact that the free consumption of an animal is forbidden that this is a totem. Other causes can also give rise to an interdiction. The religious unity of the tribe is undoubtedly real, but this is affirmed with the aid of other symbols. We shall show what these are below (Bk. II, ch. ix). [488] The totems belong to the tribe in the sense that this is interested as a body in the cult which each clan owes to its totem. [489] Frazer has made a very complete collection of the texts relative to individual totemism in North America (_Totemism and Exogamy_, III, pp. 370-456). [490] For example, among the Hurons, the Iroquois, the Algonquins (Charlevoix, _Histoire de la Nouvelle France_, VI, pp. 67-70; Sagard, _Le grand voyage au pays des Hurons_, p. 160), or among the Thompson Indians (Teit, _The Thompson Indians of British Columbia_, p. 355). [491] This is the case of the Yuin (Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 133), the Kurnai (_ibid._, p. 135), several tribes of Queensland (Roth, _Superstition, Magic and Medicine, North Queensland Ethnography_, Bulletin No. 5, p. 19; Haddon, _Head-Hunters_, p. 193); among the Delaware (Heckewelder, _An Account of the History ... of the Indian Nations_, p. 238), among the Thompson Indians (Teit, _op. cit._, p. 355), and among the Salish Statlumh (Hill Tout, _Rep. of the Ethnol. of the Statlumh_, _J.A.I._, XXXV. pp. 147 ff.). [492] Hill Tout, _loc. cit._, p. 154. [493] Catlin, _Manners and Customs_, etc., London, 1876, I, p. 36. [494] _Lettres édifiantes et curieuses_, new edition, VI, pp. 172 ff. [495] Charlevoix, _op. cit._, VI, p. 69. [496] Dorsey, _Siouan Cults, XIth Rep._, p. 443. [497] Boas, _Kwakiutl_, p. 323. [498] Hill Tout, _loc. cit._, p. 154. [499] Boas, _Kwakiutl_, p. 323. [500] Miss Fletcher, _The Import of the Totem, a Study from the Omaha Tribe_ (_Smithsonian Rep. for 1897_, p. 583).--Similar facts will be found in Teit, _op. cit._, pp. 354, 356; Peter Jones, _History of the Ojibway Indians_, p. 87. [501] This is the case, for example, with the dog among the Salish Statlumh, owing to the condition of servitude in which it lives (Hill Tout, _loc. cit._, p. 153). [502] Langloh Parker, _Euahlayi_, p. 21. [503] "The spirit of a man," says Mrs. Parker (_ibid._), "is in his Yuanbeai (his individual totem), and his Yuanbeai is in him." [504] Langloh Parker, _Euahlayi_, p. 20. It is the same among certain Salish (Hill Tout, _Ethn. Rep. on the Stseelis and Skaulits Tribes_, _J.A.I._, XXXIV, p. 324). The fact is quite general among the Indians of Central America (Brinton, _Nagualism, a Study in Native American Folklore and History_, in _Proceed. of the Am. Philos. Soc._, XXXIII, p. 32). [505] Parker, _ibid._; Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 147; Dorsey, _Siouan Cults, XIth Rep._, p. 443. Frazer has made a collection of the American cases and established the generality of the interdiction (_Totemism and Exogamy_, III, p. 450). It is true that in America, as we have seen, the individual must kill the animal whose skin serves to make what ethnologists call his medicine-sack. But this usage has been observed in five tribes only; it is probably a late and altered form of the institution. [506] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 135, 147, 387; _Australian Medicine Men_, _J.A.I._, XVI, p. 34; Teit, _The Shuswap_, p. 607. [507] Meyer, _Manners and Customs of the Aborigines of the Encounter Bay Tribe_, in Woods, p. 197. [508] Boas, _VIth Rep. on the North-West Tribes of Canada_, p. 93; Teit, _The Thompson Indians_, p. 336; Boas, _Kwakiutl_, p. 394. [509] Facts will be found in Hill Tout, _Rep. of the Ethnol. of the Statlumh_, _J.A.I._, XXXV, pp. 144, 145. Cf. Langloh Parker, _op. cit._, p. 29. [510] According to information given by Howitt in a personal letter to Frazer (_Totemism and Exogamy_, I, p. 495, and n. 2). [511] Hill Tout, _Ethnol. Rep. on the Stseelis and Skaulits Tribes_, _J.A.I._, XXXIV, p. 324. [512] Howitt, _Australian Medicine Men_, _J.A.I._, XVI, p. 34; Lafitau, _M[oe]urs des Sauvages Amériquains_, I, p. 370; Charlevoix, _Histoire de la Nouvelle France_, VI, p. 68. It is the same with the _atai_ and _tamaniu_ in Mota (Codrington, _The Melanesians_, pp. 250 f.). [513] Thus the line of demarcation between the animal protectors and fetishes, which Frazer has attempted to establish, does not exist. According to him, fetishism commences when the protector is an individual object and not a class (_Totemism_, p. 56); but it frequently happens in Australia that a determined animal takes this part (see Howitt, _Australian Medicine Men_, _J.A.I._, XVI, p. 34). The truth is that the ideas of fetish and fetishism do not correspond to any definite thing. [514] Brinton, _Nagualism_, in _Proceed. Amer. Philos. Soc._, XXXIII, p. 32. [515] Charlevoix, VI, p. 67. [516] Hill Tout, _Rep. on the Ethnol. of the Statlumh of British Columbia_, _J.A.I._, XXXV, p. 142. [517] Hill Tout, _Ethnol. Rep. on the Stseelis and Skaulits Tribes_, _J.A.I._, XXXIV, pp. 311 ff. [518] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 133. [519] Langloh Parker, _op. cit._, p. 20. [520] J. W. Powell, _An American View of Totemism_, in _Man_, 1902, No. 84; Tylor, _ibid._, No. 1; Andrew Lang has expressed analogous ideas in _Social Origins_, pp. 133-135. Also Frazer himself, turning from his former opinion, now thinks that until we are better acquainted with the relations existing between collective totems and "guardian spirits," it would be better to designate them by different names (_Totemism and Exogamy_, III, p. 456). [521] This is the case in Australia among the Yuin (Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 81), and the Narrinyeri (Meyer, _Manners and Customs of the Aborigines of the Encounter Bay Tribe_, in Woods, pp. 197 ff.). [522] "The totem resembles the patron of the individual no more than an escutcheon resembles the image of a saint," says Tylor (_op. cit._, p. 2). Likewise, if Frazer has taken up the theory of Tylor, it is because he refuses all religious character to the totem of the clan (_Totemism and Exogamy_, III, p. 452). [523] See below, chapter ix of this book. [524] Yet according to one passage in Mathews, the individual totem is hereditary among the Wotjobaluk. "Each individual," he says, "claims some animal, plant or inanimate object as his special and personal totem, which he inherits from his mother" (_Journ. and Proc. of the Roy. Soc. of N.S. Wales_, XXXVIII, p. 291). But it is evident that if all the children in the same family had the personal totem of their mother, neither they nor she would really have personal totems at all. Mathews probably means to say that each individual chooses his individual totem from the list of things attributed to the clan of his mother. In fact, we shall see that each clan has its individual totems which are its exclusive property; the members of the other clans cannot make use of them. In this sense, birth determines the personal totem to a certain extent, but to a certain extent only. [525] Heckewelder, _An Account of the History, Manners and Customs of the Indian Nations who once inhabited Pennsylvania, in Transactions of the Historical and Literary Committee of the American Philosophical Society_, I, p. 238. [526] See Dorsey, _Siouan Cults, XIth Rep._, p. 507; Catlin, _op. cit._, I, p. 37; Miss Fletcher, _The Import of the Totem, in Smithsonian Rep._ for 1897, p. 580; Teit, _The Thompson Indians_, pp. 317-320; Hill Tout, _J.A.I._, XXXV, p. 144. [527] But some examples are found. The Kurnai magicians see their personal totems revealed to them in dreams (Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 387; _On Australian Medicine Men_, in _J.A.I._, XVI, p. 34). The men of Cape Bedford believe that when an old man dreams of something during the night, this thing is the personal totem of the first person he meets the next day (W. E. Roth, _Superstition, Magic and Medicine_, p. 19). But it is probable that only supplementary and accessory totems are acquired in this way; for in this same tribe another process is used at the moment of initiation, as we said in the text. [528] In certain tribes of which Roth speaks (_ibid._); also in certain tribes near to Maryborough (Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 147). [529] Among the Wiradjuri (Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 406; _On Australian Medicine Men_, in _J.A.I._, XVI, p. 50). [530] Roth, _loc. cit._ [531] Haddon, _Head Hunters_, pp. 193 ff. [532] Among the Wiradjuri (same references as above, n. 4). [533] In general, it seems as though these transmissions from father to son never take place except when the father is a shaman or a magician. This is also the case among the Thompson Indians (Teit, _The Thompson Indians_, p. 320) and the Wiradjuri, of whom we just spoke. [534] Hill Tout (_J.A.I._, XXXV, pp. 146 f.). The essential rite is the blowing upon the skin: if this were not done correctly, the transmission would not take place. As we shall presently see, the breath is the soul. When both breathe upon the skin of the animal, the magician and the recipient each exhale a part of their souls, which are thus fused, while partaking at the same time of the nature of the animal, who also takes part in the ceremony in the form of its symbol. [535] N. W. Thomas, _Further Remarks on Mr. Hill Tout's Views on Totemism_, in _Man_, 1904, p. 85. [536] Langloh Parker, _op. cit._, pp. 20, 29. [537] Hill Tout, in _J.A.I._, XXXV, pp. 143 and 146; _ibid._, XXXIV, p. 324. [538] Parker, _op. cit._, p. 30; Teit, _The Thompson Indians_, p. 320; Hill Tout, in _J.A.I._, XXXV, p. 144. [539] Charlevoix, VI, p. 69. [540] Hill Tout, _ibid._, p. 145. [541] Thus at the birth of a child, a tree is planted which is cared for piously; for it is believed that its fate and the child's are united. Frazer, in his _Golden Bough_, gives a number of customs and beliefs translating this same idea in different ways. (Cf. Hartland, _Legend of Perseus_, II, pp. 1-55.) [542] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 148 ff.; Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, pp. 194, 201 ff.; Dawson, _Australian Aborigines_, p. 52. Petrie also mentions it in Queensland (_Tom Petrie's Reminiscences of Early Queensland_, pp. 62 and 118). [543] _Journ. and Proc. of the Roy. Soc. of N.S. Wales_, XXXVIII, p.