{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45724/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45724","id":"gutenberg_45724","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45724","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Gender & Sexuality Studies","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Sociology","Marriage -- History","Totemism"],"text":"SOCIAL ORIGINS\n\nBY\n\nANDREW LANG, M.A., LL.D.\n\n\n\n\nPRIMAL LAW\n\nBY\n\nJ. J. ATKINSON\n\nLONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.\n\n39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON\n\nNEW YORK AND BOMBAY\n\n1903\n\n\n\n\nTO\n\nANNABELLA ALLEYNE\n\n\nDear Annie,\n\nAs you first pointed out to me the facts which are the germ of my\nTheory of the Origin of Totemism, you are one cause of my share in this\nbook. The other is affection for the memory of the author of \u2018Primal\nLaw.\u2019\n\nYours always,\n\nA. LANG.\n\nSt. Andrews: Feb. 13, 1903.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe portion of this book called \u2018Primal Law\u2019 is the work of the late\nMr. James Jasper Atkinson. Born in India, of Scottish parents (his\nmother being the paternal aunt of the present editor), Mr. Atkinson\nwas educated (1857-1861) at Loretto School, then managed by Messrs.\nLanghome. While still young he settled on certain stations in New\nCaledonia bequeathed to him by his father, and, except for visits to\nAustralia and a visit to England, he lived and died in the French\ncolony. His ingenious mind was much exercised by the singular laws\nand customs of the natives of the New Caledonian Archipelago and the\nadjacent isles. These peoples have been little studied by competent\nEuropean observers--that is, in New Caledonia. Mr. Atkinson wrote an\naccount of native manners before he had any acquaintance with the\nworks of modern anthropologists, such as Mr. Tylor, Mr. McLennan,\nLord Avebury, and others. To these he later turned his attention; he\njoined the Anthropological Institute, and, in the course of study and\nobservation, he discovered what he conceived to be the \u2018Primal Law\u2019\nand origin of morality, as regards the family. In his last illness,\nin 1899, he was most kindly attended by Commander John Haggard, R.N.,\nthen Her Majesty\u2019s Consul in New Caledonia. Mr. Atkinson\u2019s mind, in his\nlatest moments, was occupied by his anthropological speculations, and,\nthrough Mr. Haggard, he sent his MS. to his cousin and present editor.\nI have given to it the last cares which the author himself would have\ngiven had he lived. But I have also taken the opportunity to review, in\nthe following pages, introductory to \u2018Primal Law,\u2019 the present state\nof the discussion as to the beginnings of the rules regulating marriage\namong savages.\n\nThe discussion is now nearly forty years old, if we date it from the\nappearance of Mr. J. F. McLennan\u2019s _Primitive Marriage_ in 1865. Yet,\nin spite of the speculations of some and the explorations of other\ndistinguished students, the main problems are still in dispute. Was\nmarriage originally non-existent? Was promiscuity at first the rule,\nand, if so, what were the origins, motives, and methods of the most\narchaic prohibitions on primitive license? Did man live in \u2018hordes,\u2019\nand did he bisect each \u2018horde\u2019 into exogamous and intermarrying\nmoieties, and, if he did, what was his motive? Are the groups and\nkindreds commonly styled \u2018totemic\u2019 earlier or later than the division\ninto a pair of moieties or \u2018phratries\u2019? Do the totem-kins represent the\nresults of an early form of exogamous custom, or are they additions to\nor consciously arranged subdivisions of the two exogamous moieties?\nIs a past of \u2018group marriage\u2019 or \u2018communal marriage\u2019 proved by the\nterms for human relationships employed by many backward races, and by\nsurvivals in manner and custom?\n\nThese are among the questions examined in the introductory chapters\nthat may be read either before or after Mr. Atkinson\u2019s _Primal Law_. To\nhim I am indebted for the conception of sexual jealousy as a powerful\nelement in the evolution of exogamy.\n\nSince my attention was first directed to these topics, I have felt that\na clear and consistent working hypothesis of the origin of totemism\nwas indispensable, and such an hypothesis, with a criticism of other\nextant theories, is here offered. Throughout I have attempted to\nelucidate and bring into uniformity the perplexing and confused special\nterms employed in the discussion. Here it should be explained that\nby \u2018marriage\u2019 in this work I mean permanent cohabitation of man and\nwoman, sanctioned by tribal custom, and usually preceded by some rite\nor initiation which does not prelude to casual amours. By family or\nfire circle I mean the partners to this permanent cohabitation, their\noffspring, and such kinsfolk by blood or affinity as may be members of\ntheir camp. In the first sentence of the book I speak of the family as\n\u2018most ancient and most sacred,\u2019 and I do so deliberately. The primitive\nassociation described I take, with Mr. Darwin and Mr. Atkinson, to be\n\u2018most ancient,\u2019 and to be the germ of the historic family, which is\n\u2018most sacred.\u2019 But to \u2018sacred\u2019 when I apply the word to the primitive\nfire-circle I give no religious sense, such as the Greek hearth enjoyed\nunder Hestia, youngest and oldest daughter of Zeus. I mean that the\nrules given to the primitive fire-circle by the sire were probably the\nearliest and the most stringent, though not yet sanctioned by a tabu or\na goddess.\n\nSuch a small circle, and not a promiscuous horde or commune, I\nconceive, with Mr. Darwin and Mr. Atkinson, to have been the earliest\nform of human society.\n\nThe book deals only with the institutions of races certainly\ntotemistic, and mainly with the Australian and North American tribes,\nwhich present totemism in the most archaic of its surviving forms. But\nlittle is said, and that tentatively, on the question as to whether or\nnot the ancestors of the great civilised peoples, ancient and modern,\nhave passed through the stage of totemic exogamy, as our evidence is\nweak and disputable. Too late for citation in the body of the book I\nread Mr. A. H. Keane\u2019s theory of the origin of totemism.[1]\n\nMr. Keane\u2019s theory is much akin to my own as it stood in _Custom and\nMyth_ (1884) and to that of Garcilasso de la Vega, the oldest of all.\nGarcilasso (1540-1616), an Inca on the mother\u2019s side, describing the\nanimal and plant worship of the low races in the Inca Empire, says\n\u2018they only thought of making one differ from another and each from\nall.\u2019[2] But it may be that he had not totemism in his mind; the\npassage is not too explicit.\n\nMr. Keane says: \u2018And thus the family, the initial unit, segments into\na number of clans, each distinguished by its totem, its name, its\nheraldic badge--which badge, becoming more and more venerated from age\nto age, acquires inherited privileges, becomes the object of endless\nsuperstitious practices, and is ultimately almost deified.... Its\norigin lies behind all strictly religious notions, and it was at first\na mere device for distinguishing one individual from another, one\nfamily or clan group from another.[3] Thus among the Piaroas of the\nOrinoco below San Fernando de Atabapo the belief holds that the tapir,\noriginally the totem of the clan, has become their ancestor, and that\nafter death the spirit of every Piaroa passes into a tapir; hence they\nnever hunt or eat this animal, and they also think all the surrounding\ntribes are in the same way each provided with their special animal\nfore-father. It is easy to see how such ideas tend to cluster round\nthe clan[4] or family totem, at first a distinguishing badge, later a\nprotecting or tutelar deity of Protean form. It should be remembered\nthat the personal or family name precedes the totem, which grows out of\nit, as seen by the conditions still prevailing amongst the very lowest\npeoples (Fuegians, Papuans of Torres Strait[5]).\u2019\n\nI am indebted in various ways to assistance, chiefly in the interchange\nof ideas, from Mr. A. C. Haddon, Mr. G. L. Gomme, Miss Burne, and Mr.\nA. E. Crawley, author of _The Mystic Rose_. Mr. Crawley kindly read\nthe book, or most of it, before publication, and collaborated most\nefficiently in the way of suggesting objections. It is not implied that\nany of these students accept the ideas of the two authors. I regret\nthat it has been found impossible to wait for the publication of a new\nbook by Mr. A. W. Howitt, from which we may expect much new information.\n\nThe question of the relations of religion and totemism is scarcely\ntouched on in this work. A certain amount of regard is given to their\ntotem animals and plants by some of the Australian tribes, to the\nextent of not killing, plucking, or eating them, except under stress\nof need, but even this is not universal. There also exists, in some\ncases, a sense of kinship with them. They are not worshipped. That\nmagic is worked for their preservation and propagation, as by the\nArunta, proves nothing in the nature of a religious attitude towards\nthem. In my opinion this religious regard for the totem does not\nappear till ancestor worship, which does not occur in Australia, has\nmade considerable advance and a myth arises that an ancestral spirit\nor family god is incarnate in the animal which originally was only a\ntotem. If so, totemism is not an element in the origins of religion,\nbut a field later invaded by religion.\n\nOn the other hand, Dr. Achelis, of Bremen, writes that to savage man\n\u2018animals are his equals. To the ancient worship of animals is added,\nunder the influence of sympathetic emotion, the worship of ancestors\nand totemism, which sees in a beast worshipped as a god the ancestor of\nthe whole tribe.\u2019[6] Clearly this sentence is replete with errors and\nconfusions. The whole tribe, in Australia, does not regard any animal\nas its ancestor. No beast is worshipped as a god. No ancestors are\nworshipped. If the animals are \u2018his equals,\u2019 why did man worship them,\nand that apparently before the worship of ancestors and totemism arose?\nIn an essay like that of Dr. Achelis on _Ethnology and Religion_ the\nfacts ought to be correctly ascertained.\n\nI have been obliged to place in Appendix A certain facts about group\nnames derived from animals which came late to hand, among them Mr.\nRobertson\u2019s interesting letter on many such names in the Orkneys, and\nsome remarks on village names derived from animals among the ancient\nHebrews.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _Man, Past and Present_, Cambridge, 1899, pp. 396, 397.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Royal Commentaries_, i. 47.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _The Import of the Totem_, Amer. Ass., Detroit, 1897.]\n\n[Footnote 4: M. Chaffanjon, _Tour du Monde_, 1888, lvi. 348.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Ethnology_, pp. 9, 11.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _The International Quarterly_, Dec.-March, 1902-1903, p.\n321.]\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE EARLY HISTORY OF THE FAMILY\n\nThe family. Theory of Mr. Atkinson--Primitiveness in man--Recent\nhistory of the speculation as to the early human family--What is\nexogamy? Difficulties of terminology--Totemism and exogamy--Theories of\nexogamy. Mr. McLellan\u2019s theory--Mr. Crawley\u2019s theory--Dr. Westermarck\u2019s\ntheory--Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory--Return to the author\u2019s theory\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE CLASS SYSTEM\n\nThe class system in Australia--The varieties of marriage divisions in\nAustralia--Mr. Fison on the great bisection--\u2018Primary classes?\u2019--The\n\u2018primary divisions\u2019 are themselves totemic and exogamous--The totem\ndifficulty\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTOTEMS WITHIN THE PHRATRIES\n\nAmerican support of the author\u2019s hypothesis--Deliberate\narrangement--Totems all the way--Distribution of totems in the\n\u2018phratries\u2019--The ideas of Mr. Frazer. His earlier theory--Objections\nto Mr. Frazer\u2019s early theory--Mr. Spencer\u2019s theories of the\nbisection--Advantages of the system here proposed--The Arunta--Arunta\nmetaphysics--Arunta totem eating and traditions--Dr. Durkheim on\nthe Arunta--The relations of totems and \u2018phratries\u2019 among the\nArunta--Arunta myths--Mr. Spencer on Arunta legends\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nARUNTA PHRATRIES AND TOTEMS\n\nViews of Dr. Durkheim--How did the Aranta anomaly arise?\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nOTHER BARS TO MARRIAGES\n\n\u2018Group marriage\u2019--Mr. Morgan and the class system--Difficulties of\nMr. Morgan\u2019s theory--Mr. Morgan on terms of relationship--How the\nterms of relationship originally arose--Supposed survivals of group\nmarriage--Piraungaru and piraura--Growth of social rules in the\ntribe--Group marriage and Mr. Tylor\u2019s statistics\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE CHANGE OF CLASS AMONG THE NEW GENERATION\n\nThe system of Herr Cunow--Classes again\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHEORIES OF LORD AVEBURY\n\nLord Avebury on totemism--Lord Avebury on the origin of totemism\n--Communal marriage--Lord Avebury on relationships\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF TOTEM NAMES AND BELIEFS\n\nSacred animals in savage society--Proposed restriction of the use\nof the word \u2018totem\u2019--The word \u2018totem\u2019--The totem \u2018cult\u2019--\u2018Totem\ngods\u2019--Savage speculations as to the origin of totemism--Modern\ntheories--Mr. Max M\u00fcller\u2019s theory--The theory of Mr. Herbert\nSpencer--Mr. Frazer\u2019s theories--Suggestion of Mr. N. W. Thomas--Dr.\nWilken\u2019s theory--Miss Alice Fletcher\u2019s theory--Mr. Hill Tout\u2019s\ntheory--Messrs. Hose and McDougall--Mr. Haddon\u2019s theory--An objection\nto all the theories enumerated--Statement of the problem--The author\u2019s\nown conjecture--The connection between groups and totems--No \u2018disease\nof language\u2019--Hypothetical early groups before totemism--How the\ngroups got names--Illustration from folk-lore--How the names became\nknown--Totemic and other group names. English and North American\nIndian--Theory that Siouan gentes names are of European origin\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE MELANESIAN SYSTEMS\n\nHow the origin of totem names was forgotten--Other sources of\nsacredness in plants and animals--Recapitulation--An objection\nanswered--Other objections answered--Totems and magical\nsocieties--Totem survivals--Did the ancestors of the civilised races\npass through the Australian stage?\n\n\nPRIMAL LAW\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nMAN IN THE BRUTAL STAGE\n\nMr. Darwin on the primitive relations of the sexes--Primitive man\nmonogamous or polygamous--His jealousy--Expulsion of young males--The\nauthor\u2019s inferences as to the evolution of Primal Law--A customary\nrule of conduct evolved--Traces surviving in savage life--The customs\nof avoidance--Custom of exogamy arose in the animal stage--Brother\nand sister avoidance--The author\u2019s own observation of this custom in\nNew Caledonia--Strangeness of such a custom among houseless nomads in\nAustralia--Rapid decay under European influences\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nSEXUAL RELATIONS OF ANIMALS\n\nBrother and sister avoidance, a partial usage among the higher\nmammals--Males\u2019 attitude to females in a group dominated by a single\nmale head--Band of exiled young males--Their relations to the\nsire--Examples in cattle and horses--In game-fowl--Strict localisation\nof animals--Exiled young males hover on the fringe of the parent\ngroup--Parricide\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nMAN VARYING FROM ANIMALS\n\nEffect of the absence of a special pairing season on nascent\nman--Consequent state of ceaseless war between sire and young males\n--Man already more than an ape--Results of his prolonged infancy\nand of maternal love--A young male permitted to live in the parent\ngroup--Conditions in which this novelty arose\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nEARLIEST EVOLUTION OF LAW\n\nTruce between semi-human sire and son--Consequent distinction taken\nbetween female and female, as such--Consequent rise of habit of brother\nand sister avoidance--Result, son seeks female mate from without--Note\nby the editor\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nAVOIDANCES\n\nResults in strengthening the groups which admit several\nadult males--Disappearance of hostile band of exiled young\nmales--Relations of sire and female mates of young males now within\nthe group--Father-in-law and daughter-in-law avoidance--Rights as\nbetween two generations--Elder brother and younger brother\u2019s wife\navoidances--Note on hostile capture\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nFROM THE GROUP TO THE TRIBE\n\nResemblance of semi-brutal group, at this stage, to actual savage\ntribe--Resemblance merely superficial--In this hypothetical\nsemi-brutal group paternal incest survives--Causes of its decline\nand extinction--The sire\u2019s widows of the group--Arrival of outside\nsuitors for them--Brothers of wives of the group--New comers\nbarred from marital rights over their daughters--Jealousy of their\nwives intervenes--Value of sisters to be bartered for sisters\nof another group discovered--Consequent resistance to incest of\ngroup sire--Natural selection favours groups where resistance is\nsuccessful--Cousinage recognised in practice--Intermarrying sets of\ncousins become phratries--Exceptional cases of permitted incest in\nchiefs and kings--No known trace of avoidance between father and\ndaughter--Progress had rendered such law superfluous\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTRACES OF PERIOD OF TRANSITION AVOIDANCES\n\nSurvivals in custom testify to a long period of transition from group\nto tribe--Stealthy meetings of husband and wife--Examples--Evidence\nto a past of jealousy of incestuous group sire--Evidence from\nteknonymy--Husband named as father of his child--Formal capture as\na symbol of legal marriage--Avoidance between father-in-law and\nson-in-law--Arose in stage of transition--Causes of mother-in-law\nand son-in-law avoidance--Influence of jealousy--Examples--Mr.\nTylor\u2019s statistics--Resentment of capture not primal cause of this\navoidance--Note on avoidance.\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE CLASSIFICATORY SYSTEM\n\nThe classificatory system--The author\u2019s theory is the opposite of Mr.\nMorgan\u2019s, of original brother and sister marriage--That theory is based\non Malayan terms of relationship--Nephew, niece, and cousin, all named\n\u2018sons and daughters\u2019--This fact of nomenclature used as an argument\nfor promiscuity--The author\u2019s theory--The names for relationship\ngiven as regards the group, not the individual--The names and rules\nevolved in the respective interests of three generations--They\napply to food as well as to marriage--Each generation is a strictly\ndefined class--Terms for relationship indicate, _not kinship_,\nbut relative seniority and rights in relation to the group--The\ndistinction of age in generations breaks down in practice--Methods\nof bilking the letter of the law--Communal marriage--Outside suitors\nand cousinage--The fact of cousinage unperceived and unnamed--Cousins\nare still called brothers and sisters; thus, when a man styles his\nsister\u2019s son his son, the fact does not prove, as in Mr. Morgan\u2019s\ntheory, that his sister is his wife--Terms of address between brothers\nand sisters--And between members of the same and of different\nphratries--These corroborate the author\u2019s theory--distinction as\nto sexual rights yields the classificatory system--Progress outran\nrecognition and verbal expression--Errors of Mr. Morgan and Mr.\nMcLennan--Conclusion--Note--\u2018Group marriage\u2019\n\n\nAPPENDICES\n\nA.--ENGLISH, ORCADIAN, AND HEBREW VILLAGE SOBRIQUETS\n\nB.--THE BA RONGA TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP\n\nINDEX\n\n\n\n\nSOCIAL ORIGINS\n\nAND\n\nPRIMAL LAW\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE EARLY HISTORY OF THE FAMILY\n\n\nTHE FAMILY. THEORY OF MR. ATKINSON\n\nThe Family is the most ancient and the most sacred of human\ninstitutions; the least likely to be overthrown by revolutionary\nattacks. In epochs of change the Family naturally invites the\nattentions of impetuous reformers, like Shelley (who advocated a scheme\nmore than any other apt to shock the conscience of a savage), and\nlike the friends of \u2018Free Love,\u2019 who would introduce a license beyond\nthe Urabunna model. The horror aroused by certain relations, such as\nthat of brother-and-sister marriage, is perhaps the oldest of moral\nsentiments, yet it has lost its hold of some barbaric races, and has\nbeen overcome by dynastic pride, as in the Royal House of the Incas\nof Peru, and in that of Egypt. While the Family, everywhere almost,\nhas been secured by a religious and all but instinctive dread of\ncertain aberrations, the laws or customs which may not be broken have\nvaried in different lands, and in different stages of civilisation.\nWhat is incest in one age or country is innocent in another; still\ncertain unions, varying in various regions, have always been regarded\nwith loathing. No such emotion is known to be felt among the lower\nanimals, and scientific curiosity has long been busy with the question,\nwhy should the least civilised of human races possess the widest\nlist of prohibited degrees? What is the origin of the stringent laws\nthat, among naked and far from dainty nomads, compel men and women to\nseek their mates outside of certain large groups of real or imagined\nkindred? The answers given to this question have varied with the\nfacts of savage law which chanced to be at each moment accessible to\ninquirers, and all attempts to solve the problem must be provisional.\nNew knowledge may upset even the most recent theory, and, indeed,\nnew knowledge of the rules of certain Australian tribes has already\nproduced fresh hypotheses, as regards certain aspects of the problem.\n\nThe whole subject is thorny, and I must crave pardon for venturing to\ndiffer, provisionally, on several important points, from authorities\nwhose learning, research, and experience far exceed my own. The facts\nwhich they have collected from personal knowledge of savages, and\nfrom reading, often group themselves otherwise in my eyes than in\ntheirs--the perspective is different. My observations, therefore, are\nsubmitted to criticism with all diffidence. Only the main lines of a\ncomplex discussion are here traversed, and the works cited are, as a\nrule, either by English-speaking authors, or, at least, are sometimes\naccessible in English translations. It will be seen that students have\ndiffered greatly, not only from each other, but, at different times,\nfrom themselves, under the influence of new facts brought in from the\nmost remote and isolated of savage races. One author is most interested\nin this, another in that, factor of the problem. The difficulty of the\nsubject cannot be exaggerated; for the origins of our human society\ncannot be _historically_ traced behind the institutions of the races\nnow lowest in the scale of culture. We are driven to risk hypotheses.\nAgain, it is by no means certain that some of these lowest peoples of\nto-day (say the Arunta of Central Australia) represent a moment in the\nmain current of the stream of tendency, a point through which all\nprogress has passed. The ideas and institutions of such tribes may\nbe mere local \u2018sports,\u2019 other divergencies may have arisen in other\nquarters, and it would be an error (repudiated by Mr. McLennan, the\nfounder of the study in England) to suppose that, everywhere, exactly\nthe same series of changes evolved itself in due sequence. \u2018In one\nplace or another everything may have been going on,\u2019 I have heard Mr.\nMcLennan observe.\n\nOnce more, the subject is obscure because the races apparently \u2018nearest\nthe beginning,\u2019 the naked Australians, houseless hunters, just\nemerging from the pal\u00e6olithic condition as regards implements, are,\nas to society and system of thought, very far from being \u2018primitive;\u2019\nvery remote from \u2018the beginning.\u2019 Their social rules are various and\nextremely complex, especially as regards marriage: some of their social\ncustoms are perhaps inexplicable--a field for modern guesswork--their\nspeculative philosophy is, in one instance, ingenious, elaborate,\nand highly peculiar. The \u2018beginning\u2019 lies far behind them, yet their\nsociety and institutions may have their germs (on the Darwinian theory)\nin a state of all but complete brutality.\n\nTo trace human institutions back to that hypothetical stage of first\nemergence from the brute is the purpose of the following treatise,\n\u2018Primal Law,\u2019 by Mr. Atkinson. It were superfluous for me to dwell on\nthe audacity of his enterprise. Of thoroughly human man we know a good\ndeal: of the brutes we know something. Of a hypothetical creature, not\nwholly brute, but not yet \u2018articulate-speaking man,\u2019 we know nothing,\nand as to the ways of his supposed next of kin, \u2018the great extant\nanthropoid apes,\u2019 our knowledge is vague, resting on the accounts of\nnative observers. Such a creature, however, half ape, half human, is\nin part the theme of Mr. Atkinson\u2019s speculations, on which I venture\nto express no opinion: as not being persuaded that man ever had such a\ndirect ancestor.\n\n\nPRIMITIVENESS IN MAN\n\nAs to men really primitive, and their social arrangements, I only\nventure to conjecture that, in the nature of the case, they probably\nlived a nomadic life, \u2018selecting a temporary place of abode, whether\na cave, rock, shelter, or hut, influenced chiefly by the amount of\nedible materials to be found in the neighbourhood.\u2019[1] The area of the\nwandering of each group of hearth-mates would be limited, probably, by\nthe existence of other groups, which would resent poaching. A large\ntrout may often be seen to turn angrily and drive away a little trout\nthat has ventured too near the bend of the brook which the large trout\nfinds a good station for flies; and human groups would also, as in\ncases to be cited they do, mortally resent intrusions. I conceive that\nthe males would be polygamous (like the gorilla) and jealous, killing\nor expelling the young males, as in the theories of Mr. Darwin and Mr.\nAtkinson. Thus groups would, on the whole, be hostile,[2] \u2018wandering\nfrom one locality to another, now gathering fruits and seeds, now\nhunting wild animals, or, as a last resource, feeding on shell-fish and\nother produce of the shore.\u2019[3] The implements now used by backward\nsavages for fish-catching, nets, spears, and barbed hooks, cannot be\nprecisely primitive. Primitiveness, we must remember, does not depend\non antiquity of date.\n\nThe Australians, though now their groups have coalesced into local\ntribes in defined areas, and though their customary law is extremely\ncomplex, are least remote from the primitive, least remote, but very\nfar removed. They are, though our contemporaries, infinitely beneath\nthe status in culture of pal\u00e6olithic man of the mammoth and reindeer\nperiod. It is not improbable that he had domesticated the ox, goat,\npig, horse, and dog. \u2018They manufactured fine needles of bone, with\nwhich they sewed their skin garments. They adorned their persons\nwith a variety of beads....\u2019 Their art was of notorious and amazing\nexcellence. Dr. Munro says that they were \u2018ignorant of the rearing of\ndomestic animals,\u2019[4] but also that \u2018there seems to be no inherent\nimprobability in the idea that some of them\u2019 (ox, goat, horse, pig,\nand dog) \u2018had been domesticated by the indigenous inhabitants prior\nto the coming of the neolithic brachycephals into France.\u2019[5] A\npal\u00e6olithic sketch of a horse \u2018with a supposed cover,\u2019 and another of\na horse with a bridle,[6] may be misinterpreted: Dr. Munro thinks that\nthe horse-cloth \u2018may be no more than the hunter\u2019s skin coat thrown\nover the back of the animal when led home by means of a halter made\nof thongs or withes to be there slaughtered.\u2019 If pal\u00e6olithic man had\nadvanced as far as Dr. Munro supposes, it was a short step to the\ndomestication of the horse. It is hardly conclusive to say that, if\nhe had tamed the horse, \u2018we would undoubtedly ere now have had an\nequestrian representation of the fact,\u2019 though it is also said that \u2018we\nhave only as yet a preliminary instalment of these most interesting\nart productions.\u2019[7] The representation may later be discovered. That\npal\u00e6olithic man, so far advanced as he was, was \u2018ignorant of the\nprinciples of religion,\u2019[8] seems a hasty conclusion. If he had the\nbeliefs of our Australians in such potent beings as Baiame, Nooreli,\nDaramulun, Mungun-ngaur, Pirmaheal, and Pundjel, that belief would\nleave no material traces, except, perhaps, the Bull-roarer, whose noise\nrepresents the voice of one or other of these beings. Now a small but\nunmistakeable pair of pal\u00e6olithic bull-roarers in bone, or of amulets\nwhich are bull-roarers in miniature, one of them decorated with the\nsacred Australian pattern of herring-bone and concentric circles, have\nbeen found in a quaternary station in France.[9]\n\nPal\u00e6olithic man in France, countless ages ago, was thus, especially\nif he had domesticated animals, immensely more remote from \u2018the\nbeginning\u2019 than contemporary wild Australian tribes. They, again, with\ntheir copious languages, ingenious implements, complex institutions,\nand prolonged tribal assemblies, are infinitely in advance of those\nreally primitive men among whom we must tentatively seek the origins of\ncustomary law regulating the family and marital arrangements. A society\nalmost incalculably ancient may have been much more advanced than a\nsociety of to-day, and the society of the lowest known modern savages\nmust be equally advanced from the status of \u2018primitive man\u2019.\n\nThe best proof of all that no Australians are now in or near \u2018the\nchrysalis state\u2019 of humanity, is to be found in their combinations\ninto large friendly tribes, each covering a wide extent of country,\nand holding stated meetings, for social, political, religious, and\ncommercial purposes. Mr. Matthews remarks on \u2018articles of barter,\u2019\nexchanged \u2018at the great meetings which were held for the initiation of\nthe youths of the tribes.\u2019 Among these articles were stone hatchets,\nfirst chipped, then ground, the tribes having passed out of the\nstage in which mere rude flaking sufficed. \u2018At the conclusion of the\nceremonies, before the people dispersed, a kind of fair was held, when\nnatives in whose country stone was plentiful, would barter their things\nwith other people for reeds for making spears, rich plumage of birds,\n&c. ... or for any other articles brought by the various tribes for the\npurpose of exchange.\u2019[10] We can scarcely conceive that this amount\nof tribal or inter-tribal unity was possible to man really primitive.\nBackward and conservative as the Australians are, we must not expect\nto find among them, with their highly complex customary laws, anything\nlike the first beginnings of social regulations. To look for these,\neven among the naked and houseless hunters of Australia, is to organise\nfailure in this research as to origins.\n\n\nRECENT HISTORY OF THE SPECULATION AS TO THE EARLY HUMAN FAMILY\n\nFrom the age of Aristotle onwards, inquirers naturally began with a\nbelief in the Patriarchal Family as the original social unit. To this\nopinion, in a peculiar form, Mr. Atkinson returns, as will be seen.\nThe idea was natural. Aristotle, like Hesiod, starts from \u2018the Man,\nthe Woman, and the labouring ox,\u2019 though men and women were wedded\nlong before oxen and other animals were domesticated. The Biblical\naccount in Genesis opens with the same theory of the primal pair, whose\nchildren, brother and sister, must have married each other, as in the\nlate Mr. Morgan\u2019s hypothesis of the \u2018Consanguine Family;\u2019 but, contrary\nto almost universal savage custom, and to Mr. Atkinson\u2019s \u2018Primal Law.\u2019\n\nIn 1861, Sir Henry Maine\u2019s celebrated book, \u2018Ancient Law,\u2019 appeared.\nHerein he wrote that it was difficult to say \u2018what society of men had\nnot been originally based on the Patriarchal Family.[11] His studies\nhad lain chiefly in the law of civilised peoples, Romans, Hebrews,\nGreeks, Irish, and Hindoos; not in the customary law of the lowest\nraces. He, like Mr. Freeman, concluded that the patriarchal family, by\naggregation of descendants (and aided by adoption of outsiders, and by\nthe _ownership_ of the family by its Head), formed the gens, while the\naggregation of _gentes_ formed the tribe, and the aggregation of tribes\nmade the State. But, as the _gentes_ had traditions contrary to this\ntheory, traditions of separate origins, he supposed that \u2018the incoming\npopulace should feign themselves to be deduced from the same stock as\nthe people on whom they were engrafted.\u2019 Thus we know that McUlrigs\n(Kennedys) of Galloway joined the remote Macdonnells of Moidart and\nGlengarry, and wore the Macdonnell tartan[12] (1745-1760), and so might\ncome to pass as Macdonnells, though they still regard the Marquis\nof Ailsa, a Kennedy, as their chief, at least in Eilean Shona (Loch\nMoidart). In the same way the Camerons of Glen Nevis, though called\n\u2018Camerons,\u2019 were really MacSorlies, a branch of the Macdonnells, and\nfrom the sixteenth century to 1754 were always on ill terms with the\nchief of the clan Cameron, Lochiel. These are very modern instances,\nbut illustrate Sir Henry\u2019s theory of incomers.\n\nThe members of the Roman tribes had traditions that they were _not_,\nreally, of the same original blood with each other. Only by a fiction\nwere they of the same blood. They did not all descend by natural\nincrease from one patriarchal ancestor. There really did exist \u2018a\nvariety of alien groups in a local tribe,\u2019 however they might all\nadopt the same name, and assert descent, in West Scotland from\nSomerled, let us say. This fact, of heterogeneousness within the\n\u2018tribe\u2019 among others, was so obvious and so imperfectly explained,\nby friends of the Patriarchal theory, that it occupied \u2018writers\nbelonging to the school of so-called prehistoric inquiry,\u2019 as Sir Henry\nstyled it.[13] They were not satisfied with the theory that Society\narose in the Patriarchal Family, based on direct descent from, and\nownership by, a single male ancestor. To be sure a Cameron will \u2018cross\nthe hill,\u2019 and call himself Stewart, and a Chinese immigrant into\nAustralia has discreetly entitled himself Alexander Mac-gillivray.\nBut such accretions, and such legal fictions, do not explain the\nheterogeneousness of the local tribe, which, by the theory of some\nhistorians, is of common descent. \u2018Prehistoric inquirers\u2019 could not\nbut notice that, among ruder \u2018non-Aryan\u2019 races of various degrees\nof culture, \u2018the family is radically different from the Patriarchal\nFamily,\u2019 and suggests a different origin.\n\nRoughly speaking, the groups of real or fancied kindred among various\nlow races exhibit the peculiarity that the kin-name is often inherited\nfrom the mother, not from the father; that the maternal blood is\nstronger in determining such cases of inheritance as arise; and that\nmarriage is forbidden within the recognised limits of the _maternal_\nkinship. It was natural for inquirers to derive this condition of\naffairs, this reckoning in the female line, from a state of society\nin which fatherhood (owing to promiscuity, or to polyandry--several\nhusbands to one wife) was notably uncertain. Bachofen, who first\nexamined the problem, attributed the system to a supposed period of the\nSupremacy of Women: McLennan to dubious fatherhood, and possible early\npromiscuity. The recovery of supremacy by men, or the gradual advance\nin civilisation, especially in accumulation of property, would finally\ncause descent to be reckoned through the male line, as among ourselves.\n\nAs to the question of early promiscuity--sexual relations absolutely\nunregulated--Dr. Westermarck, Mr. Crawley, and others have argued,\nand Mr. Atkinson argues, that it never existed, at least to any wide\nextent, and with any potent influence. We hear rumours of savages\nutterly promiscuous, say the Mincopies of the Andaman Islands, just\nas we hear of savages utterly without religion. But later and better\nevidence proves that the Andamanese have both wives and a God.[14]\n\nAgain, the lowest savages known are so far not \u2018promiscuous,\u2019 that they\nrecognise certain sets of women as persons with whom (as a general\nrule, subject to occasional exceptions) certain sets of men must have\nno marital relations. It was the opinion of Mr. Darwin, as of Mr.\nAtkinson, that sexual jealousy, from the first, must probably have been\na bar to absolute promiscuity, even among the hypothetical anthropoid\nancestors of human race. To tell the truth, our evidence on these\npoints, as to existing savages, is, as usual, contradictory.[15]\n\n\nWHAT IS EXOGAMY? DIFFICULTIES OF TERMINOLOGY\n\nIn these inquiries a great source of confusion arises (as all students\nmust be aware) from the absence of exact terminology, of technical\nterms with a definite and recognised meaning. Thus when my friend,\nthe late Mr. John Fergus McLennan, introduced the word \u2018Exogamy,\u2019 in\n\u2018Primitive Marriage\u2019 (1865), he probably knew perfectly well what\nhe meant. But he did not then, from lack of practice in an inquiry\npractically novel, and originated by himself, express his meaning with\nexactness. He at first spoke of exogamy as the rule \u2018which prohibited\nmarriage within the tribe.\u2019[16] But the word \u2018tribe\u2019 was later taken\nby Mr. McLennan to mean, and is now used as meaning, what cannot be a\nprimitive community, a local aggregate of groups amicably occupying\na considerable area of country; say the Urabunna tribe of Central\nAustralia. Mr. McLennan did not wish to say that exogamy forbids an\nUrabunna tribesman to marry an Urabunna tribeswoman; he meant that\nexogamy prohibited marriage within the recognised kindred--that is,\nin this case, between members of totem kindreds of the same name,\nsay Emu or Kangaroo. This fact he later made perfectly clear. But\nmeanwhile such terms as \u2018horde,\u2019 \u2018tribe,\u2019 \u2018sub-tribe,\u2019 \u2018family,\u2019\n\u2018gens,\u2019 \u2018section,\u2019 \u2018phratria,\u2019 \u2018clan,\u2019 many of them derived from\ncivilised classical or Celtic usage, have been tossed up and down,\nin company with \u2018class,\u2019 \u2018division,\u2019 \u2018section,\u2019 and so on, in a\nway most confusing.[17] Odd new terms come from America, such as\n\u2018socialry,\u2019 \u2018tutelaries,\u2019 \u2018ocular consanguinity,\u2019 \u2018ethnogamy,\u2019\n\u2018conjugal conation,\u2019 and so forth.[18] Most perplexing it is to find\nwords like clan, family, tribe, _gens_, phratry, words peculiar to\ncivilised peoples, Greek, Roman, or Celtic, applied to the society of\nsavages. \u2018The term \u201cclan\u201d implies descent in the female line,\u2019 says\nthe late Mr. Dorsey, following Major Powell; but why take the Celtic\nterm \u2018clan,\u2019 which has no such signification, and confer it on what\nis really a totem kindred with descent in the female line?[19] Next,\n\u2018several of the Siouan tribes are divided into two, and one into three\nsub-tribes. Other tribes are composed of phratries, and each sub-tribe\nor, phratry comprises a number of _gentes_.\u2019 Is there a distinction\nbetween the \u2018sub-tribes\u2019 of some tribes, and the \u2018phratries\u2019 of others,\nor not? Apparently there is not, but the method of nomenclature is most\nconfusing.\n\nI shall understand the terms which I employ, as follows:\n\nThe tribe, speaking of the Australians, for instance, is a large\naggregate of friendly or not hostile human groups, occupying a\nterritory of perhaps a hundred square miles, and holding councils and\nmeetings for social and religious purposes. It is so far \u2018endogamous\u2019\nthat its members _may_ marry within it--that is to say, it is no more\nendogamous than the parish of Marylebone. An Urabunna man, a man of\nthe Urabunna tribe, may marry an Urabunna woman--if no special native\nlaw interferes. He may also at pleasure marry, out of his tribe, say a\nwoman of the neighbouring Arunta tribe, again, if no special law bars\nthe arrangement. So far the tribe, the large local aggregate of groups,\nstands indifferent. But, within the tribe, there are laws barring\nmarital intercourse. First, each tribe is usually composed of two\n\u2018primary exogamous divisions,\u2019 or \u2018phratries,\u2019 so called; in the case\nof some tribes the phratries are named; for example, _Matthurie_ and\n_Kirarawa_. Every man and woman, in such tribes, is either a Matthurie\nor a Kirarawa, and can only marry into the opposite division, and the\nchildren follow the name of the mother. These two divisions are called\n\u2018primary classes\u2019 by some students; \u2018phratrias\u2019 (from the Greek:\n\u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1) by others; \u2018sub-tribes\u2019 by others; or, again, \u2018moieties,\u2019 or\n\u2018groups.\u2019 I shall, in each instance, use the term (\u2018class,\u2019 \u2018phratria,\u2019\n\u2018moiety,\u2019 \u2018primary exogamous division,\u2019 \u2018group,\u2019 and the like) employed\nby the author whose opinion I am discussing, though I prefer \u2018phratry,\u2019\nas \u2018class\u2019 has another significance; so has \u2018group,\u2019 &c.\n\nAgain, the tribe contains a number of totem kindreds (often called\n\u2018clans\u2019 or _gentes_, rather at random), that is, of sets of kin\nderiving their names from _totems_, plants, animals, or other objects\nin nature. To the possible origin of Totemism we return in a separate\nsection. No Urabunna man may marry a woman of his own \u2018phratry,\u2019 nor\nof his own _totem_, and the children inherit the phratry and totem\nnames from the mother. Finally, there are sets of relationships,\nroughly indicating, it would seem, seniority by generations, and\ndegrees of actual or supposed kindred. Within many of these, which\nI shall style \u2018classes\u2019 (they have other terms applied to them),\nmarriage is forbidden. Thus there are bars of three several sorts on\nthe intermarrying of an Urabunna man with an Urabunna woman. In a way,\nthere are three grades of exogamous prohibitions.\n\nMr. McLennan, who introduced the word \u2018exogamy,\u2019 defined it thus: \u2018an\nexogamous marriage is a marriage between persons of different clans of\nkinship, not entered into fortuitously, but because of law declaring\nit to be incest for a man to marry a woman of his own clan.\u2019[20] The\nsame community cannot be \u2018both exogamous and endogamous,\u2019 as some\nsuppose. Thus Lord Avebury writes, \u2018some races which are endogamous as\nregards the tribe, are yet exogamous as regards the gens.\u2019 But really\n\u2018exogamy is the law prohibiting marriage between persons of the same\nblood or stock as incest--often under pain of death--and endogamy is\nthe law prohibiting marriage except between persons of the same blood\nor stock.\u2019[21] In Mr. McLennan\u2019s sense I shall take the word \u2018exogamy,\u2019\nwhile dealing with peoples apparently nearest the beginning.\n\nLater, when descent in the male line is established, the prohibition\non marriage within the totem name comes to apply, sometimes, to\nmarriage within the local district held by the men of the name. The\nold prohibition, we see, is to many within the recognised limit of the\nblood kinship, or stock, designated by the totem name. But, as tribes\nadvance to kinship through males, and as, thereby, groups of one totem\nname come to possess one region of country, it often happens that\nexogamy prohibits marriage between persons dwelling in that region.\nWhereas Grouse was forbidden to marry Grouse; later, the Grouse living\ntogether, say in Corradale, the exogamous prohibition takes the shape\n\u2018persons dwelling in Corradale must marry out of Corradale.\u2019 The name\nmarking the exogamous limit is now, in such cases, local, but the\nprohibition is derived from the older tabu on marriage between \u2018persons\nof the same blood or stock\u2019--all those in Corradale being conceived to\nshare the same blood or stock. This origin of \u2018local exogamy\u2019 must be\nkept in mind, otherwise confusion will arise. There are a few cases,\neven in Australia, where even local exogamy has become obsolete, and\nmarriage, as with ourselves, is prohibited between persons of near\nkindred simply.\n\nNow, if I may venture to interpret the mind of Mr. John Fergus\nMcLennan, I conceive that he regarded the totemic division as older\nthan the \u2018phratry\u2019 or the \u2018class\u2019 bar, and he thought it the oldest\ntraceable exogamous limit. Not to marry within the totem name (no\nmale Emu to marry a female Emu) was, in Mr. McLennan\u2019s opinion, the\nmost archaic marriage law.[22] This appears from the words of Mr.\nMcLennan\u2019s brother, Mr. Donald McLennan.[23] He writes: \u2018As the theory\nof the Origin of Exogamy took shape, and the facts connected reduced\nthemselves to form in his mind, the conclusion was reached that the\nsystem conveniently called \u201cTotemism\u201d ... must have existed in rude\nsocieties, prior to the origin of Exogamy.[24] This carried back the\norigin of Totemism to a state of mind in which no idea of incest\nexisted. From that condition my brother hoped to trace the progress of\nTotemism--necessarily a progress upwards--in connection with kinship\nand Exogamy. It may here be said that he had for a time a hypothesis of\nthe origin of Totemism, but that he afterwards came to see that there\nwere conclusive reasons against it.\u2019\n\nMeanwhile may we not, then, assume that, in Mr. McLennan\u2019s opinion, the\nearliest traceable human aggregate within which matrimony was _legally_\nforbidden was the totem kin, indicated by the totem name, the totem\ntabu, and the totem badge, or symbol--where it existed?\n\nWe now see how heterogeneous elements came to exist in the tribe of\nlocality, a puzzle to the friends of the theory of the Patriarchal\nFamily. For the nature of totemism, _plus exogamy_ and _female\ndescent_, is obviously such that under totemism, each family group\neven (each \u2018fire circle\u2019 of men, wives, and children), _must_ contain\npersons of different totems. The father and mother _must_ be of\ndifferent totems (persons of the same totem not intermarrying), and\nthe children must inherit the totem either of the father or of the\nmother.[25] When paternal kinship is not only recognised (as, in\npractical life, it always is), but becomes exclusive in its influence\non customary law, and when an approach to the Patriarchal Family, with\nthe power of the patriarch, is evolved, all the members of the family\nin all its branches will (if Totemism persists) have the same totem;\nderived from the father. Thus there will now be a _local_ totem group,\na group mainly of the same totem name, as is practically the case in\nparts of Central Australia.[26]\n\nIt is necessary to understand this clearly. Take a very early group,\nin a given district; suppose it, at first, to be anonymous, and let it\nlater be called the Emu group. So far, all members of the group will\nbe Emus, they will form an Emu _local_ group. But, next, suppose that\nthere are many neighbouring groups, also at first anonymous; let them\nlater be styled Rat, Cat, Bat, Sprat. Suppose that each such group now\n(for reasons to be indicated later) takes its wives not from within\nitself, but from all the other groups; that these women bring into the\nEmu group their group names; and that their children inherit their\nnames from their mothers. Then the name, \u2018Emu group,\u2019 will cling to\nthat _local_ aggregate, as such; but, in time, the members of the Emu\ngroup will all be, say, Rats, Cats, Bats, and Sprats, so called from\nthe group-names of their alien mothers. Suppose that, for one reason\nor another, children at last come to inherit their names and totems\nfrom their fathers. Then a Cat father will have Cat children, though\nhis wives may still be of different totems, and his sons\u2019 children will\nalso be Cats, and so the local group will become mainly, if not wholly,\na group of one totem, the Cat. The Arunta of Central Australia do trace\nkinship in the male line, and thus there is \u2018one area which belongs to\nthe Kangaroo men, another to Emu men, another to Hakea flower men,\u2019 and\nso on. This has reached such a pitch that \u2018in speaking of themselves\nthe natives will refer to these _local_ groups,\u2019 not by the prevalent\ntotem names in each, but \u2018by the name of the locality which each of\nthem inhabits,\u2019 namely, as men of the Iturkawura camp, and so on.[27]\nThus we might say \u2018the Glen Nevis men,\u2019 \u2018the Corradale men,\u2019 and so on.\n\nThus we begin with an anonymous group, or group of unknown name, a\nlocal group. We introduce Totemism, and that group becomes a local\ngroup with a totem name. Granting exogamy (prohibition of marriage\nwithin the group), and reckoning in the female line, it soon developes\ninto a local group made up of various totems, but, at first, _as a\nlocal group_, it probably retains its original totem name among its\nneighbours. Reckoning, still later, through the male line, we again\nmeet, as at first, a local totem group, but already Totemism is on\nthe wane, and the groups are soon to be called by the territorial\nnames of their lands. At this stage totem names are tending to decay,\nand the next step will probably be to style the group by the name of\nsome remembered, or mythical, male ancestor, such as \u2018children of\nDonald\u2019--Macdonalds.\n\nThus if, at a given time, the name of a certain male ancestor is\nsubstituted, as \u2018eponymous,\u2019 for the totem name, or the district name,\nwe shall find a local group of, say, Sons of Donald, into which other\ngroups, Sons of Sorlie, or Ulrig, will enter, as occasion serves, and\nbe more or less absorbed. A State may at last arise, say, \u2018Softs of\nIsrael.\u2019\n\nWe are not assuming, however, that all human societies have passed\nthrough the totemistic and exogamous stages.\n\n\nTOTEMISM AND EXOGAMY\n\nBut what was the original unit, the totem group, or other division\noutside of which alone could marriages be arranged? And why was the\ntotem name the limit? Returning to Mr. Donald McLennan\u2019s account of the\nopinions which his brother did not live to set forth, Totemism arose\n\u2018in a state of man in which no idea of incest existed.\u2019 On this theory,\nI presume, there would be totem groups before exogamy arose; before\nit was reckoned \u2018incest\u2019 to many within the totem name. This, as we\nshall see, appears to be sometimes the opinion of the best Australian\nauthorities, Messrs. Fison and Howitt, and Messrs. Spencer and Gillen.\nIt is also the theory of Arunta tradition. The totem belief, as it now\nexists, imposes many tabus: you may not (as a rule) kill, eat, or use\nthe plant or animal which is your totem; still less perhaps, in the\nlong run, may you \u2018use,\u2019 sexually, a woman of your totem. If _this_,\nor a kindred totem tabu, is the origin of exogamy, then to exogamy (as\na law, though not necessarily as a tendency) the totem is prior in\ntime. But I have no reason to suppose that Mr. McLennan ever regarded\nthe totem tabu as the origin of exogamy. In his published works he\noffers another theory, not commonly accepted.\n\nBut the important thing to note is that exogamy may conceivably\n(contrary to Mr. McLennan\u2019s opinion, but in accordance with that of Mr.\nAtkinson) have existed, or rather tended to exist, before totems arose;\nmuch more, then, previous to the evolution of totem names, of totem\ntabu, and of the idea of incest, _as a sin_, or mystic misdeed, and as\nan offence to the totem--a religious offence to God, or to ancestral\nspirits. Persons may have been forbidden to marry within their local\ngroup, their \u2018fire circle\u2019 before that group had a totem, or a totem\nname, and they may have been forbidden for reasons purely secular, to\nwhich the totem later lent a sanction, and a definite limit. Thus Mr.\nTylor, our most sagacious guide in all such problems, writes \u2018Exogamy\ncan and does exist without Totemism, and for all we know was originally\nindependent of it.\u2019[28]\n\nIt is part of my argument that exogamous tendencies, at least--that\nis, a habit of seeking female mates outside of the fire-circle--may\nvery well have prevailed before any human group had even a totemic\nname. But exogamous tendencies are not, of course, the same thing as\nexogamy strictly defined, and sanctioned by religious or superstitious\nfear, and by secular penalties inflicted by the tribe. Against the\nnotion that exogamy may have been prior to Totemism, Mr. Robertson\nSmith argued that very early man would not be restrained from\nmarriages by such an abstract idea as that of kindred--\u2018not to marry\nyour near kin\u2019--while the idea of kindred was still fluid, and not\nyet crystallised around the totem name.[29] But, without thinking of\nkindred by blood, perhaps without recognising consanguinity (though it\nmust have been recognised very soon), early man may have decided that\n\u2018thou shalt not marry within this local group or crowd, of which I am\nhead.\u2019 Nothing abstract in that! There was no tribal law--there were as\nyet (I suppose) no tribes--only the will of the head of each small set\nof people practically enforced exogamy.\n\nWe can have no certainty on this point, for we know of no pre-totemic\nrace, no people who certainly have not yet entered into the totemic\nstage. Any such people, probably, in the remote past, had no idea of\nincest as a sin, or of exogamy as a law sanctioned by a tabu. But they\nmay have, at least, had a strong tendency to marry outside of the\ncircle of the hearth, the wandering hearth of homeless nomads ranging\nafter food.\n\nThe reader of Mr. Atkinson\u2019s treatise will find that this kind of\nexogamy--marriage outside the local group--would, on his theory, be\nthe rule, even when no idea of blood kindred, or of incest as a sin,\nneed have arisen; and no totem, or anything else, had yet been named.\nThe cause of the prohibition would, in Mr. Atkinson\u2019s opinion, be the\nsexual jealousy of the hypothetical patriarchal anthropoid male animal;\nand, later, the sexual jealousy of his adult male offspring, and of\nthe females. Still later the group, already in _practice_ exogamous,\nwould accept the totem name, marking off the group from others, and\nthe totem name, snipe, wolf, or what not, would become, for the time,\nthe exogamous limit. No man and woman of the same totem name could\nintermarry. Still later, a myth of kinship with the totem would arise,\nand would add the religious sanction of a tabu.\n\nA prohibition may perhaps have arisen very early, even if Mr.\nAtkinson\u2019s hypothesis (that the rule of marriage outside the group\narose in a state of brutality) be rejected. \u2018The origin of bars to\nmarry is, in fact, complex,\u2019 writes Mr. Crawley. A dislike of marriage\nwith a group-mate, familiar, through contiguity, from infancy, may\nhave been developed among early men;[30] and may have been reinforced\nby the probably later superstitions which create \u2018sexual tabu,\u2019 and\nmutual avoidance, among many existing peoples. Men and women are,\nby savages, conceived to be mysteriously perilous to each other,\nespecially when they live in close contiguity. Mr. Crawley also allows\nfor Mr. Atkinson\u2019s main factor, jealousy, \u2018proprietary feeling,\nwhich is one crude means by which the family has been regulated and\nmaintained.\u2019[31] If these things were so (whether we go back to Mr.\nAtkinson\u2019s semi-brutal ancestors, or not), then, contrary to Mr. Donald\nMcLennan\u2019s opinion, and to general opinion, it would not \u2018appear to be\npossible to demonstrate that Totemism preceded exogamy,\u2019 or at least\npreceded the exogamous tendency. For, in the first place, exogamy might\nconceivably tend to arise before the explicit idea of kinship--whether\nmale or female--arose. Mr. Atkinson\u2019s \u2018primal law\u2019 would be unuttered\nin speech (speech, by his theory, there was none), but would amount\nto this: \u2018I, the patriarchal bull of this herd, will do my best to\nkill you, the adult young bulls, if you make any approaches to any of\nthe cows in this crowd.\u2019 There is no notion of \u2018incest,\u2019 but there is\njealousy producing the germ exogamy. The young bulls must find mates\noutside of the local herd--or do without. This rule persisted, on Mr.\nAtkinson\u2019s theory, till the hypothetical anthropoid became a man, and\nnamed his group (or had it named for him, as I later suggest) by a\ntotem name.\n\nBut real human and speaking beings might enforce marriage outside of\nthe group, though they did not perhaps think explicitly of kindred (or,\nat least, did not think the idea fully out), still less of \u2018incest,\u2019 as\nsin. Mr. McLennan\u2019s theory, as given in his works, was partly identical\nwith that of Mr. Atkinson. \u2018The earliest human groups can have had\nno _idea_ of kinship\u2019--they must, therefore, have been rather low\nsavages. \u2018But,\u2019 he said, \u2018they were held together by a _feeling_ of\nkinship,\u2019 not yet risen into explicit consciousness. Cat and kitten\nhave, probably, _feeling_ of kinship, and that _feeling_ is very\nstrong, while it lasts, in the maternal cat, while between semi-human\nmothers and children, arriving so very slowly at maturity, mother-kin\nmust have been consciously realised very early. Mr. McLennan then\nshowed the stages by which the savage would gradually, by reflection,\nreach explicit consciousness of female kinship, of mother-relationship,\nsister and brother relationship, and all the degrees of _female_ kin.\n\nBut Mr. Fison and others have argued powerfully against this\ntheory.[32] Moreover, we find male relationships, as we saw--\u2018descent\ncounted in the male line\u2019--among the Arunta of Central Australia,\nwhom Mr. J. G. Frazer regarded, in 1899, as actually \u2018primitive;\u2019\nwhile the neighbours of the Arunta, the Urabunna, reckon through the\nfemale line.[33] Mr. Crawley, for various reasons, says, \u2018the famous\nMatriarchal theory\u2019 (the prepotency and dominion of women) \u2018was as\nexaggerated in its early forms as was the Patriarchal.... It is a\nmethod of tracing genealogy, more convenient in polygamous societies\nand more natural in primitive times when the close connection of\nmother and child during the early days of infancy emphasises the\nrelation.\u2019[34] Dr. Westermarck argues to a similar effect.[35] His\nmotive is to discredit the theory of promiscuity, and consequent\nuncertainty of fatherhood, as the cause of reckoning on the spindle\nside. But the Arunta, who reckon on the sword side, actually do\nnot even know that children are the result of sexual intercourse,\naccording to Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. How they can have any idea\nof blood-kinship at all is, therefore, the mystery. It may perhaps be\nargued that they have none. But these ignorant Arunta reckon descent\nthrough the male line--while the Royal Picts, in early Scotland,\ninfinitely more civilised, reckoned by the female line.\n\nFor myself, I still incline to the opinion[36] that the reckoning of\ndescent through the woman is the more archaic method, and the method\nthat, certainly, tends to dwindle and disappear, as at last it did\namong the Picts. This applies to human society, not to that of Mr.\nAtkinson\u2019s hypothesis, in which the question is not of kin, but of\nproperty. \u2018Every female in my crowd is my sole property,\u2019 says--or\nfeels--Mr. Atkinson\u2019s patriarchal anthropoid, and the patriarch gives\nexpression to his sentiment with teeth and claws, if he has not yet\nlearned to double up his fist, with a stone in it. \u2018These were early\ndays.\u2019\n\nTHEORIES OF EXOGAMY. MR. MCLENNAN\u2019S THEORY\n\nIn any case, Mr. McLennan\u2019s hypothetical first groups, like Mr.\nAtkinson\u2019s, were very low indeed. They developed exogamy, not (as\nin Mr. Atkinson\u2019s theory) through sexual jealousy on the part of\nthe sires, but, first, through regular female infanticide. This\npractice, being reasonable, could not prevail among Mr. Atkinson\u2019s\nanthropoids.[37] Girl babies being mostly killed out, women became\nscarce. Neighbouring groups being hostile, brides could only be\nprocured by hostile capture. Each group thus stole all its brides and\nbecame exogamous, and marriage inside the group became a sin, by dint\nof \u2018a prejudice strong as a principle of religion.\u2019\n\nThis theory of Mr. McLennan\u2019s is, I think, quite untenable. The\nprevalence of female infanticide, at the supposed very early stage of\nsociety, is not demonstrated, and did not seem probable to Mr. Darwin.\nEven if it existed, it could not create a prejudice against marrying\nthe few women left within the group. Mr. McLennan, unhappily, was\nprevented by bad health, and death, from working out his hypothesis\ncompletely. His most recent statement involves the theory that the\nmethod of the Nairs of Malabar, living in polyandrous households (many\nmen to each woman) was the earliest form of \u2018marriage.\u2019 But people who,\nlike the Nairs, dwell in large households, are far indeed from being\n\u2018primitive.\u2019 \u2018A want of balance between the sexes\u2019 led, Mr. McLennan\nheld, to \u2018a practice of capturing women for wives,\u2019 and was followed\nby \u2018the rise of the law of exogamy.\u2019 The first prohibition would be\nagainst capturing women of the kindred (marked by the totem), for such\ncapture, if resisted, might involve the shedding of kindred blood.\nWomen being scarce, through female infanticide, kindred groups would\nnot give up or sell their women to each other (though to the males of\nthe groups, such women could not be wives), nor could women be raided\nfrom kindred groups, as we saw. So they would be stolen from alien\ngroups, \u2018and so marriages with kindred women would tend to go into\ndesuetude.\u2019 The introduction of captured alien wives would change the\nnature of matrimonial relations. Under the Nair system \u2018a woman would\nlive in the house of her mother, and under the special guardianship and\nprotection of her brothers and her mother\u2019s brothers. She would be in a\nposition of almost absolute independence of her husbands....\u2019\n\nBut really pristine man and woman can have had no houses, no\nmatriarchal rule of women. The Nairs, not being primitive, have\nhouses, and their women have authority: pristine man was not in their\ncondition. However, captured alien wives would, Mr. McLennan argues, be\nproperty, be slaves; and men would find this arrangement (now obsolete)\nso charming that polyandry and the reign of woman would go out. The\nonly real legal marriage would be wedlock with an alien, a captive,\na slave woman. Marriage with a woman of the same stock would be a\ncrime and a sin. It would be incest.[38] Really it would be, at worst,\nconcubinage.\n\nThis theory seems untenable at every point, community of wives, female\ninfanticide, household life, supremacy of women in the household,\nliving with a non-captive wife reckoning as incest, and, in short, all\nalong the line. Even if the prejudice against marrying native women\ndid exist, it could not be developed into the idea of sin--granting\nthat the idea of sin already existed. To be sinful, endogamy within the\ngroup must have offended some superstitious belief, perhaps the belief\nin the totem, with its tabu.[39]\n\nMR. CRAWLEY\u2019S THEORY\n\nTo disengage from his learned book, _The Mystic Rose_ (1902), Mr.\nCrawley\u2019s theory of the origin of exogamy is no easy task. He strongly\ninsists on the \u2018religious\u2019 element in all early human thought, and\nas in \u2018religion\u2019 he includes the vague fears, misgivings, and ideas\nof \u2018luck,\u2019 which haunt even the least religious of modern men, we\nmay say that \u2018religion,\u2019 in this sense, mingles with the thought of\nall ages. The present writer, like Dr. Johnson, is an example of\nthe \u2018religious\u2019 character, and of Mr. Crawley\u2019s remark that \u2018human\nnature remains potentially primitive.\u2019 To the \u2018religious\u2019 man or\nwoman (using \u2018religious\u2019 in this sense) the universe is indeed a\nthing of delicate poise, and may \u2018break, and bring down death,\u2019 if\nwe walk under a ladder, or spill the salt, or enter a doorway with\nthe wrong foot foremost, or fail to salute a magpie, or the new moon.\nThe superstitious anthropologist, of course, knows that all these\napprehensions of his are utterly absurd, but the savage is careful\nand troubled about them. The Philistine, on the other hand, is proud\nof his conquest of these airy terrors: he \u2018cannot imagine what people\nmean by such nonsense,\u2019 and, exactly so far as he is sincere, he cannot\ncomprehend early mankind.\n\nNow, as to exogamy, our difficulty is to understand why breach of\nthe rule against certain marriages is, everywhere, so deadly a sin:\nso black an offence against \u2018religion.\u2019 Mr. Crawley\u2019s explanation\nis not, perhaps, easily to be disengaged from the mass of his work,\nbut it begins in his appreciation of the \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 of early men,\ntheir ever-present sense of \u2018religious\u2019 terrors. \u2018Thus all persons\nare potentially dangerous to others, as well as potentially in\ndanger....\u2019[40] This sense of peril arises \u2018in virtue simply of the\ndistinction between a man and his fellows.\u2019 Much more, then, are women\ndangerous to men, and men to women, the sexes being so distinct from\neach other. We know that the most extraordinary precautions are taken\nto avoid contact with women in certain circumstances, and a well-known\nstory of Sir John Mandeville\u2019s is only one case of the fact that the\nbridegrooms of some races, from a superstitious terror, insist on being\nmade _cocus en herbe_. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen give the instance\nof \u2018the marriage ceremony\u2019 (an odious brutality) among the Arunta of\nCentral Australia.[41] It is perhaps intended to deliver the bridegroom\nfrom a peril imagined by superstition (as in Mandeville\u2019s tale);[42]\nand, without it, the Australian would resemble the man derided in the\nold Scottish song:\n\nThe Bridegroom grat when the sun gaed doon.\n\nThus a \u2018religious\u2019 dread attaches among savages (the theory holds) to\nall marriages; all are novelties, new steps in life, and therefore\nare so far \u2018sinful\u2019 that they involve a peril, vague but awful, the\ncreation of superstition. Marriages contrary to the exogamous rule,\nare only especially and inexplicably bad cases of the \u2018sin\u2019--that is,\nmystic danger--of marital relations in general, as I understand Mr.\nCrawley. Marriage ceremonies of every kind are devised to avoid \u2018sin,\u2019\nas our Marriage Service candidly states, using \u2018sin\u2019 in the Christian\nsense of the word. But there are savage marriages, those forbidden\nby the law of exogamy, which, as a general rule, no ceremony can\nrender other than sinful. So great and terrible is the danger of such\nmarriages--namely, among many savages, between persons of the same\ntotem, that it threatens the whole community, just as the marriage\nof Charles I. with a Catholic bride caused the Plague, according to\nthe Rev. Mr. Row, and therefore such unions are punished by the death\npenalty, and are but seldom left to the automatic vengeance of the\ntabu. Foremost in this black list of sins are the unions of brothers\nand sisters of the full blood, though, we must remember, these are not\nmore heavily punished than marriage between a man and woman of the\nsame totem, even if the pair come together from opposite ends of the\ncontinent, and are not blood relations at all. Why is this?\n\nAs I understand Mr. Crawley, the sexes, in savagery, avoid each other\u2019s\nsociety in everyday life, partly from \u2018sexual tabu\u2019--the result of the\nsuperstitions already indicated; partly because of \u2018sexual solidarity,\u2019\nperhaps even of \u2018sexual antipathy.\u2019 In fact, men and women are often\nvery much in each other\u2019s way. We do not want women in our clubs and\nsmoking-rooms--nor do savages--and we despise a man who lurks in\ndrawing-rooms when his fellows are out of doors; a man who is a pillar\nof luncheon parties and of afternoon tea. But this separation of the\nsexes is especially rigid between the children of the same hearth, even\namong nomads. The boys go with the father, the girls with the mother.\nThe manlike apes have the same ideas. \u2018Diard was told by the Malays,\nand he found it afterwards to be true, that the young Siamangs, when\nin their helpless state, are carried about by their parents, the males\nby the father, the females by the mother.\u2019 \u2018The nests ... are only\noccupied by the female and young, the male passing the night in a fork\nof the same tree or another tree in the vicinity.\u2019[43]\n\nThese facts of ape etiquette would, to use an Elizabethan phrase, have\nbeen \u2018nuts\u2019 to Mr. Atkinson, and prove that sexual separation of the\nchildren is a very early institution. In Australia, New Caledonia,\nand other countries, brothers and sisters must not even speak to each\nother, and must avoid each other utterly. Thus the danger and \u2018sin\u2019\nof the most innocent intercourse between brothers and sisters is\nemphasised; much more awful, then, are matrimonial unions of brother\nand sister. \u2018The extension\u2019 (of this idea) \u2018by the use of relationships\nproduces the various forms of exogamy,\u2019 says Mr. Crawley.[44] There are\ndifficulties here; for example, Mr. Crawley tells us that incest did\nnot \u2018need prevention,\u2019 though the rules of brother-and-sister avoidance\nseem really to mean that it did, or was thought to do so (but perhaps\nonly superstitious dread of ordinary intercourse caused the rule?), and\nthough we know of regions where such incest, in early youth, is said\nto be universal.[45] \u2018Such incest,\u2019 says Mr. Crawley, \u2018is prevented by\nthe psychological difficulty with which love comes into play between\npersons either closely associated, or strictly separated before the\nage of puberty....\u2019[46] Now we know that lust does come into play--for\nexample, among the Annamese--between brothers and sisters not closely\nseparated; and we also know that, the more persons are \u2018strictly\nseparated,\u2019 the more does the novelty and romance, when they do meet,\nproduce natural attraction, as between Romeo and Juliet. Incest among\nthe young is really prevented by the religious horror with which, by\nmost peoples, it is regarded; as well as, among the civilised, by the\nconstant and sacred familiarity of family life. The bare idea of it\ncan only occur, as a desirable notion, to a boyish revolutionary, like\nShelley, or to minds congenitally depraved.\n\nAgain, men and women of the same totem have no \u2018avoidances\u2019 forced\nupon them, as far as I know (and, as they may not marry, this is an\noversight); yet their marriages are as terribly sinful as marriages\nbetween brother and sister of the full blood. Mr. Crawley writes,\n\u2018Obviously the one invariable antecedent in all exogamous systems,\nindeed in all marriage systems, is the prohibition of marriage \u201cwithin\nthe house.\u201d\u2019 But, we reply, A (a male) and B (a female), of the same\ntotem, may never have been in the same house, or in the same degree\nof latitude and longitude, before they met and fell in love. As to\n\u2018house,\u2019 houses they may have none. Yet their union is a deadly sin.\nMr. Robertson Smith is said to have \u2018set the question in the right\ndirection,\u2019 when he wrote, \u2018whatever is the origin of bars to marriage,\nthey certainly are early associated with the feeling that it is\nindecent for house-mates to intermarry.\u2019[47]\n\nBut what is early need not be primary.\n\nAgain, if Mr. Crawley reads on, he will find, I think, that the context\nof Mr. Robertson Smith\u2019s argument shows him not to have held that\nexogamy arose in \u2018the feeling that it is indecent for \u201chouse-mates\u201d\u2019\n(or tent-mates) \u2018to marry.\u2019 For Mr. Robertson Smith adds, \u2018it will not\ndo to turn this argument round, and say that the pre-Islamic law of\nbars to marriage may have arisen ... in virtue of a custom that every\nwife and her children shall have their own tent.[50] In any case, we\ncannot speak of \u2018house-mates\u2019 before there were houses. But if for\n\u2018house-mates\u2019 we read \u2018hearth-mates,\u2019 then no sense of \u2018indecency,\u2019\nas on Mr. Crawley\u2019s theory, need necessarily attend their marriage,\nfor hearth-mates may be of different totems, derived from different\nmothers, and may be marriageable enough, at least as far as totem\nlaw is concerned. A, male, an Emu, marries B, a Bandicoot, and C, a\nGrub. His children by B have the Bandicoot totem, his children by C\nhave the Grub totem. As far as totem law goes, these children may\nintermarry, but this is not allowed in practice to-day. Mr. Mathews\nsays, of the Kamilaroi, \u2018in order to prevent such a close marriage\u2019\n(of brother and sister on the father\u2019s side), \u2018every tribe has strict\nsocial customs, founded upon public opinion, which will not tolerate\nthe union of a man with a woman whose blood relationship is considered\ntoo near.\u2019[48] Australian ethics, long trained under the old totem\nand phratry prohibitions, are now sufficiently enlightened to reject\nunions which we also forbid. But it cannot have been so in the\nbeginning, or the totem and phratry tabus on marriage would have had\nno occasion to exist. It would have sufficed to say, \u2018Thou shalt not\nmarry thy sister, or mother,\u2019 and the totemic rule would have been a\ncumbrous superfluity. Superfluous it would have been, even under the\nhypothetical \u2018group marriage system,\u2019 where the law would have run\n\u2018Thou shalt not marry thy group-sister or group-mother.\u2019\n\nWhile Mr. Matthews gives a kind of bye-law, forbidding marriage, under\nfemale descent, with the paternal half-sister, Mr. Fison avers that the\nKamilaroi do allow such unions. \u2018It is marriage within a phratria,\u2019 but\nnot within a totem.[49] The fact was denied, or at least questioned,\nby many correspondents, but Mr. Fison believed it to be authentic.\n\u2018The natives justified it on the ground that the parties were not of\nthe same _mudji_\u2019 (totem). Apparently these natives, who let a man\nmarry his father\u2019s daughter, had not arrived at an objection to unions\nof \u2018too near flesh.\u2019 But mere decadence, under European whisky, may\nbe the explanation. Mr. Matthews denies, as we saw, what Mr. Fison\nasserts, as to the Kamilaroi. Mr. Crawley writes, \u2018if we apply to the\nword \u201cindecent\u201d the connotation of sexual tabu ... and if we understand\nby \u201chouse-mates\u201d those upon whom sexual tabu concentrates, we have\nexplained exogamy.\u2019[50]\n\nScarcely, for sexual tabu against marriage, in fact, now, at least,\nconcentrates on people of near kin, and on totem-mates, man and woman\nof the same totem, and they may be \u2018house-mates,\u2019 or \u2018hearth-mates,\u2019\nor they may not (in polygamous society), and the hearth-mates (as\nfar as the totem rule goes, but not now in practice) may thus be\nintermarriageable, as not of the same totem, while totem-mates, from\nopposite ends of a continent, are not intermarriageable (except in the\npeculiar case of the Arunta and cognate tribes).\n\nBut Mr. Crawley may reply that each totem, originally, did really\npertain to all members of each small local group, and that the totem\nprohibition was extended, later, to all groups of the same totem name,\nhowever distant in space. Thus according to the Euahlayi blacks there\nwere originally no totem names, but the divine Baiame gave them to\nmortals with the rule that no pair of the same totem name were to\nmarry, \u2018however far apart their hunting grounds.\u2019 Thus considered,\nthe tabu which forbids an Emu man to marry an Emu woman, would mean\nno more, originally, than that marriage between persons living in the\nclose contiguity of the same local group (in this case the Emu group)\nwas forbidden. There might be no original intention of prohibiting\nmarriage with a person of an Emu group, dwelling a thousand miles\naway; probably no such group was known to exist. The original meaning\nof exogamous law, I repeat, would be merely \u2018you must not marry\na hearth-mate,\u2019--or a \u2018house-mate,\u2019 in Mr. Crawley\u2019s phrase--the\nhearth-mates, in this particular instance, being delimited by the\nname \u2018Emu.\u2019 So far my conjecture agrees with that of Mr. Crawley. The\nextension of the prohibition to persons of the same totem-name, however\nremote their homes and alien their blood, I am content to regard as a\nlater kind of accidental corollary. There came to be totem kins of the\nsame name, far remote, and thus, as it were casually, the law acquired\nan unpremeditated sweep and scope, including persons not really of the\nsame group or blood, only of the same name.\n\nBut why was there originally any objection at all to marrying the most\naccessible bride, the female hearth-mate? Here, as I have tried to\nshow, Mr. Crawley would explain by his idea of sexual tabu. All men are\nregarded with superstitious dread by all women, and _vice versa_; above\nall, as a daily danger, the men, or women living in close contiguity\nmust avoid each other. To keep them apart all sorts of tabus and\navoidances are invented, including the tabu on their marriage.\n\nThis is a plausible and taking theory, and I am far from arguing that\nit cannot be a true theory. But the insuperable difficulty of deciding\narises from the circumstance that we know nothing at all about the\nintellectual condition of the more or less human beings among whom\nthe prohibition of marriage within the group first arose. Were they\nadvanced enough to be capable of such a superstitious dread of each\nother as the supposed cause of the prohibition takes for granted? Males\nand females, among the lower animals, have no such superstition. It\nrequires human imagination. On the other hand, animal jealousy was well\nwithin their reach, and Mr. Atkinson derives the original prohibition\nof marriage within the group from the sheer sexual jealousy of the\nanimal-patriarch. In his opinion the consequent aversion to such\nwedlock crystallised into a habit, as the race advanced towards full\nhumanity.\n\nEven before his anthropoid clients were completely human, the group\nwould be replete with children of females not of the full group blood,\ncaptives, and therefore these children (if blood kin through females\nwere regarded) would be eligible as wives. But this would not yet, of\ncourse, be understood. Perhaps it would not be fully understood till\nthe totem name was given to, and accepted by, each group, and so there\nwas a definite mark set on each woman brought in from without the\ngroup, and on her children, who bore her totem name. After that, each\ntotem group obviously contained members of other totems, and those,\nbeing now recognised by their mother\u2019s totem names, were technically\nintermarriageable. What had been a group not explicitly conscious of\nits own heterogeneous elements, became, in fact, an assemblage of\n_recognised_ heterogeneousness, capable of finding legal brides within\nitself, and no longer under the necessity (had it understood) of\ncapturing brides from without in hostile fashion. Such an assemblage\nwould, or might, come to consist of families, dwelling, or rather\nwandering, within a given region, all on terms of friendship and mutual\naid. I take it that, by this time, improved weapons and instruments,\nand improved skill, enabled groups larger than the small original\ngroups to live in a given area. In fact, the group would, or might,\nbe a small local \u2018tribe,\u2019 but, probably, was unconscious of the\ncircumstance. If conscious, one cause of hostility among the groups\nwas at an end, there was no necessity for stealing women, a system of\npeaceful betrothals within the group might now arise, though certain\nfacts, to be dealt with later, raise a presumption, perhaps, that this\nrelatively peaceful state of life did not appear until two of the\noriginal local totem groups coalesced in _connubium_, intermarrying\nwith each other, in fact becoming \u2018phratries.\u2019\n\nTo produce the new condition of affairs, two factors were necessary:\nfirst, a means of distinguishing the captured women within every group\nfrom each other, and from the group into which they were brought by\ncapture. This means of distinction was afforded by the totem names.\nNext, a recognition of kinship was needed, and this was supplied, let\nus conjecture, by naming the children of each of the captive women\nafter the totem name of the group from which she was captured. If all\nthe children indiscriminately were called by the totem name (say Emu)\nof the local group into which their mothers had been brought--that is,\nby the totem name of their fathers--there would be no recognisable\nheterogeneity within that group, and so there would be, within the\nlocal group, no possible wives, under the exogamous rule. Whether\npolyandry then existed, or not, still all the fathers were of one\nlocal totem name, say Emu, and children could only be differentiated\nby styling them after the totem names of their alien mothers. This\nis usually done among the savages who are least advanced, but not\namong the Arunta, whose totem names, as we shall see, by a curious\ndivergence, do not indicate stock, but are derived from a singular\nsuperstition about ancestral spirits, of various totems, incarnating\nthemselves in each new-born child.\n\nMr. McLennan, in _Primitive Marriage_ (1865), had arrived at\nconclusions very like these. The primitive groups \u2018were assumed to\nbe homogeneous.... While as yet there was no system of kinship, the\npresence of captive women in a horde\u2019 (group), \u2018in whatever numbers,\ncould not introduce a system of betrothals\u2019--the women and their\nchildren not yet being differentiated from each other, and from the\ngroup in which they lived. Mr. McLennan, in 1865, did not ask how\nthese women ever came to be distinctly differentiated, each from\neach, and from the group which held them, though that differentiation\nwas a necessary prelude to the recognition of kindred through these\nwomen. But presently, in his _Studies of Totemism_ (1869), he found,\nwhether he observed the fact or not, the means of differentiation.\nDifferentiation became possible after, and not before, each primitive\ngroup received a totem name, retained by its captive women within each\ngroup to which they were carried, a name to be inherited by their\nchildren in each case.\n\nHe says, \u2018heterogeneity as a statical force can only have come into\nplay when a system of kinship led the hordes to look on the children of\ntheir foreign women as belonging to the stocks of their mothers.\u2019 That\nwas impossible, before the totem or some equivalent system of naming\nforeign groups arose, a circumstance not easily observed till Mr.\nMcLennan himself opened the way to the study of Totemism.[51]\n\nIt thus appears that Mr. Crawley\u2019s theory of exogamy and mine are\npractically identical in essence (if I rightly interpret him). The\noriginal objection was to the intermarriage of the young of the\ngroup of contiguity, the hearth-mates. If there was but one male of\nthe elder generation in the group of contiguity, these young people\nwould be brothers and sisters. If there were two or more males of\nthe elder generation, brothers, the group would include cousins, who\n(even before the totem name was accepted by the group) would also be\nforbidden to intermarry. When the totem name was accepted, cousins,\nchildren of brother and sister, and even brothers and sisters, children\nof one father, by. wives of different totems, would be, technically,\nintermarriageable: though their marriages may, in practice, have been\nforbidden because they were still of the group of contiguity, and as\nsuch bore its _local_ totem name, say, Emu, while, by the mother\u2019s\ntotem name, they may have been Bats, or Cats, or anything. Where I must\ndiffer from Mr. Crawley is in doubting whether at this hypothetical\nearly stage, the superstitions which produce \u2018sexual tabu\u2019 had arisen.\nWe cannot tell; but certainly, as soon as the totem name had given rise\nto the myth that the totem, in human beings as in animals and plants,\nwas inviolable--the beast or plant of the totem blood not to be killed\nor eaten,[52] the woman of the totem name not to be touched--so soon\nwould endogamy, marriage within the totem, be a sin, incest. This it\nwould be; the totem tabu once established, whether sexual tabu, or\nsexual jealousy, or both, caused the first prohibition, not to marry\ngroup, mates. Here we may briefly advert to Dr. Westermarck\u2019s theory of\nexogamy, though it interrupts the harmonious issue of our speculations.\n\nDR. WESTERMARCK\u2019S THEORY\n\nAs to exogamy, Dr. Westermarck explains it by \u2018an instinct\u2019 against\nmarriage of near kin. Our ancestors who married near kin would die out,\nhe thinks, and they who avoided such unions would survive, \u2018and thus\nan instinct would be developed,\u2019[53] by \u2018Natural Selection.\u2019 But why\ndid any of our ancestors avoid such marriages at all? From \u2018an aversion\nto those with whom they lived.\u2019 And why had they this aversion?\nBecause they had an instinct against such unions. Then why had they\nan instinct? We are engaged in a vicious circle. \u2018Lastly it is not\nscientific to use the term instinct of this kind of thing.\u2019[54]\n\nMR. MORGAN\u2019S THEORY\n\nAs to Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory, in his _Ancient Society_ (1877), of a\nmovement of sanitary and moral reform, which led to prohibition of\n\u2018consanguine marriages\u2019 I shall return to it in a later part of this\nessay (\u2018Other Bars to Marriage\u2019). Here it will be found that Mr. Morgan\nis the source of certain other theories which we are to discuss, a fact\ninvolving a certain amount of repetition of arguments already advanced.\n\nRETURN TO THE AUTHOR\u2019S THEORY\n\nWe conclude, provisionally, that exogamy, for various reasons of\nsexual jealousy, and perhaps of sexual superstition, and of sexual\nindifference to persons familiar from infancy, may, at least, have\ntended to arise while each little human group was anonymous; before the\nacceptance of totem names by local groups. But this exogamous tendency,\nif it existed, must have been immensely reinforced and sweepingly\ndefined when the hitherto anonymous groups, coming to be known by\ntotem names, evolved the totem superstitions and tabus. Under these, I\nsuggest, exogamy became fully developed. Marriage was forbidden, amours\nwere forbidden (there are exceptional cases), within the totem name.\nThis law barred, of course, marital relations between son and mother,\nbetween brother and sister, but, just as it stood, permitted incest\nbetween father and daughter, so long as the totem name was inherited\nfrom the mother. But that form of incest, in turn, came to be barred\nby another set of savage rules, which, whatever their origin, prohibit\nmarriage _within the generation_. That set of rules, noted specially\nin Australia and North America, is part of what is usually styled \u2018The\nClass System.\u2019\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Dr. Munro, _Arch\u00e6ological Journal_, vol. lix. no. 234, pp.\n109-143: (_Tire \u00e0 part_, p. 1.) See also later, _Hypothetical Early\nGroups_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: To this point, hostility, I return later.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Dr. Munro, _Arch\u00e6ological Journal_, vol. lix. no. 234.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Munro, _Arch\u00e6ological Journal_, vol. lix. no. 234, p. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Ibid._ p. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Ibid._ p. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Ibid._ p. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Ibid._ p. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 9: L\u2019Anthropologie, Mars-Avril, 1902. For a brief\nbibliography of the bull-roarer see Mr. Frazer, _The Golden Bough_,\niii. pp. 423-4, note 1.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _Journal and Proceedings Royal Society N.S.W._, vol.\nxxviii. p. 305. See also Roth, _Ethnological Studies_, pp. 132-138.\n1897.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Ancient Law p. 132.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Major Kennedy\u2019s portrait of 1750-1760 represents him in\nMacdonnell tartan. He was an agent of Prince Charles.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Early History of Institutions_, pp. 310, 311.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, pp. 53-57.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Mr. John Mathew declares that \u2018jealousy is a powerful\npassion with most aboriginal husbands\u2019 in Australia. Messrs. Spencer\nand Gillen, on the other hand, represent the aboriginal husband as\none of the most complacent of his species, jealousy being regarded\nas \u2018churlish.\u2019 Messrs. Spencer and Gillen are decidedly the better\nauthorities. Mathew, _Jour. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._, xxiii. 404. Westermarck,\np. 57. _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 99.]\n\n[Footnote 16: _Studies in Ancient History_, 1876, p. 41.]\n\n[Footnote 17: The late Major Powell, of the American Bureau of\nEthnology, used _gens_ of a totem kin with descent in the male line,\n_clan_ of such a kin with descent in the female line, and his school\nfollows him. Mr. Howitt, on the other hand, uses \u2018horde\u2019 for a local\ncommunity with female, \u2018clan\u2019 for a local community with male descent.]\n\n[Footnote 18: \u2018The Seri Indians,\u2019 by W. J. McGee. _Report of Bureau of\nAmerican Ethnology_, Washington, 1898.]\n\n[Footnote 19: \u2018Siouan Sociology,\u2019 _Report of American Ethnological\nBureau_, 1897, p. 213.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Studies in Ancient History_, second series, p. 265.]\n\n[Footnote 21: _Studies in Ancient History_, second series, p. 46. In an\nappendix to Mr. _Morgan\u2019s Ancient Society_, Mr. McLennan\u2019s terms are\nseverely criticised.]\n\n[Footnote 22: I shall call each set indicated by a totem name a \u2018totem\ngroup,\u2019 if the members live together; a \u2018totem kin,\u2019 if they are\nscattered through the tribe.]\n\n[Footnote 23: _The Patriarchal Theory_, pp. 6, 7, 1885.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Meaning by Exogamy, not a mere tendency to marry out of\nthe group, but a customary law with a religious sanction.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Here the unusual case of the Arunta offers an exception\nto the rule; a point to be discussed later.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 8-10.]\n\n[Footnote 27: _Ibid_. pp. 8-9.]\n\n[Footnote 28: \u2018Remarks on Totemism,\u2019 _Jour. Anthrop. Inst._, August,\nNovember, 1898.]\n\n[Footnote 29: _Kinship in Early Arabia_, p. 187.]\n\n[Footnote 30: But, as Dr. Durkheim says, man and wife might soon\nabandon each other, if familiarity breeds contempt.]\n\n[Footnote 31: _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, May, 1895, p.\n444.]\n\n[Footnote 32: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 132. 1880.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Spencer and Gillen, p. 70. Frazer, _Fortnightly Review_,\nApril, May, 1899.]\n\n[Footnote 34: _The Mystic Rose_, p. 460.]\n\n[Footnote 35: _History of Human Marriage_, pp. 105-113.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Tylor, _J. A. I._ xviii. 3, 254.]\n\n[Footnote 37: The practice however, is attributed to tame canary birds.]\n\n[Footnote 38: _Studies in Ancient History_, second series, pp. 57-65.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Cf. _Custom and Myth_ (A. L.), p. 258.]\n\n[Footnote 40: _Mystic Rose_, p. 31.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 92-93.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Lord Avebury\u2019s view that the \u2018rite\u2019 implies compensation\nto the other males of the community will be considered later.]\n\n[Footnote 43: Westermarck, p. 13. Citing Brehm, \u2018Thierleben,\u2019 i. 97,\n_Proceedings R.G.S._ xvi. 177.]\n\n[Footnote 44: _Mystic Rose_, p. 443.]\n\n[Footnote 45: Westermarck, p. 292.]\n\n[Footnote 46: _Mystic Rose_, p. 222.]\n\n[Footnote 47: _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, p. 170.]\n\n[Footnote 48: _Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxi. 166.]\n\n[Footnote 49: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, pp. 42,46, 47, 115.]\n\n[Footnote 50: _Mystic Rose_, p. 443.]\n\n[Footnote 51: See _Studies in Ancient History_, pp. 183-186.]\n\n[Footnote 52: This is the view of Dr. Durkheim, who explains the blood\nsuperstition. Cf. Reinach, _L\u2019Anthropologie_, x. 652.]\n\n[Footnote 53: _History of Human Marriage_, p. 352.]\n\n[Footnote 54: Compare Mr. Crawley, _Mystic Rose_, pp. 444-446.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE CLASS SYSTEM\n\n\nUnder this name appear to be blended, (1) the prohibition to marry\nwithin a division, which, in its simplest form, is said to cut the\ntribe into two \u2018classes\u2019 or \u2018phratries,\u2019 or \u2018groups;\u2019[1] (2) the\nprohibition to marry within the totem name; (3) the prohibition to\nmarry within the generation, and within certain recognised degrees\n(\u2018classes,\u2019 \u2018sections\u2019) of real or inferred kinship--\u2018too near flesh,\u2019\ntoo close consanguinity, which, in their present condition, many\nAustralian tribes undoubtedly regard as a bar to matrimony. But it does\nnot follow that they _originally_ held this opinion.\n\nWe shall first examine what authorities who differ from me, call the\ngreat \u2018bisection\u2019 of the tribe, into, say, Matthurie and Kirarawa,\nmembers of which must intermarry, the totem prohibition also remaining\nin force. It will here be suggested, in accordance with what has\nalready been said, but contrary to general opinion, that the totemic\nprohibition is earlier than the prohibition of marriage between persons\nof the same segment of the \u2018bisection.\u2019 The opinions of most students\nappear, at present, to be divided thus. We hear that:\n\n1. The exogamous division into two moieties, or \u2018phratries,\u2019 is\n_earlier_ than the division of each into numerous totem kins. The totem\nkins are regarded as later \u2018subdivisions\u2019 of, or additions to, the two\n\u2018original\u2019 moieties.\n\n2. Totem groups are earlier than the \u2018bisection\u2019 (though somehow,\naccording to the same authors, the two moieties of the bisection bore\ntotem names), but, before the \u2018bisection,\u2019 these _totem groups were\nnot exogamous_. They only became exogamous when six of them, say, were\narranged in one of the two moieties (phratries), now forbidden to\nmarry, and another six in the other.\n\nI venture to prefer, as already indicated, the system (3) that totem\ngroups not only existed, but were already exogamous, before the great\n\u2018bisection\u2019 producing the \u2018phratries\u2019 came into existence, though I\nargue that \u2018bisection\u2019 is a misleading term, and that the apparent\ndivision was really the result of an amalgamation of two separate and\nindependent local totem groups.\n\nThis theory (presently to be more fully set forth) is original on my\npart, at least as far as my supraliminal consciousness is concerned. I\nmean that I conceived myself to have hit on the idea in July 1902. But\nsomething very like my notion (I later discovered) had been printed by\nDr. Durkheim, and something not unlike it was propounded by Herr Cunow\n(1894). Mr. Daniel McLennan had also suggested it: and I find that the\nRev. John Mathew had stated a form of it in his _Eagle-Hawk and Crow_\n(1899), (pp. 1922, 93-112). Mr. Mathew\u2019s hypothesis, however, involves\na theory of contending and alien races in Australia. This theory does\nnot seem well based, but, however that may be, I recognise that Mr.\nMathew\u2019s hypothesis of the origin of exogamy (p. 98), and of the origin\nof the \u2018phratries\u2019 or \u2018primary classes,\u2019 in many respects anticipates\nmy own. He opposes Mr. Howitt\u2019s conclusions, and I may be allowed to\nsay that I would prefer Mr. Howitt, owing to his unrivalled knowledge,\nas an ally. On the other hand, the undesigned coincidence of Dr.\nDurkheim\u2019s, Mr. Daniel McLennan\u2019s, Mr. Mathew\u2019s, and Herr Cunow\u2019s ideas\nwith my own, raises a presumption that mine may not be untenable.\n\n\nTHE CLASS SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA\n\nThough the existence of what are called exogamous \u2018phratries\u2019 (two\nto each tribe) was made known, as regards the North American tribes,\nby Mr. Lewis Morgan (to whose work we return) in the middle of the\nnineteenth century, almost our earliest hint of its existence in\nAustralia came from the Rev. W. Ridley, a learned missionary, in\n1853-55. In Mr. McLennan\u2019s _Studies in Ancient History_[2] will be\nfound an account of Mr. Ridley\u2019s facts, as they gradually swelled\nin volume, altered in character, and were added to, and critically\nconstructed, by the Rev. Mr. Fison, and Mr. A. W. Howitt. These\ngentlemen were regarded by Mr. McLennan as the allies of Mr. Morgan,\nin a controversy then being waged with some acerbity. He, therefore,\ncriticised the evidence from Australia rather keenly. It is probable\nthat Mr. Morgan and Mr. McLennan both had some right on their\nparts--seeing each a different side of the shield--though a few points\nin the discussion are still undecided. But it seems certain that the\ncontinued researches of Messrs. Fison and Howitt, reinforced by the\nstudies of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen in Central Australia, have\ninvalidated some of Mr. McLennan\u2019s opinions as to matters of fact.\n\nMuch trouble and confusion will be saved if we remember that, as has\nbeen said, under the \u2018classificatory system,\u2019 three sets of rules\napplying to marriage exist. The totem rule exists, rules as to marriage\nin relation to generations and so-called degrees of kindred (real or\n\u2018tribal\u2019) exist (\u2018classes\u2019), and, thirdly, there are the rules relative\nto \u2018phratries,\u2019 the phratries, being, I think, in origin themselves\ntotemic. We shall mainly consider here the so-called \u2018bisection\u2019\nof a tribe into two exogamous and intermarrying \u2018phratries,\u2019 while\nremembering Herr Cunow\u2019s opinion that a \u2018class\u2019 is one thing, a\n\u2018phratry\u2019 quite another.[3]\n\n\nTHE VARIETIES OF MARRIAGE DIVISIONS IN AUSTRALIA\n\nPerhaps the most recent, lucid, and well-informed writer on the various\ndivisions which regulate the marriages of the Australian tribes is Mr.\nR. H. Mathews.[4] In some regions, the system of two intermarrying\nphratries exists, without further subdivision (except in regard to\ntotem kins). Sometimes each phratry is divided into two \u2018sections\u2019\n(or \u2018classes\u2019), making four for the tribe. Again, each phratry may\nhave four \u2018subsections\u2019 or \u2018classes,\u2019 making eight for the tribe. Each\nphratry, like each \u2018class,\u2019 \u2018has an independent name by which its\nmembers are easily recognised.\u2019\n\nObviously we need, of all tilings, to know the actual meanings of these\nnames, but we do not usually know them. As we shall see, where a tribe\nhas two \u2018phratries\u2019 and no subordinate \u2018classes,\u2019 the names of these\n\u2018phratries,\u2019 when they can be translated, are usually names of animals.\nIn a few cases, as will later appear, when there are \u2018classes\u2019 under\nand in the \u2018phratries\u2019 their names seem to indicate distinctions of\n\u2018old\u2019 and \u2018young.\u2019 But Mr. Mathews nowhere, as far as I have studied\nhim, gives the meanings of the \u2018class\u2019 names, some of which are of\nrecent adoption. Mr. Mathews usually gives only \u2018Phratry A\u2019 and\n\u2018Phratry B.\u2019 We now cite his tables of the simple \u2018phratry\u2019 system, of\nthe \u2018phratry\u2019 plus two classes system, and of the \u2018phratry\u2019 plus four\nclasses system; making four, or eight, such divisions for the tribe.\n\n\u2018In describing the social structure of a native Australian community,\nthe first matter calling for attention is the classification of the\npeople into two primary divisions, called phratries, or groups--the men\nof each phratry intermarrying with the women of the opposite one, in\naccordance with prescribed laws.\u2019\n\nMr. Mathews then mentions that some tribes have (1) this simple\ndivision only (of course, as a rule, plus totem kins). (2) Elsewhere\neach phratry is composed of two \u2018sections\u2019 (called by us \u2018classes\u2019).\n(3) Elsewhere, again, each phratry has four sections (we need not\ndiscuss here the tribes where none of these things exist).\n\nMr. Mathews now gives tables representing the working of the system in\neach of the three cases.[5]\n\n\n                      1\n              Father        Mother       Son        Daughter\nPhratry A     Kirraroo      Matturrin    Matturri   Matturrin\nPhratry B     Matturri      Kirrarooan   Kirraroo   Kirrarooan\n\n                      2\n\n              Father        Mother       Son        Daughter\n            { Murri         Buta         Ippai      Ippatha\nPhratry A   { Kubbi         Ippatha      Kumbo      Butha\nPhratry B   { Kumbo         Matha        Kubbi      Kubbithai\n            { Ippai         Kubbitha     Murri      Matha\n\n                      3\n\n              Father        Mother       Son        Daughter\n            { Choolum       Ningulum     Palyarin   Palyareenya\nPhratry A   { Cheenum       Nooralum     Bungarin   Bungareenya\n            { Jamerum       Palyareenya  Chooralum  Nooralum\n            { Yacomary      Bungareeny   Chingulum  Ningulum\n\n              Father        Mother       Son        Daughter\n            { Chingalum     Noolum       Yacomary   Yacomareenya\nPhratry B   { Chooralum     Neenum       Jamerum    Neomarum\n            { Bungarin      Yacomareenya Cheenum    Neenum\n            { Palyarin      Neomarum     Choolum    Noolum\n\n\nIt will be seen that, under the simple phratry system, children of the\nfemale Matturrin are always Matturri and Matturrin, children of the\nfemale Kirrarooan are always Kirraroo and Kirrarooan. On the phratry\n_plus_ two classes system, female Butha is mother of Ippatha and\nIppatha of Butha for ever. On the phratry _plus_ four classes system,\nfemale Ningulum has a Palyareena daughter, who has a Nooralum daughter,\nwho has a Bungareenya daughter, whose daughter reverts to the original\nNingulum class, and so on, _ad infinitum_. The women remain constant to\ntheir \u2018phratry,\u2019 and marry always the men of the opposite phratry.\n\nIt is to be observed that, by customary law, brothers and sisters\n_actual_ (and not \u2018tribal\u2019) may never intermarry.[6] In short,\nconsanguinity is now fully understood by the natives, and too close\nunions are forbidden on the ground of consanguinity. It also seems\nthat, though the blacks are all on the same level of material culture,\nyet reflection on marriage rules, and modification of these rules\nby additional restrictions and alterations, have been carried much\nfurther by some tribes than by others. I by no means deny, but rather\naffirm, that consanguinity is now understood, and that rules have\nin some tribes been consciously made, and altered, to avoid certain\nmarriages as of \u2018too near flesh.\u2019 But I do not think that, at the\nbeginning, the objection to consanguineous marriages, _as such_, can\nhave been entertained, and I am not of opinion that, for the purpose of\npreventing such marriages, in the beginning, a horde was bisected into\ntwo phratries, and each phratry split up into totem groups. Rather, I\nconceive, certain primitive conditions of life led to the evolution\nof certain rules, independent of any theory about the noxiousness or\nimmorality of marriages of near kin; and then reflection on those\nprimal rules helped to beget moral ideas, and improvements on the rules\nthemselves. In the original restrictions, morality, in our sense, was\nonly implicitly or potentially present, though now it has risen into\nexplicit consciousness. The tribes came to think certain marriages\nmorally wrong, or physically noxious, _because_ they were forbidden;\nsuch unions were not, in the first instance, forbidden because they\nwere deemed physically injurious, or morally wrong. These ideas have,\nby this time, been evolved; but it does not follow that they were\npresent at the beginning.\n\nI took the liberty of laying a brief sketch of my own theory before Mr.\nHowitt, who, after considering it, was unable to accept it. He was kind\nenough to send me a summary account of many varieties of institutions,\nwhich, as we have seen, prevail--from tribes with totems and the simple\nphratry and female descent, up to tribes which have lost their classes\nand totems, count descent in the male line, and permit marriage only\nbetween persons dwelling in certain localities, or not of \u2018too near\nflesh.\u2019 All sorts of varieties of custom, in fact, prevail. Again, the\nmost backward tribes, in Mr. Howitt\u2019s opinion, have group-marriage;[7]\nthe more advanced have individual marriage, with rare reversions on\nspecial occasions. Each advance, from mere phratry to phratry _plus_\neight \u2018classes,\u2019 reduced the number of persons who might intermarry,\nand extended the range of exogamy (except where, as among the Arunta,\nthe totem prohibition has ceased to exist). The marked tendency of the\ndeveloping rules is to prevent marriage between persons \u2018too near in\nflesh,\u2019 or \u2018of the same flesh.\u2019 Mr. Howitt argues that, if the later\nstages of prohibition are the result of deliberate intention to prevent\ntoo near marriage, we may infer that the original \u2018bisection\u2019 of the\n\u2018undivided commune\u2019 was also consciously designed to prevent unions of\npersons of too near flesh.\n\nTo this I would reply, that the circumstances were different. The\nsavages of recent centuries have been trained in the totem and phratry\nsystems, and have now, like Mr. Howitt, excogitated the theory that\nthese were originally designed for the purpose of preventing marriages\nof \u2018too near flesh,\u2019 wherefore all such marriages (even if permitted by\nthe totem law) must be morally or materially evil. This is the theory\nexpressed in the myths of the Dieri, Woeworung, and others; and it is\nthe theory of many scientific writers. In brief, it is the hypothesis\nof men already trained to think near marriages morally wrong, or\nphysically injurious. But how could this idea occur to members of \u2018an\nundivided commune,\u2019 who had never known anything better?\n\nThat is the difficulty; and we get rid of it by disbelieving in a\nprimeval undivided commune; and by supposing a long past of forbidden\nunions, the prohibition then resting on no moral ideas, but on the\ninterest of the strongest, the jealousy of the adult sire. These\nprohibitions later evolved into conscious morality; and were at last\nsusceptible of improvement by deliberate design. I shall now examine\nmore in detail the ideas which do not win my assent.\n\n\nMR. FISON ON THE GREAT BISECTION\n\nIn 1880, in _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_,[8] Mr. Fison, a learned missionary\nand anthropologist, gave his account of the organisation of certain\nAustralian tribes. He speaks of (1) The division of a tribe, or\ncommunity, into two exogamous intermarrying classes.[9] (2) \u2018The\nsubdivision\u2019 (mark the phrase) \u2018of these classes into four.\u2019 (3)\n\u2018Their subdivision into _gentes_, distinguished by totems, which are\ngenerally, though not invariably, the names of animals.\u2019\n\nNow totems we know, and we have cited Mr. Mathews for the other\ndivisions. Take (1) \u2018the two exogamous intermarrying classes.\u2019 Examples\nare\n\n Male, Kumite; female, Kumitegor (one \u2018class,\u2019 which I call \u2018phratry\u2019).\n Male, Kroki; female, Krokigor (the other \u2018class,\u2019 \u2018phratry\u2019).\n\nAgain.\n\n Male, _Yungaru_ (_opossum_); female, _Yungaruan_.\nMale, _Wutaru_ (_kangaroo_); female, _Wutaruan_.\n\nWhat _are_ these two \u2018_primary_\u2019 exogamous divisions? And why call them\n\u2018primary\u2019?\n\n\n\u2018_PRIMARY_ CLASSES?\u2019\n\nMy object, as has been said, is now, contrary to general opinion,\nto repeat that the great dichotomous \u2018division\u2019 of a tribe into two\nexogamous, intermarrying, \u2018classes\u2019 or \u2018phratries,\u2019 is not \u2018primary\u2019\nat all, but is secondary to groups at once totemic and exogamous, and\nis not, in origin, a bisection, but a combination. If I am right, the\nconsequences will be of some curiosity. First, it will appear that the\n\u2018primary divisions\u2019 are themselves totemic in origin, thus implying the\npre-existence of Totemism. Next it will be made to appear probable that\nthe pre-existing totems were already exogamous before the phratries\narose, and that exogamy does not date, as the best authorities hold,\nfrom the making of the great dichotomous divisions or \u2018phratries.\u2019 For\nno such dichotomous division, I suggest, was ever made.\n\n\nTHE \u2018PRIMARY DIVISIONS\u2019 ARE THEMSELVES TOTEMIC AND EXOGAMOUS\n\nWe see that, of the two \u2018phratries\u2019 Yungaru and Wutaru, Yungaru is\n\u2018opossum\u2019 (according to Mr. Chatfield) or \u2018alligator\u2019 (according to Mr.\nBridgman); while Wutaru is \u2018kangaroo.\u2019 These two primary \u2018phratries,\u2019\ntherefore, have totemic names, and (in my opinion) were originally two\nlocal totem groups, each containing members of various totems derived\nfrom alien mothers. The same thing may be true when the meanings of the\n\u2018primary class names\u2019 (\u2018phratries\u2019) can no longer be discovered. If\nso, the \u2018primary divisions\u2019 are, in origin, mere totem distinctions,\ninvolving, I think, the pre-existence of the rule of exogamy, which\nis also involved in the rules of the \u2018primary divisions.\u2019 Mr. Fison\nwrites (what is obvious) \u2018in some places the primary divisions are\ndistinguished by totem names at the present day.\u2019[10]\n\n\u2018Probably they were so distinguished everywhere, in ancient times,\u2019 he\nadds, and this is certainly the case in North America, as we shall see\nlater. Mr. Fison\u2019s opinion is my own so far, and, if it is right, if\nthe \u2018primary class divisions\u2019 (\u2018phratries\u2019), within which marriage is\nnow forbidden, were originally two totem divisions, then Totemism is\nearlier than the \u2018primary divisions.\u2019 On this point Messrs. Fison and\nHowitt say that the divisions on which marriage regulations are based\n\u2018are denoted by class names or by totems--frequently by both class\nnames and totems.\u2019 In a note they add, \u2018Class names, so called by us\nsolely for the sake of convenience, and because they cannot always be\npositively asserted to be totems, though the strong probability is that\nthey are always totems.\u2019[11]\n\nBy \u2018class names\u2019 the authors, I think, here mean the names of the\n\u2018primary exogamous divisions\u2019 or \u2018phratries.\u2019 These are often, if not\nalways, known by totem names. But the \u2018classes,\u2019 as distinguished from\nthe \u2018phratries,\u2019 are not known by totemic names, as far as I am aware.\nHerr Cunow, we shall see, asserts that in some cases they denote mere\nseniority, \u2018big\u2019 and \u2018little,\u2019 \u2018young\u2019 and \u2018old.\u2019 Unless they can be\nproved to be totemic, we must, I repeat, carefully avoid confusing\nthe \u2018classes,\u2019 four or eight, with the \u2018phratries,\u2019 in which they are\nincluded. The confusion is general and very misleading.\n\nTotemism, according to Mr. McLennan, preceded exogamy, and made exogamy\npossible. Thus totem distinctions, with exogamy, may be older than the\n\u2018two primary class exogamous divisions,\u2019 in which, according to most\nauthorities, exogamy began. Mr. Tylor is cautious: \u2018the dual form of\nexogamy\u2019 (the \u2018phratries,\u2019 or \u2018two primary divisions\u2019) \u2018may be the\noriginal form,\u2019 or at least that view is tenable.[12] The origin of\nexogamy is, however, unknown, in Mr. Tylor\u2019s opinion, which commits him\nto nothing.\n\nMr. Howitt, if I do not misinterpret him, also regards the two\ndivisions, \u2018phratries,\u2019 as primary, but at the same time agrees with\nme, and Mr. Fison, that the two \u2018phratry\u2019 divisions were themselves in\norigin totemic.\n\nTHE TOTEM DIFFICULTY\n\nAt this point I lose Messrs. Fison and Howitt. I do not know what\nthey mean, and, unless I misconstrue them, they unconsciously hold\ndifferent opinions at different moments. They start with an \u2018undivided\ncommune.\u2019 Mr. Fison, however, is not certain on this point. To prevent\nnear marriages (previously universal), the commune is split into two\nexogamous intermarrying phratries. The names of these phratries are\ntotemic, and each phratry has its totem. Such is their theory. How and\nwhy?\n\nDid totemic divisions already exist in \u2018the undivided commune\u2019? If\nso, the commune was not undivided! Or were totem names given, nobody\nknows why, to the two phratries at the time when the \u2018bisection\u2019 of\nthe commune was made? Did the legislator send half the horde to the\nright, crying, \u2018You are sheep,\u2019 and half to the left, saying, \u2018You\nare goats,\u2019--or rather, say, Emus and Kangaroos? This is not easily\nthinkable. But, if this was done, whence came the other totem kins,\noften numerous, within each phratry?\n\nMr. Fison says that the totem kins (or \u2018gentes\u2019) \u2018arose out of two\nprimary divisions, by an orderly process of evolution, such as might\nbe expected from the forces at work,\u2019 and \u2018we have seen how\u2019 the\nphratries subdivided \u2018into other subdivisions, distinguished by\ntotems.\u2019[13] But, alas, I have seen nothing of the sort! Mr. Fison\nhas merely asserted the fact. \u2018The totems affect the intersexual\nregulations ... by narrowing the range of matrimonial selection.\u2019[14]\nHere would be a reason for the evolution of these totem kins. But this\nadded restriction is exactly what (given phratries) the totems do not\neffect. There are so many totems in each phratry, but as the same\ntotem (except among the Arunta and similarly disorganised tribes) never\noccurs in both phratries, the range of sexual selection is thus not\nmore restricted by the totem than by the phratry. The members of each\nphratry may not intermarry, and all persons of their totem are in their\nphratry and so are not marriageable to them. They would all be exactly\nas exogamous as they are, if there were no totem rules, nothing but\nphratry rules. Thus the totems cannot be later deliberate segmentations\nof the phratry, for additional exogamous purposes, because they serve\nno such purpose, except where, among the Kamilaroi, a man may marry in\nhis phratry, if he marries out of his totem. But that is a peculiarity.\n\nMr. Mathews writes, \u2018Under the group\u2019 (phratry) \u2018laws it is impossible\nfor a Dilbi or Kupathin\u2019 (phratry names of the Kamilaroi) \u2018to marry a\nwoman bearing the same totem name as himself, for the reason that such\na totem does not exist in the division\u2019 (phratry) \u2018from which he is\nbound to select his wife. But when persons of the same group\u2019 (phratry)\n\u2018were permitted to marry each other, it became necessary to promulgate\na law prohibiting marriage between persons of the same totem.\u2019[15] But\nthere were totems before that novelty of marriage within the phratry,\nand why were they there? Moreover, under phratry laws it was already\nthe rule that no man could marry a woman of his own totem. Obviously\nwe are not told how the totem kins arose out of the phratries, \u2018by an\norderly process of evolution such as might be expected from the forces\nat work.\u2019 One sees no reason at all for the rise of totem kins within\nthe phratry, itself, by Mr. Fison\u2019s theory, originally totemic.\n\nTotem kins are called \u2018subdivisions\u2019 by Mr. Howitt, but why were the\nphratries subdivided into totem kins, and why were there totem groups\nin \u2018the undivided commune\u2019 before the bisection, the phratries (the\nresult of the bisection) being themselves, in Mr. Howitt\u2019s hypothesis,\ntotem groups? I quote a statement of the case by Mr. Howitt (1889):\n\u2018The fundamental principle of aboriginal society in Australia is the\ndivision of the community into two exogamous intermarrying moieties.\nOut of this division into two groups, and out of the relations thus\ncreated between the contemporary members of them and their descendants,\nthe terms of relationship must have grown. As the two primary divisions\n(classes)\u2019 (\u2018phratries\u2019) \u2018have become again divided in the process of\nsocial development, _and as the groups of numerous totems have been\nadded_,\u2019 &c.[16]\n\nHere the totem kins are not orderly evolved out of the phratries, nor\nsubdivided out of them, but are \u2018added.\u2019 Where were they picked up,\nwhence did they arise, why were they \u2018added\u2019?\n\nMay we not conclude that no clear account, or theory, of the origin and\npurpose of totems and totem kins has been laid before us?\n\nMr. Howitt elsewhere writes, \u2018If the supposition is correct that,\nin the primary divisions, we may recognise the oldest forms, and\nin the subdivisions somewhat newer forms of Totemism\u2019 (newer names\nof totems?), \u2018it should be found that these earlier divisions show\nsigns of antiquity as compared to the totems which are, according to\nthis hypothesis, the nearest to the present time. This, I think, is\nthe case.\u2019 Thus, in fact, some of the Australian names for the _two_\ndivisions are no longer to be translated,[17] perhaps owing to their\nantiquity, and sometimes the names are lost, as, elsewhere, in Banks\nIsland. When translatable, the phratry names are totemic.\n\nBut this hardly amounts to proof that the \u2018primary divisions\u2019 are\nreally older than totemic divisions, _plus_ exogamy. The existing\n_names_ of the \u2018primary divisions\u2019 may be older than existing totem\nnames, in some cases. But that may be because the two \u2018primary\ndivisions\u2019 endure, unchanged, while a local totem group may become\nextinct.[18] Its place, perhaps, may be filled up by a totem group of\nrelatively recent name, or, perhaps, in a great trek into a land of\nnovel fauna and flora, old totem names might be exchanged for new ones.\n\u2018Munki\u2019 (sheep) is said to have been recently adopted.[19] Mr. Fison\nhere corroborates my suggestion. \u2018If a tribe migrate to a country in\nwhich their totem is not found, they will, in all probability, take as\ntheir totem some other animal which is a native of the place.\u2019[20]\n\nMr. Howitt, then, believes that \u2018the primary class divisions\u2019 were\noriginally totemic, and also that the \u2018class system\u2019 as a rule has been\ndeveloped through the subdivision of the earlier and simpler forms by\n\u2018_deliberate arrangement_.\u2019[21]\n\nThis appears to mean that savages began by making two divisions,\nbearing totem names, and established them as primary _exogamous_\ndivisions. Later they cut them up into slices, each slice with a\nnewer totem name. Or the totem divisions are evolved within the\nphratry, somehow or other, as in one of Mr. Fison\u2019s views. Or they are\n\u2018added\u2019--for what purpose? Thus every tribesman has now a \u2018class name\u2019\n(phratry name)--an _old_ totem name (say either Eagle-Hawk or Crow),\nand no Crow may marry an Eagle-Hawk. But, later, they split Crows up\ninto, say, bats, rats, cats, and kangaroos, while they split Eagle-Hawk\nup into, say, grubs, emus, mice, and frogs. Now each person, under this\narrangement, has two totem names. He is Eagle-Hawk (old) and (new)\ngrub, emu, mouse, or frog: or he is Crow (old) and (new) bat, cat, rat,\nor kangaroo. If cat, he may not only not marry a Crow, but also he may\nnot marry a cat. What could be the reason for this new subdivision\nof Eagle-Hawk and Crow, and for this multiplication of marriage\nprohibitions, which, given the phratries, prohibit nothing?[22] I\nshall try to show, and have already suggested, that, from a period\ninfinitely remote, each member of the Eagle-Hawk and Crow _local_\ngroups may also have been, or rather _must_ have been, a grub, emu,\nmouse, or frog, bat, rat, cat, or kangaroo, by inheritance and birth.\nSo understood, the \u2018primary divisions\u2019 (Eagle-Hawk and Crow) were not\ndeliberately subdivided (as I conceive them to have been on Mr. Ho wit\nVs system) into the other numerous new totem groups, nor were the totem\nkins added to the phratries, nor were they orderly evolved out of the\nphratries, but, from the dawn of Totemism with exogamy, they contained\nthese totem groups within themselves; a fact which early man came to\nperceive.\n\nMr. Howitt adds, \u2018If the two first intermarrying groups\u2019 (\u2018phratries\u2019)\n\u2018had distinguished names, they were probably those of animals, and\ntheir totems, and, if so, the origin of Totemism would be so far back\nin the mist of ages, as to be beyond my vision.\u2019 In the chapter on\nthe \u2018Origin of Totemism,\u2019 we try to penetrate \u2018the mist of ages,\u2019\nand to see beyond the range of vision of Mr. Howitt. But the \u2018Origin\nof Totemism\u2019 cannot be beyond Mr. Howitt\u2019s range of vision, if he\nagrees with Mr. Fison that the totem kins were orderly evolved within\nthe phratry, or were segmented out of the phratry, or split off, as\ncolonies, from the phratry (Dr. Durkheim\u2019s theory), or were added to\nthe phratry, for some reason.\n\nIt seems, then, that he does not commit himself to any of these four\ntheories. He appears to confess to having no theory of the origin of\nTotemism, which, in his opinion, gave the names to the phratries,\nthese being the result of the primary bisection. Probably his best\nplan would be to say \u2018the horde was bisected into two moieties, for\nexogamous purposes, and animal names, for the sake of distinction, were\narbitrarily imposed on the phratry divisions.\u2019 But, then, what about\nthe many totem kins within the phratry? We receive no solid theory\nabout them. They were certainly not arbitrarily marked out later,\nwithin the phratry, for exogamous purposes which they do not fulfil. If\nthey were picked up elsewhere, and added into the phratry, where did\nthey come from? Crowds of totems were not going about, Mr. Howitt seems\nto think, before the bisection, because, if so, we saw hordes were not\n\u2018undivided,\u2019 before the bisection, but were already divided into totem\nkins.\n\nOr shall we say that the undivided communes had already organised\ndistinct co-operative magical totem groups, to do magic for the good of\nthe food supply, plants and animals, but that these totem groups were\nnot _exogamous_ before the bisection? After the bisection two of these\nmagical totem groups, say Eagle-Hawk and Crow, were selected, shall we\nguess, to give names to the two moieties or phratries? The other totem\ngroups fell, or were meted out, some into Crow, some into Eagle-Hawk.\nThis is a thinkable hypothesis, but it is fatal to the theory of\nsubdivision, or of segmentation, or of evolution, as causes of totem\nkins within the phratries; and it is not suggested by Messrs. Fison and\nHowitt.\n\nThus we must construct for ourselves, later, a theory of the Origin of\nTotemism. We are actually constrained to make this effort, because it\nwill probably be admitted that, having no theory, or hesitating between\nthree or four theories, of the origin of totems and of totem kins,\nMessrs. Fison and Howitt produce an hypothesis of the evolution of\nAustralian society which cannot be construed by us into an intelligible\nform.\n\nMr. Howitt elsewhere writes, \u2018The existence of the two exogamous\nintermarrying groups\u2019 (\u2018phratries\u2019) \u2018seems to me almost to require the\nprevious existence of an undivided commune, from the segmentation of\nwhich they arose.\u2019[23] But they, the phratries, were totemic, and why?\nOnce again, why was the undivided commune divided? We know not the\nmotive for, much less the means of effecting, such a great change \u2018in\nthe beginning.\u2019\n\nIn 1885, Messrs. Howitt and Fison were aware of, and expressed\ntheir sense of this difficulty (that of dividing people out into\narbitrary groups) in the case of ancient Attica. Speaking of the\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, or clan, in Attica, they combat the opinion\nof Harpocration, that the people were \u2018arbitrarily drafted into the\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7.[24] Our authors remark, \u2018Ancient society--the\nmore ancient--does not thus regulate itself. _Nascitur non fit_. One\ncan understand a Kleisthenes redistributing into demes a civilised\ncommunity which has grown into a State, but the notion of any such\narbitrary distribution of men into \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7; in the beginning of things\ncannot be entertained for a moment.\u2019[25]\n\nThis being so, how can our authors maintain that, \u2018in the beginning of\nthings,\u2019 given an \u2018undivided commune,\u2019 all its members were \u2018drafted\u2019\ninto one or other of two divisions, and again into totem groups.\nA subdivision of the \u2018phratries\u2019 into totem groups, by deliberate\narrangement, is clearly as artificial and arbitrary as the scheme\nsuggested by Harpocration, \u2018which cannot be entertained for a moment.\u2019\n\nWe are speaking of \u2018the beginning of things,\u2019 not of the present state\nof things, in which we know that modifications of the rules, e.g. the\ndivision into eight \u2018classes,\u2019 are being deliberately adopted.[26]\nIn \u2018the beginning of things,\u2019 as Messrs. Howitt and Fison, in 1885,\nmaintained, society _nascitur non fit_. Our effort is to show the\nprocess of the birth of society before conscious and deliberate\nmodifications were made to prevent marriages, of \u2018too near flesh.\u2019 Our\ncriticism of Messrs. Fison and Howitt\u2019s theories may perhaps indicate\nthat they are insufficient, or but dubiously intelligible. Something\nclear and consistent is required.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Apparently, among the Kamilaroi, members of the same\nphratry may intermarry, avoiding unions in their own totems. Mathews\n(_Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxi. 161, 162). Mr. Mathews calls a\n\u2018phratry\u2019 a \u2018group.\u2019]\n\n[Footnote 2: Second series, pp. 289-310.]\n\n[Footnote 3: I shall, for my own part, use \u2018phratry\u2019 for the two\n\u2018primary exogamous divisions\u2019 of a tribe, and \u2018class\u2019 for the divisions\nwithin the \u2018phratry\u2019 which do not appear to be of totemic origin. Mr.\nFison applies \u2018class\u2019 to both the primary divisions and those contained\nin each of them, observing that \u2018the Greek \u201cphratria\u201d would be the most\ncorrect term.\u2019 He is aware, of course, that this employment of phratria\nis arbitrary, but it is convenient. While he applies \u2018class\u2019 both to\n\u2018the primary divisions of a community, and their first subdivisions,\u2019\nto the latter I restrict \u2018classes,\u2019 using phratry for the former\n(_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 24).]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Jour. and Proc. of the Roy. Soc. N.S.W._, xxviii, xxxii,\nxxxiv.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxiv. 120-122.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Prov. Jour. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._, xxxiv. 127. Mr. Fison\nmakes an exception for some Kamilaroi.]\n\n[Footnote 7: This view is discussed later.]\n\n[Footnote 8: P. 27 _et seq_.]\n\n[Footnote 9: There is a tradition of an aboriginal Adam, who had two\nwives, Kilpara and Mukwara, these being the names of two phratries. On\nthis showing brothers married paternal half-sisters (_Kamilaroi and\nKurnai_, p. 33).]\n\n[Footnote 10: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 40.]\n\n[Footnote 11: _J. A. I._ xiv. 142.]\n\n[Footnote 12: _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xviii. 264.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 107.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Op. cit._ p. 41.]\n\n[Footnote 15: _Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxi. 162.]\n\n[Footnote 16: _On the Organisation of Australian Tribes_, p. 129;\n_Transactions of Royal Society of Victoria_, 1889.]\n\n[Footnote 17: The natives retain sacred songs to Daramulun, but cannot\n(or will not?) translate them. _Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxiv. 280.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Spencer and Gillen, p. 152.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Howitt, _J. A. I._ xviii. 37-39.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 235, note.]\n\n[Footnote 21: _Op. cit._ pp. 59, 62, 63, 66.]\n\n[Footnote 22: New marriage prohibitions may have been, and, I believe,\nwere added, but the divisions thus made were not, I think, totemistic.]\n\n[Footnote 23: _Organisation of Australian Tribes_, p. 136.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Harpocration _s.v._ \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.]\n\n[Footnote 25: _J. A. I._ xiv. 160.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 72, 420.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTOTEMS WITHIN THE PHRATRIES\n\n\nAMERICAN SUPPORT OF THE AUTHOR\u2019S HYPOTHESIS\n\n\nThe system which I advocate here, as to the smallness of the original\nhuman groups, and their later combination into larger unions, seems\nto have, as regards America, the support of the late Major Powell,\nthe Director of the Bureau of Ethnology, and of Mr. McGee of the\nsame department. This gentleman writes, \u2018Two postulates concerning\nprimitive society, adopted by various ethnologic students of other\ncountries, have been erroneously applied to the American aborigines ...\nThe first postulate is that primitive men were originally assembled\nin chaotic hordes, and that organised society was developed out of\nthe chaotic mass _by the segregation of groups_ ...\u2019 This appears to\nbe Mr. Hewitt\u2019s doctrine. In fact, Mr. McGee says, American research\npoints, not to a primal horde, \u2018bisected\u2019 and \u2018subdivided\u2019 into an\norganised community, but to an early condition \u2018directly antithetic\nto the postulated horde, in which the scant population was segregated\nin small discrete bodies, probably family groups....\u2019 The process of\nadvance was one of \u2018progressive combination rather than of continued\ndifferentiation.... It would appear that the original definitely\norganised groups occasionally coalesced with other groups, both simple\nand compound, whereby they were elaborated in structure....\u2019 Mr. McGee\nadds, \u2018always with some loss in definiteness and permanence.\u2019 As far as\nconcerns Australia, I do not feel sure that the last remark applies,\nbut, on the whole, Mr. McGee\u2019s observations, couched in abstract\nterms, appear to fit what I have written, in concrete terms, about the\nprobable evolution of Australian tribal society.[1]\n\nThe theory thus suggested makes little demand on deliberate\nlegislation, as we shall see later.\n\n\nDELIBERATE ARRANGEMENT\n\nThis I take to be important. It seems well to avoid, as far as\npossible, the hypothesis of deliberate legislation in times primeval,\ninvolving so sweeping a change as the legal establishment of exogamy\nthrough a decree based on common consent by an exogamous \u2018Bisection\u2019\nconsciously made. Exogamy must have been gradually evolved. But, if\nwe begin with Mr. Howitt\u2019s original undivided commune, and suppose a\ndeliberate bisection of it into two exogamous phratries, each somehow\ncontaining different totems; or if we suppose a tribe of only two\ntotems, and imagine that the tribe deliberately made these totems\nexogamous, which they had not been before, and then subdivided them\ninto many other totem groups, we see, indeed, why persons of the\nsame totem may not intermarry. They now, after the decree, belong to\nthe same exogamous \u2018phratry\u2019 within which marriage is deliberately\nforbidden. But, on this theory, I find no escape from the conclusion\nthat the \u2018bisection\u2019 into \u2018phratries\u2019 was the result of a deliberate\ndecree, intended to produce exogamy--for the bisection has not, and\napparently cannot have, any other effect. Now I can neither imagine\na motive for such a decree, nor any mode, in such early times, of\nprocuring for it common consent. At this point we have laboured, and\nto it we shall return, observing that our hypothesis makes much less\nappeal to such early and deliberate legislation.\n\n\nTOTEMS ALL THE WAY\n\nIn any case, by Mr. Fison\u2019s and Mr. Howitt\u2019s theory and our own, we\nhave totems almost all the way: totems in the so-called \u2018primary\ndivisions\u2019 (phratries); totems in the so-called _gentes_, and all these\ndivisions (setting the Arunta apart) are strictly exogamous. The four\nor eight \u2018classes,\u2019 on the other hand, are apparently not of totemic\norigin. However much the systems may be complicated and inter-twisted,\nthe basis of the whole, except of the four or eight \u2018classes,\u2019 is, I\nthink, the totem exogamous prohibition. There are many examples of the\ntype; thus the Urabunna \u2018are divided into two exogamous intermarrying\nclasses, which are respectively called Matthurie and Kirarawa, and the\nmembers of these again are divided into a series of totemic groups,\nfor which the native name is _Thunthunnie_. A Matthurie man must marry\na Kirarawa women\u2019 (as in the system of the Kamil-speaking tribes, or\nKamilaroi, reported on by Mr. Fison)--\u2018and not only this, but a man of\none totem must marry a woman of another totem.\u2019 This is precisely what\nI should expect. It works out thus:\n\n    { Old Local Totem Group } Matthurie.\n    { New \u2018Phratry\u2019         }\n\n    { Old Local Totem Group } Kirarawa.\n    { New \u2018Phratry\u2019         }\n\nEach of these \u2018phratries\u2019 has five totems, not found in the other\nclass, and how this occurred, if not by actual deliberate arrangement,\nI do not know. One thing is clear: totem and phratry are prior to\n\u2018class\u2019 divisions. They occur where \u2018class\u2019 divisions do not. But my\ntheory does not involve the deliberate introduction of exogamy, by an\nexogamous bisection of groups not hitherto exogamous, or by making two\npre-existing totem groups exogamous. I take the groups to have been\nexogamous already, before the blending in _connubium_ of two local\ntotem groups (now \u2018phratries\u2019), each including numbers of already\nexogamous totem kindreds. They were exogamous before the \u2018phratries\u2019\nexisted, and after their falling into the two phratries, exogamous they\nremained.\n\n\nDISTRIBUTION OF TOTEMS IN THE \u2018PHRATRIES\u2019\n\nMr. McLennan, ere he had the information now before us, wrote, in 1865,\n\u2018Most probably contiguous groups would be composed of exactly the same\nstocks\u2019 (we can now, for \u2018stocks,\u2019 read \u2018totem kins\u2019)--\u2018would contain\ngentes of precisely the same names.\u2019[2] This is obvious, for Emu,\nKangaroo, Wild Duck, Opossum, Snake, and Lizard, living in the same\nregion, would raid each other (by the hypothesis) for wives, and each\nforeign wife would bring her own totem name into each group. Yet we\nfind that the two \u2018primary classes\u2019 (phratries) of the Urabunna (which,\non my theory, represent two primitive totem local groups, say Emu and\nKangaroo, each with its representatives of all other totem groups\nwithin raiding distance) _never_ contain the same totems.\n\nIt is mathematically impossible that this exclusiveness should be the\nresult of accident. On a first consideration, therefore, I took it to\nbe the result of deliberate legislative design, at the moment when on\nmy hypothesis two _local_ totem groups, containing members of several\n_totems of descent_, united in _connubium_. The totem names, I at first\nconceived, with reluctance, must have been consciously and deliberately\nmeted out between the two local totem groups, now become phratries.\nThis idea did not involve so stringent and useless a measure as that\nof segmenting the two phratries into minor totem groups: however the\nidea was still too much akin to that of Harpocration as regards the\narbitrary drafting of the Attic population into \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7.\nBut, on further reflection, I conceived that my first theory was\nsuperfluous. Given the existence of local groups, as such totemic, and\nof totem kins of descent within the original local totem groups, the\nactual results, I thought, arise automatically, as soon as two local\ntotem groups agree to intermarry. Men and women must many out of their\nlocal totem group (now \u2018phratry\u2019) and must marry out of their totem\nof descent. Consequently, no one totem could possibly exist in both\nphratries. This I now, on third thoughts, \u2018which are a wiser first,\u2019\ndeem erroneous. The automatic arraying of one set of totems into one,\nor another set into the other, phratry, would not occur. The totems\nhave been divided between the two phratries.[3] This condition of\naffairs is universal in Australia, except where, as among the Arunta\nand similar tribes, the same totem comes to exist in both phratries, so\nthat men and women of the same totem, but of opposite phratries, may\nintermarry. That breach of old rule, we shall try to show, arises from\nthe peculiar animistic philosophy of the Arunta, by virtue of which\ntotems are no longer totems of descent, but are otherwise obtained. The\nKamilaroi practice of interphratry marriage arises out of respect for\ntotem and neglect of phratry law.\n\nMy conjecture takes for granted, let me repeat, that, before the\n\u2018bisection,\u2019 or the amalgamation, which produced the two exogamous\n\u2018classes,\u2019 the totem kindreds were already exogamous. My reasons\nfor this opinion have already been given, in the discussion of\nMr. Crawley\u2019s theory of the origin of exogamy (_supra_), to which\nthe reader may refer. My suggestion makes the growth of exogamy\nnon-moral, gradual, and almost unconscious, till it is clinched and\nstereotyped by the totem tabu.[4] The opposite theory--namely, the\ndeliberate bisection into exogamous \u2018classes,\u2019 of totem groups, or of\nan \u2018undivided commune\u2019 not previously exogamous, appeals too much, I\nrepeat, to conscious and--as far as we can see--motiveless legislation,\nat an early stage. The bisection must have had a purpose, and has no\nvisible purpose except the establishment o f exogamy, and why did the\n\u2018undivided commune\u2019 establish that?\n\n\nTHE IDEAS OF MR. FRAZER HIS EARLIER THEORY\n\nIt cannot be concealed that my conjecture is opposed to the mass of\nlearned opinion, which represents the primary \u2018phratries\u2019 as the first\nexogamous bodies, and the totems in each as later subdivisions of\nthe phratries. The writers who, like Mr. Fison, recognise that the\nprimary subdivisions are themselves, in origin, totem divisions, do not\n(as I understand) regard these very ancient totem groups as already\nexogamous, _before_ the institution of \u2018phratries.\u2019\n\nAgain, turning from Australia to North America, we find Mr. Frazer,\nat least in one passage, on the side of the view generally held. Of\nthe \u2018phratry,\u2019 in America, he says, \u2018the evidence goes to show that\nin many cases it was originally a totem clan which has undergone\nsubdivision.\u2019[5] Many examples are then given of the North American\n\u2018phratries,\u2019 which include totem groups within them. \u2018The Choctaws\nwere divided into two phratries, each of which included four clans\u2019\n(totem kins); \u2018marriage was prohibited between members of the same\nphratry, but members of either phratry could marry into any clan of\nthe other.\u2019 Among the Senecas, one phratry included the Bear, Wolf,\nBeaver, and Turtle totems: the other held the Deer, Snipe, Heron, and\nHawk totems; just as in Australia. Among the Thlinkets and Mohegans,\n\u2018each phratry bears a name which is also the name of one of the clans\u2019\n(totems) \u2018included in it;\u2019 Mr. Frazer adds, \u2018it seems probable that\nthe names of the Raven and Wolf were the two original clans of the\nThlinkets, which afterwards by subdivision became phratries.\u2019[6]\nThis is precisely as if we were to argue that Matthurie and Kirarawa\nwere the \u2018two original clans\u2019 of the Urabunna, \u2018which afterwards by\nsubdivision\u2019 (into totem groups) \u2018became phratries,\u2019 or \u2018primary\nexogamous divisions.\u2019\n\nThe objections to this theory, as advocated by Australian inquirers,\napply to the American cases as interpreted here by Mr. Frazer. In\nthe first place, how are we to conceive of a large tribe, like the\nThlinkets, as originally containing only two totems, Raven and\nWolf?[7] If we do take this view, we seem almost driven to suppose\nthat, in exceedingly early times, the Thlinkets deliberately bisected\nthemselves, for some reason, called one moiety Ravens, the other moiety\nWolves, and then made the divisions exogamous. Or, perhaps, having two\ntotems and only two, Raven and Wolf, they deliberately decided that\nmembers of neither group should marry within itself; but should always\ntake wives from the other group. Later, the two tribes, Raven and\nWolf, again deliberately subdivided themselves, or perhaps, as in Dr.\nDurkheim\u2019s view, Wolf threw off colonies which became five totem kins,\nand Raven threw off colonies which became five other totem kins.\n\nIs it not more readily credible that, over a large extent of Thlinket\ncountry, many small local groups came, by an unconscious process (see\n\u2018The Origin of Totemism\u2019), to bear each a separate totem name? The two\nmost important local groups, Raven and Wolf, would inevitably each\ncontain, by the working of exogamy and female kin, members of all the\nother totems which would array themselves, five in each chief group,\nRaven and Wolf, as I have conjectured in speaking of the Australian\ncases.[8]\n\nAgain, I cannot believe that a tribe like the Thlinkets originally had\nbut two totems, not yet exogamous, then made them exogamous, and then\ncut them up, or let them split off, into many exogamous totem groups.\nNo motive is obvious: the people, by the theory, being exogamous\nalready.\n\n\nOBJECTIONS TO MR. FRAZER\u2019S EARLY THEORY\n\nWe shall later see that Messrs. Spencer and Gillen appear to advance,\nbut also to qualify out of existence, a theory of a motive for an\nexogamous bisection of earlier non-exogamous local totem groups.\nThey practically explain away their own explanation of--the great\nbisection, but it rests, while it exists, on certain recently\ndiscovered facts, which, in turn, are fatal, perhaps, to any theory\nthat a tribe had originally but two totems, which became \u2018phratries,\u2019\non being subdivided into other totems. The new facts accepted and\ntheorised on by Mr. Frazer and Mr. Spencer, would make it seem\nperhaps impossible that a tribe like the Thlinkets should originally\nhave possessed but two \u2018clans\u2019 or totems. The facts, as stated by Mr.\nSpencer, in 1899, are these, or rather, this is his hypothesis founded\non his facts. \u2018In our Australian tribes the _primary_[9] function of\na totem group is that of ensuring, by magic means, a supply of the\nobject which gives its name to the totem group.\u2019[10] Mr. Frazer says,\n\u2018in its origin Totemism was, on our theory, simply an organised and\nco-operative system of magic.... Each totem group was charged with the\nsuperintendence and control of the particular department of nature from\nwhich it took its name....\u2019[11]\n\nBut this is hardly the origin of Totemism, so long as we are not\ntold how, or why, each totem group took its name from a department\nof nature. Had it the name, before it worked magic for its eponymous\nobject, or did it take the name because it worked the magic?\n\nAgain, there are dozens of such departments,[12] which implies the\nexistence of dozens of organised and co-operative totem groups: not of\nan original poor pair of such groups alone. Can we believe that, on\nMr. Frazer\u2019s earlier theory, the Thlinkets formed but two such groups,\none \u2018charged with\u2019 the duty to mollify the Wolf, the other to take\ncare of the interests of the Raven? Manifestly this is unlikely. I\nelsewhere oppose this theory of the magical Origin of Totemism, made at\nfirst to fit the case of the Arunta and cognate tribes. If organised\nco-operation in magic is the source of Totemism, we may be pretty\nconfident that no tribe began by appointing one half of all its members\nto do magic to propagate ravens, and the other half to mollify wolves.\nThis would indicate, in the magical and co-operative tribe, a most\noddly limited and feebly capitalised flotation of the company--merely\n\u2018Wolf and Raven.\u2019 No tribe would select ravens as the article of food\nwhich most required careful propagation and preservation, even if the\nWolf most demanded to be propitiated and mollified. The new Australian\nfacts (whatever their interpretation) are fatal to the older idea that\na tribe could have had only two original totems: an idea which we may\nperhaps regard as now abandoned, at least by Mr. Frazer.\n\nThus Mr. Spencer himself remarks that, in Arunta tradition, there were\nnumbers of totem groups before the great dichotomous division was made.\nThat is my own opinion: though I do not hold it for Mr. Spencer\u2019s\nreasons, or believe in any \u2018bisection.\u2019\n\n\nMR. SPENCER\u2019S THEORIES OF THE BISECTION\n\nIt will be noted that Mr. Spencer\u2019s original totem groups existed for\nmagical purposes only, and were not exogamous.\n\n\u2018The traditions of the Arunta tribe point to a very definite\nintroduction of an exogamic system long after the totemic groups were\nfully developed, and, further, they point very clearly to the fact that\nthe introduction was due to the deliberate action of certain ancestors.\nOur knowledge of the natives leads us to the opinion that it is quite\npossible that this really took place, that the exogamic groups were\ndeliberately introduced so as to regulate marital relations.\u2019\n\nThe Arunta \u2018exogamic groups\u2019 are \u2018classes,\u2019 and \u2018phratries,\u2019 the\ntotem does not now regulate marriage among the Arunta. I shall later\ntry to show, that, originally, totems did regulate marriage, among\nthe Arunta. But here we find Mr. Spencer averring that possibly \u2018the\nexogamic groups were deliberately introduced so as to regulate marital\nrelations\u2019 among the Arunta. This opinion surprises us, if we hold that\nexogamy was, in its original forms, the result, not of a deliberate\nenactment, but of gradual and unconscious processes, to which, later,\nconscious modifications have been added. Mr. Spencer, despite the\npassage cited, is obviously of the same opinion, for he proceeds to\nremark, \u2018By this we do not mean that the regulations had anything\nwhatever to do with the idea of incest, or of any harm accruing from\nthe union of individuals who were regarded as too nearly related.... It\ncan only be said that far back in the early history of mankind, there\nwas felt the need of some form of organisation, and that this gradually\nresulted in the development of exogamous groups.\u2019\n\nThis statement must remind us of what the ancient ballad sings about\nLord Bateman:\n\n     He shipped himself all aboard of a ship,\n     Some foreign country for to see.\n\nThe scholiast (Thackeray, I think) explains, \u2018some foreign country\nhe wished to see, and that was the extent of his desire: any foreign\ncountry would serve his purpose, all foreign countries were alike to\nhim.\u2019 In the same way, long ago, the ancestors of the Australians \u2018felt\nthe need of some form of organisation,\u2019 and that was the extent of\ntheir desire; any organisation would serve their purpose. Nevertheless,\nMr. Spencer also says that, quite possibly, \u2018the exogamic groups\nwere deliberately introduced so as to regulate marital relations.\u2019\nBut exogamic groups can regulate marital arrangements in one way\nonly--that is, by introducing exogamy. Yet Mr. Spencer remarks that\n\u2018the development of exogamic groups\u2019 _gradually_ resulted from some\norganisation of unknown nature. I am unable to reconcile Mr. Spencer\u2019s\nstatements with each other. The \u2018bisection\u2019 of his theory could not, I\nfear, be \u2018gradual.\u2019\n\nMr. Frazer, in 1899, begins with numerous totem groups, primarily\nand originally arranged for mere purposes of co-operative magic, in\nthe social interests of a large friendly tribe, itself no primitive\ninstitution, one thinks. Then he supposes that the exogamous bisection\noccurred (and _why_ did it occur?), and then \u2018if the existing totem\ngroups were arranged, as they naturally would be, some in one of the\ntwo new classes, and the rest in the other, the exogamy of the totem\ngroups would follow, _ipso facto_.\u2019[13] Mr. Frazer does not here\npretend to guess why the bisection occurred. The rest is quite obvious:\nbut it is unavoidably inconsistent with Mr. Frazer\u2019s earlier theory,\nthat a tribe begins (or that the Thlinkets began) with two original\ntotem groups, made them exogamous, and then \u2018subdivided\u2019 them up (or\ndid they merely swarm off?) into many totem groups. It is against\nthat almost universal theory, in 1899 abandoned (as I conceive) by\nMr. Frazer, that I have so long been arguing. There was not first an\nexogamous bisection of a tribe, or the addition of the exogamous rule\nto two \u2018original clans,\u2019 or totem groups, and then the subdivision of\neach of the two sections into a number of totems. This cannot have\noccurred. Totems, I venture to think, did not come in that way, but\npre-existing totem kins, granting the bisection, might fall into one or\nother phratry, if they had always been exogamous.\n\n\nADVANTAGES OF THE SYSTEM HERE PROPOSED\n\nOn my system, as has been already stated, the origin of exogamy may\nhave been sexual jealousy, in small primitive groups, perhaps aided\nby \u2018sexual tabu,\u2019 with the strange superstitions on which it is\nbased, and these causes would be strengthened enormously by the totem\nsuperstition, later. The totem name would now be the exogamous limit.\nThe \u2018phratries\u2019 might result, quite naturally, and even gradually, now\nin one region, now in another, from the interlocking and alliance, with\n_connubium_, of two large friendly local totem groups, an arrangement\nof which the advantages are so obvious that it might spread by way of\nimitation and accretion.\n\nThis view of the possible origin of what is usually called the\n\u2018bisection\u2019 of \u2018the undivided commune\u2019 had already been suggested by\nthe late Mr. Daniel McLennan.[14] Writing before our information was so\nfull as it now is, he says, as to the two \u2018phratries\u2019 Kumite and Kroki\n(answering to Matthurie and Kirarawa), \u2018were it worth while to make\nsurmises, it would not be unreasonable to surmise that at Mount Gambier\ntwo separate local tribes[15] containing different totem kindreds had,\nthrough the operation of exogamy and female kinship, become welded\ninto one community.\u2019 Mr. Daniel McLennan, unluckily, inherited his\nbrother\u2019s feud against Mr. Fison, and he opposed all that gentleman\u2019s\ndoings. Later research has corroborated many of Mr. Fison\u2019s facts, and\nextended the range of their influence. On this point, however--namely,\nthat the \u2018phratries\u2019 are not the result of a bisection, but of an\namalgamation--Mr. Daniel McLennan appears to have had a good case. He\nillustrates his theory, and mine, by remarks on a tradition of the\ntribes of Northern Victoria.[16]\n\nThe exogamous \u2018phratries\u2019 of these tribes are Eagle-Hawk and Crow.\nThe tradition represents these birds as hostile creative powers. They\nmade peace on the terms \u2018that the Murray blacks should be divided into\ntwo classes\u2019 (\u2018phratries\u2019), \u2018the Makquarra, or Eagle-Hawk, and the\nKilparra, or Crow.... Out of the enmities\u2019 (of the original Crow and\nEagle-Hawk) \u2018arose the two classes, and thence a law governing marriage\namong these classes.\u2019 This tradition, it will be observed, espouses the\ntheory of a bisection, deliberately made of \u2018the Murray blacks,\u2019 into\ntwo intermarrying and exogamous classes. Mr. McLennan writes, \u2018But what\nthe tradition suggests is, not that the Crow and Eagle agreed to divide\none tribe into two, with a view to the better regulation of marriage,\nbut that Crow and Eagle or Eagle-Hawk were tribes (and they might have\nbeen constituted in the ordinary Australian way) which long waged war\nagainst each other, and that at length there came peace, and then their\ncomplete interfusion by means of friendly marriages.\u2019 The tradition\nasserts the reverse; it adopts, or rather it forestalls, the scientific\ntheory of a \u2018bisection\u2019 of the Murray blacks, not the amalgamation of\ntwo tribes (or large local totem groups). But I agree with Mr. McLennan\nin prefering, for the reasons given, the theory of an amalgamation.\nIt is rather curious and interesting to observe that almost every\nscientific hypothesis about totems and \u2018classes,\u2019 which I am obliged\nto reject, has, in fact, been forestalled by the theories which the\nnatives themselves express in their explanatory myths. Myths, I fear,\nare never in the right. \u2018The aborigines themselves,\u2019 says Mr. Howitt,\n\u2018recognise the former existence of the undivided commune in their\nlegends, but,\u2019 he judiciously adds, \u2018I do not rely upon this as having\nthe force of evidence.\u2019[17]\n\nWe shall presently see that other distinguished anthropologists\ndo, to some extent, rely on Arunta myths, as \u2018bearing the stamp of\nauthenticity.\u2019 The truth is that the native thinkers have hit on the\nsame hypothesis as their European critics, the hypothesis of something\nlike deliberate primeval legislation to a given end, the regulation\nof marriage. Far from accepting any such native myths, I am rather\ninclined to hold that, whatever theory be correct, the theory of the\nsavage myth-makers must be wrong. It ought to be said that Mr. Fison,\nat least, knows what his own theory involves, and once even frankly\naccepted the possibility that the Dieri myth (the foundation of exogamy\nby divine decree) may be historically true. \u2018All I contend for is,\u2019 he\nsays, \u2018that if the former existence of the undivided commune be taken\nfor granted\u2019 (and Mr. Fison, unlike Mr. Howitt, regards the undivided\ncommune as a mere unproved hypothesis), \u2018its division into exogamous\nclans must have had precisely the effect\u2019 (a consciously reformatory\neffect) \u2018which Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory requires. If such a community ever\nexisted, I do not hesitate to say that Mr. Morgan\u2019s \u201creformatory\nmovement\u201d appears to me the most likely method by which it would begin\nits advance to a better system of marriage\u2019 than \u2018communal marriage.\u2019\n\nBut what gave the impulse to the hypothetical moral reformation?\nContact with a more advanced tribe is reckoned improbable by Mr. Fison\n(for how came the other tribe to be more advanced?), and so the moral\nimpulse \u2018must have been derived from a higher power,\u2019 from the Good\nSpirit, or from ancestral spirits, as in the myths of the Dieri, the\nWoeworung, also of the Menomini Redmen of North America, a branch of\nthe Algonquins; and the Euahlayi tribe.\n\nAccording to the Menomini, there is, or was, a Being who \u2018made the\nearth.\u2019[18] His name being interpreted means \u2018The Great Unknown,\u2019 but\nonly extreme believers in the theory of religious borrowing will say\nthat he was Sir Walter Scott, Bart. He (The Great Unknown) created\n\u2018manidos or spirits,\u2019 in the shape of animals, or birds. The chief\nbirds (as often in Australia) were Eagles and Hawks. The Bear \u2018came out\nof the ground,\u2019 and was turned into an Indian, by the Great Unknown,\n_alias_ \u2018The Good Mystery.\u2019 He and the Beaver headed totem kins now\nin \u2018The Big Thunder phratry.\u2019 Other animals came in; there are now\nBear, Eagle, Crane, and Moose \u2018phratries,\u2019 each containing a number of\ntotems. All the people of a totem name in the Menomini tribe are akin\nto persons of the same totem in other tribes, say of the Sioux.[19]\n\nThese myths favourably illustrate the piety of the Dieri, Woeworung,\nEuahlayi men, and Menomini. Like Mr. Fison (at one time, and \u2018under\nall reserves\u2019) these tribes leaned to the hypothesis of divine or\nsupernormal intervention in matters totemic. The Dieri may be right,\nbut a less difficult hypothesis is that there was never \u2018an undivided\ncommune,\u2019 in the sense of Mr. Morgan and Mr. Fison, and that,\nconsequently, it never was \u2018divided into exogamous clans.\u2019 If so, no\nmiracle is needed: _Nec Deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus._ My\nown scheme needs no divine aid, nor deliberate legislation, \u2018in the\nbeginning.\u2019 But that such legislation has intervened later, I think\nprobable, or certain.\n\nMessrs. Spencer and Gillen write: \u2018Rigidly conservative as the native\nis, it is yet possible for changes to be introduced.... There are\ncertain men who are respected for their ability, and, after watching\nlarge numbers of the tribe, at a time when they were assembled together\nfor months to perform certain of their most sacred ceremonies, we have\ncome to the conclusion that, at a time such as this, when the older\nand more powerful men from various groups are met together, and when\nday by day, and night by night around their camp fires, they discuss\nmatters of tribal interest, it is quite possible for changes of custom\nto be introduced.\u2019[20] The Arunta traditions allege that such changes\nintroduced by men of weight, and accepted after discussion, have been\nnot unusual.[21] This is highly probable, now, but not in the beginning.\n\nThe Arunta historical traditions are of little value as to historical\nfacts,[22] but the consciousness of the Central Australian tribes\naccepts the possibility that new customs may now be proposed,\ndebated, and adopted. If no such thing ever occurred, the belief in\nits possibility could scarcely have arisen among the Arunta. But\nthe possibility has its limits, and one of these is the deliberate\nprimeval introduction of exogamy, for no conceivable reason, and its\nimposition on a society already totemic but not yet exogamous. Perhaps\nfew critics will frankly say that exogamy was thus imposed; they will\ntry to qualify or evade so improbable and antiquated a theory. Yet they\ncannot but slip back into it, while they believe in \u2018segmentations\u2019\nof \u2018an undivided commune,\u2019 and of later totemic \u2018subdivisions\u2019 of the\n\u2018segmentations.\u2019\n\nIn any case these Arunta and cognate tribes of similar usages, so\nrecently discovered, so anomalous, so odd, are \u2018the only begetters\u2019\nof the latest hypotheses of Mr. Frazer and Mr. Spencer--namely,\nthat totems, originally, were co-operative industrial groups with\nno influence on marriage rules. Do the Arunta, then, present a\nsurviving model of primitive Totemism, in other regions modified\nand contaminated; or is their Totemism not, like their metaphysics\nand psychology, a \u2018freak,\u2019 an unique divergence from the normal\ndevelopment, as I have from the first maintained?[23] All these\ndifficulties and confusions, as to \u2018phratries\u2019 and totems, inevitably\narise from the doctrine that the original totem groups were not at\nfirst exogamous, and only became exogamous when separate sets of them\nwere scheduled under the two more recent exogamous primary divisions,\nor were segmented out of them. In that case it is not easy to see how\nwe can escape from the impossible theory that exogamy, and the primary\ndivisions, were the result, of direct legislative enactment. Even if we\ncould believe this, we see no conceivable motive, except Mr. Fison\u2019s\ndivine intervention, an idea which, it appears, he put forward quite\nprovisionally in an argument with Lord Avebury.[24]\n\n\nTHE ARUNTA\n\nThe case of these Central Australian tribes, in regard to Totemism\nand marriage prohibitions, is so peculiar that it demands particular\nnotice. Mr. Frazer some years ago propounded the hypothesis that the\nArunta tribe, especially, are the most \u2018primitive\u2019 of living peoples,\nare still in \u2018the chrysalis stage\u2019 of humanity, whence it would follow\nthat their singular kind of Totemism, and of marriage rules, is nearest\nto the beginning, and best represents the original type.[25] The\nArunta, dwelling in the arid regions of the centre, have certainly been\nlittle contaminated by European influences. They are naked, houseless,\nnon-agricultural nomads, like all the Australian tribes, and it is\nasserted by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen and others that they have not\nyet discovered the rather obvious facts as to the reproduction of the\nspecies. All this has certainly a primitive air. But I have ventured\nto reply that the Arunta, as regards the family, are confessedly\nmore advanced towards individual marriage than their neighbours, the\nUrabunna, with whom they freely intermarry.[26] Unlike what is told\nof the Urabunna, the Arunta recognise \u2018individual marriage.\u2019 They\ndeliberately and ingeniously modify their system on the occasion of\nintermarriage with the Urabunna. These reckon descent in the female,\nthe Arunta in the male line.[27] The office of Alatunja, or head man\nof a local group, among the Arunta, is hereditary in the male line,\ndescending to a brother of the late Alatunja, if he leaves no adult\nson.[28]\n\nMoreover, the Arunta, and cognate tribes, occupy an area of 750 miles,\nand their meetings and discussions last for months. A people truly\n_primitive_ cannot be conceived as capable of such immense local\nassociations, and of such prolonged and pacific assemblies. Again,\nMessrs. Spencer and Gillen, rightly or wrongly, believe that \u2018communal\nmarriage\u2019 is the earlier institution, and that it persists, \u2018slightly\nmodified\u2019 among the Urabunna, but not among the Arunta. Thus, beyond\nall doubt, the Arunta are more developed, more advanced, than the\nUrabunna, and it is hardly safe to say that, where their organisation\ndiffers from that of the Urabunna, and other tribes in general, it\ndiffers because it is more \u2018primitive.\u2019 It must be less primitive, a\nspecial divergence from the type.\n\n\nARUNTA METAPHYSICS\n\nAgain, as proof that they are in no chrysalis stage, the Arunta possess\na reasoned theory of things, so ingenious and complex, so peculiar, so\nextraordinary, so carefully atheistic, that one could scarcely believe\nit possible for naked savages, were it not so well attested. The theory\nis that of the original evolution of types of life into plants and\nanimals, which, with the minimum of extra-natural aid, became human.\nThe human beings possessed souls, which on the death, or disappearance\ninto earth, of the original owners, were hereditary, being reborn into\nArunta children. These souls each of a given totem (the plant or animal\nor other thing which first became human) haunt certain local centres.\nOne place is the centre of Grub totem souls, another of Cat totem\nsouls, and so forth. Each new child is of the totem of the haunted\nlocality where the mother supposes that she conceived it; a totem soul\nof that locality has become incarnate in her, and from her is born.\nThus the wife may be of one totem, the child of another; the husband\nmay be of the wife\u2019s totem, of the child\u2019s, or of another. The totem\nis thus no bar to marriage, and is not inherited, all this being the\nresult of the peculiar philosophic system of the Arunta. Their totemism\nis thus a \u2018sport,\u2019 and not the original form of the institution.\n\nWe cannot reverse the case, the philosophy of hereditary totemic souls\ncannot be the result of the present mode of inheriting the totem from\nthe group of souls that haunts each locality, it cannot be a myth\ninvented to explain that custom. That custom requires the peculiar\nArunta soul-belief as its basis, and cannot exist without the belief.\nIf the child received its totem name from the place where it is _born_,\nwe might say, \u2018Originally the child was called after the _place of\nits birth_.\u2019 (Arunta children still receive territorial _personal_\nnames from the place of their birth.) \u2018Later, Totemism came in with\ntotem local names, each place having a totem title. The local totem\nname of the place where a child was born was then given to each child.\nStill later, arose a myth that totem souls haunted each place, and\nthat the child received its totem name because a local totem soul was\nincarnated in it, at the place where it was born.\u2019 We cannot maintain\nthis theory--which makes the present Arunta belief a myth to explain\nthe present Arunta custom--because that custom it does not explain. The\nchild receives its totem name, not from the place where it is born,\nbut from the place where the totem soul entered into its mother. Nor\ncan we assume that totem names were originally given, not to human\ngroups, but to districts of territory. Thus the present Arunta mode of\nobtaining the totem, in each case, is the direct result of the Arunta\nphilosophic belief. That belief is peculiar, is elsewhere unheard of,\nis the property of a tribe distinctly more advanced in marriage rules,\nand local solidarity, than some of its neighbours, and therefore cannot\nbe primary. It follows that the Arunta mode of obtaining the totem,\nnot by inheritance, is not \u2018primitive,\u2019 is not the original model from\nwhich the rest of savage mankind has diverged. This I state, because,\nas a rule, a belief exists to explain an institution, and, as a rule,\nan institution is not the result of a belief.\n\n\nARUNTA TOTEM EATING AND TRADITIONS\n\nEach Arunta totem kin may now eat, in moderation, of its own totem,\nand each kin does magic (_Intichiuma_) for the benefit of its totem,\nas part of the food supply of the tribe in general. The traditions\nrepresent men and women of the same totem as, of old, usually\nintermarrying (that is, as endogamous): while they are also said, as\na rule, to have fed almost exclusively on their totems, being thus\nendophagous.\n\nAll these usages, real or traditional (except doing magic for the\nbenefit of the totem), are at the opposite pole from the customary\nexogamous and exophagous Totemism of savage tribes all over the world,\nand even in Australia. If, therefore, the Arunta and tribes practising\nthe same usages are primitive (it may be, and has been argued), their\nTotemism is, in origin, the earliest known case of the division of\nlabour; each group selecting and working (by magic) for the benefit\nof its totem, as part of the tribal food supply. I elsewhere argue\nthat each group must probably have had a recognised connection with\nits totem, before it set out to do magic for the propagation of the\ncreature.[29] But I have also maintained that the Arunta are far from\nbeing \u2018primitive,\u2019 but are rather a \u2018sport,\u2019 and that their usages\nrepresent a local variation from the central stream of Totemism; not\nTotemism in its earliest known form.\n\n\nDR. DURKHEIM ON THE ARUNTA\n\nI had written on this topic in the _Fortnightly Review_ (June, 1899),\nand in another chapter of this book (\u2018The Origin of Totemism\u2019),\nbefore I saw the essay of Professor Durkheim, of Bordeaux, _Sur\nle Tot\u00e9misme_.[30] It is encouraging to find that Dr. Durkheim,\nindependently, has worked out the same theory--namely, that the Arunta\nare not in the primitive stage of Totemism, but represent a very\npeculiar divergence from the type, and that their historical legends\n(more or less accepted by Mr. Frazer and Mr. Spencer) are mainly myths,\ntold to account for certain facts in their social arrangements. We are\nnot to reason from their single case, says Dr. Durkheim, as against\nthe great mass of our knowledge of Totemism and totemistic exogamy and\nexophagy. \u2018In place of being a perfectly pure example of the totemistic\n_r\u00e9gime_, is not Arunta Totemism a later and disfigured (_d\u00e9natur\u00e9e_)\ndevelopment?\u2019 For many reasons, says Dr. Durkheim, \u2018the Arunta are\namong the most advanced of the Australian peoples,\u2019[31] and he gives\nhis grounds for this opinion, some of which I had already adduced in\n1899. Entering into detail, Dr. Durkheim readily shows that, though the\nArunta now permit marriage between persons of the same totem (which is\nnot hereditary on either side, but casual), they are, for all that,\nexogamous, in a fashion resulting from precise Totemism in their past.\n\nThey may not marry within the two primary divisions (which Dr. Durkheim\nstyles \u2018phratries\u2019). Each phratry contains two (sometimes four) other\n\u2018classes\u2019 (exogamous), and phratries arose in the combination of \u2018two\nelementary exogamous totem groups\u2019--as I have already suggested.\nNow phratries, we have agreed with Mr. Howitt and Mr. Fison, were,\nin all probability, themselves originally totemic. Mr. Frazer also\nsays, \u2018We should infer that the objects from which the Australian\nphratries take their names were originally totems. But there seems to\nbe direct evidence that both the phratries and subphratries actually\nretain, in some tribes, their totems.\u2019[32] If the opinion be correct,\nthe phratries of the Arunta, which regulate their marriages, were\noriginally local totem groups. On my system, then, namely, that totem\nkins were originally, or very early became, exogamous, were exogamous\nbefore \u2018phratries\u2019 arose, and before the so-called \u2018bisection\u2019 was\nmade, then the Arunta organisation was originally that of exogamous\nTotemism. At first, though not now, totems regulated Arunta marriages.\n\nDr. Durkheim, in the passage cited, says that the two exogamous\nphratries are composed of \u2018two elementary totem groups, _\u00e9galement\nexogames_.\u2019[33] Dr. Durkheim, who here is of my opinion, writes, \u2018It\nis not true that, among the Arunta, the totem has always been\u2019 (as it\nis now) \u2018without influence on marriages, nor, above all, is it true\nthat Totemism, generally, implied endogamy.\u2019 Yet, according to Arunta\nmyth, the ancestors of the \u2018dream-time\u2019 (_Alcheringa_) were endogamous,\nas a general rule, and, as a general rule, were endophagous, ate\ntheir totem animals or plants. The ancestors of their traditions fed\non their own totems, \u2018as if by a functional necessity,\u2019 say Messrs.\nSpencer and Gillen. But this simply cannot be true, for each totem\nis not in season, (plums, for instance), or accessible, all the year\nthrough, and, if it were, it would be exterminated by endophagy. The\ntraditions, again, do not represent the men of the totem groups as\nreally and religiously endogamous. They exercised marital privileges,\nnot only over the women of their totem group, but over any other woman\nthey could come across. Certain totem groups are represented in the\nlegends as wandering across the land, the men living with women of\ntheir totem group, while \u2018there is nothing to show definitely that\nmarital relations were prohibited between individuals of different\ntotems.\u2019 The men accepted the caresses of such women of other totems\nas they encountered; but their habitual mates were the women of their\nown totem.[34] In the alleged state of perpetual _trek_, the wives were\nnaturally, in the opinion of the myth makers, of the group. At present\nan Arunta marries in or out of his totem; as he pleases.\n\n\nTHE RELATIONS OF TOTEMS AND \u2018PHRATRIES\u2019 AMONG THE ARUNTA\n\nThe relations of the totem groups to the \u2018primary divisions,\u2019 or\n\u2018phratries,\u2019 among the Arunta and cognate tribes, are, as we have\nalready stated, entirely peculiar. We have seen that, in North America,\nand in Australia generally, no phratry ever contains the same totems\nas its linked phratry, and we have seen that Mr. Frazer calls this\nthe natural arrangement.[35] If so, the present Arunta arrangement\nis not natural; it is a divergence from the natural type. Among the\nArunta, \u2018no totem is confined to either moiety\u2019 (\u2018phratry\u2019) \u2018of the\ntribe.\u2019 There is only \u2018in each local centre a great predominance of one\nmoiety.\u2019[36]\n\nDr. Durkheim regards the present state of Arunta affairs (the totems\nnot being peculiar to either phratry) as _une d\u00e9rogation_. Originally,\nhe thinks, as among the Urabunna, each phratry contained only totems\nwhich were _not_ in the other phratry; and he detects survivals,\namong the Arunta, of the earlier usage. At present the Arunta totems\nshow \u2018a slight tendency to skip\u2019 (_chevaucher_) \u2018from one into the\nother phratry, doubtless because the Arunta totem system is no longer\ncomplete\u2019--and no wonder, as Arunta totems are now not hereditary, but\nderived from the totem souls haunting each locality. Again, in Arunta\nlegend, the ancestors \u2018were divided into companies, the members of\nwhich bore the same totem name, and belonged as a rule to the same\nmoiety\u2019 (\u2018phratry\u2019) \u2018of the tribe,\u2019 as now among the Urabunna, \u2018who are\nin a less developed state than the Arunta.\u2019 So say Messrs. Spencer and\nGillen, and thus Arunta legend points to a past in which Arunta usage\nwas, in this matter, as a rule the same as that of the less developed\nUrabunna: which I believe it really was.\n\nBut we can hardly accept the legends when they fit, and reject them\nwhen they do not fit, our theory! I lay no stress on the legends.\n\nIf, however, the Arunta \u2018phratries\u2019 originally, as Dr. Durkheim and I\nbelieve, never contained the same totems, then each Arunta totem group\nwas, at that time, necessarily exogamous. No man or woman could then\nmarry within the totem, as, at present, the Arunta can and do. They\nwere barred by the phratry limit: persons of their totem were never in\nthe phratry into which alone they could marry. So no one then could\nmarry a member of his or her own totem kin. \u2018It is, therefore, untrue\nthat marriage has always been permitted between members of a totem,\u2019\nsays Dr. Durkheim, though Arunta legend declares for the opposite view.\n\n\nARUNTA MYTHS\n\nHere I am apt to agree with Dr. Durkheim. The evidence of the Arunta\nlegends as to the customs of the _Alcheringa_, or \u2018dreamtime,\u2019 is \u2018such\nstuff as dreams are made of.\u2019 The legends are \u2018statements, invented\nmainly by popular fancy,\u2019 says Dr. Durkheim, \u2018to explain existing\ninstitutions, by attaching them to some mythical beings in the past.\nThey are myths, in the proper sense of the word.\u2019 They are not marked\nby authenticity.\n\nAgainst this idea we have the opinion of Mr. Frazer, and of Messrs.\nSpencer and Gillen.[37] The Arunta traditions, they say, and Mr. Frazer\nagrees with them, do not explain the present system, but deal with a\nformer state of organisation and with customs quite different from the\npresent. They do, but the Arunta invented the customs described in\ntheir myths, on purpose to explain, mythically, how the present customs\narose out of deliberate modification of the alleged older customs.\nMessrs. Spencer and Gillen themselves assert this: \u2018the traditions\npoint to a very definite introduction of an exogamic system, long after\nthe totemic groups were fully developed, and, further, they point very\nclearly to the fact that the introduction was due to the deliberate\naction of certain ancestors,\u2019 which is the theory of Mr. Lewis Morgan!\n\nThe rest is true, but I, like Dr. Durkheim, conceive that all is\n(except where we have external evidence for deliberate modification of\nthe \u2018classes\u2019) merely part of the Arunta \u00e6tiological or explanatory\nmyth. That myth starts from the belief (Mr. Howitt\u2019s belief?) in\nprimary totemic, but not exogamous groups, such as are precisely the\npresent groups of the Arunta, though not of their neighbours the\nUrabunna, or of totemists in general. This exceptional condition of\nArunta affairs needed explanation, and got it, in the myth that the\ngroups were originally totemic, but not exogamous, as Arunta totem\ngroups still are. Exogamy (not applying to totem groups, but to\n\u2018phratries\u2019) was brought in, the myth says, by deliberate action, by\nour old friend, \u2018the Legislator,\u2019 The Arunta traditions, therefore, do\nexplain \u2018the origin of the present system,\u2019 of the Arunta, as far as\nexogamy goes; and their explanation is as much a speculative hypothesis\nas Mr. Morgan\u2019s equivalent theory. It is one more example of the\ncoincidence of savage myth and scientific hypothesis.\n\n\nMR. SPENCER ON ARUNTA LEGENDS\n\nI understand Messrs. Spencer and Gillen to contest this opinion, in\none passage, and to assert it, under qualifications, in another. Their\nexact words must be given. \u2018If they\u2019 (Arunta traditions) \u2018simply\nexplained the origin of the present system out of, as it were, no\nsystem, then we might regard them as simply myths invented to account\nfor the former\u2019 (i.e. \u2018the present system\u2019), \u2018but when we find that\nthey deal with a gradual development, and with a former state of\norganisation and customs quite different from, and in important\nrespects at variance with, the organisation and customs of the present\nday, we are probably right in regarding them as actually indicative of\na time when these were different from those now in force.\u2019[38]\n\nNow to what do the traditions amount, as regards earlier marriage laws\nand customs at variance with those now in use among the Arunta? They\namount to this: (1) Men of one totem had marital relations normally\nwith women of the same totem. It is no longer the case that Arunta men\nhave relations, normally and exclusively, with women of the same totem;\na man may marry a woman of his own totem, or not, as he pleases. But\nso, in the traditions of the primeval trek, a man might, and did, take\nwomen of other totems as he pleased, by conquest probably; though these\nwomen seem to have lived, hitherto, solely with men of their own totem.\nThe tradition starts from the hypothesis that all members of each\nmythical wandering totem group were originally of the same totem. That\nbeing so, the men naturally lived, when on trek, with women of their\ntotem, taking women of other totems as they came across them. No longer\non trek, the Arunta of to-day do the same thing, many women of their\nown or any other totem. The only shade of difference arises from the\nnature of the mythical theory, that many totem groups were originally\nmigratory. But the present Arunta system of \u2018go as you please\u2019 in\nmarriage (as far as totems are concerned) differs from the regular\ncustom of the neighbouring Urabunna, for example. That difference, the\nArunta probably feel, needs explanation. So their myth explains it, \u2018we\nArunta always acted thus from the beginning.\u2019 So far the \u2018tradition\u2019\nof Messrs Spencer and Gillen seems to me to be an ordinary explanatory\nmyth.\n\n(2) At the supposed time (a time when many human types were still in\nthe husk!) men and women of what are now \u2018exogamic groups\u2019 (\u2018phratries\u2019\nor \u2018classes\u2019) had marital relations contrary to present usage.\n\nBut did the phratries or classes then, according to tradition, exist\nat all? The legend says that the men of the Little Hawk totem _had_\nthese \u2018phratries\u2019 and classes, Kumura and Purula and so on (the names\nthen carrying no known exogamous prohibition, as now, for the legend\ndoes not say that these \u2018classes\u2019 were exogamous). The Little Hawk\nmen had arrived at the arts of making flint knives, and using them in\ncircumcision. This they taught to less advanced groups, who tooled with\nfire sticks. But they only let their pupils have \u2018very rough\u2019 stone\nknives (Pal\u00e6olithic, probably), at first. \u2018It was these Little Hawks,\u2019\nsay our authors, \u2018who first gave to the Arunta the four \u201cclass\u201d names.\nWe may presume that along with them there was instituted some system of\nmarriage regulations, but what exactly this was there is no evidence\nto show.\u2019 Either the Little Hawks introduced exogamy, or they did not,\na valuable result of traditional evidence.[39] \u2018As yet we have no\nindication of any restrictions with regard to marriage as far as either\ntotems or classes are concerned,\u2019 say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. Then\nwhy does the legend aver that the class names existed? Why did they\nexist? Now the existing restrictions of the \u2018classes\u2019 need explanation,\nand get it, from the myth; but, as there are no Arunta _totem_\nrestrictions on marriage, at present the myth naturally says nothing\nabout them. At this mythic period, \u2018persons of the Purula and Kumura\nclasses, who may not now marry one another, are represented as living\ntogether.\u2019[40] (3) Next \u2018the organisation now in vogue was adopted.\u2019\nBut, in its first shape, due to the wisdom of Emu men, it permitted\nmarriages, which are now (4) forbidden by the superior intelligence\nof men dwelling further north, \u2018and it was decided to adopt the new\nsystem,\u2019 that is, the present Arunta \u2018class\u2019 system.\n\nNow the Arunta are still accepting innovations from the North, and\n_this_ part of the myth need not be mythical.\n\nBut the whole traditions, full of stark mythical inventions (including\na myth like that of Isis and the mutilation of Osiris), amount merely\nto this. Society was totemic, but the totems were not exogamous; rather\nendogamous of the two. Society among the Arunta is still totemic,\nbut not, as far as totems go, exogamous. In this it differs from the\nusual rule, and the myth explains why,--\u2018it was always so.\u2019 But Arunta\nsociety is exogamous as regards the \u2018phratries\u2019 and classes, and _that_\nhas to be explained by the myth. The myth therefore explains by saying\nthat Emu men introduced a deficient, and northern men an adequate,\nsystem of exogamy--that which now prevails. Messrs. Spencer and\nGillen, however, appear to deny that the \u2018traditions\u2019 \u2018simply explain\nthe origin of the present system, out of, as it were, no system. It\nis true that the traditions do give stages in the arrangement of the\npresent system; but they also do \u2018explain the origin of the present\nsystem.\u2019 And Messrs. Spencer and Gillen not only admit this, but, as we\nsaw, even think the explanation \u2018quite possible.\u2019 The explanation, I\nrepeat, is that the system \u2018is due to the deliberate action of certain\nancestors,\u2019 Emu men and wiser Northern men.\n\nOf course, as we tried to show, that explanation of primeval exogamy\nis improbable, but it is the explanation given by the Arunta legend.\nWith a grain of fact, as to innovations from the North, the legend\nis a myth, an \u00e6tiological myth, a myth explanatory of the origin of\nthe present organisation. History it is not. The Arunta \u2018traditions\u2019\nare not historical evidence in favour of the new hypothesis that the\nArunta are \u2018primitive,\u2019 are in \u2018the chrysalis stage\u2019 of humanity; (this\nthey deny): that Totemism, in origin, was a magical co-operative and\nindustrial association; that the original totems were not exogamous;\nand that exogamy was superimposed by legislation, or grew out of an\norganisation so imposed on a society of non-exogamous totem groups.\nWhatever the value of that hypothesis, it has no historical support\nfrom the Arunta traditions. History is a very different thing.\n\nThe Arunta still marry, at pleasure, in or out of the totem, merely\nbecause their totems are now scattered about among their exogamous\ndivisions. This is not the \u2018natural arrangement\u2019 (as Mr. Frazer assures\nus), is not the inevitable original arrangement, and is not the\ncase with their neighbours, the Urabunna, who are confessedly \u2018less\ndeveloped than the Arunta.\u2019 The Urabunna system, therefore, is more\narchaic, _ex hypothesi_ than that of the Arunta, which must be less\narchaic. It is, I repeat, peculiar, isolated, needs explanation, and\nthe Arunta traditions give the explanation. The ancestors took women in\nor out of the totem, as at present the Arunta do; exogamy by _classes_\nwas later imposed, says the myth. Dr. Durkheim appears here to hold the\nmore logical position. There was, I conceive, with Dr. Durkheim, and\nhave stated, though Messrs Spencer and Gillen and others deny it, \u2018a\nprimary relationship between the totemic system and exogamy.\u2019[41]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _Ethnological Bureau, Annual Report_, 1893-1894, pp. 200,\n201.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 221.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Suppose we take a group ranging in a given locality, and\nknown to its neighbours as the Emu group. Let us also take a similar\nand similarly situated Kangaroo group. Let us suppose that each such\ngroup has raided for its wives among Opossum, Grub, Cat, and Dingo\ngroups. By female descent, both the Emu and Kangaroo groups will\ncontain persons of the Opossum, Grub, Cat, and Dingo groups. This\nbeing so a man of the Emu local group, named Grub by totem, might\nmarry a woman of the Emu local group, by totem of descent an Opossum;\nand similarly in the Kangaroo group. But, as Dr. Durkheim remarks in\nanother case, \u2018the old prohibition\u2019, deeply rooted in manners and\ncustoms, survives (_L\u2019Ann\u00e9e Sociologique_, v. 107, note). Now \u2018the old\nprohibition\u2019 was that a man of the Emu group was not to marry a woman\nof the Emu group. That rule endures, though the Emu group now contains\nmen and women of several distinct totem kins. To escape from the\ndifficulty, by my theory, Emu local totem group makes connubium with\nKangaroo local totem group. Any Emu man may marry any Kangaroo woman\nnot of his own totem by descent. But this does not, automatically,\nthrow Opossum and Grub into one, Cat and Dingo into another, of the\ntwo local totem groups, Emu and Kangaroo, now become phratries, with\nloss of their local character. For if a man, by phratry Emu, and by\ntotem of descent Cat, marries a woman, by phratry Kangaroo, and by\ntotem of descent Grub, their children, by female descent, are Kangaroo\nGrubs. Meanwhile, if a man, by phratry Kangaroo, and by totem Cat,\nmarries a woman, by phratry Emu, and by totem Grub, their children are\nEmu Grubs. There are thus Grubs in both phratries, a thing that never\noccurs (except among the Arunta). Therefore the division of the totem\nkins, some into one phratry, others into the other, is not automatic.\nThere might be a tendency, by way of making assurance doubly sure, for\nthe totem kins to be assorted into the two phratries, but some kind of\ndeliberate arrangement does seem necessary. The same necessity attends\nDr. Durkheim\u2019s theory later criticised.]\n\n[Footnote 4: See again Durkheim, in _L\u2019Ann\u00e9e Sociologique_, i.\n47-57, on the superstition as to blood, and the totem as a sacred\nrepresentative of the inviolable blood of the kindred. That\nsuperstition gives religious sanction to a pre-existing exogamous\ntendency.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Totemism_, p. 60 (1889).]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Totemism_, p. 62.]\n\n[Footnote 7: The people of New Britain group of islands are divided\ninto two exogamous sets. The totems of these classes are two insects,\nbut I incline to suppose that there are, or may have been, totem kins\nincluded within these totemic classes. Our informant, the Rev. B.\nDanks, regrets that he did not pay more attention to these matters. _J.\nA. I._ xviii. 281-294.]\n\n[Footnote 8: On the other hand, among the Mohegans, I can admit\nthat Little Turtle, Mud Turtle, and Great Turtle may be deliberate\nsubdivisions of the Turtle totem, now a phratry, but even this need\nnot necessarily be the case; the different species of turtles being\nquite capable of giving names to different totems. I would not deny\nthe possibility of the occasional segmentation of a totem group--far\nfrom it--but I doubt whether great tribes originally (and, as it seems,\ndeliberately) first bisected themselves, and then cut up the two main\ndivisions.]\n\n[Footnote 9: My italics.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _J. A. I._, N.S. i. 278.]\n\n[Footnote 11: _Ibid_. p. 282.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Mr. Mathews counts thirty-four totems in the _Dilbi_, and\nas many in the Rupathin \u2018phratries.\u2019 _Proc. Ray. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxi.\n157-158.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _J. A. I._, N.S. i. 284-285.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Studies in Ancient History_, second series, p. 605.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Local totem groups, in my theory.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Brough Smyth, _Aborigines of Victoria_, i. 423-424.]\n\n[Footnote 17: _On the Organisation of Australian Tribes_, p. 186.]\n\n[Footnote 18: I know that many students will decline to admit that\nthere is such a myth of a Maker.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _Report of Bureau of Ethnology_, 1892-1893, pt. i. pp.\n32-43.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Natives of Central Australia_, pp. 12-15.]\n\n[Footnote 21: _Ibid_. pp. 15, 421-422, also p. 272.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Here I dissent from Mr. Frazer and Messrs. Spencer and\nGillen; the point is discussed later.]\n\n[Footnote 23: _Fortnightly Review_, June 1889.]\n\n[Footnote 24: In 1895, _J. A. I._ xxiv., no. 4, p. 371, Mr. Fison\nabandons hope of a certain discovery of the origin of exogamy.]\n\n[Footnote 25: _Fortnightly Review_, April, May, 1899.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 68, 69, 121.]\n\n[Footnote 27: _Ibid_. p. 70.]\n\n[Footnote 28: _Ibid_. p. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 29: See \u2018The Origin of Totemism,\u2019 _infra_.]\n\n[Footnote 30: _L\u2019Ann\u00e9e Sociologique_, 1900-1901, pp. 82-121.]\n\n[Footnote 31: _Ibid_. v. 89-90.]\n\n[Footnote 32: _Totemism_, p. 83.]\n\n[Footnote 33: _L\u2019Ann\u00e9e Sociologique_, v. 92.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Spencer and Gillen, p. 419.]\n\n[Footnote 35: _J. A. I._, N.S., i. 285.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Spencer and Gillen, p. 120.]\n\n[Footnote 37: _J. A. I._, N.S., i., nos. 3, 4, p. 276.]\n\n[Footnote 38: _J. A. I._, N.S., i. 276-277.]\n\n[Footnote 39: _Native Tribes of Australia_, pp. 396-402, 421.]\n\n[Footnote 40: _Native Tribes of Australia_, p. 418.]\n\n[Footnote 41: _Op. cit._ p 279.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nARUNTA PHRATRIES AND TOTEMS\n\n\nThe essential question is, why, among the more archaic Urabunna, do\nthe large exogamous divisions never include the same totems, whereas,\namong the more highly developed Arunta, they do? If we can show how the\nArunta, if once organised on the Urabunna and North American model,\ncame to slip out of it; while we cannot show how the Urabunna, and\nmost other tribes, if once on the Arunta model, came to desert it (as\nthey must have done), then it will seem probable that the Urabunna\norganisation, the regular universal Australian organisation, is the\nolder.\n\nThe sequence of events, as understood by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen,\nwas this, or, at least, may thus be conceived. We take two tribes,\nsay Urabunna and Arunta. They both have many totem groups, totemic,\nbecause (on this theory) each group had, for its \u2018primary function,\u2019\nthe working of magic for the object which was its totem. The totem\nhad primarily, on this theory, no relation to marriage rules. It is\n\u2018quite possible\u2019 that certain persons then deliberately introduced\nexogamous divisions.... \u2018so as to regulate marital relations.\u2019 The\nexact purpose, however, is unknown; \u2018it can only be said that far back\nin the early history of mankind, there was felt the need of some form\nof organisation, and that this gradually resulted in the development\nof exogamic groups.\u2019 This position I have already criticised; it is\nnot intelligible to me. However--the exogamous division was made, and\nthen all the totems might be arranged separately in the two divisions,\nby the Urabunna, \u2018and perhaps the majority of Australian tribes\u2019\n(and the American tribes) or, \u2018this was not done,\u2019 as by the Arunta.\nConsequently, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen think, the rule which prevents\nan Urabunna man from marrying a woman of his own totem, has nothing,\nprimarily, to do with the totem, but is a mere inevitable consequence\nof the system which, among all tribes but the Arunta, excluded each\ntotem from one of the two exogamous divisions, and placed it (not among\nthe Arunta) in the other. My own system--I need not reiterate it--is\nthe reverse of all this.\n\nThe Arunta, I contend, probably had, originally, the usual\norganisation, but have lost it for obvious reasons, so that now the\nsame totem may occur in both of the large exogamous divisions, and\npersons of the same totem may now intermarry.\n\nThe traditions of the Arunta represent the exogamous \u2018phratries\u2019 as\nlater than the totemic (but not yet exogamous) division. Dr. Durkheim\nthinks this improbable or impossible. It is true that the \u2018phratries\u2019\nor \u2018classes\u2019 are now much more important, among the Arunta, than the\ntotems, on which Dr. Durkheim insists. They need not, therefore, be\nearlier.\n\n\nVIEWS OF DR. DURKHEIM\n\nThe theory of Dr. Durkheim is not, perhaps, expressed with his usual\nlucidity; at least I have found some difficulty in understanding it.\nThe following summary, however, seems to be correct. \u2018The phratry,\u2019\nhe says, \u2018began by being a clan\u2019 (in my terminology an exogamous\nlocal totem group). \u2018There is no reason why this general idea should\nnot apply to the Arunta. Consequently, since there are actually two\nexogamous phratries, we have reason to admit that this society was\noriginally formed by two primary clans, or, if any one prefers the\nphrase, by two elementary totem groups, both exogamous (_\u00e9galement\nexogames_), for under this form the two phratries must have begun to\nexist. Now in that case there was at least a moment when marriage was\nforbidden between members of the same totem,\u2019 though now among the\nArunta this rule no longer obtains.[1]\n\nSo far Dr. Durkheim and I hold identical views; we differ on a point\nof detail. What are, and whence came, the totems within the phratries?\nDr. Durkheim conceives the case thus: Originally there was a \u2018clan\u2019\n(local totem group) which was exogamous, and married out into one\nother equally exogamous clan. The members of each such exogamous totem\ngroup (\u2018clan\u2019) then multiplied and \u2018swarmed off,\u2019 in colonies, and\nall such colonies took a new totem, while retaining \u2018the sentiment of\ntheir primary solidarity\u2019 with the original totem group. These are\nthe \u2018secondary\u2019 totem kins. But why should they take new totem names\nand new totems?[2] I know not, but the original group from which they\nswarmed off now became their \u2018phratry.\u2019 This phratry, in many cases,\nstill has a totem name, \u2018which is the proof that it is, or has been a\nclan,\u2019 that is an exogamous totem group.[3] Therefore exogamous totem\ngroups were \u2018primary,\u2019 the existing totem kins are \u2018secondary,\u2019 they\nhave split off from the original groups. As far as I am able to follow\nDr. Durkheim\u2019s reasoning, he and I differ on this one point. We both\nregard the two \u2018phratries\u2019 as having been originally local exogamous\ntotem groups, which united in connubium. But in each \u2018phratria\u2019 there\nexist several totem kinships. Dr. Durkheim regards these as \u2018secondary\u2019\nbranches which split off from the two original local totem groups, and\nwhich, in each case, took new totem names, while retaining membership\nin their original totem groups, now \u2018phratries.\u2019 They are totemic\ncolonies of a totemic metropolis. I, on the other hand, as has been\nexplained, conceive that each of the two local totem groups which\nbecame phratries (say Emu and Kangaroo) already, by the action of\nexogamy in a region where there were many totem groups, and by virtue\nof female descent, contained within it persons who were of various\ntotem kindreds. Dr. Durkheim, on the contrary, seems to think of the\nexistence of but two primal exogamous clans in a given region. Groups\nemigrating from these took new totem names, while retaining the phratry\nname and connection with their mother clans, now phratries.\n\nWhy the clans were totemic at all does not appear. I understand that\nthey were exogamous out of respect for the blood of their totems, the\ntotem tabu (p. 57, note I).\n\nAgainst the hypothesis it may be urged (1) that we do not know that\nemigrants from a local centre ever select new totem names--unless,\nindeed, they reach a region where their old totem does not exist. This\ncannot have occurred constantly. Again (2), Dr. Durkheim\u2019s theory\ninvolves the same difficulty as my own. How did the colonies from the\nKangaroo group happen never to select the same totem as colonies from\nthe Emu group, so that the same totem never occurs in both phratries?\nThis implies deliberate arrangement. If however, totem names were given\nfrom without, by neighbours (as I shall argue), the case could not\noccur at all, and the same totem would appear in both phratries.\n\nIf we adopt the hypothesis that two friendly \u2018families,\u2019 or \u2018fire\ncircles,\u2019 of a cousinly character, set the first example of exogamous\nintermarriage--exclusively with each other--and then got totem names,\nthey might become phratries, but whence arose the totem kins within the\nphratries? Shall we say that other such \u2018families,\u2019 increasing in size,\nand receiving totem names, came in, two by two, to Emu and Kangaroo,\neach of the new linked adherents taking opposite sides, Opossum going\nto the Kangaroo, Bandicoot to the Emu phratry? This would give the\ntotems within the phratries, by a constant accession of other pairs of\nphratries, which subordinated themselves, one to Emu, one to Kangaroo.\nEither this hypothesis, or Dr. Durkheim\u2019s, or my own, accounts for\nthe phratry _plus_ totem kins arrangement, without supposing the\ndeliberate bisection of a hitherto undivided commune. That hypothesis,\nif any one, of the other three, Dr. Durkheim\u2019s, my own, or the theory\nof accessions to the pair of exogamous intermarrying families, be\naccepted, is therefore not forced upon us in defect of a better.\n\nHOW DID THE ARUNTA ANOMALY ARISE?\n\nAt all events, the Arunta \u2018clan\u2019 (totem kin) is now no longer\nexogamous, and two Arunta phratries can now contain members of the\nsame totems, contrary to Kamilaroi, Dieri and Urabunna and American\ncustom. How did this anomaly arise? Dr. Durkheim supposes that the\nchange began when Arunta kinship came to desert the female and to be\nreckoned in the male line. This appears to Dr. Durkheim to be indicated\nby the complicated and ingenious arrangements made when an Urabunna\n(who reckons by the female line) intermarries with an Arunta, who\nreckons by the male line.[4] These arrangements, he thinks, are no\nnovelty devised for the occasion: the Arunta merely revert to their old\nway of reckoning by the spindle side. When the Arunta changed their\nsystem, and reckoned in the male, not, as of old, in the female line,\nthe children now belonged to the \u2018phratries,\u2019 not of their mothers,\nas previously, but of their fathers. Each \u2018phratry\u2019 then bartered a\nsub-class of its own for a sub-class of its partner. Each bartered\nsub-class thus brought its totems into the other \u2018phratry,\u2019 and\nthere was no longer a totem group entirely peculiar to one or other\n\u2018phratry.\u2019 Consequently, a member of the Kangaroo totem could marry a\nwoman of the same, if she were in the opposite \u2018phratry\u2019 to his own.\n\nMight not the same results follow from the mere fact, that, among the\nArunta, the totem is now inherited neither from father nor mother,\nbut is derived simply from the totem souls that haunt the particular\nglen or hill where the child was conceived? By this means a totem soul\ncan get into a child of the \u2018phratry\u2019 to which that totem did not\noriginally belong, and thus the totems \u2018skip\u2019 from one \u2018phratry\u2019 to\nanother, contrary to general rule in Australia and North America. This\nis the explanation of the Arunta anomaly which Messrs. Spencer and\nGillen accept. \u2018The spirit child\u2019 (of the Lizard totem) \u2018deliberately,\nthe natives say, chose to go into a Kumura\u2019 (class) \u2018woman, instead of\na Bulthara woman.... Though the class was changed, the totem could not\npossibly be.... Owing to the system according to which totem names are\nacquired, it is always possible for a man to be, say, a Purula\u2019 (class)\n\u2018or a Kumura\u2019 (class) \u2018and yet a Witchetty; or, on the other hand, a\nBulthara\u2019 (class) \u2018or a Panunga\u2019 (class) \u2018and yet an Emu\u2019 (totem). But,\nif he is thus born to a totem which was not originally (on my theory)\na totem of his phratry, a man loses the chance of being an _Alatunja_,\nor head man of a local group.[5] Thus the Arunta anomaly arises merely\nand necessarily from the Arunta philosophy of souls. That philosophy is\nan isolated freak, and it has upset and revolutionised Arunta Totemism,\nwhich, therefore, is the reverse of the \u2018primitive\u2019 model.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _L\u2019Ann\u00e9e Sociologique_, v. 91, 92.]\n\n[Footnote 2: This idea we shall find again later, in another part of\nDr. Durkheim\u2019s system.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _L\u2019Ann\u00e9e Sociologique_, i. 6, 7.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _L\u2019Ann. Soc._ v. 104-107; Spencer and Gillen, pp. 68-69.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 125, 126. The reader is\nrecommended to study Dr. Durkheim\u2019s passage cited in the last note, the\ntopic being difficult.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nOTHER BARS TO MARRIAGES\n\n\nThe prohibitions on marriage, with which we have hitherto been\nconcerned, are based on what savages regard--while we do not--as\nrelations of kindred. Men and women of the same \u2018phratry\u2019 or \u2018primary\ndivision\u2019 may not intermarry (where such divisions exist), nor may\nmen and women of the same totem name. Civilised society, at least in\nEurope, now recognises no such things as the \u2018phratry\u2019 or the totem\nkin. When Mr. George Osborne, in _Vanity Fair_, was asked whether he\nwas akin to the ducal House of Leeds, he replied that he bore the same\narms--these having been conferred on his father by a coach-builder. In\nsavage society, Captain Osborne\u2019s answer would have been satisfactory.\nHe would really have reckoned as a kinsman of all other Emus, if his\ntotem and badge (coat of arms) was an Emu. In Scotland the Campbell\nname used to be regarded as implying at least a chance that the bearer\nwas of the blood of the Black Knight of Loch Awe, and had a right\nto the Campbell tartan, and badge, the gale, or bog-myrtle. But, of\ncourse, as a rule, in modern society, a common surname is no proof of\nkinship, and coats of arms are usually home by the middle classes, and\npeers of recent creation, without much inquiry.\n\nSo far, then, the totemic rules which prohibit certain marriages,\nhave no resemblance to our own definite \u2018forbidden degrees,\u2019 based on\nnearness of blood. The savage rules, as they stand, include our notions\nof kindred, but these notions, as far as they are recognised, are not\nconterminous with ours. But the \u2018phratry\u2019 prohibitions, and the totem\nprohibitions, are not the only bars to marriage among such peoples as\nthe Australians.\n\nThe other bars are lucidly described by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen.[1]\n\u2018There are still further restrictions to marriage ... and it is here\nthat we are brought into contact with the terms of relationship.\u2019\nWe find that a woman may belong to a totem kin (and phratry) into\nwhich a man may lawfully marry, \u2018yet there is a further restriction\npreventing marriage in this particular case.\u2019 Thus a male Dingo (among\nthe Urabunna) may marry a female Water Hen, as far as \u2018phratry\u2019 and\ntotem are concerned. But he may not marry a woman of the Water Hen\ntotem if she reckons (1) as his father\u2019s sister (i.e. of his father\u2019s\ngeneration), (2) if she is his child, or his brother\u2019s child (of the\n_next_ generation), (3) if she be one of his mother\u2019s younger brother\u2019s\ndaughters: but he _may_ marry her if she (4) be one of his mother\u2019s\nelder brother\u2019s daughters. All women of that category (4) are Nupa, or\nnubile, as far as this man goes. In category I, the women (including\n\u2018paternal aunts,\u2019 as we reckon) are of an older generation than the\nman; in category 2 they are of a younger generation (including our\n\u2018children\u2019 and \u2018nieces\u2019); in category 3 the women include our cousins\non the maternal side, by uncles younger than our mothers, and, in\ncategory 4, they include our cousins on the maternal side, by uncles\nolder than our mothers. We Europeans, being males, may not marry into\ncategories 1 and 2, but if not Catholics, we may marry into categories\n3 and 4; if Catholics, we may--if we can get a dispensation.\n\nIn the Australian system the oddest thing is that a male may marry into\nwhat, in our phrase, includes his younger maternal uncle\u2019s daughter,\nbut not his elder maternal uncle\u2019s daughter. But we here use the\nwords \u2018uncle,\u2019 \u2018aunt,\u2019 and \u2018cousin,\u2019 only by way of illustration. The\nUrabunna, and tribes of their level generally, have no such words.\nAll children (category I) \u2018of men who are at the same level in the\ngeneration, and belong to the same class and totem, are regarded as\nthe common children of these men,\u2019 or, perhaps we should rather say,\nare called by the same name, Biaka, as a man\u2019s own children are styled.\nA man knows very well which children he reckons his own, though, as\nwill be seen, he has little ground for his confidence. In the same\nway a child, though he calls all men of his father\u2019s class, totem,\nand level in the generation, _Nia_ (fathers), knows well enough which\n_Nia_ feeds him, pets him, thrashes him for his good, and, generally,\nplays the paternal part. For example, a man informs you that this or\nthat native, by personal name Oriaka, is his _Okilia_, \u2018and you cannot\npossibly tell without further inquiry whether he is the speaker\u2019s own\nor tribal brother, that is the son of his own father, or of some man\nbelonging to the same particular group\u2019 (by \u2018phratry,\u2019 totem, and\nseniority) \u2018as his father.\u2019[2] But you can learn \u2018by further inquiry:\u2019\nthe actual relationship, in our sense of the word, is recognised.\n\n\u2018GROUP MARRIAGE\u2019\n\nThese facts necessarily lead to the question, are all men of one class,\ntotem, and seniority, actual husbands of all women of the opposite\nclass, different totem, and equivalent seniority? (Group Marriage).\nOr, if this is no longer the case, was it once the case? and are these\nsweeping uses of names which include our \u2018father,\u2019 \u2018mother,\u2019 \u2018brother,\u2019\n\u2018child,\u2019 survivals of such a stage, called \u2018Group Marriage\u2019? This\nquestion is still undecided; good authorities take opposite views of\nthe question, which has bred, in the past, much angry controversy.\n\nMR. MORGAN AND THE CLASS SYSTEM\n\nThe arrangement by \u2018classes,\u2019 \u2018the classificatory system,\u2019 was first\nbrought into scientific prominence by the late Mr. Lewis Morgan, an\nAmerican gentleman affiliated to the Iroquois tribe, in his very\noriginal studies of the names for degrees of kinship.[3] A great deal\nmay be said, and has been said, especially by Mr. McLennan and Dr.\nWestermarck, against Mr. Morgan\u2019s ideas and methods, but his large and\ncareful collection of facts is of high importance. On what he called\n\u2018the Malayan system,\u2019 one name denoting kin includes all my brothers,\nsisters, and cousins. Another name includes my father, mother, my\nuncles, aunts, and all the cousins of my father, mother, aunts,\nand uncles. The generation of my grandparents and their relations\nis included in a third name; a fourth covers my children and their\ncousins, and the grandchildren of my brothers and sisters, with their\nchildren, bear the same name, for me, as my own grandchildren. From\nthe names Mr. Morgan inferred the existence of certain facts in the\nevolution of systems of kindred. Everybody of the same generation\nlived together, once, on his theory, in \u2018communal marriage,\u2019 brothers,\nsisters, and cousins. There was promiscuity between all men and women\nin the same generation. Of course this involves the converse of Mr.\nAtkinson\u2019s Primal Law, as Mr. Atkinson observes in his eighth chapter.\nIn place of the prohibition of brother and sister union being the\nearliest of prohibitions (as in Mr. Atkinson\u2019s system), the rule that\nthey must unite, caused, in Mr. Morgan\u2019s opinion, the earliest form of\nthe human family.\n\nDIFFICULTIES OF MR. MORGAN\u2019S THEORY\n\nMr. Morgan\u2019s theory, it must be observed, landed him at once in the\nfallacy of supposing that prohibitions of marriage of kinsfolk were\noriginally the result of \u2018a reformatory movement.\u2019[4] We have seen\nthat, granting, for the sake of argument, Mr. Morgan\u2019s premise of\nan original \u2018undivided commune,\u2019 Mr. Fison is also deposited in the\nsame difficulty, and was once even inclined to regard a theory of\nintervention \u2018by a higher power\u2019 (the Dieri myth) as not necessarily\nout of the question, if marriage was once communal. To reform such\nmarriage relations, he says, \u2018would be a step in advance so difficult\nfor men in that utter depth of savagery to take, that they would not\nbe able to take it, unless they had help from without. This might be\ngiven by contact with a more advanced tribe; but if all the tribes\nstarted from the same level, that impulse would be impossible in the\nfirst instance, and must have been derived from a higher power.\u2019[5] Mr.\nFison, as we saw, has since expressed the opinion that the origin of\nexogamy is probably indiscoverable, but I cite again his early remark\nto prove his sense of the insuperable difficulty of Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory.\n\nHow were men in his hypothetical condition to know that there was\nanything to reform? It needed a divine revelation!\n\nMr. Morgan was himself aware of this difficulty, and tried to get out\nof it, by using Darwinian phrases about \u2018natural selection\u2019--\u2018blessed\nwords,\u2019 but here unavailing. He was in the posture of Mr. Spencer,\nbetween direct legislation to introduce exogamy, and gradual\nevolution of exogamy, as the slow result of the felt need of \u2018_some_\norganisation,\u2019--its nature and purpose unknown. Thus Mr. Morgan,\nspeaking of communal marriage, and its results, says that \u2018emancipation\nfrom them was slowly accomplished through movements which resulted in\nunconscious reformation.\u2019 These movements were, first, the \u2018class\u2019\nsystem, then the \u2018_gens_\u2019 (totem system), \u2018worked out unconsciously\nthrough natural selection.\u2019[6] This means, if it means anything, that,\nby a freak or sport, some people did not marry in and in, that they\nunconsciously evolved the totem system, that they therefore throve,\nwhile others who married in and in, and did not evolve the totem\nsystem, perished, and so we have the results of \u2018natural selection.\u2019\nBut why did some people avoid the habit of marriages of near kin which\nwas so general? The position is that of Dr. Westermarck, who adds an\n\u2018instinct,\u2019 developed by natural selection,[7] an idea which involves\narguing in a circle.\n\nAgain, that peoples marrying in the communal way would die out has to\nbe proved: science has no certainty in the matter.\n\nIn any case, Mr. Morgan presently deserts his opinion about slow\nunconscious reformation, and his natural selection. \u2018The organisation\ninto classes seems to have been directed to the single object of\nbreaking up the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, which affords\na probable explanation of the origin of the system. But since it does\nnot look beyond this particular abomination it retained a conjugal\nsystem nearly as objectionable....\u2019[8] The reader sees that Mr.\nMorgan cannot keep on the high Darwinian level. He relapses on a\nsupposed moral reform with a single object of things \u2018abominable\u2019--to\nus--and \u2018objectionable\u2019--to us. But how did the pristine savages\nfind out that such things were \u2018abominable\u2019? Presently the totem\nprohibition (\u2018the _gens_\u2019) \u2018originates probably in the ingenuity\nof a small band of savages,\u2019 for the purpose of modifying marriage\nlaw, and the daring novelty \u2018must soon have proved its utility in\nthe production of superior men.\u2019[9] Here we have the legislation\ndue to human \u2018ingenuity,\u2019 and natural selection comes in to aid and\ndiffuse the system. Later \u2018the evils of the first form of marriage\ncame to be perceived\u2019 (what were they?) and this led \u2018if not to its\ndirect abolition, to a preference for wives beyond this degree. Among\nthe Australians it was abolished by the organisation into classes,\nand more widely among the Turanian tribes by the organisation into\ngentes.\u2019 The Australians have \u2018gentes\u2019 (totem groups) quite as much\nas the \u2018Turanians\u2019 or \u2018Ganowanians,\u2019 and we have tried to show that\ntotems are prior to \u2018classes.\u2019[10] But the Australians \u2018abolished\u2019\na form of marriage by an \u2018organisation,\u2019 which implies deliberate\nlegislation. From this difficulty of legislation, so early and so\nmoral, no advocate of the \u2018bisection\u2019 of an undivided commune and of\nits \u2018subdivision\u2019 into totem \u2018phratries\u2019 and kins, can escape, however\nhe may make a push at \u2018natural selection,\u2019 and gradual evolution.\n\nMR. MORGAN ON TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP\n\nThese perplexities do not predispose us in favour of Mr. Morgan\u2019s\ntheory of the terms of \u2018Relationship,\u2019 which we have illustrated by the\ncase of the Urabunna. He himself takes the Hawaiian terms, which are to\nthe same effect. In brief, all the men and women of a generation are\u2019\nbrothers and sisters,\u2019 all those of the prior generation are \u2018fathers\nand mothers,\u2019 all those of the following generation are \u2018children.\u2019\nNow, if ever all the men and women of a generation married \u2018all through\nother,\u2019 promiscuously, these terms of \u2018relationship\u2019 would be in place.\nFirst, we are told, brothers and sisters in a family intermarried,\nand the process \u2018gradually enfolded the collateral brothers and\nsisters, as the range of the conjugal system widened.\u2019 And then \u2018the\nevils came to be perceived,\u2019 what evils, how perceived, we do not\nknow, and Reformation set in. It definitely began with the Australian\n\u2018Bisection,\u2019 \u2018the organisation into classes\u2019 (really into \u2018phratries\u2019),\nand about the difficulties of that theory enough has been said.\n\nThe reader will naturally ask, What is the original meaning of the\nwords now used by Hawaiians, and Urabunna, and others, for the\nrelations in which our \u2018father,\u2019 \u2018son,\u2019 \u2018wife,\u2019 \u2018husband,\u2019 \u2018mother.\u2019\n\u2018daughter,\u2019 \u2018brother,\u2019 \u2018sister,\u2019 are included? Do the words embracing\nour terms \u2018brother\u2019 and \u2018sister\u2019 in Hawaii, or elsewhere, imply\nprocreation, and issue (as in Greek), \u2018from the same womb\u2019? Among the\nArunta they cannot mean procreation, if they do not even know (as\nMessrs. Spencer and Gillen tell us), that there is any such thing as\nprocreation. \u2018A spirit child enters a woman,\u2019 that is all. In the times\nof this primeval ignorance, words for relationships could not imply\nbearing and begetting; they must have meant something else. Say that\nthey meant relationships in point of seniority: \u2018my male elder,\u2019 \u2018my\nfemale elder,\u2019 \u2018my male junior,\u2019 \u2018my female junior,\u2019 \u2018my male coeval\nor friend,\u2019 \u2018my female coeval or friend,\u2019 \u2018the man I may marry,\u2019 \u2018the\nwoman I may marry,\u2019 \u2018the woman or man I may not marry.\u2019\n\nIf low savage names for relationships meant that (no doubt they do not,\nor not often) then they would undeniably prove nothing as to a system\nof communal marriage. A baby points to any man or woman and says \u2018pa\u2019\nor \u2018ma,\u2019 without any theory of communal marriage. Thus philologists\nmust first interpret for us the original significance of these savage\nnames of relationships. Once given, they would last, whatever they\noriginally implied. Dr. Westermarck has urged this point.[11] In the\nterms themselves there is, generally, nothing which indicates that\nthey imply an idea of consanguinity.\u2019 \u2018Pa, papa\u2019 (father), ma, mama\n(mother), and scores of others, \u2018are formed from the earliest sounds\na child can produce,\u2019 and \u2018have no intrinsic meaning whatever.\u2019 Dr.\nWestermarck gives a long list of such words, applied to \u2018fathers,\nand all the tribe brothers of fathers,\u2019 and the same for mothers,\nconcluding \u2018that we must not, from these designations, infer anything\nas to early marriage customs.\u2019 He does not deny that other terms of\nrelationship have roots of independent meaning, \u2018but the number of\nthose that imply an idea of consanguinity does not seem to be very\ngreat.\u2019 In Lifu (Melanesia), the word for \u2018father\u2019 means \u2018root;\u2019 for\n\u2018mother,\u2019 \u2018foundation\u2019 or \u2018vessel;\u2019 for \u2018sister,\u2019 \u2018not to be touched;\u2019\nfor \u2018elder and younger brother,\u2019 \u2018ruler\u2019 and \u2018ruled.\u2019[12] The terms for\nfather and mother denote consanguinity; the others, customary law, and\nstatus.\n\nIf we only knew the meanings, say, of the Urabunna words for\nrelationships, we should learn much. But the truly amusing fact is that\nMr. Fison, for example, did not know the language of the natives, and\nthought that probably not six white men in Australia had an adequate\nknowledge, and an adequate access to the notions, of the tribesmen. Of\nthese one had been initiated, and, like a gentleman, declined to break\nthe oath of secresy.[13] This was in 1880. Things may have improved.\nBut unless our authorities know the languages, where are we? We do know\nthat seniority is indicated: Father\u2019s elder brothers are Gampatcha Kuka\n(Warramunga tribe).\n\nMr. McLennan thought that all these terms were \u2018terms of address,\u2019\nused to avoid the employment of personal names, and Dr. Westermarck\nholds that \u2018there can scarcely be any doubt that the terms for\nrelationship are, in their origin, terms of address.\u2019 Messrs. Spencer\nand Gillen, after impartial consideration, cannot accept this view,\nfor Australia; where the terms are very numerous, and stand for\nrelations very complicated, connected with the intermarrying groups,\nand with social duties. In addressing a person, his or her individual\nname (our Christian name) is freely used.[14] They believe that the\nterms can only be explained \u2018on the theory of the former existence of\ngroup marriage, and further, that this has of necessity given rise\nto the terms of relationship used by the Australian natives.\u2019 These\nopinions are shared by Messrs. Fison and Howitt. The former says, \u2018It\nmust, I think, be allowed that the classificatory terms point to group\nmarriage,\u2019 and though Bastian denies this, Mr. Fison supports his\ntheory by the Dieri custom of allotting paramours (pinauru) to men and\nwomen, out of the sets which may intermarry.[15]\n\nTo this problem we return; meanwhile it may seem impertinent in mere\nethnologists of the study to hint a doubt as to the conclusions of\nobservers on the spot. Mr. Crawley, however, has no hesitations. The\nuse of the terms of relationship, he thinks, does not testify to a past\nof \u2018Group Marriage,\u2019 or to a remoter past of promiscuity, but is \u2018the\nregular result of the primitive theory of relationship; the system\ncodifies a combination of relation and relationship, \u201caddress,\u201d and\nage.\u2019 The terms in use \u2018do not in themselves necessarily point to a\nprevious promiscuity, or even to a present group marriage,\u2019 as Messrs.\nSpencer and Gillen believe.\n\nThe point is one on which I almost hesitate to venture a decided\nopinion. Much seems to depend on the original sense of the various\nterms, and on that point, in the case of Urabunna, and many other\ntribes, we have no light. But often the terms do not express\nconsanguinity at all. There seems to be no word for \u2018daughter\u2019 as\ndistinct from \u2018son,\u2019 \u2018nephew,\u2019 and \u2018niece.\u2019 The grandfather _maternal_\nis _Thunthie_, and _Thunthunnie_ is Urabunna for totem, so that it\nis tempting to guess that _Thunthie_ means \u2018a sire of the maternal\ntotem.\u2019[16] Kadnini, again (I speaking), means grandfather paternal,\ngrandmother maternal, _and_ grandchildren.[17] These relationships\nimply duties and services. \u2018One individual has to do certain things\nfor another ... and any breach of these customs is severely punished.\u2019\nAn Arunta of the Panunga class calls all Kumura men \u2018fathers-in-law.\u2019\nHe gashes his flesh if any one of his \u2018fathers-in-law\u2019 dies, and he\ndrops his dead game if he meets any one of them. They all have that\nadvantage over him.[18] Thus these terms of relationship--communal in\nappearance--really involve certain duties, rather than relations of\nblood and affinity. But emphatically the terms are more than mere terms\nof address, as in Mr. McLennan\u2019s theory.\n\nBut these are usages of the system as it stands to-day. Is there behind\nit an \u2018undivided commune,\u2019 as Mr. Morgan held; is there actual \u2018group\nmarriage\u2019? I am not apt to believe that there is. Language shows, in\nthe terms of relationship, a group of \u2018Mothers\u2019 for each child; but, as\nMr. Darwin remarks, \u2018it seems almost incredible that the relationship\nof the child to its mother should ever have been completely ignored,\nespecially as the women in most savage tribes nurse their infants for\na long time.\u2019 A man\u2019s mother is _one_, and _must_ be known, though he\ncalls many women by the same name as he gives to his mother. She is\nlumped, in the terms of relationship, in one term with all the women\nwhom the father might legally have married, but did not. The son, in\naddressing or speaking of his mother, overlooks the \u2018one love which\nneeds no winning,\u2019 and his term has reference only to the present\nmarriage law of his tribe. That law \u2018codifies\u2019 the terms, they result\nfrom that law, and that law, again, is based, if I am right, on totem\nprohibitions, on the desire to keep marriage between people of the\nsame generation, and on the rights and duties of the generations.\nThese prohibitions, of phratry, \u2018class,\u2019 totem, and age, leave only a\ncertain set of women marriageable to a certain set of men. The name of\nthis set of women is _Nupa_ to their coevals, _Luka_ to the succeeding\ngeneration. There is no name for \u2018wife,\u2019 no name for \u2018mother;\u2019 there\nare only names expressive of customary legal status, itself the result\nof the existing rules. Whatever their original sense, they all now\nconnote seniority and customary legal status, with its reciprocal\nduties, rights and avoidances. \u2018It is the system, and not group\nmarriage, which has given rise to these terms of relationship,\u2019 says\nMr. Crawley.[19]\n\nBut what gave rise to the system? Mr. Fison has told us. 1. \u2018The\ndivision of a tribe (community) into two exogamous intermarrying\nclasses....\u2019 2. \u2018The subdivision of these two classes into four,\u2019 or,\nhe suggests, the amalgamation of two tribes. 3. \u2018Their subdivision into\ngentes distinguished by totems.\u2019[20]\n\nBut all of this theory we have already declined to accept for reasons\ngiven, and mainly because it involves (as I try to show) deliberate\nprimeval reformatory legislation--without any conceivable motive.\nAgain, we cannot accept Mr. Fison\u2019s system because it involves the\nhypothesis that a tribe, or \u2018community,\u2019 large enough to feel the\nnecessity of bisecting itself for social and moral purposes, existed\nat a period when the difficulties of commissariat, of food supply,\nand of hostility, could seldom, if ever, permit its existence. A tribe\nis, I repeat, a local aggregate of small groups become friendly: it is\nnot a primeval horde which keeps on subdividing itself, legislatively,\nfor reformatory purposes. What social cement kept such a primeval\nhorde, such an \u2018undivided commune,\u2019 together; and how did the animal\njealousy of men so near to the brutal stage fail to rend it into\npieces? How was it fed? How can we imagine a human herd--how supplied\nwith food, who knows?--wherein each male sees each other male approach\nwhat female he pleases, perhaps his own preferred girl, without\ninternecine jealousy? I cannot imagine this indifference to love in\nsuch a primitive Agapemone; I cannot understand its economics; any\nmore than I can guess why such a state of affairs ever seemed--to its\nmembers--\u2018abominable\u2019 and \u2018objectionable,\u2019 and a thing to be reformed;\nyet they \u2018bisected\u2019 it, and \u2018subdivided\u2019 the segments, all in the\ninterests of morality--such is the theory.\n\nAs for the good-humoured laxity which enables all men and women to\nlive together matrimonially at random, Mr. Morgan found an example, as\nhe thought, in the _Punalua_ of the Hawaiians. The word _Punalua_, when\nobserved (1860) by Judge Andrews, meant \u2018dear friend,\u2019 or \u2018intimate\ncompanion.\u2019 A man called his sister\u2019s husband (our \u2018brother-in-law) his\n\u2018dear friend,\u2019 and a woman styled the wife of her husband\u2019s brother\n(her sister-in-law), _her_ \u2018dear friend,\u2019 or _Punalua_. This shows that\nrelations-in-law were not \u2018Foes-in-law,\u2019 or, at least, that this was\nnot the official view of the case. It really does not follow that all\nthe wives \u2018shared their remaining husbands in common.\u2019 Judge Andrews\nthought that this happy family \u2018_were inclined_ to possess each other\nin common.\u2019 That was only the Judge\u2019s theory, also the theory of the\nRev. Artemus Bishop. Probably there was a great deal of genial license\nand indifference among loose luxurious barbaric people, living in\n\u2018summer isles of Eden,\u2019 where food and necessaries were ready made by\nbenignant Nature.[21]\n\n    Each shepherd clasped, with unconcealed delight,\n    His yielding fair, within the Captain\u2019s sight;\n    Each yielding fair, as chance or fancy led,\n    Preferred new lovers to her sylvan bed.[22]\n\nThis is vastly well, and the poet adds, in a liberal spirit,\n\nWhat Otaheite is, let England be!\n\nIt is very well, but it by no means represents, probably, the manners\nof primitive man.\n\n\u2018We may conclude,\u2019 says Mr. Darwin, \u2018from what we know of the jealousy\nof all male quadrupeds,... that promiscuous intercourse, in a state\nof nature, is extremely improbable.... The most probable view is that\nprimeval man aboriginally lived in small communities, each with as many\nwives as he could support and obtain, whom he would have jealously\nguarded against all other men. Or he may have lived with several wives\nby himself, like the Gorilla, for all the natives agree that but one\nadult male is seen in a band; when the young male grows up a struggle\ntakes place for mastery, and the strongest, by killing and driving\nout the others, establishes himself as the head of the community. The\nyounger males, being thus expelled and wandering about, would, when at\nlast successful in finding a partner, prevent too close interbreeding\nwithin the limits of the same family,\u2019 just as the other male did.[23]\n\nThis second view of Mr. Darwin\u2019s is much like the theory of Mr.\nAtkinson, and is very unlike Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory of a human horde,\nliving in communal marriage, or group marriage. Mr. Darwin\u2019s idea,\nmoreover, the primitive groups being small, does not encounter the\neconomic difficulties raised by the hypothesis of the \u2018undivided\ncommune.\u2019 The strongest male practically enforced exogamy, as far as\nhe was able, and maybe conceived to have entertained no scruples as to\nconnection with his daughters. Mr. Darwin admitted that \u2018the indirect\nevidence\u2019 for communal marriage, and fraternal incest, was \u2018extremely\nstrong,\u2019 but then \u2018it rests chiefly on the terms of relationship which\nare employed between members of the same tribe, implying a connection\nwith the tribe alone, and not with either parent.\u2019 If, however, we\nhave successfully explained these terms of relationship as not usually\nmeaning degrees of consanguinity, but of customary legal status, under\nthe prevalent customary law, the evidence which these terms yield for\npromiscuity, or group marriage, is extremely weak, or is nil, above all\nif our theory of how the legal status arose is accepted. And, if it is\nnot accepted, back we come to primeval \u2018reformatory movements.\u2019\n\nIn Lifu, the word for \u2018sister\u2019 means \u2018not to be touched,\u2019 land this is\na mere expression of customary law. A man \u2018must not touch\u2019 any one of\nthe women of his generation whom the totem tabu and the rule of the\nexogamous \u2018phratry\u2019 (in origin, we suggest, totemic) forbid him to\ntouch. All such women, in a particular grade, are his sisters. Many\nwomen, besides his actual sisters, stand to him in the degree thus\nprohibited. All bear the same name of status as a man\u2019s actual sisters\nbear, but the name does not _mean_ \u2018sisters\u2019 at all, in our sense of\nthat word: namely, daughters of the man\u2019s real father and mother. It\nmeans tabued women of a generation. If the \u2018classificatory\u2019 terms which\ninclude our \u2018fathers,\u2019 \u2018sisters,\u2019 \u2018wives,\u2019 and the rest meant what our\n\u2018fathers,\u2019 \u2018sisters,\u2019 \u2018wives,\u2019 and so on mean, then the evidence from\nthe terms, for communal or group marriage, would really be \u2018extremely\nstrong.\u2019 But, as Messrs. Spencer and Gillen say, \u2018unless all ideas of\nterms of relationship as counted among ourselves be abandoned, it is\nuseless to try and (_sic_) understand the native terms.\u2019[24] Yet the\nwhole force of the argument for communal marriage derived from savage\nterms of relationship rests precisely on our not \u2018abandoning\u2019 (as we\nare warned to abandon) \u2018all ideas of terms of relationship as counted\namong ourselves.\u2019\n\nThe friends of group and communal marriage, it seems to me, keep\nforgetting that our ideas of sister, brother, father, mother, and so\non, have nothing to do (as they tell us at certain points of their\nargument) with the native terms which include, indeed, but do not\ndenote these relationships, as understood by us. An Urabunna calls a\ncrowd of men of his father\u2019s status by the same term as he calls his\nfather. This need not point to an age when, by reason of promiscuity,\nno man knew his father. Were this so, a man of the generation prior\nto his father might be the actual parent of the speaker, and all men\nunder eighty ought to be called \u2018father\u2019 by him--which they are not.\nThe facts may merely mean that the Urabunna styles his father by the\nname denoting a status which his father shares with many other men; a\nstatus in seniority, \u2018phratry,\u2019 and totem. We really cannot first argue\nthat our ideas have no relation to the terms employed by savages, and\nthen, when we want to prove a past of communal marriage, turn round and\nreason as if our terms and the savage terms were practically identical.\nWe cannot say \u2018our word \u201cson\u201d must not be thought of when we try to\nunderstand the native term of relationship which includes sons in our\nsense,\u2019 and next aver that \u2018sons in our sense, are regarded as real\nsons of the group, not of the individual--because of a past stage of\npromiscuity making paternity indiscoverable.\u2019\n\nAs Messrs. Spencer and Gillen say, we must \u2018lay aside all preconceived\nideas of relationship,\u2019 when we study the Urabunna or other\nclassificatory terms of relationships.[25] Let us do so, and the\nevidence borne by these terms to a past of communal marriage vanishes\nat once. That the terms often denote status in customary law is\ndemonstrated. \u2018There are certain customs which are enforced by long\nusage and according to which men and women of particular degrees of\nrelationship may alone have marital relations, or may not speak to one\nanother, or according to which one individual has to do certain things\nfor another, such as providing the latter with food, or with hair, as\nthe case may be, and any breach of these customs is severely punished.\nThe elder men of each group very carefully keep alive these customs,\nmany of which are of considerable value to themselves....\u2019[26]\n\nThus, you have speared a fish, or an opossum, but if you meet any man\nof your father-in-law\u2019s set, you must drop your spoil and make off.\nConsequently, I venture to take it, the terms of relationship in no way\nanswer to our ideas of kin, but merely denote legal status.\n\n\nHOW THE TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP ORIGINALLY AROSE\n\nWe cannot, as a rule, recover (or Australian students have not\nrecovered) the original sense and etymology of terms like Biaka, Nia,\nNupa, and so forth. We are thus left to choose between two competing\ntheories of their nature and diffusion. If we advocate the hypothesis\nof consanguine marriage and group marriage, we must suppose that the\nmembers of the \u2018undivided commune\u2019 of the theory, had once names\nabsolutely identical in sense with our \u2018father,\u2019 \u2018mother,\u2019 \u2018sister,\u2019\n\u2018brother,\u2019 \u2018son,\u2019 \u2018daughter,\u2019 and so forth. But the speakers, in each\ncase, were obliged to apply these words with the utmost laxity, because\nwho knew _who_ A\u2019s father might be, and whether C\u2019s sister were really\nhis sister or not, while every girl was the wife of every male of her\ngeneration, not barred by other laws, and so on? The promiscuity of\nliving, then, made this lax use of words for relationships inevitable.\n\nThis is the usual hypothesis, and the sweeping scope of savage words\nfor human relationships is accepted as proof that consanguine and\ngroup marriage once existed and left their marks in language. On the\nother hand, if communal marriage prevailed, the people who lived in\nthat condition could not possibly have had ideas equivalent to our\nfather, son, daughter, brother, wife, and so on. Our ideas of these\nrelationships could not enter the human mind, at the hypothetical\nstage of culture when nobody knew \u2018who is who\u2019 and the hypothesis is\nwrecked on that fact.\n\nTherefore either the names now used under the \u2018class system\u2019 are of\nunknown original sense; or, human marriage was, from the first, so\nfar, \u2018individual\u2019 that our ideas of father, mother, brother, sister,\nson, daughter, could arise and could find expression in terms that\nstill survive, say, among the Urabunna or other Australians. But while\ntribal customary laws as to classes, totems, generations, marriage\nrules, and many other social duties were being evolved; some of the\nancient names for father, son, brother, sister, were perhaps taken up\nand applied to each of the large sets of persons whose customary legal\nstatus was _now_ (as groups coalesced into large tribes) on the level\nof actual fathers, sons, brothers, sisters, and the rest. Obviously,\nin a primitive group of a male senior, his female mates and children,\nthere could not exist (other groups being, on my theory, strange or\nhostile) large sets of persons occupying a common legal status, as in\nmodern tribes. The existence of such sets of persons is the result of\nthe later and _tribal_ society, of society in which many groups are\nreconciled and united in a local tribe. Only in such a tribe, which\ncannot be primitive, is the classificatory system of naming sets\nof people necessary. It is only in _tribal_ law that the grades of\ncustomary status answering to all the many terms can exist, and tribes\nwith their laws cannot be primitive. Most names for the various grades,\ntherefore, are later than Mr. Darwin\u2019s hypothetical stage of small and\nperhaps hostile groups; they were, in a few cases, perhaps originally\nnames for such relationships as our own father, mother, son, brother,\n&c., but in the evolution of tribal customary law, such names have been\nextended out of their _family_, or fire-circle, into their _tribal_\nsignificance, out of recognised kinship, or close contiguity, into\nterms including all who have the same status, rights, and duties.\n\n\nSUPPOSED SURVIVALS OF GROUP MARRIAGE\n\nIf our suggestion as to the origin and significance of the\n\u2018classificatory terms of relationship\u2019 be plausible, then the theory\nof a pristine past of \u2018communal\u2019 or of \u2018group marriage\u2019 will lose what\nMr. Darwin deemed the chief evidence in its favour, the evidence from\nterms of relationship. But there remains the evidence from \u2018survivals,\u2019\nin institutions. For example, among the Urabunna, women of a certain\nseniority, totem and \u2018phratry\u2019 are _Nupa_ to men of the relative status\namong males. They are the men\u2019s potential wives. In actual practice\neach individual man has one or perhaps two of these _Nupa_ women who\nare specially attached to himself, and live in his camp. They are his\nwives. But each man has also, or many men have, other women of the\n_Nupa_ set, who by an allotment, which the elders arrange, are his\n_Piraungaru_, He is, that is to say, their \u2018second master,\u2019 after their\nhusbands. This is a kind of _Cicisbeism_, recognised and regulated by\ncustomary law, and sanctioned by a definite ceremony. Messrs. Spencer\nand Gillen therefore say \u2018individual marriage does not exist, either\nin name or in practice, among the Urabunna tribe.\u2019 Their idea appears\nto be that once every man was the husband of every _Nupa_ woman who\nwas accessible, and that the _Piraungaru_ arrangement is a nascent\nrestriction upon, or survival of, this communal marriage. It is\nadmitted that a man may now try to prevent his wife from having sexual\nrelations with her Piraungaru man, just as an Italian of the eighteenth\ncentury might have done in the case of his wife\u2019s _Cicisbeo_. \u2018But this\nleads to a fight, and the husband is looked upon as churlish.\u2019 The\nItalian husband would have undergone the same reproach, yet _he_ lived\nin a society which in theory, and as Christian, insisted on individual\nmarriage.\n\nThe question arises, is the _Piraungaru_ arrangement a modified\nsurvival of communal marriage, or is it a mere chartered libertinism in\ncustomary practice, and not a \u2018rudimentary survival\u2019? It is certainly\nfound among the tribes most tenacious of archaic institutions. Mr.\nCrawley thinks, however, and, under correction, I agree with him, that\nthe _Piraungaru_ system is no survival, and that it \u2018has never been\nmore fully developed than it is now.\u2019[27]\n\nPIRAUNGARU AND PIRAURA\n\nAs to this Piraungaru affair, as usual we need, and do not get, the\nhelp of philology. What does the word \u2018Piraungaru\u2019 literally mean?\nAmong the Dieri the Piraungaru custom prevails, and the persons\naffected by it are called Piraura--the resemblance to Piraungaru is\nstriking. Now Mr. Howitt tells us that the Headman of the Dieri is\ncalled _Pinaru_, from _pina_, \u2018great,\u2019 but he also calls these Headmen\n_Piraurus_, the same title as he gives to the men and women allotted to\neach other on the system of native Cicisbeism.[28]\n\nClearly there is here either a misprint, or a curious fact. Either\nthe Headmen are Pinarus, not Piraurus, or Headmen and supplementary\nwives and husbands have one and the same title! One great Headman was\nJalina _Pira_ murana. Is \u2018great\u2019 _pina_ or _pira_? If Australia does\nnot produce an adequate philologist in the native tongues, who will\nspecially study these matters, it will be a heavy blow to the research\ninto native institutions.\n\nIt is worth observing that the Dieri Piraura are \u2018permitted new marital\nprivileges at the ceremony of circumcision.\u2019 Now license amidst the\nlarge assemblies brought together from all quarters on such occasions\n(in some places even transgressing the sacred rules of totem, phratry,\nand close relationship in our sense) is merely part of that periodical\ngeneral \u2018burst\u2019 which survived in the Persian Sac\u00e6a and Roman\nSaturnalia. Many examples may be found in Mr. Frazer\u2019s \u2018Golden Bough.\u2019\nEvery kind of law is, at these \u2018bursts,\u2019 deliberately violated.\nPerhaps, then, the due selection of Piraura, by the Dieri seniors, is\nreally rather a restriction of Saturnalian license than a relaxation of\nmarriage laws, or a survival of communal marriage. That the license of\nthe Saturnalia was a return to primitive ways was a Roman theory. For\nAustralia it is the theory of the Arunta themselves.[29] The adjacent\nUrabunna have the same Piraura usages, and what looks very like a form\nof the same word, Piraura, Piraungaru. The relations thereby indicated\nexist, when occasion serves, after the season of license.\n\nA wife, at marriage, is subjected to a disgraceful ordeal (modern\nideas will break in), which I take, as Mr. Crawley does, to be a\nmere initiation (due to a well-defined superstition) into the life\nmatrimonial.[30] Meanwhile, though a definite and disgusting set of\nproceedings forms the Urabunna marriage ceremonial, I am not aware\nthat the same doings precede and sanction the establishment of the\nPiraungaru or Piraura relation, which, if not, is no marriage at all.\nThus, so far as our information goes, and with all deference to the\ngreat Australian authorities, I do not see that the evidence for a\npast stage of communal or of group marriage is such as compels our\nassent. On the other hand, as has been shown, the theory of communal\nmarriage forces all its advocates, unwillingly or unconsciously, into\nthe other theory of a primeval moral and social reformatory movement,\ndeliberately undertaken, perhaps under direct divine inspiration,\nfor what other motive could exist? The economical and biological\ndifficulties which also beset that hypothesis have been sufficiently\nexplained, and Mr. Darwin has dwelt on the psychological difficulty,\nthe sexual jealousy of the primitive male. These objections, at least,\ndo not hamper the hypothesis or conjecture, which we have ventured to\nsubmit as an alternative system. As a proof of survival of communal\nor group marriage, Mr. Fison quotes Mr. Lance: \u2018If a Kubbi meets a\nstrange Ippatha\u2019 (female), \u2018they address each other as spouse.\u2019 (They\nbelong to intermarrying phratries.) \u2018A Kubbi thus meeting an Ippatha,\nthough she were of another tribe, would treat her as his wife, and\nhis right to do so would be recognised by her tribe.\u2019 His right,\nas far as phratry prohibitions go, would certainly be recognised,\nbut how her husband, if she had one, would view the transaction is\nanother question. The morality is that of the Scottish ballads, in\nwhich such _bonnes fortunes_ are frequent, and the frail pair only\nask questions--afterwards. In the ballad of _The Bonny Hind_, in the\n_Kalewala_, and elsewhere, the answers prove that the pair are brother\nand sister. Suicide follows, but it does not follow that communal or\ngroup marriage prevailed in Scotland, or in Finland.\n\nGROWTH OF SOCIAL RULES IN THE TRIBE\n\nIt is probable that the rules now defining the privileges,\nprohibitions, and duties of sets of people, rules interwoven now with\nthose of \u2018class\u2019 and totem, have been gradually evolved in the wear and\ntear of ages. Tribes which hold such large and protracted assemblies,\nor palavers, as the Arunta of to-day, discuss and debate common affairs\nwith all the diffuseness of our Parliament at Westminster. It is not\nto be supposed that tribal peace existed over hundreds of square miles\nof country, and that the group representatives, so to speak, flocked\nin from far-off regions, to parliament, in the ages when the pristine\nrules of exogamy were evolved. We might as wisely imagine that, in\nthe beginning of Totemism, groups travelled to a tribal folk-mote,\nand arranged the details of a kind of magical co-operative society\nto preserve and increase the foodstuffs of the tribe. In ages really\npristine the tribal peace and union cannot have arisen; deliberate\nlegislation for a vast scattered tribal community could not have\nentered into men\u2019s dreams. No such community could have existed. But\nthe tribes of to-day, and notably the Arunta, being remote from truly\nprimitive conditions, do hold prolonged assemblies, and work at public\nproblems, so very remote from the primitive are they.\n\nThe Arunta, in their pseudo-historic legends, throw back upon the past\nthe reflection of their actual estate, and ascribe the rule which\npractically limits marriage within the generation to a leader of the\nThurathwerta group, living near what is called, by Europeans, Glen\nHelen, in the Macdonnell range. He was backed by the Emu people of\nfour widely separated localities.[31] One is not, however, to suppose\nthat, at some witan of the tribes, names indicative of generations,\nand of their respective rights, were suddenly invented and dealt out\nby \u2018the legislator,\u2019 any more than that totems were thus invented and\ndealt out. As Mr. Atkinson remarks (Chapter VIII.): \u2018Gradually each\ngeneration ... would, _qua_ generation, come to be a distinctly defined\nclass, with certain separate rights and obligations. In this simple\nclassification of the connected persons, we see the origin of the\nclassificatory system itself\u2019 (as far as generations are concerned),\n\u2018as an institution.... The classificatory system evolves itself merely\nas the result of a desire to define certain rights, and the division by\ngenerations was the most natural and feasible for the purpose.... Thus\nwe find a desire for distinction, as regards rights in sexual union, to\nbe the genetic cause of the classificatory system, both as concerns the\ngeneration and its component members.\u2019\n\nThe marriage rules prevalent, with many variations, among the people\nleast advanced in material culture, the Australians, are thus seen,\non the whole, to be based (1) on totem rules (in which, with Dr.\nDurkheim, we include the \u2018primary classes\u2019 or \u2018phratries\u2019), and (2)\non the distinction of generations. It is clear, from the case of the\nArunta and other tribes, that the rule of counting on the spindle side\nmay break down, male descent being substituted, in times excessively\nrude; while again, as in the Pictish Royal House, it may elsewhere\nlast into a stage relatively civilised. All manners of conditions and\nsuperstitions may affect and alter the course of social development in\nvarious places.\n\nGROUP MARRIAGE AND MR. TYLOR\u2019s STATISTICS\n\nIn 1899, Mr. Tylor published a sketch of \u2018A Method of Investigating\nthe Development of Institutions, applied to Laws of Marriage and\nDescent.\u2019[32] He had catalogued the usages of 350 peoples, and examined\n(1) the rule of avoidance between husbands and wives\u2019 relations, and\nvice versa. (2) The naming of husband (or wife) after their children;\nas Odysseus says, \u2018May I no longer be called the father of Telemachus.\u2019\n(3) The nature of inheritance in widows. (4) The Couvade in which the\nhusband pretends to lie in, while his wife is really doing so. (5) The\ncustom of capture. (6) Exogamy and the classificatory system. Mr. Tylor\nwas led to believe that, so far as the statistical evidence goes, the\nhusband first lived with the wife\u2019s family (A); next, after a residence\nwith the wife\u2019s family, went back to his own home (B); last, (C) took\nthe wife at once to his own home. (Husband to Wife. Removal. Wife to\nHusband.)\n\nNow statistics are rather vague evidence without full knowledge of the\nsocial concomitants in each case. In what exact stage of culture, in\neach instance, does the husband go to live with the wife\u2019s relations?\nWe have not this information. But if this be really the earliest stage,\nhow is it compatible with group marriage? If a man is husband to \u2018a\nthousand miles of wives,\u2019 how can he go and live with the relations\nof all his wives? Even within his actual region of wandering, how can\nhe do this? Nor, perhaps, can he bring all his wives to live with the\nrelations of each of them in turn?\n\nEither there was no group marriage, or it did not exist when, on the\nhypothesis, the husband, in the earliest stage, habitually resided with\nhis wife\u2019s relations. Again, take the maternal and paternal systems,\nthe reckoning in the female or male line, the female line, as we hold\nwith Mr. Tylor, being the earlier. If so, on Mr. Tylor\u2019s hypothesis,\nit ought to arise in his first epoch, when husband goes to live with\nwife\u2019s people. \u2018The lines\u2019 (of a diagram) \u2018show the institutions of\nfemale descent, avuncular authority, &c. arising in the stage of\nresidence on the female side, and extending into the stages of removal\nand residence on the male side.\u2019\n\nNow we have tried to explain the reckoning in the female line, by the\ndifferentiation, in the supposed original local totem group, of the\ncaptive women, each retaining, and handing on to her children, the name\nof her own totem group, this bequest of the totem name continuing into\nthe tribal state of peaceful betrothals. But Mr. Tylor\u2019s theory of the\nfirst stage (husband goes to live with wife), implies a peaceful state,\nand groups not hostile. For the reasons given, early hostility and\nsexual jealousy, I am unable to hold that, in the beginning, husbands\nalways joined their wives\u2019 groups. It seems, granting hostility and\njealousy, to be impossible. A Malay example of polygamy plus residence\nwith wives\u2019 relations, proves nothing for primitive man. Therefore we\nneed to know the exact stage of culture of the peoples among whom the\nhusbands go as subdued hangers-on, \u2018not recognised,\u2019 into the wife\u2019s\nfamily. Are these people all precisely primitive? The \u2018husband to wife\u2019\nstage implies peaceful relations. These were produced, on my theory, by\nthe arrangement of the phratries. When these are once constituted, the\nhusband may go to live with the wife\u2019s family as much as he pleases.\nBut I fail to see how he could have done so \u2018in the beginning.\u2019\nMoreover I am disinclined to suppose that exogamy was instituted for\nthe purpose of strengthening a group by matrimonial alliances.\n\n_Bella gerant alii, tu, felix Austria, nube!_\n\nExogamy has this effect, but it was not devised purposely to produce\nthis effect.\n\nI may casually remark that Mr. Tylor mentions an Assineboin case\nin which the husband enters \u2018his lodge,\u2019 where his father and\nmother-in-law \u2018shirk\u2019 or avoid him. But, in the next page but one, the\nlodge is described, not as the husband\u2019s, but as that of the father and\nmother-in-law.[33] Whose lodge was it really? Was the husband staying\nwith his wife\u2019s family, or were the old people on a visit to their\nmarried daughter?\n\nAmong several Australian tribes, a feigned form of capture precedes\nmarriage.[34] Is this a survival of actual capture in the stage of\nhostility, the pre-tribal stage? Or is it the result of girlish modesty\nin the bride?\n\n\nNote: Mr. Morgan\u2019s \u2018Reformatory Movement\u2019: It is proper to note that,\nin his preface to _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_ (p. 5), Mr. Morgan wrote,\n\u2018it is not supposable that savages design, consciously, reformatory\nmovements in the strict sense.\u2019 For his theory cannot escape the\nconclusion that, in fact, they did.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _Op. cit._ p. 61.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Spencer and Gillen, p. 57.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human\nFamily_ (1871); and _Ancient Society_ (1877); earlier in _The League of\nthe Iroquois_ (1854).]\n\n[Footnote 4: So Mr. Fison candidly states, and Mr. Morgan saw his work,\nand wrote an introductory essay. _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 99.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, pp. 160-161.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Ancient Society_, pp. 49-50.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Cf. _The Mystic Rose_, pp. 444-445. Westermarck, p. 352.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Ancient Society_, p. 59.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _Ibid_. p. 74.]\n\n[Footnote 10: By \u2018classes\u2019 Mr. Morgan here seems to mean phratries.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Westermarck, pp. 85, 96.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Lord Avebury, _Origin of Civilisation_, pp. 442-449,\n1902.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 60.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 56, 57, 59.]\n\n[Footnote 15: _J. A. I._, May 1895, p. 368.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Spencer and Gillen, p. 60.]\n\n[Footnote 17: _Ibid._ p. 66.]\n\n[Footnote 18: _Ibid._ p. 75.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _The Mystic Rose_, p. 476.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 27, cf. p. 70.]\n\n[Footnote 21: _Ancient Society_, pp. 427-428.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Captain Cook, of His Majesty\u2019s ship _The Endeavour_.]\n\n[Footnote 23: _Descent of Man_, ii. 362, 363. Dr. Savage, _Boston Jour.\nof Nat. Hist._ v. 423.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Spencer and Gillen, p. 65.]\n\n[Footnote 25: _Op. cit._ p. 67.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 67, 68.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 62-64. _Mystic Rose_, pp.\n477-478.]\n\n[Footnote 28: _On the Organisation of Australian Tribes_, pp. 107, 108.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Spencer and Gillen, p. 97.]\n\n[Footnote 30: _Ibid_. pp. 92-96. _The Mystic Rose_, pp. 479, 480.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 420-421.]\n\n[Footnote 32: _J. A. I._ vol. xviii., no. 3, pp. 245-272.]\n\n[Footnote 33: _Op. cit._ pp. 246-248.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Howitt, _Organisation of Australian Tribes_.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE CHANGE OF CLASS AMONG THE NEW GENERATION\n\n\nWe have hitherto, for the sake of lucidity, spoken chiefly of _two_\n\u2018primary classes\u2019 (\u2018phratries\u2019), such as the Kirarawa and Matthurie of\nthe Urabunna. But among the Arunta, and many other tribes, there are\nfour or even eight such \u2018classes.\u2019 The reader may refer to the extract\nfrom Mr. Mathews\u2019s description (p. 39).\n\n_Each of these classes roughly corresponds to a different generation of\nthe tribe_. But, with female descent, each child belongs to the class\nto which its mother does not belong. The classes, that is, alter with\neach generation. What is the cause of this curious rule? One generation\nis A, its children are B, its grandchildren are A again.\n\nHere we meet the explanation of Herr Cunow, which may as well be given\nin summary.\n\nTHE SYSTEM OF HERR CUNOW\n\nThe theory of Herr Cunow[1] is in the first place opposed to the\nsystems of all who regard the \u2018phratries\u2019 as divisions made in\nan original group, or horde, for purposes of exogamy. I have not\nobserved that any of our writers have noticed the book of Herr\nCunow. In his opinion, as was said earlier, authors err in confusing\n\u2018phratries\u2019 with \u2018classes:\u2019 \u2018a phratry is not a class, and a class is\nnot a phratry; these two sorts of bodies have been developed out of\ndifferent antecedents, and have different tendencies. The two \u201cprimary\ndivisions,\u201d say Kroki and Kumite, are phratries, but are not classes in\nthe same sense as the Ippai and Kumbo, Murri and Kubbi classes of the\nKamilaroi\u2019 (p. 24).\n\nHerr Cunow regards the \u2018classes\u2019 as in origin earlier[2] than the\ndivisions of totem kin, or the \u2018phratry\u2019 divisions, and thinks that\nthe \u2018classes\u2019 were originally non-intermarrying divisions based on\nseniority. They were devised or developed, not to prevent marriage\nbetween near kin, but between persons of different generations,\nor rather degrees of seniority. This is proved, he thinks, by the\netymology of some of the names of the classes (about which we need\nmuch fuller information). Thus the word _Kubbi_ (Kamilaroi), already\ncited as a class name, is derived, he says, from _Kubbura_, \u2018young,\nnew,\u2019 and originally designates a youth who has passed the initiatory\nceremonies. Ridley\u2019s vocabulary of the Kamilaroi tongue is the source\nfor this fact. Kumbo, another class name, is the _Kombia_ or _Kumbia_,\nof the tribes on the Lower Murray river, and means \u2018great,\u2019 that is,\n\u2018old.\u2019 On the Lower Darling, the word is _gumboka_, _Kumbuka_; compare\n_Kumba_, _Kumbera_, \u2018old woman,\u2019 _Kumbeja_, \u2018father.\u2019 \u2018Great\u2019 and\n\u2018old,\u2019 \u2018little\u2019 and \u2018young,\u2019 are equivalent in sense. _Bonda_, a class\nname of the Kabi, means \u2018new\u2019 or \u2018young,\u2019 and the class-name Darawang,\nor Tarawang, is the Kabi word _darami_, \u2018little,\u2019 or \u2018young.\u2019 Obu, a\nclass name, is the Queensland _jabu, jobu, jabbo bobu_, \u2018father.\u2019\n\nThus the class names, Herr Cunow holds, originally indicate divisions\nof youth and age in the \u2018horde,\u2019 by which term Herr Cunow understands a\nlocal set of from forty to sixty people, a local aggregate of several\nsuch \u2018hordes\u2019 being a \u2018tribe\u2019 (pp. 25-28). The fact of Australian\nattention to degrees of seniority is demonstrated by the stages of\ninitiation, and by the various dues, of food gifts and so on, paid by\nthe juniors to the seniors of the tribe: by the food which persons\nof different status in seniority may eat, and so forth. Indeed Dr.\nRoth has regarded the \u2018classes\u2019 as originally evolved to regulate the\ndistribution of the food supply, and such regulations would, I think,\nbe elements among other regulations of matrimonial and other rights,\ndependent on seniority. \u2018What a man may eat at one stage is at another\nstage forbidden, and _vice versa_.\u2019[3]\n\nThe \u2018horde,\u2019 then, in Herr Cunow\u2019s opinion, was primarily divided into\nnon-intermarrying persons of three stages of seniority. This is the\noriginal organisation, that of totem kindreds being later, in Herr\nCunow\u2019s theory, which is not ours (pp. 36, 37). The word \u2018father\u2019 does\nnot, in the Australian dialects, at first, signify what we mean by the\nword, but merely \u2018senior;\u2019 and \u2018mother\u2019 is a term of the same meaning.\n\u2018Father\u2019 and \u2018mother\u2019 with all of their seniority are \u2018the big ones;\u2019\nchildren are \u2018the little ones.\u2019 These terms become \u2018class\u2019 names.\n\nAn example is taken from Mr. Bridgman, superintendent of the tribes\nat Port Mackay. These have two \u2018phratries,\u2019 _Yungaru_ and _Wutaru_\n(totemic names), and four \u2018classes,\u2019 _Gurgela, Bembia, Wungo_, and\n_Kubaru_.[4] The terms for family relations are not understood in our\nsense. Mr. Bridgman had a name and status in the tribe. His name was\n_Gunurra_; his phratry was _Yungaru_, his class was _Bembia_, and his\nchildren, if he had any, were _Wutaru_ (by phratry), _Kubaru_ (by\nclass). If a girl came by, and Mr. Bridgman asked who she was, and if\nshe was Kubaruan, he was told \u2018she is your daughter.\u2019 This \u2018daughter\u2019\nis a young woman of the class to which Mr. Bridgman\u2019s daughters, if he\nhad any, would belong.\n\nHerr Cunow\u2019s theory, then, starts from the \u2018horde,\u2019 divided into not\nintermarrying degrees of seniority. That such hordes, not separate\nfamily groups, were the initial stage of society, he is persuaded.[5]\nHe rejects Morgan\u2019s theory of communal marriage.[6] Next, he thinks,\narose objections to brother and sister and other near akin marriages\n(_why_ we are not told), and a man would thus be driven to seek a wife\nout of his own horde. Why was this? Herr Cunow merely refers to the\nDieri tradition already cited; evils followed on kindred marriages,\nand were perceived and, by divine decree, were reformed.[7] That such\nevils did arise and were perceived, and being perceived were reformed,\nby very low savages, is to the highest degree improbable. However it\ncame about (we suggest by dint of reflection on the totem and phratry\nrestrictions), there is _now_ an objection to intermarriage between\npersons \u2018of the same flesh.\u2019 How this arose does not seem to be a\nquestion that Herr Cunow chooses to dogmatise upon.\n\nThe horde now developes itself into a group of kin, of which the\nmembers regard each other as \u2018too nearly related by blood,\u2019 to\nintermarry. \u2018As a mark of these groups of kin they later take different\nbeast or plant names, usually from such species as exist in their\ndistricts. No reverence would originally be paid to the totem animal;\u2019\nthe Narrinyeri eat it without scruple,[8] like any other; the totem\nname is originally a name of a _genossenschaft_; a comradeship, the\nNarrinyeri word for totem, \u2018Ngaitje,\u2019 is equivalent to \u2018friend.\u2019\n\nAll this is rather vague. Why did groups of comrades or of recognised\nkin take plant and animal names? Why did they forbid intermarriage?\nWhat was the origin of the objection to marriage between blood kindred?\nIt does not arise out of \u2018moral ideas,\u2019 nor out of \u2018wife-capture,\u2019[9]\nand Herr Cunow speaks neither of \u2018sexual taboo,\u2019 nor of \u2018sexual\njealousy,\u2019 while the theory of \u2018personal totems\u2019 become hereditary, or\nof magical co-operation in totem breeding, is not mentioned; indeed,\nwhen Herr Cunow wrote (1894), the magical theory was unborn. The\nhordes merely developed into groups of comrades or of kin, as such not\nintermarrying among themselves, and marking themselves for no assigned\nreason, with plant or animal names: reverence of the totem came later.\n\n\u2018Still later than the totem association the phratry seems to arise,\u2019\nand the phratries are described as allied local totem groups. This is\nmy own opinion, but by \u2018local totem group,\u2019 I here mean (as already\nexplained), the original local totem group, with the other totems which\nhad become its elements, through exogamy, and female descent. Herr\nCunow, if I follow him, means on the other hand a local totem group of\nthe kind which now results among the Arunta from reckoning descent in\nthe male line. \u2018The forbidding of marriage extended beyond the local\ngroup, passing into the neighbouring hordes, till at length morality\nenjoined the obtaining of wives from remoter districts. Hence was\ndeveloped a come-and-go of marriage between two out of several larger\nlocal totems, and these larger local communities are the original types\nof the Australian phratries. Suppose that the hordes of the Kurnai had\ngradually developed themselves into local totem groups like those of\nthe Narrinyeri, and ... that it became the rule for the Brataulong to\ntake their wives from their south-western neighbours, the Kulin, and\n_vice versa_, till the two groups waxed into a great community, and we\nhave the probable development\u2019 (of the \u2018phratries\u2019) \u2018before us.\u2019 The\ngroups \u2018Brataulong\u2019 and \u2018Kulin\u2019 would now be a great community of two\nintermarrying phratries.\n\nAll this implies, I think, a more advanced society, and larger\ncommunities, than we can easily conceive to have existed in the distant\npast when phratries arose. Moreover Herr Cunow, as we shall see, takes\ndescent, even at this primitive period, to have been reckoned in the\nmale line. Again, we have observed that phratry names, when they can be\ntranslated, are usually totemic, an opinion expressed by Mr. Fison and\nMr. Howitt. The same sort of totemic names marks Red Indian phratries.\nGranting male kinship, the phratries of Herr Cunow\u2019s hypothesis might\nwell have totem names, but he tries to show that phratry names are\nusually _local_; he gives seven cases out of which only two names of\nphratries are totemic.[10] But he offers no authority for his assertion\nthat the other five names are non-totemic (_Eigennahme_) and Yungaru\nand Wutaru, represented by him as non-totemic, are really totem names.\n\nWe know that as a result of reckoning in the male line local or\ndistrict names tend to supersede totem names, and large local totem\ngroups thus arise, a feature of the decay, not of the dawn, of\nTotemism. My own hypothesis, on the other hand, shows why phratry names\nare totemic. Herr Cunow concludes \u2018the phratry is originally nothing\nbut an exogamous local group composed of several hordes.\u2019 Like Mr.\nDaniel McLennan, Herr Cunow quotes the legend of the wars of Eagle-Hawk\nand Crow, which ended in the establishment of the intermarrying\nphratries of Crow and Eagle-Hawk.[11] Herr Cunow\u2019s theory of phratries\nappears to me to find, in the remotest past, the most recent\ninstitutions of the Australians, and to confuse the primitive local\ntotem group with the local totem-group later developed out of reckoning\ndescent in the male line. He throws back into the distant past the\nlarge modern associations, which could not exist in times really\nprimitive. He makes the hordes develope themselves into totem kins, in\nplace of being, originally (as in my system), small associations united\nby contiguity, and receiving totem names from without.[12] He makes\nreckoning in the female line later than reckoning in the male line--the\nNarrinyeri reckoning in the male line (p. 84)--and perhaps this method,\nhe thinks, is a result of ignorance of fatherhood, consequent on the\nPiraungaru custom (p. 135). Unluckily we find reckoning descent in the\nfemale line among many races, the Red Indians for example, where the\nPiraungaru custom is unknown. The priority of male to female descent is\nnot admitted as a rule, by Mr. Tylor or any other English authorities.\n\nWhere I can agree with Herr Cunow is on the point that the two\n\u2018primary divisions\u2019 are the result, probably, of amalgamation, not\nof bisection for purposes of exogamy. Where we differ is as to the\ncharacter of the communities that, by alliance and connubium, became\n\u2018primary divisions\u2019 or \u2018phratries.\u2019 On his system the communities were\nlarge, holding great districts. On mine, they were ancient local totem\ngroups, whose members, through exogamy and female descent, were really\nof various totems. In a note (p. 139) Herr Cunow shows that he might\neasily have arrived at my conclusion, but, while allowing that alien\nbrides brought the totem names of their own kins into each original\ntotem group, he says that the men of that group still \u2018belonged to\nthe totem identified with that horde.\u2019 This is the result of his\nbelief that reckoning descent in the female line is \u2018an innovation.\u2019\nHis \u2018horde\u2019 is originally endogamous; then, we know not well why, is\nexogamous (p. 137). Those who do not believe that men originally lived\nin \u2018hordes,\u2019 and hold that, through jealousy and other causes, their\nlittle primary sets were, or tended to be, exogamous from the first,\ncannot agree with Herr Cunow. On the other hand, they may incline\nto accept his theory that, as the Australian terms of relationship\nindicate often status, not relationship in our sense, they do not help\nto prove a past of consanguine and communal marriage.\n\nCLASSES AGAIN\n\nTo return to the classes, Dr. Durkheim opposes Herr Cunow\u2019s theory that\nthey indicated originally degrees of seniority. He takes no notice,\nhowever, of Herr Cunow\u2019s argument from etymology, and the original\nmeanings of the class names, \u2018Young\u2019 and \u2018Old.\u2019 He argues that, on Herr\nCunow\u2019s system, each individual would, in lapse of time, move from\nyoung to old, and so ought to change his class name, and move into\nanother class. Herr Cunow answers that, if this occurred, the object of\nthe class names, practically to prevent young and old intermarrying,\nwould have been defeated. But, as matters exist, a grandfather may\nmarry a girl who might be his grand-daughter. He is A, his children are\nB, but their children are A again. He is Kubbi, he marries Ippatha, her\nchildren are Buta, their children are Ippatha, and the venerable Kubbi\nmay marry a very juvenile Ippatha.\n\nPossibly the institution grew up among people who did not look so far\nforward, who \u2018took short views.\u2019 It is certain that, if the object\nof the classes was to stop marriages between young and old, it is a\nfailure. \u2018The old men marry young wives at present,\u2019 says Mr. Mathews.\nIf so, Herr Cunow may be right. Dr. Durkheim offers a theory. But\nhis theory takes for granted, as we saw, that the two \u2018phratries,\u2019\noriginally, were only two totem groups, containing within them no\nmembers of other totem kins. \u2018They were not yet subdivided\u2019 into\nother totem kins. But I have tried to show that there was no such\n\u2018subdivision\u2019 into \u2018secondary clans\u2019 or totem kins. Dr. Durkheim\nregards these totem kins as colonies split off from the two original\ntotem groups which became phratries.[13] My reasons against accepting\nthis position have already been given. This being the case, it is\nunnecessary to unfold Dr. Durkheim\u2019s theory of the origin of the\nclasses. Probably that of Herr Cunow comes nearest to the truth.\n\nMr. Mathews offers another solution of the problem. \u2018Phratry\u2019 Dilbi,\nfor example, has \u2018classes\u2019 Murri and Kubbi, while the linked phratry,\nKupathin, has classes Ippai and Kumbo. \u2018It is possible that the group\nDilbi was divided into (female) Matha and Kubbitha to distinguish the\nmothers from the daughters, and that the terms Murri and Kubbi were\nadopted to provide names for the uncles and nephews of their respective\ngenerations.\u2019 Thus we return to distinction of generations. In any\ncase the \u2018classes\u2019 \u2018have the effect of preventing consanguineous\nmarriages, by furnishing an easy test of relationship when the tribe\nhas become so numerous or widespread that kinship could not otherwise\nbe well determined.[14] Later (p. 168) Mr. Matthews writes, \u2018The\nmother of a man\u2019s wife, and also his daughters, belong to the same\nsection\u2019 (\u2018class\u2019), \u2018and therefore his marriage with that section is\nprohibited.\u2019 That is, he cannot marry out of his generation above or\nbelow, as indicated by \u2018class\u2019 names. \u2018Neither can he marry into the\nsection to which his mother belongs, although a woman might be found in\neither case, who was in no way connected with him.\u2019 In short, as far\nas the names rudely indicate the generation above, and the generation\nbelow a man, he cannot marry into these classes. But, as old men do\nmarry young wives, the apparent intention of the rules is to some\nextent frustrated. We can say no more, till we are told what the class\nnames mean in a literal sense. Does nobody inquire into this essential\nquestion?\n\nAs if to accentuate the problems raised by the change of \u2018class\u2019 names\nin each generation, Mr. Matthews has discovered that when a man may\nmarry a woman of his own \u2018phratry,\u2019 but out of a set of totems not his\nown, the totems of his children by her alter as the class names do.\n\u2018The children take the totem name,\u2019 not of their mother, but of their\nmaternal grandmother. \u2018One totem is the mother of another totem.\u2019[15]\nThis is an unusual phenomenon, and looks like the effort of a desperate\ningenuity.\n\nThe class system exists among the Arunta, with male descent. One moiety\nof the southern part of the tribe consists of Panunga and Bulthara,\nlinked classes, calling themselves Nakrakia; the other moiety is of\nPurula and Kumara, calling themselves Mulganuka. A Bulthara man of the\nfirst moiety can only marry a Kumara woman, of the second moiety: a\nPurula man marries a Panunga woman only. The children of a Bulthara\nman\u2019s union with a Kumara woman take neither the Bulthara nor Kumara\nname, but are called Panunga, while the children of a Purula man and\na Panunga woman are Kumara: of a Panunga man and a Purula woman,\nBulthara; of a Kumara man and a Bulthara woman, Purula.\n\nThat is to say, the Arunta reckoning in the male line, a man\u2019s children\ndo not take _his_ \u2018class\u2019 name but the name of the \u2018class\u2019 linked to\nhis, and forming, with his, one division of the tribe. Further each\nof these four divisions consists of two moieties, and a Panunga man,\nthough he can marry a Purula woman, must choose her out of the proper\nmoiety of the Purula division. These moieties of each division, among\nthe Northern Arunta, have names; Uknaria, Appungerta, Umbitchana,\nUngalla, and the children of each marriage fall under these names.\n\nThis restricts a man to only an eighth of the women of his generation,\nbut, on the other hand, among the Arunta, the totem prohibition no\nlonger exists: the totems are not restricted to one or another class,\nbut skip among them, as we have shown in the section on the Arunta. The\neight class system, perhaps the four class system, may be regarded as\nlater and conscious modifications of the old phratry and totem rules,\nwhich, on my hypothesis, had no conscious moral origin.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _Die Verwandtschafts-Organisationen der Australneger_.\nDiek, Stuttgart, 1894.]\n\n[Footnote 2: This can hardly be, as the most backward tribes have\nphratries and totems, but no \u2018classes.\u2019]\n\n[Footnote 3: Eyre, _Journals_, ii. 293-295. Cunow, p. 33, note 2.\nBulmer, in Brough Smyth, i. 235. Roth, _Ethnological Studies_, pp. 69,\n70, Brisbane, 1897.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Brough Smyth, i. 91.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Pp. 122-124, and note 1, an argument against Westermarck.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Pp. 127-128.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Gason, _The Dicyrie Tribe_ (1894), p. 13. _Kam. and Kur._\np. 25. Cunow, pp. 109-110, 130-132.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Cf. Cunow, p. 82. So, too, the Euahlayi.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Cunow, p. 130.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Pp. 133-134.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Brough Smyth, i. 423. Cunow, p. 134. _Studies in Ancient\nHistory_, second series, _ut supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 12: See \u2018The Origin of Totemism.\u2019]\n\n[Footnote 13: Cf. p. 83.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxi. 161.]\n\n[Footnote 15: _Op. cit._ pp. 172-175.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHEORIES OF LORD AVEBURY\n\n\nThe opinions of Lord Avebury (Sir John Lubbock) are to be collected\nfrom the sixth edition (1902) of his _Origin of Civilisation_.\nFirst published in 1870, this was a pioneer work of great value and\nimportance. Perhaps the vast amount of new information and of new\nspeculation which has accrued since 1870 might almost make us wish that\nLord Avebury had found time to re-write his early book. But he \u2018sees\nno reason to change in any essential respects the opinions originally\nexpressed,\u2019 and merely adds a few references to such recent researches\nas those of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. Therefore we must not look\nto Lord Avebury for much new light on the origin of the Australian\n\u2018classes\u2019 or \u2018primary divisions,\u2019 or \u2018phratries,\u2019 and on their\nrelations to the totem kindreds within them.\n\nLORD AVEBURY ON TOTEMISM\n\nOur author (p. 217) regards Totemism as synonymous with Nature-Worship.\nHe speaks of \u2018Nature-Worship or Totemism, in which natural objects,\ntrees, lakes, stones, animals, &c. are worshipped.\u2019 I am not acquainted\n(unless it be in early Peru) with any totem kin whose totem is a lake;\nand totems, very often, are not \u2018worshipped\u2019 at all. Nature-Worship,\nagain, may exist where there is no Totemism, and Totemism where there\nis no Nature-Worship, indeed where, as among the Arunta, there is,\nstrictly speaking, no worship, as far as we are informed.\n\nAgain (p. 351), \u2018Totemism\u2019 (as opposed to fetichism), \u2018is a\ndeification of classes.\u2019 But the term \u2018deification\u2019 implies the\npossession, by the deifiers, of the conception of Deity; of gods, or\nof a god. The Australians have totems, but, according to Lord Avebury,\nhave no notion of a god or gods. They \u2018possess merely certain vague\nideas as to the existence of evil spirits, and a general dread of\nwitchcraft\u2019 (p. 338). It is not clear, then, how they can \u2018deify\u2019\nclasses of things, if they have no notion of deity. \u2018They do not\nbelieve in the existence of a true Deity\u2019 (with a capital D), says Lord\nAvebury, without defining what \u2018a _true_ Deity\u2019 is: and, contrary to\nthe evidence of Mr. Howitt and many others, he denies that \u2018morality is\nin any way connected with their religion, if such it can be called\u2019 (p.\n338).\n\nThe authority cited is of 1859,[1] and is contradicted, for example,\nby Mr. Howitt (1880-1890), who is not here quoted. It is clear that\nAustralian totems cannot result from the \u2018deification of classes,\u2019 if\nthe Australians have no conception of Deity, whether \u2018true\u2019 or not so\ntrue.\n\nLord Avebury remarks, \u2018True, myths do not occur among the lowest races\u2019\n(p. 355), whereas, with many others, myths of the origin of Totemism do\nnotably occur, as we have shown, among perhaps all totemistic races.\nPerhaps we should read, deleting the comma, \u2018true myths do not occur\namong the lowest races,\u2019 when the question as to what a \u2018true myth\u2019 is\nagain arises, as in the case of \u2018a true Deity.\u2019 Perhaps we must suppose\nthat by \u2018a true myth,\u2019 or a \u2018true Deity,\u2019 Lord Avebury implies a Deity\nor a myth in accordance with his own conception of either.\n\nLORD AVEBURY ON THE ORIGIN OF TOTEMISM\n\n\u2018The worship of animals,\u2019 says our author (p. 275), \u2018is susceptible\nof a very simple explanation, and perhaps, as I have ventured to\nsuggest,[2] may have originated from the practice of naming, first\nindividuals, and then their families, after particular animals. A\nfamily, for instance, which was called after the bear, would come to\nlook on that animal first with interest, then with respect, and at\nlength with a sort of awe.\u2019 If by \u2018individuals,\u2019 male individuals\nare intended, this theory is open to the objection that Lord Avebury\nregards descent in the female as earlier than descent in the male line\n(p. 164), while \u2018families\u2019 with enduring relations to their founders,\ncan hardly yet have been consciously envisaged, by his theory, at so\nvery rudimentary a stage. Moreover, we try to show that totem names\nwere, originally, group names, and were not derived from the personal\nnames of individuals, an opinion in which Mr. Haddon concurs. Lord\nAvebury\u2019s theory is, apparently, that of Mr. Herbert Spencer, _minus_\nthe supposed worship of the ghost of the male ancestor and founder of\nthe family.\n\nCOMMUNAL MARRIAGE\n\nLord Avebury assumes, as a working hypothesis, that \u2018the communal\nmarriage system ... represents the primitive and earliest social\ncondition of man....\u2019 (p. 102). The objections to this hypothesis we\nhave stated, though, of course, historic certainty cannot be attained.\n\nLord Avebury, assuming \u2018communal marriage\u2019 as the Primitive stage,\nholds that it \u2018was gradually superseded by individual marriage founded\non capture, and that this led firstly to exogamy, and then to female\ninfanticide; thus reversing Mr. McLennan\u2019s order of sequence\u2019 (p.\n108). \u2018Originally no man could appropriate a woman of his own _tribe_\nexclusively to himself ... without infringing _tribal_ rights, but,\non the other hand, if a man captured a woman belonging to another\n_tribe_, he thereby acquired an individual and peculiar right to\nher, and she became his exclusively, no one else having any claim or\nproperty in her\u2019 (p. 110). (I here italicise \u2018tribe\u2019 and \u2018tribal.\u2019 Lord\nAvebury intends, I think, a woman of the same \u2018fire-circle\u2019 (p. 188),\nnot a woman of the _tribe_ understood as a large and inevitably not\nprimitive local aggregate of friendly groups of different totems, such\nas the Arunta, Narrinyeri, Pawnees, and so forth.)\n\nIn brief, men would desire to appropriate to themselves some woman,\nat first from beyond their own \u2018tribe.\u2019 This they could only do by\ncapture. Their individual right in her would be modified by the\ndisgusting license of the bridal night, which Lord Avebury regards as\n\u2018compensation\u2019 to the other males of the \u2018tribe\u2019 (pp. 138, 557-560).\nThat license I would rather explain as Mr. Crawley does: the topic does\nnot need to be insisted on at length in this place. Lord Avebury, at\nall events, supposes that a form of capture finally came to be applied,\nwith results in individual marriage, to women of the same \u2018tribe\u2019 (p.\n111). But if we have \u2018complete and conclusive evidence that in large\nportions of Australia every man had the privilege of a husband over\nevery woman not belonging to his own gens; sharing, of course, these\nprivileges with every other man belonging to the same class or _gens_\nas himself\u2019 (p. 112), I fail to see that a man gained anything by\nenduring the trouble and risk of capturing a bride all to himself.\nBefore the capture she had been, it seems, the common spoil of the\nmales of her \u2018tribe;\u2019 when captured she was the common spoil of her\ncaptor\u2019s \u2018class or _gens_\u2019--though a \u2018class\u2019 and a _gens_ are not, I\nthink, identical, but much the reverse.\n\nThe rather promiscuous use of terms for different kinds of human\ncommunities affected all the pioneer works on primitive society, and,\nindeed, still perplexes our speculations. Thus Lord Avebury suggests\n(p. 119) the case of four exogamous neighbouring \u2018tribes,\u2019 with kinship\ntraced through women. \u2018After a certain time the result would be that\neach tribe would consist of four septs or \u2018clans\u2019 (totem kins?),\n\u2018representing the four original tribes, and hence we should find\ncommunities in which each tribe is divided into clans, and a man must\nalways marry a woman of a different clan.\u2019\n\nWe do not, perhaps, know any exogamous tribes in our sense of \u2018tribe;\u2019\na Dieri is not obliged to marry out of the Dieri, or an Urabunna out\nof the Urabunna. By \u2018tribe\u2019 here, it seems probable that Lord Avebury\nintends not a large local aggregate, but \u2018a very small community,\u2019 for\nhe writes \u2018we have seen that, under the custom of communal marriage,\na child was regarded as related to the _tribe_, but not specially to\nany particular father or mother. Such a \u2018state of things, indeed,\nis only possible in very small communities.\u2019 Now a tribe is a very\nlarge community. The members of such communities must have been poor\nobservers if they did not discover the relation between a child and the\nwoman who bore and, for several years, nursed it. But such \u2018tribes\u2019\nare not tribes in the sense in which I use the word; they are rather\n\u2018groups of the same hearth.\u2019 Now it is easy to see how small groups\nof the same hearth became exogamous, namely through sexual jealousy,\nand sexual tabu, which would oblige the young males to wander away, or\nto get wives by capture, practices resulting, under the tabu, in the\nsacred rule of exogamy. This, however, is not Lord Avebury\u2019s theory of\nthe origin of exogamy.\n\nLord Avebury\u2019s theory does not become more distinct when he says, \u2018In\nAustralia, where the same family names\u2019 (totem names?) \u2018are common\nalmost over the whole continent, no man may marry a woman whose family\nname\u2019 (totem name?) \u2018is the same as his own\u2019 (here the Arunta are an\nexception) \u2018and who belongs therefore to the same tribe\u2019 (p. 144).\nBut surely, if the \u2018family names\u2019 are \u2018common almost over the whole\ncontinent,\u2019 a woman may well have the same \u2018family name\u2019 (say Emu) as\na man, and yet need not be of his tribe. An Arunta Emu man and a Dieri\nEmu woman would have the same \u2018family name\u2019 (totem name), but would\nnot, therefore, \u2018belong to the same tribe.\u2019 It even appears that Lord\nAvebury regards \u2018tribe\u2019 and \u2018clan\u2019 and \u2018family\u2019 as synonymous terms,\nfor, in proof of the statement that people of the same \u2018family name\u2019\nnecessarily belong to the same \u2018tribe,\u2019 he quotes my late uncle, Mr.\nGideon Scott Lang, \u2018No man can marry a woman of the same clan, though\nthe parties be no way related according to our ideas.\u2019[3] By \u2018clan\u2019 Mr.\nLang here meant totem kin, and if Lord Avebury thinks \u2018clan\u2019 equivalent\nto \u2018tribe,\u2019 a \u2018tribe\u2019 must be a totem kin, which it is not; at least if\nwe understand \u2018tribe\u2019 as a local aggregate of various totem kindreds.\n\nThese perplexities are caused by a vague terminology, and occurred\nnaturally in a book of 1870, as they do in Mr. McLennan\u2019s own\npioneer works. But in 1903 we must try to aim at closer and more\nexact distinctions and definitions, though we are still retarded and\nperplexed by the lack of truly scientific nomenclature. As far as I can\nperceive, Lord Avebury is apt to use \u2018family,\u2019 \u2018tribe,\u2019 \u2018clan,\u2019 and\n\u2018_gens_\u2019 as equivalents, while each of them, in various places, appears\nto be understood as denoting a totem kindred. Thus (p. 181) \u2018under a\nsystem of female descent combined with exogamy a man must marry out\nof his tribe,\u2019 where \u2018tribe\u2019 seems to mean \u2018totem kin.\u2019 Compare p.\n187: \u2018another general rule, in America as elsewhere, is that no one\nmay marry within his own clan or family,\u2019 where \u2018clan or family\u2019 like\n\u2018tribe\u2019 seems to mean \u2018totem kin.\u2019\n\nThis use of terms makes it difficult for me to feel sure that I\napprehend Lord Avebury\u2019s theory correctly. However I take it to be\nthat, originally,\u2019very small communities\u2019 (\u2018tribes\u2019) lived in \u2018communal\nmarriage.\u2019 Nobody knew who was the son of what father or of what\nmother, though, in a very small community one would expect the senior\nvigorous male or males to prevent son-and-mother, or brother-and-sister\nunions, by force, out of natural jealousy. This was not done, but some\nmales wanted wives to themselves in private property, and got them by\ncapture, paying \u2018compensation\u2019 in the license of the bridal night. But\na man might fall in love with a lass in his own \u2018tribe\u2019 (\u2018very small\ncommunity\u2019) and want to keep _her_ to himself (p. 111). \u2018Hence would\nnaturally arise a desire on the part of many to extend the right of\ncapture, which originally had reference only to women of a different\ntribe, and to apply it to all those belonging to their own.\u2019 Is \u2018tribe\u2019\nstill used of \u2018a very small community,\u2019 or is it here employed in the\nnow more prevalent and much wider sense? If not, is the \u2018capture\u2019 now\na mere ceremonial formula? Apparently \u2018tribe,\u2019 now and here, does mean\n(as elsewhere it does not) a large local aggregate, for we are next\ntold of \u2018the division of Australian tribes into classes or gentes\u2019\n(though a \u2018class\u2019 is one thing and a _gens_, if totem kin is meant, is\nanother thing), and of the \u20181,000 miles of wives,\u2019 who, by the theory,\nare _not_ individual wives of individual men. Such wives, special\nrights in such wives, were acquired \u2018originally by right of capture.\u2019\n\nBut, when men possessed marital privileges, each \u2018over every woman not\nbelonging to his own _gens_; sharing, of course, these privileges with\nevery other man belonging to the same _gens_ or class as himself\u2019 (p.\n112), where is the individual right acquired by capture? It seems that\neach man, besides his \u20181,000 miles of wives\u2019 \u2018has his own individual\nwife ... by right of capture.\u2019 Now the Urabunna have no such individual\nwives, if, like Lord Avebury, we accept the statement of Messrs.\nSpencer and Gillen (p. 63). But the Arunta have such individual wives.\nHere it seems necessary for Lord Avebury, if he agrees with these\nauthors, to prove that the Arunta, unlike the Urabunna, do demonstrably\nacquire their individual wives by capture. But no such demonstration\nis produced. Till proof is offered I am unable to appreciate the force\nof Lord Avebury\u2019s reasoning, while like Mr. Crawley, I doubt whether\nindividual marriage does not exist among the Urabunna, the Piraungaru\nlicense not being, I conceive, a true survival of communal marriage,\nbut a peculiar institution.\n\nLORD AVEBURY ON RELATIONSHIPS\n\nAnalysing Mr. Morgan\u2019s collection of names for relationships, Lord\nAvebury (p. 182) says, \u2018in fact the idea of relationship, like that\nof marriage, was founded, not upon duty, but upon power.\u2019 We try to\nsuggest that the classificatory names for relationships are, to a great\nextent, expressive of status, seniority, and mutual duties and services\nin the community--these duties and services themselves being gradually\nestablished by power--the power of the seniors. Yet some terms analysed\nby Lord Avebury have, linguistically, other sources. \u2018Wife,\u2019 in Cree,\nis \u2018part of myself,\u2019 _dimidium anim\u00e6 me\u00e6_, these twain are one flesh.\nObviously this pretty term does not spring from \u2018communal marriage.\u2019\nIn Chocta, \u2018husband\u2019 is \u2018he who leads me,\u2019--again not communal, but\nindicating the old-fashioned theory of wifely obedience. (\u2018He who kicks\nme\u2019 would suffice, in some civilised quarters.) \u2018Daughter-in-law,\u2019\nin Delaware, is \u2018my cook,\u2019 indicating service; and \u2018husband\u2019 is \u2018my\naid through life,\u2019 showing the advanced Homeric, or Christian, view\nof marriage (pp. 180-181). \u2018Father\u2019 and \u2018Mother\u2019 in many African,\nEuropean and Asian, Non-Aryan, Oceanic, Australian, and, really in\nAryan languages, also often in America, are \u2018the easiest sounds which\na child can pronounce indicating father and mother\u2019 (pp. 442-449). If\nbabes could distinguish father and mother, these relationships, one\nthinks, could not have been unknown to adults. They may be, and are,\nextended in usage, so as to embrace what we call uncles and aunts and\nseniors of the kin, but this, I try to argue, does not necessarily\nimply that fatherhood and motherhood, owing to communal marriage, were\nlong unknown.\n\nThe result of Lord Avebury\u2019s analysis of Mr. Morgan\u2019s tables of terms\nis to prove progress in the discrimination of degrees of kin, though\nancient sweeping terms occasionally survive among races fairly advanced\nout of savagery. \u2018Relationship is, at first, regarded as a matter, not\nof blood, but of tribal organisation\u2019 (p. 208). Here I agree that words\nor terms for what we call relationship often do seem to denote status,\nduty, service, and intermarriageableness in the community. But I do not\nthink that the ties of blood are thereby proved to have been unknown.\nMaternity could not be doubtful, especially where the mother nursed\nher child for several years.\n\nLord Avebury adds, \u2018the terms for what we call relationships are, among\nthe lower races of men, mere expressions for the results of marriage\ncustoms, and do not comprise the idea of relationship as we understand\nit\u2019 (p. 210).\n\nFor this reason, I think, we must avoid the fallacy of arguing as if\nthe terms _did_ denote \u2018relationship as we understand it,\u2019 when we\nwish to prove a past of communal marriage. The terms indicate, in Lord\nAvebury\u2019s words, \u2018the connection of individuals _inter se_, their\nduties to one another, their rights, and the descent of their property.\u2019\n\nThis is precisely my own opinion, and for this very reason I do not\nhold that these terms arose in ignorance as to who was the mother,\nor even the father, of a child. All the duties and rights, as Lord\nAvebury says, \u2018are regulated more by the relation to the tribe than to\nthe family\u2019--in our sense of \u2018family.\u2019 But this, in my view, proves\nthat the terms (in their present significance) are relatively late\nand advanced, for the institution of the Tribe (as I understand the\nword) implies the friendly combination of many totem kins, and of many\n\u2018fire-circles,\u2019 into the tribe, the large local aggregate. No such\ncombination can have been truly \u2018primitive.\u2019 But we have seen that\nLord Avebury seems to use \u2018tribe\u2019 in various places, as equivalent\nto \u2018family,\u2019 \u2018clan,\u2019 _gens_, and, apparently, to \u2018totem kin.\u2019 Quite\npossibly he means that the horde is prior to what I may call the\n\u2018fire-circle,\u2019 the \u2018very small community,\u2019 which, in places, he terms\n\u2018the tribe,\u2019 or so I understand him. If so, I cannot follow him here,\nas I am not inclined to think that truly primitive man lived in hordes\nof considerable numbers: the difficulties of supply, among other\nreasons, make the idea improbable.\n\nIf I have failed to understand Lord Avebury, perhaps his somewhat\nindeterminate terminology may plead my excuse.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: \u2018Report of the Committee of the Legislative Council on\nAborigines.\u2019 Victoria, pp. 9, 69, 77.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Prehistoric Times_, p. 598.]\n\n[Footnote 3: G. Scott Lang, _The Aborigines of Australia_, p. 10.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF TOTEM NAMES AND BELIEFS\n\n\nUp to this point, we have treated of totems just as we find them in\nsavage practice. We have seen that totem names are the titles of\ngroups of kindred, real or imagined; they are derived from animals,\nplants, and other natural objects; they appear among tribes who\nreckon descent either on the sword or spindle side, and the totem\nname of each group is usually (but not in the case of the Arunta)\none mark of the exogamous limit. None may marry a person of the same\ntotem name. But, in company with this prohibition, is found a body of\nmyths, superstitions, rites, magical practices, and artistic uses of\nthe totem.[1] We have shown (Chapter II.) that we cannot move a step\nwithout a clear and consistent hypothesis of the origins of Totemism.\nThis we now try to produce.\n\n\nSACRED ANIMALS IN SAVAGE SOCIETY\n\nSavages, both in their groups of kin, in their magical societies, or\nclubs, and privately, as individuals, are apt to regard certain beasts,\nplants, and so on, as the guardians of the group, of the society,\nand of the private person. To these animal guardians, whether of the\nindividual, the society, or the group of kin, they show a certain\namount of reverence and respect. That reverence naturally takes much\nthe same forms--the inevitable forms--as of not killing or eating the\nanimal, occasionally praying to it, or of burying dead representatives\nof the species, as may happen. But I am unaware that the savage ever\ncalls his _personal_ selected animal or plant, or the guardian animal\nof his magical _society_ (except among the Arunta, where the totem\ngroups are evolving into magical clubs), by the same term as he applies\nto the hereditary guardian of his group of kindred; his totem, as I\nuse the word. If I am right, this distinction has been overlooked, or\nthought insignificant, by some modern inquirers. Major. Powell, the\nDirector of the Ethnological Bureau at Washington, appears to apply,\nthe word totem both to the chosen animal friend of the individual,\nand to that of the magical society in America, which includes men of\nvarious group totems.[2] He also applies it to the totem of the kin.\n\nMr. Frazer, too, writes of (1) The Clan Totem, (2) The Sex Totem\n(in Australia), (3) \u2018The Individual Totem, belonging to a single\nindividual, and not passing to his descendants,\u2019 and even indicates\nthat one savage may have five totems.[3] This third rule as to the\nnon-hereditable character of \u2018the individual totem\u2019 has, since Mr.\nFrazer wrote in 1887, been found to admit of more exceptions than we\nthen knew. In a few cases and places, the animal selected by, or for,\nthe private individual, is found to descend to his or her children.\nIn my opinion it is better, for the present at least, to speak of\nsuch protective animals of _individuals_, by the names which their\nsavage _prot\u00e9g\u00e9s_ give to them in each case: _nyarongs_ (Sarawak)\n\u2018bush-souls,\u2019 (Calabar) _naguals_, (Central America) _manitus_ (?) as\namong the Algonquins, _Yunbeai_ in some Australian dialects, and so\nforth.[4] I myself here use \u2018totem\u2019 only of the object which lends its\nname, hereditarily, to a group of kin.\n\nPROPOSED RESTRICTION OF THE USE OF THE WORD \u2018TOTEM\u2019\n\nThis restriction I make, not for the purpose of simplifying the problem\nof totemism by disregarding \u2018the individual totem,\u2019 \u2018the sex totem,\u2019\nand so on, but because I understand that savages everywhere use one\nword for their hereditary kin totem, and other words for the plant or\nanimal protectors of individuals, of magical societies, and so forth.\nThe true totem is a plant or animal or other thing, the hereditary\nfriend and ally--of the kin--but all plant or animal allies of\nindividuals or of magical societies are not totems. Though the attitude\nof a private person to his _nagual_, or of a magical society to its\nprotective animal, may often closely resemble the attitude of the group\nto its hereditary totem, still, the origin of this attitude of respect\nmay be different in each case.\n\nThis is obvious, for the individual or society deliberately adopts an\nanimal protector and friend, usually suggested in a dream, after a\nfast, whereas we can scarcely conceive that the totem was deliberately\nadopted by the first members of the first totem groups. Savages look\non animals as personalities like themselves, but more powerful, gifted\nwith more wakan, or _mana_, or cosmic _rapport_: each man, therefore,\nand each organised magical society, looks out for, and, for some reason\nof dream or divination, adopts, a special animal friend. But it is\nhard to believe that the members of a primeval human group of unknown\nantiquity, consciously and deliberately made a compact to adopt, and\nfor ever be faithful to--this or that plant, animal, element, or the\nlike--to be inherited in the female line. For, on this plan, the group,\nsay Wolves, instantly loses the totem it has adopted.\n\nWe cannot prove that it was not so, that a primitive group of\nrudimentary human beings did not make a covenant with Bear, or Wolf,\nas Israel did with Jehovah, and as an individual savage does with his\n_nyarong_, or _nagual_, or manitu. This covenant, if made and kept by\neach group, would be the Origin of Totemism. But, with female descent,\nthe covenant could not be kept. I am not certain that this theory,\ninvolving joint and deliberate selection and retention of a totem, by\na primeval human group, has ever been maintained, unless it be by Mr.\nJevons. \u2018The primary object of a totem alliance between a human kin and\nan animal kind is to obtain a supernatural ally against supernatural\nfoes.\u2019[5] The term \u2018supernatural\u2019 seems here out of place--both the\nanimal kind and the human kin being natural; and one has a difficulty\nin conceiving that very early groups of kin would make, and would\nadhere to, such alliances. Indeed, how could they adhere to their\ntotems, when these descended through women of alien totem groups? But\nthere seems to be nothing otherwise impossible or self-contradictory in\nthis theory; nor can it be disproved, for lack of evidence. Only such\ntheories as are self-contradictory, or inconsistent with the known and\nadmitted facts of the case, are capable of absolute disproof.\n\nIt may, of course, be objected here that, though totems, in actual\nsavage society, descend sometimes in the female line, still, descent\nin the male line may be the original rule; and that thus a group,\nlike an individual, could seek, make a covenant with, and cleave to\na grub, or frog, or lizard, as a supernatural ally. But, for reasons\nalready indicated, in an earlier part of this work, I conceive that,\noriginally, totems descended in the female line only. One reason for\nthis opinion is that, as soon as descent of the totem comes by the\nmale line, a distinct step in the upward movement towards civilisation\nand a settled life is made. It is not very probable that the backward\nstep, from reckoning by male lineage to descent in the female line,\nhas often been taken. On the other hand, tribes which now inherit the\ntotem in the male line, exhibit in their institutions many survivals of\nfemale descent. An instance is that of the Mandans, as recorded by Mr.\nDorsey.[6] Among the Melanesians, where female descent still exists,\nthere is at work the most obvious tendency towards descent through\nmales, as Dr. Codrington proves in an excellent work on that people.\nDr. Durkheim, too, has pointed out the traces of uterine descent among\nthe Arunta, who now reckon in the male line.[7] On the other hand,\nwhere we find descent in the male line, I am not aware that we discover\nsigns of movement in the opposite direction. In this opinion that, as\na general rule, descent was reckoned in the female, not the male line,\noriginally, I have the support of Mr. E. B. Tylor.[8] For these reasons\nthe hypothesis of the selection of and covenant with a \u2018supernatural\nally,\u2019 plant or animal, by the deliberate joint action of an early\ngroup, at a given moment, involving staunch adherence to the original\nresolution, rather strains belief; and a suggestion perhaps more\nplausible will be offered later.\n\nTHE WORD \u2018TOTEM\u2019\n\nAs to the precise original meaning and form of the word usually written\n\u2018totem\u2019--whether it should be \u2018totam,\u2019 or \u2018toodaim,\u2019 or \u2018dodaim,\u2019 or\n\u2018ododam,\u2019 or \u2018ote,\u2019 philologists may dispute.[9] They may question\nwhether the word means \u2018mark,\u2019 or \u2018family,\u2019 or \u2018tribe,\u2019 or clay for\npainting the family mark.[10] When we here use the word \u2018totem\u2019 we\nmean, at all events, the object which gives its name to a group of\nsavage kindred, who may not marry within this hereditary name. In place\nof \u2018totem\u2019 we might use the equivalent murdu of the Dieri, or gaura of\nthe Kunundaburi.[11]\n\n\nTHE TOTEM \u2018CULT\u2019\n\nThe \u2018cult,\u2019 if it deserves to be called a \u2018cult,\u2019 of the totem, among\nsavages, is not confined to abstention from marriage within the name.\nEach kin usually abstains from killing, eating, or in any way using\nits totem (except in occasional ceremonies, religious or magical),\nis apt to claim i descent from or kindred with it, or alternations\nof metamorphosis into or out of it, and sometimes uses its effigy on\nmemorial pillars, on posts carved with a kind of genealogical tree, or\ntattoos or paints or scarifies it on the skin--in different cases and\nplaces.\n\nTo what extent the blood-feud is taken up by all members of the slain\nman\u2019s totem, I am not fully aware: it varies in different regions. The\neating or slaying of the totem, by a person of the totem name, is in\nplaces believed to be punished by disease or death, a point which the\nlate Mr. J. J. Atkinson observed among the natives of New Caledonia\n(MS. _penes me_). Mr. Atkinson happened to be conversing with some\nnatives on questions of anthropology, when his servant brought in a\nlizard which he had killed. On this one of the natives exhibited great\ndistress, saying, \u2018Why have you killed my father? we were talking of my\nfather, and he came to us\u2019 The son (his name was Jericha) then wrapped\nthe dead lizard up in leaves, and reverently laid the body in the bush.\nThis was not a case like that of the Zulu _Idhlozi_, the serpents\nthat haunt houses, and are believed to be the vehicles of the souls\nof dead kinsfolk. The other natives present had for their \u2018father,\u2019\none, a mouse, the other a pigeon, and so on. If any one ate his animal\n\u2018father,\u2019 sores broke out on him, and Mr. Atkinson was shown a woman\nthus afflicted, for having eaten her \u2018father.\u2019 But I do not find, in\nhis papers, that a man with a mouse for father might not marry a woman\nof the mouse set, nor have I elsewhere been able to ascertain what is\nNew-Caledonian practice on this point.[12] When Mr. Atkinson made\nthese observations (1874), he had only heard of totems in the novels of\nCooper and other romancers.\n\n\u2018TOTEM GODS\u2019\n\nThis example is here cited because, as far as I am aware, no other\nanthropologist has observed this amount of Totemism in New Caledonia.\nStudents are divided into those who have a bias in favour of finding\ntotemism everywhere; and those who aver, with unconcealed delight,\nthat in this or the other place there are no totems. Such negative\nstatements must always be received with caution. An European may live\nlong among savages before he really knows them; and, without possessing\ntotemism in full measure, many races retain obvious fragments of the\ninstitution.\n\nMr. Tylor has censured the use of the terms \u2018totems\u2019 and \u2018totem clans\u2019\nwith respect to the Fijians and Samoans, where certain animals, not\nto be eaten, are believed to be vehicles or shrines of certain gods.\nIt is a very probable conjecture (so probable, I think, as almost to\namount to a certainty), that the creatures which are now the shrines\nof Fijian or Samoan gods of the family, or of higher gods, were once\ntotems in an earlier stage of Samoan and Fijian society and belief. As\nI have said elsewhere, \u2018in totemistic countries the totem is respected\nhimself; in Samoa the animal is worshipful because a god abides within\nhim. This appears to be a theory by which the reflective Samoans have\nexplained to themselves what was once pure Totemism.\u2019[13] But I must\nshare in Mr. Tylor\u2019s protest against using the name of \u2018totem\u2019 for a\nplant or animal which is regarded as the shrine of a god. Such thorough\ntotemists as some of the North American Indians, or the Australians, do\nnot explain their totems as the shrines of gods, for they have no such\ngods to serve as explanations. That myth appears to be the Samoan or\nFijian way of accounting for the existence of worshipful and friendly\nplants and animals.\n\nThus, at all events, and unluckily, the phrase \u2018the totem-god\u2019 is\nintroduced into our speculations, and the cult of the \u2018totem-god\u2019 is\nconfused with the much more limited respect paid by savages to actual\ntotems. However attractive the theory of \u2018the totem-god\u2019 may be, we\ncannot speak of \u2018totems\u2019 where a god incarnate in a plant or animal is\nconcerned. Such a deity may be a modified survival of Totemism, but a\ntotem he is not. Moreover, it is hardly safe to say that, in the Samoan\ncase, the god is \u2018developed from a totem;\u2019 we only know that the god\nhas got into suspiciously totemistic society. On the whole, we cannot\nbe too cautious in speaking of totems and Totemism: and we must be\nspecially careful not to exaggerate the more or less religious respect\nwith which totems are, in many cases, regarded. The Australians, as\nfar as they have the idea of a creative being, Baiame, Nooreli, and so\nforth, do not regard their totems as shrines or incarnations of him.\nThat appears to be the speculation of peoples who, probably by way of\nanimism, and ancestor-worship, are already in the stage of polytheism.\nTotems, in their earliest known stage, have very little to do with\nreligion, and probably, in origin, had nothing really religious about\nthem.\n\nSAVAGE SPECULATIONS AS TO THE ORIGIN OF TOTEMISM\n\nPeoples who are still in the totemistic stage, as we have seen, know\nnothing about the beginnings of the institution. All that they tell\nthe civilised inquirers is no more than the myth handed down by their\nown tradition. Thus the Dieri or Dieyrie, in Australia, say that the\ntotems were appointed by the ancestors, for the purpose of regulating\nmarriages, after consultation with Mura Mura, or with \u2018the\u2019 Muramura.\nThe Woeworung, according to Mr. Howitt, have a similar legend.[14]\nIt is not necessary here to ask whether Mura Mura is \u2018the Supreme\nBeing\u2019 (Gason, Howitt), or \u2018ancestral spirits\u2019 (Fison).[15] The most\ncommon savage myth is of the Darwinian variety, each totem kin is\ndescended from, or evolved out of, the plant or animal type which\nsupplies its totem. Again, as in fairy tales, a woman gave birth to\nanimals, whence the totem kins derive their descent. In North-West\nAmerica, totems are often accounted for by myths of ancestral heroes.\n\u2018The Tlingit\u2019 (Thlinket) \u2018hold that souls of ancestors are reborn in\nchildren, that a man will be reborn as a man, a wolf as a wolf, a raven\nas a raven.\u2019 Nevertheless, the totems are regarded as \u2018relatives and\nprotectors,\u2019 and it is explained that, in the past, a human ancestor\nhad an adventure with this or that animal, whence he assumed his totem\narmorial bearings.[16] In precisely the same way a myth, a very late\nmyth, was invented, about the adventure of a Stewart with a lion, to\naccount for the Lyon of the Stewarts.[17] The Haidas and Thlinkets,\nbelieving as they do that human souls are reborn human, cannot hold\nthat a bestial soul animates a man, say, of the Raven totem.\n\nThe Arunta, on the other hand, suppose that the souls of animals\nwhich evolved into human beings, are reincarnated in each child born\nto the tribe. \u2018Two clans of Western Australia, who are named after a\nsmall opossum and a little fish, think that they are so called because\nthey used to live chiefly on these creatures.\u2019[18] This myth has some\nsupport in modern opinion: the kins, it is argued, received their\ntotem names from the animals and plants which mainly formed their\nfood supply; though now their totems are seldom eaten by them. These\nlegends, and others, are clearly \u00e6tiological myths, like the Samoan\nhypothesis that gods are incarnate in the totems. The myths merely try\nto explain the original connection between men and totems, and are\nconstructed on the lines of savage ideas about the relations of all\nthings in the universe, all alike being personal, and rational, and\ncapable of interbreeding, and of shape-shifting. Certain Kalamantans\nof Sarawak will not eat a species of deer, because \u2018an ancestor became\na deer of this kind.\u2019[19] All such fables, of course, are valueless as\nhistory; and, in the savage state of the intellect, such myths were\ninevitable.\n\nMODERN THEORIES\n\nMr. McLennan himself at first had a theory, which, as far as I heard\nhim speak of it, was more or less akin to my own. But he abandoned\nit, says his brother, Mr. Daniel McLennan, for reasons that to him\nappeared conclusive. I ought to mention that Mr. A. H. Keane informed\nme, several years ago, that he had independently evolved a theory akin\nto mine, of which, as it then stood, I had published some hint. (For a\nstatement of Mr. Keane\u2019s theory see our Preface.) In 1884[20] I wrote,\n\u2018People united by contiguity, and by the blind sentiment of kinship\nnot yet brought into explicit consciousness, might mark themselves by\na badge, and might thence derive a name, and, later, might invent a\nmyth of their descent from the object which the badge represented.\u2019 But\nwhy should such people mark themselves by a badge, and why, if they\ndid, should the mark be, not a decorative or symbolic pattern, but the\nrepresentation of a plant or animal? These questions I cannot answer,\nand my present guess is not identical with that of 1884.\n\nMeanwhile let us keep one point steadily before our minds. Totemism,\nat a first glance, seems a perfectly crazy and irrational set of\nbeliefs, and we might think, with Dr. Johnson, that there is no use in\nlooking for reason among the freaks of irrational people. But man is\nnever irrational. His reason for doing this, or believing that, may\nseem a bad reason to us, but a reason he always had for his creeds\nand conduct, and he had a reason for his totem belief, a reason in\ncongruity with his limited knowledge of facts, and with his theory\nof the universe. For all things he wanted an explanation. Now what\nhe wanted a reason for, in Totemism, was the nature and origin of\nthe connection between his own and the neighbouring groups, and the\nplant or animal names which they bore. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen\nwrite, \u2018what gave rise, in the first instance, to the association of\nparticular men with particular animals and plants, it is impossible\nto say.\u2019 But it is not impossible to guess, with more or less of\nprobability. The connection once established, savages guessed at\nits origin: their guesses, as always, were myths, and were of every\nconceivable kind. The myth of descent from or kinship with the animal\nor plant, the Darwinian myth, does not stand alone. Every sort of myth\nwas fashioned, was believed, and influenced conduct. Our business is to\nform our own guess as to the original connection between men and their\ntotems: a guess which shall be consistent with human nature.\n\nMR. MAX M\u00dcLLER\u2019S THEORY\n\nMany such guesses by civilised philosophers exist. We need not dwell\nlong on that of Mr. Max M\u00fcller, akin, as it is, to my own early\nconjecture, \u2018a totem is a clan mark, then a clan name, then the name of\nthe ancestor of the clan, and lastly the name of something worshipped\nby the clan.\u2019[21] We need not dwell on this, because the kind of\n\u2018clan mark\u2019 on a pillar outside of the quarters of the clan, in a\nvillage, is peculiar to North America, and to people dwelling in fixed\nsettlements. Among the nomadic Australians, we have totemism without\nthe settlements, without the totem pillar, without the \u2018clan mark,\u2019 on\nthe pillar, which, thus, cannot be the first step in Totemism. Again,\nthe \u2018clan name,\u2019 or group name, must be earlier than the \u2018clan mark,\u2019\nwhich merely expresses it, just as my name is prior to my visiting\ncard, or as the name of an inn, \u2018The Red Lion,\u2019 is prior to the sign\nrepresenting that animal. Obviously we have to ask first, _whence comes\nthe clan name, or group name?_\n\nTHE THEORY OF MR. HERBERT SPENCER\n\nIn a passage on animal-worship, Mr. Herbert Spencer (unless I\nmisconceive him) advances a theory of the origin of Totemism. True, he\ndoes not here speak of totems, but he suggests an hypothesis to explain\nwhy certain stocks claim descent from animals, and why these animals\nare treated by them with more or less of religious regard. Actual men,\nin savagery, are often called by \u2018animal nicknames,\u2019 and we cannot be\nsurprised if the savage ... gets the idea that an ancestor named \u2018the\ntiger\u2019 was an actual tiger ... Inevitably, then, he grows up believing\nthat his father descended from a tiger--thinking of himself as one of\nthe tiger stock.[22]\n\nIt were superfluous to dwell on this theory. Totem names are group\nnames; and, as they occur where group names are derived from the\nmother, they cannot have originated in the animal nicknames of\nindividual dead grandfathers. The names of the dead are usually tabued\nand forgotten; but that is of no great moment. The point is that such\ngroup names are derived through mothers, in the first instance, not\nthrough male founders of families.[23]\n\nNo theory which starts from an individual male ancestor, and his name\nbequeathed to his descendants, can be correct. That Mr. Spencer\u2019s does\nstart in this way may be inferred from the following text: \u2018commonly\nthe names of the clans which are forbidden to intermarry, such as Wolf,\nBear, Eagle, Whale, &c., are names given to men, implying, as I have\nbefore contended (170-173), descent from distinguished male ancestors\nbearing those names--descent which, notwithstanding the system of\nfemale kinship, was remembered when there was pride in the connection.\u2019\n\nA brief-lived joy in the name of which the male ancestor\u2019s descendants\nwere proud, left them, in the second generation, under exogamy and\nfemale kin. Thus my father was nicknamed \u2018Tiger.\u2019 Proud of the title,\nI call myself Tiger. But I must marry a woman who is Not-Tiger, and my\noffspring are Not-Tigers. My honour hath departed!\n\nMR. FRAZER\u2019S THEORIES\n\nThe hypotheses of Mr. J. G. Frazer are purely provisional. He starts\nfrom the idea, so common in _M\u00e4rchen_, of the person whose \u2018soul,\u2019\n\u2018life,\u2019 or \u2018strength\u2019 is secretly hidden in an animal, plant, or other\nobject. The owner of the soul wraps the \u2018soul-box\u2019 up in a mystery,\nit is the central secret of his existence, for he may be slain by\nany one who can discover and destroy his \u2018soul-box.\u2019 Next Mr. Frazer\noffers many cases of this actual belief and practice among savage and\nbarbarous peoples; and, as a freak or survival, the idea is found even\namong the civilised. We meet the superstition in the Melanesian group\nof islands (where Totemism is all but extinct), and perhaps among\nthe Zulus, with their serpent Idhlozi, whose life is associated with\ntheir own. Mr. Atkinson\u2019s New-Caledonians, however, did not think\nthat death inflicted on their animal \u2018fathers\u2019 involved danger to\nthemselves, though it distressed them, as an outrage to sentiment.\nThen we have the \u2018bush-souls\u2019 (one soul out of four in the possession\nof each individual), among the natives of Calabar. These souls, Miss\nKingsley wrote, are never in plants, but always in _wild_ beasts, and\nare recognisable only by second-sighted men. The \u2018bush-soul\u2019 of a man\nis often that of his sons: the daughters often inherit the mother\u2019s\n\u2018bush-soul:\u2019 or children of both sexes may take the bush-soul of either\nfather or mother. The natives will not injure their bush-soul beasts.\nNothing is known as to prohibition of marriage between persons of the\nsame bush-soul. Here we have really something akin to the totem, the\nbush-souls being hereditary, at least for one generation. But this is\namong a house-dwelling, agricultural people, far above the state of\nreal savagery: not among a \u2018primitive\u2019 people.\n\nThe Zapotecs of Central America, again, choose, by a method of\ndivination, \u2018a _tona_ or second self,\u2019 an animal, for each child, at\nits birth. It is, by the nature of the case, not hereditable. The\n_nagual_, usually a beast, of each Indian of Guatemala is well known;\nand is discovered, on the monition of a dream, by each individual.\nTherefore it cannot be hereditable. The sexes, in Australia, have each\na friendly and protecting species of animal; say a Bat for all men,\na Nightjar for all women: indeed, in Australia, all the elements of\nnature have their place in the cosmic tribe. To injure the animal of\neither sex, is to injure one of the sex. There is no secret about the\nmatter.\n\nMr. Frazer then argues, \u2018the explanation which holds good of the one\u2019\n(say \u2018the sex totem,\u2019 or \u2018personal totem\u2019), \u2018ought equally to hold good\nof the other\u2019 (the group totem). \u2018Therefore, the reason why a tribe\u2019\n(I venture to prefer \u2018group,\u2019 or \u2018kin,\u2019 as there are many totems in\neach \u2018tribe\u2019) \u2018revere a particular species of animals or plants ... and\ncall themselves after it, would seem to be a belief that the life of\neach individual of the tribe is bound up with some one plant or animal\nof the species, and that his or her death would be the consequence of\nkilling that particular animal or destroying that particular plant.\u2019\nMr. Frazer thinks that \u2018this explanation squares well\u2019 with Sir George\nGrey\u2019s description of a _Kobong_ or totem in Western Australia. There,\na native gives his totem \u2018a fair show\u2019 before killing it, always\naffording it a chance of escape, and never killing it in its sleep.\nHe only does not shoot his kindred animal _sitting_, and his plant\nhe only spares \u2018in certain circumstances, and at a particular period\nof the year.\u2019 Mr. Frazer writes that as the man does not know which\nindividual of the species of plant or animal \u2018is specially dear to him,\nhe is obliged to spare them all, for fear of injuring the dear one.\u2019\nBut the man, it seems from Grey\u2019s account, does not \u2018spare\u2019 any of\nthem; he kills or plucks them, \u2018reluctantly,\u2019 and in a sportsmanlike\nmanner, \u2018never without affording them a chance of escape.\u2019 In a case of\nSir George Grey\u2019s, the killing of a crow hastened the death of a man of\nthe Crow totem, who had been ailing for some days. But the Australians\ndo not think that to kill a man\u2019s totem is to kill the man. Somebody\u2019s\ntotem is killed whenever any animal is slain. Mr. Frazer now finds that\nthe Battas, for example, \u2018do not in set terms affirm their external\nsoul to be in their totems,\u2019 and I am not aware that any totemists do\nmake this assertion. They freely offer all other sorts of mythical\nexplanations as to what their totems originally were, as to the origin\nof their connection with their totems, but never say that their totems\nare their \u2018soul-boxes.\u2019\n\nMr. Frazer has an answer to this objection. \u2018How close must be the\nconcealment, how impenetrable the reserve in which he\u2019 (the savage)\n\u2018hides the inner keep and citadel of his being.\u2019 The Giant, in the\n_M\u00e4rchen_, tries to keep the secret of his \u2018soul-box,\u2019 much more\nthen does \u2018the timid and furtive savage.\u2019 \u2018No inducement that can be\noffered is likely to tempt him to imperil his soul by revealing its\nhiding-place to a stranger. It is, therefore, no matter for surprise\nthat the central mystery of the savaged life should so long have\nremained a secret, and that we should be left to piece it together from\nscattered hints and fragments, and from the recollections of it which\nlinger in fairy tales.\u2019\n\nOn reflection, we cannot but see the flaw in this reasoning. No savage\nhas revealed _to European inquirers_ that his totem is his \u2018soul-box.\u2019\n_But every other savage knows his fatal secret_. Every savage, well\naware that his own totem is the hiding-place of his soul, knows that\nthe totems of his enemies are the hiding-places of _their_ souls.\nHe wants to kill his enemies, and he has an easy mode of doing so,\nto shoot down every specimen of their totems. His enemies will then\ndie, when he is lucky enough to destroy their \u2018soul-boxes.\u2019 Now I am\nnot aware, in the destructive magic of savages, of a single case in\nwhich a totem is slain, or tortured for the purpose of slaying or\ntorturing a man of that totem. All other sorts of sympathetic magic\nare practised, but where is the evidence for that sort, which ought to\nbe of considerable diffusion?[24] The supposed \u2018secret\u2019 of savage life\nis no secret to other savages. Each tells any inquirer what his \u2018clay\u2019\nor totem is. He blazons his totem proudly. The nearest approach to\ninvidious action, against a totem, with which I am acquainted, is the\nkilling by the Kurnai women, of the men\u2019s \u2018sex totem,\u2019 when the young\nmen are backward wooers. The purpose is to produce a fight between lads\nand lasses, a rude form of flirtation, after which engagements, or\nelopements, are apt to follow.[25]\n\nMr. Frazer tentatively suggests another, a rival or a subsidiary\nsolution of the problem, to which reference has already been made.\nAmong the Arunta and other tribes, \u2018the totemic system has a much wider\nscope, its aim being to provide the community with a supply of food\nand all other necessaries by means of certain magical ceremonies, the\nperformance of which is distributed among the various totem groups.\u2019\nThat is to say, these totemic magical ceremonies _now_ exist for\nthe purpose of propagating, as part of the food supply, animals or\nvegetables, which, by the former theory, were the secret receptacles of\nthe lives of the tribesmen. To kill and eat these sacred receptacles\nwould endanger the lives of the tribesmen, but to risk _that_ is quite\nin accordance with the practical turn of the Arunta mind. Mr. Frazer\nhas, however, suggested a possible method of reconciling his earlier\nhypothesis--that a totem was a soul-box--with his later theory,\nthat the primal object of totem groups was to breed their totems for\nfood.[26]\n\nMr. Frazer observes, \u2018It is not as yet clear how far the particular\ntheory of Totemism suggested by the Central Australian system is of\ngeneral application, and ... in the uncertainty which still hangs over\nthe origin and meaning of Totemism, it seems scarcely worth while to\npatch up an old theory which the next new facts may perhaps entirely\ndemolish.\u2019 He then cites the Arunta belief that their ancestors of\n\u2018the dream time\u2019 (who were men evolved out of animals or plants, these\nobjects being their totems) kept their souls (like the Giant of the\nfairy tale) in stone _churingas_ (a kind of amulets) which they hung on\npoles when they went out hunting. We have thus a _va-et-vient_ between\neach man, and the spirit of the plant or animal out of which he, or his\nhuman ancestor, was evolved. That spirit (in origin the spirit of an\nanimal or plant) is now handed down with the stone _churinga_, and is\nreincarnated in each child, who is thus, an incarnation of the original\ntotem. Such is the Arunta theory, and thus each living Arunta is the\ntotem\u2019s soul-box, while, to savage reasoners, the totem soul may,\nperhaps, seem also to tenant simultaneously each plant or animal of its\nspecies.\n\nThis is a theory of Totemism;[27] but, so far, we only know the facts\non which it is based among one extraordinary tribe of anomalous\ndevelopment. We have still to ask, what was the original connection of\nthe men with the plants and animals, which the Arunta explain by their\nmyth? Was that connection originally one of magic-working, by each\ngroup, for its totem species, and, if so, why or how did the groups\nfirst select their plants and animals? Mr. Haddon\u2019s theory, presently\nto be criticised, may elucidate that point of departure.\n\n\nSUGGESTION OF MR. N. W. THOMAS\n\nAs I am writing, a theory, or suggestion, by Mr. N. W. Thomas appears\nin _Man_ (1902, No. 85). Mr. Thomas begins with the spirit which dwells\nin an African fetich, and becomes the servant of its owner. The magical\napparatus \u2018may be a bag of skin containing parts of various animals.\nSuch an animal may be the familiar of the owner, his messenger, or\nan evil spirit that possesses him;\u2019 similar beliefs are held about\nthe wer-wolf. Now the American-Indian has _his_ \u2018medicine bag.\u2019 \u2018The\ncontents are the skin, feathers, or other part of the totem animal.\u2019\n\n_Distinguo_: they are parts, not of the \u2018totem animal,\u2019 but of the\nadopted animal of the individual, often called his _manitu_. If we say\n\u2018the totem animal,\u2019 we beg the question; we identify the totem with\nthe _manitu_ of the individual. It may be true, as Mr. Thomas says,\nthat \u2018the basis of _individual_ Totemism seems to be the same as that\nof fetishism,\u2019 but I am not discussing \u2018individual Totemism,\u2019 but real\ngroup Totemism. Mr. Thomas also is clear on this point, but, turning to\nAustralia, he says that \u2018the individual totem seems to be confined to\nthe medicine-man.\u2019 From information by Mrs. Langloh Parker, I doubt the\ntruth of this idea. A confessedly vague reminiscence of Mr. Rusden does\nnot help us. Speaking of an extinct tribe on the Hunter River, N.S.W.,\nhe says that he \u2018does not recollect all their class divisions, Yippai\u2019\n(Ippai), \u2018and Kombo\u2019 (Kumbo). \u2018Apropos of the generic names\u2019 (whatever\nthese may be) \u2018the Geawe-gal had a superstition that _every one_ had\nwithin himself an affinity to the _spirit_ of some beast, bird, or\nreptile. Not that he sprang from the creature in any way\u2019 (as is a\ncommon totemic myth), \u2018but that the spirit which was in him was akin\nto that of the creature.\u2019 This is vague. Mr. Rusden does not say that\nhis native informant said, that the \u2018spirit\u2019 was the man\u2019s totem in\neach case.[28] But Mr. Thomas, on this evidence, writes: \u2018This belief\nsuggests that the interpretation suggested for individual Totemism\ncan also be applied to clan Totemism,\u2019 apparently because, among the\nextinct tribe, not only sorcerers, but, in this case, every one was the\nreceptacle of an animal (not a plant) spirit. But obviously the animal\nspirits of the Geawe-gal may be the spirits--not of their group totems,\nif they had any--but of their individual _manitus_, which we do not\nknow to be confined to sorcerers. Every one is a sorcerer, better or\nworse, in a society where every one works magic.\n\nNext, the wer-wolf has a way of returning \u2018to look at\u2019 (to _eat_, I\nthink) the body of his victim. Now in North Queensland, as in Scotland,\nthe body of a dead man is surrounded with dust or ashes (flour in\nScotland), and the dust is inspected, to find the tracks of some bird\nor animal.[29] From such marks, if any, \u2018the totem of the malefactor is\ninferred.\u2019 The malefactor is the person who, by the usual superstition,\nis thought magically to have caused the death of the tribesman. \u2018These\nfacts seem best interpreted if we suppose that in North Queensland\nthe sorcerer is believed to return in animal form, and that the form\nis that of his totem, for in no other way does it seem possible to\nidentify the man\u2019s totem by observing the footsteps.\u2019\n\nIs the man\u2019s group totem meant? If so, the process could not\nidentify \u2018the malefactor,\u2019 there are hundreds of men of his totem.\nIs his _manitu_ or \u2018individual totem\u2019 meant? Then the process might\nbe successful, but has no concern with the origin of hereditary\nkin-Totemism. Indeed Mr. Thomas \u2018leaves the applicability of the theory\nto group Totemism for subsequent consideration.\u2019 We shall show--indeed,\nin Mr. Herbert Spencer\u2019s case we have shown--the difficulty of deriving\nkin-Totemism from the manitu, or \u2018obsessing spirit\u2019 if Mr. Thomas\npleases, of the individual. This point, as is said, Mr. Thomas reserves\nfor later consideration.\n\n\nDR. WILKEN\u2019S THEORY\n\nWe now come to a theory which exists in many shapes, but in all is\nvitiated, I think, by the same error of reasoning. Mr. Tylor, however,\nhas lent at least a modified approval to the hypothesis as mooted by\nthe late Dutch anthropologist, Dr. Wilken, of Leyden. Mr. Tylor writes,\n\u2018if it does not completely solve the totem problem, at any rate it\nseems to mark out its main lines.\u2019 Unluckily the hypothesis of Dr.\nWilken is perhaps the least probable of all. The materials are found,\nnot in a race so comparatively early as the Australians or Adamanese,\nbut among the settled peoples of Malay, Sumatra, and Melanesia. By\nthem, in their Tables of Precedence, \u2018the Crocodile is regarded as\nequal in rank to the Dutch Resident.\u2019 Crocodiles are looked on as near\nkinsmen of men, who, when they die, expect to become crocodiles. To\nkill crocodiles is murder. \u2018So it is with tigers, whom the Sumatrans\nworship and call ancestors.\u2019\n\nMr. Tylor observes, \u2018Wilken sees in this transmigration of souls\nthe link which connects Totemism with ancestor-worship,\u2019 and thinks\nthat Dr. Codrington\u2019s remarks on Melanesian ways add weight to this\nopinion. In Melanesia, as Dr. Codrington reports, an influential man,\nbefore his death, will lay a ban, or tabu, on something, say a banana,\nor a pig. He says that he \u2018will be in\u2019 a shark, a banana, a bird, a\nbutterfly, or what not. Dr. Codrington\u2019s informant, Mr. Sleigh of Lifu,\nsays \u2018that creature would be sacred to his family,\u2019 they would call\nit \u2018papa,\u2019 and \u2018offer it a young cocoa-nut.\u2019 \u2018_But they did not adopt\nthus the name of a tribe_.\u2019 The children of papa, who chose to be a\nbutterfly (like Mr. Thomas Haynes Bailey) do not call themselves \u2018The\nButterflies,\u2019 nor does the butterfly name mark their exogamous limit.\nMr. Tylor concludes, \u2018an ancestor, having lineal descendants among men\nand sharks, or men and owls, is thus the founder of a totem family,\nwhich mere increase may convert into a totem clan, already provided\nwith its animal name.\u2019 This conclusion is tentative, and put forth with\nMr. Tylor\u2019s usual caution. But, as a matter of fact, no totem kin is\nactually founded thus, for example, in Melanesia. The institutions\nof that region, as we are to show, really illustrate the way out of,\nnot the way into, Totemism. Moreover the theory, as expressed by\nMr. Tylor in the words cited, must be deemed unfortunate because it\ntakes for granted that \u2018the Patriarchal theory\u2019 of the origin of the\nso-called \u2018clan,\u2019 or totem group, is correct. A male ancestor founds\na family, which swells, \u2018by natural increase,\u2019 into a \u2018clan.\u2019 The\nancestor is worshipped under the name of Butterfly, his descendants,\nthe clan founded by him, are named Butterflies. But all this can only\nhappen where male ancestors are remembered, and are worshipped, where\ndescent is reckoned in the male line, and where, as among ourselves, a\nremembered male ancestor founds a House, as Tam o\u2019 the Cowgate founded\nthe House of Haddington. In short Dr. Wilken has slipped back into\nthe Patriarchal theory. Now, among totemists like the Australians,\nancestors are not remembered, their names are tabued, they are not\nworshipped, they do not found families, where descent is reckoned in\nthe female line.[30]\n\nMISS ALICE FLETCHER\u2019S THEORY\n\nAn interesting variant of this theory is offered, as regards the Omaha\ntribe of North America, by Miss Alice Fletcher, whose knowledge of the\ninner mind of that people is no less remarkable than her scientific\ncaution.[31] The conclusion of Miss Fletcher\u2019s valuable essay shows,\nat a glance, that her hypothesis contains the same fundamental error\nas that of Dr. Wilken: namely, the totem of the kin is derived from\nthe _manitu_, or personal friendly object of an individual, a male\nancestor. This cannot, we repeat, hold good for that early stage of\nsociety which reckons descent in the female line, and in which male\nancestors do not found houses, clans, names, or totem kins.\n\nThe Omaha men, at puberty, after prayer and fasting, choose manitus\nsuggested in dreams or visions. Miss Fletcher writes, \u2018As totems could\nbe obtained but in one way--through the rite of the vision, the totem\nof a _gens_ must have come into existence in that manner, and must\nhave represented the manifestation of an ancestor\u2019s vision, that of a\nman whose ability and opportunity served to make him the founder of a\nfamily, of a group of kindred who dwelt together, fought together, and\nlearned the value of united strength.\u2019[32]\n\nThis explanation obviously cannot explain the Origin of Totemism among\ntribes where descent is reckoned in the female line, and where no\nman becomes \u2018the founder of a family.\u2019 The Omaha, a house-dwelling,\nagricultural tribe, with descent in the male line, with priests,\nand departmental gods, a tribe, too, among whom the manitu is not\nhereditable, can give us no line as to the origin of Totemism. Miss\nFletcher\u2019s theory demands the hereditable character of the individual\nmanitu, and yet it is never inherited.\n\n\nMR. HILL TOUT\u2019S THEORY\n\nMr. Hill Tout has evolved a theory out of the customs of the aborigines\nof British Columbia, among whom \u2018the clan totems are a development of\nthe personal or individual totem or tutelar spirit.\u2019 The Salish tribes,\nin fact, seek for \u2018sulia, or tutelar spirits,\u2019 and these \u2018gave rise to\nthe personal totem,\u2019 answering to _manitu, nyarong, nagual_, and so\nforth. \u2018From the personal and family crest is but a step to the clan\ncrest.\u2019 Unluckily, with descent in the female line, the step cannot\nbe taken. Mr. Hill Tout takes a village-inhabiting tribe, a tribe of\nvillage communities, as one in which Totemism is only nascent. \u2018The\nvillage community apparently formed the original unit of organisation.\u2019\nBut the Australians, who have not come within measurable distance of\nthe village community, have already the organisation of the totem kin.\nInteresting as is Mr. Hill Tout\u2019s account of the Salish Indians, we\nneed not dwell longer on an hypothesis which makes village communities\nprior to the evolution of Totemism. What he means by saying that \u2018the\n_gens_ has developed into the clan,\u2019 I am unable to conjecture. The\nschool of Major Powell use \u2018_gens_\u2019 of a totem kin with male, \u2018clan\u2019\nof a totem kin with female descent. Mr. Hill Tout cannot mean that\nmale descent is being converted into descent in the female line? As he\nwrites of \u2018a four-clan system, each clan being made up of groups of\n_gentes_,\u2019 he may take a \u2018clan\u2019 to signify what is usually called a\n\u2018phratry.\u2019[33]\n\nMESSRS. HOSE AND MCDOUGALL\n\nAmong other efforts to show how the hereditary totem of a group might\nbe derived from the special animal or plant friend of an individual\nmale, may be noticed that of Messrs. Hose and McDougall.[34] The\nIbans, or Sea Dyaks of Sarawak, are probably of Malay stock, and are\n\u2018a very imitative people,\u2019 of mixed, inconsistent, and extravagant\nbeliefs. They have a god of agriculture, and, of course, are therefore\nremote from the primitive; being rice-farmers. They respect nyarongs,\nor \u2018spirit helpers,\u2019 though Mr. Hose lived among them for fourteen\nyears without knowing what a nyarong is. \u2018It seems usually to be the\nspirit of some ancestor, or dead relative, but not always so....\u2019 The\nspirit first appears to an Iban in a dream, in human form, and the\nIban, on awaking, looks for the _nyarong_ in any casual beast, or\nquartz crystal, or queer root or creeper. So far the _nyarong_ is a\nfetish. Only about two per cent, of men have _nyarongs_. If the thing\nbe an animal, the Iban respects the other creatures of the species.\n\u2018In some cases the cult of a _nyarong_ will spread through a whole\nfamily or household.\u2019 Australian individuals have also their secret\nanimal friends, like _nyarongs_ and _naguals_, but these are never\nhereditary. What _is_ hereditary is the totem of the group, which may\nnot be altered, or so seldom that it would be hard to find a modern\nexample: though changes of totems may have occurred when, in the\npristine \u2018treks\u2019 of the race, they reached regions of new fauna and\nflora.\n\n\u2018The children and grandchildren,\u2019 our authors go on, \u2018among the Ibans,\nwill usually respect the species of animals to which a man\u2019s _nyarong_\nbelongs, and perhaps sacrifice fowls or pigs to it occasionally.\u2019\nOf course \u2018primitive\u2019 man has no domesticated animals, and does not\nsacrifice anything to anybody. \u2018If the great-grandchildren of a man\nbehave well to his _nyarong_, it will often befriend them just as much\nas its original _prot\u00e9g\u00e9_.\u2019 It is not readily conceivable that, among\nvery early men, and where the names of the dead are tabued, the wisest\ngreat-grandchild knows who his great-grandfather was. Still, though the\ngreat-grandfather was forgotten, his _nyarong_--it may be said--would\nbe held in perpetual memory, and become the totem of a group. But this\nis not easily to be conceded, because there would be the competition\nof the _nyarongs_ of each generation to crush the ancient nyarong;\nmoreover the totem, in truly primitive times, is not inherited from\nfathers, but from mothers.\n\nOur authors say that, in some cases, \u2018all the members of a man\u2019s\nfamily, and all his descendants, and, if he be a chief, all the members\nof the community over which he rules,\u2019 may come to share in the\nbenefits of his nyarong, and in its rites. But all this of chiefs, and\ngreat-grandchildren of a known great-grandfather, all this occurring\nto-day among an imitative and agricultural people, with departmental\ndeities, and domesticated animals, cannot give us a line to the origin\nof Totemism among houseless nomads, who tabu the memory of their dead,\nand, as a rule, probably reckoned descent on the female side, so that\na man could not inherit his father\u2019s totem. We must try to see how\nreally early men became totemic. Mr. Frazer observes, \u2018It is quite\npossible that, as some good authorities incline to believe, the clan\ntotem has been developed out of the individual totem by inheritance,\u2019\nand Miss Alice C. Fletcher we have cited as holding this process to\nbe probable in North America.[35] All such theories are based on the\nbeliefs and customs of modern savages advancing, like the American\nIndians of to-day, towards what is technically styled \u2018barbarism.\u2019 It\nwas not in the state of barbarism, but in a savagery no longer extant,\nthat totemism was evolved. Totemism derived from inheritance of a\nmale ancestor\u2019s special \u2018spirit-helper\u2019 is checked by the essential\nconditions of people who are settled, agricultural, and given to\nreckoning descent in the male line. No more can be produced, in such\na state, than \u2018abortive beginnings of Totemism.\u2019[36] Exogamy is never\nreached on these lines, and Totemism is behind, not in front of, all\nsuch peoples. Totemism arose in the period of the group, not of the\nfamily-founding male ancestor.\n\nMessrs. Hose and McDougall, it is to be noted, do not say that Totemism\nis now being developed, in Sarawak, out of _nyarongs_. They only say\nthat it, perhaps, might be so developed \u2018in the absence of unfavourable\nconditions.\u2019 If there existed \u2018prosperous families,\u2019 each with a\n_nyarong_, other families would dream of _nyarongs_, and it would\nbecome rather disreputable to have none. \u2018So a system of clan totems\nwould be established.\u2019 But male kinship, agriculture, metal-working,\nchiefship, and large houses were certainly non-existent when Totemism\nwas first evolved. We must not look, in such advanced society, for\nthe origin of Totemism. In Sarawak is a houseless nomadic race, the\nPunans. Among them Totemism has not yet been observed, but they are so\nlittle known, that the present negative evidence cannot be regarded as\nconclusive. Mr. Hose knew the Ibans for fourteen years without learning\nwhat a _nyarong_ is, and it was by, mere accident that Mr. Atkinson\ndiscovered the animal \u2018fathers\u2019 of the Kanakas.\n\n\nMR. HADDON\u2019S THEORY\n\nMr. Haddon has suggested a theory which was printed in the _Proceedings\nof the British Association_ (1902). On this scheme, at a very early\nperiod, groups, by reason of their local environment, would have\nspecial varieties of food. Thus, at present, in New Caledonia, the Sea\nbranch of a tribe has cocoa-nuts, fish of all sorts, and so forth,\nwhile the Bush branch has bananas, and other commodities, and the Sea\nand Bush moieties of the tribe meet at markets for purposes of barter.\nBut, in a really primitive state, there will be no cultivation, as\nthere is in New Caledonia. Still, a coast savage might barter crabs\nfor a kangaroo, and, if landed property is acknowledged, owners of\nplum-trees, or of a spot rich in edible grass-seeds, might trade these\naway for lobsters and sea-perch.[37] Not having any idea of real\ncultivation, or of pisciculture (though they may and do have \u2018close\u2019\nseasons, under tabu), the savages may set about working magic for\ntheir specialities in food. Thus it is conceivable that the fishers\nmight come to be named \u2018crab-men,\u2019 \u2018lobster-men,\u2019 \u2018cuttlefish-men,\u2019 by\ntheir neighbours, whom they would speak of as \u2018grass-men,\u2019 \u2018plum-men,\u2019\n\u2018kangaroo-men,\u2019 and so on. When once these names were accepted (I\npresume), and were old, and now of unknown or rather forgotten origin,\nall manner of myths to account for the connection between the groups\nand their plant and animal names would arise. When the myth declared\nthat the plants and animals were akin to their name-giving creatures,\nsuperstitious practices would follow. We have seen two cases in which\nAustralian totem groups averred that they were named totemically\nafter a small species of opossum, and a fish which their ancestors\nhabitually ate. But that is an explanatory myth. Man cannot live on\nopossums alone, still less on sardines.\n\nMy own guess admits the possibility of this cause of giving plant and\nanimal names to groups, among other causes. But I doubt if this was a\ncommon cause. In Australia, everything that can be eaten _is_ eaten by\nall the natives of a given area, each kindred having only a tendency to\nspare its own totem, while certain other tabus on foods exist. In this\ncondition of affairs, very few groups could have a notable _special_\nvariety of food, except in the case of certain fruits, grass-seeds,\nand insects. For these articles the season is almost as brief as the\nseason of the mayfly or the grannom. \u2018When fruits is in, cats is out,\u2019\nas the pieman said to the young lady. During the rest of the year, all\nthe groups in a large area will be living on the same large variety of\nreptiles, roots, animals such as rats and lizards, birds and so forth.\nIt does not seem probable that, except as between Sea and Bush parts\nof a tribe, there could be much specialisation in matters of diet,\nduring the greater part of the year. Therefore, I do not think that\nthe derivation of totem names from special articles of food can ever\nhave been common. But local knowledge is necessary on this point. Are\nthe totem groups of Australia settled on lands peculiarly notable for\nthe plants and animals whose names they bear? If so, that circumstance\nmay account for the totem names of each group, and--granting that the\norigin of the names is long ago forgotten, and that native speculation\nhas explained the names by myths--the rest is easy.\n\nIt will appear, when we come to my conjecture, that it varies from Mr.\nHaddon\u2019s only on one point. We both begin with plant and animal names\ngiven to the various groups, _from without_. We then suppose (or,\nat least, I suppose) the origin of the names to be forgotten, and a\nconnection to be established between the groups and their name-giving\nobjects, a connection which is explained by myths, while belief in\nthese gives rise to corresponding behaviour: respect for the totem,\nand for his human kinsfolk. The only difference is that my theory\nsuggests several sources of the names: while Mr. Haddon offers only one\nsource, special articles of food and barter. Kindreds, to be sure, are\nnow named, not from what they eat (scores of things), but from the one\nthing which (as a kindred) they do not eat. But this, when once the\nmyths of kinship with the totem arose, might be a later development,\narising out of the myth. In essentials, my conjecture appears to be\nin harmony with Mr. Haddon\u2019s--the two, of course, were independently\nevolved.\n\nOn one point I perceive no difficulty, and no difference. It has been\nsuggested that Mr. Haddon \u2018commences with the commencement,\u2019 whereas,\nin the hypothetical early age which we both contemplate, people had\nscarcely a sufficient command of language to invent nicknames. Why more\ncommand of language is needed for the _application_ of nicknames than\nof names, I do not perceive. In Mr. Haddon\u2019s theory, as in mine, names\nalready existed, names of plants and animals. In both of our hypotheses\nthose names were transferred to human groups; in my conjecture for\na variety of reasons, in his, solely from connection with special\narticles of food, eaten and bartered, by each group. I am not convinced\nthat, so early, the relations between groups would admit of frequent\nbarter: nor, as has been said, am I certain that many groups could have\na very special article of food, in an age prior to cultivation. But,\ngranting all that to Mr. Haddon, no more command of language is needed\nby my theory than by his. Each conjecture postulates the existence of\nnames of plants and animals, and the transference of the names to human\ngroups. If gesture language was prior to spoken language, in each case\ngesture names could be employed, as, in North America, totem names are\nto this day expressed in gesture language. In my own opinion, man was\nas human as he is to-day, when totem names arose, and as articulate.\nBut, if he was not, gesture-language would suffice.\n\nI shall illustrate my theory from folk-lore practice. We might do\nthe same for Mr. Haddon\u2019s. We talk of \u2018the Muffin man,\u2019 the man who\nsells muffins. We style one person \u2018The English Opium-Eater,\u2019 another\n\u2018The Oyster-Eater,\u2019 another \u2018The Irish Whiskey Drinker.\u2019 Here are the\nnicknames derived from the dealing in, or special consumption of,\narticles of food.\n\nMany others occur in my folk-lore and savage lists of nicknames.\nThey all imply at least as much command of language, as the names,\nultimately totem names, given, for various reasons, in my theory. Thus\nMr. Haddon and myself do not seem to me to differ on this point: his\ntheory goes no further back in culture than mine does: nay, he assumes\nthat barter was a regular institution, which implies a state of peace,\nalmost a state of co-operation.\n\n\nAN OBJECTION TO ALL THE THEORIES ENUMERATED\n\nNot one of the theories here summarised, except the Dieri and Woeworung\nmyth, explains why members of the various totem kins are exogamous,\nmay not marry other members of the name. Suppose you do get your totem\nname from that of a distinguished male ancestor, why may you not marry\nanother descendant? If because the common name, say Emu, is taken to\nindicate some sort of blood-relationship, why may you not marry a\nblood relation, even if there be no traceable kinship between you and\nher? A Douglas may marry a Douglas, a Smith may marry a Smith; but an\nEmu is often capitally punished if he marries an Emu. Suppose you get\nyour totem name from the beast for which you do magic. Why may you not\nmarry a person who bears the name of the same beast, and whose male\nkindred do magic for it? Because it is sacrosanct to you and her? But\nyou are actually breeding it for the food-market. The answer must be\nthat you may not marry a person who bears your own totem name, and is\nin the same branch of the Co-operative Magical Stores, because her\nbeast and yours are in the same phratry, and phratry mates may not\nintermarry. But why may they not marry? The reply will probably be,\nbecause the legislator divided the previously undivided commune into\ntwo intermarrying exogamous phratries. But that theory we have shown\nto be untenable. Thus not one of the extant hypotheses of the origin\nof Totemism explains why totem kins are exogamous, unless Mr. Haddon\nsupposes that the totem names, once given from without, came to be\nexplained by myths asserting the sacred character and tribal kindred of\nthe totem. Mr. Haddon has not said anything about a previous exogamous\ntendency in each of the groups which, by his scheme, received totem\nnames from without. By my hypothesis, these groups had already a\nstrongly exogamous tendency, which later was hall-marked and sanctioned\nby the totem, with its myths and tabus. This advantage of explaining\nthe exogamous attribute of the totem, my scheme possesses, and its\nrivals lack.\n\nSTATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM\n\nLet us concentrate, now, our attention on the character of the genuine\ntotem, the totem of the group or kin. It is not adopted by the savages\non a dream-warning; each man or woman for himself or herself: nor is it\nchosen for each child at birth, nor by a diviner, like the _nagual_,\nbush-soul, _nyarong_ of Sarawak, or the _secret_ animal friend of each\nindividual Australian. A savage _inherits_ his group totem name. The\nname of any plant or animal which he may adopt for himself, or have\nassigned to him as a personal name, by his parents, or, so to speak,\ngod-parents, is _not_ his totem. My meaning is, I repeat, that my\nconjecture is only concerned with hereditary kin-totems and hereditary\ntotem names of kindreds. No others enter into my conjecture as to\norigin. What some call \u2018personal totems,\u2019 adopted by the individual,\nor selected by others for him after his birth, such as the Calabar\n\u2018bush-soul,\u2019 the Sarawak nyarong, the Central American _nagual_,\nthe Banks Island _tamaniu_, and the analogous special animal of the\nAustralian tribesman (observed chiefly, as far as I know, by Mr.\nHowitt[38] and Mrs. Langloh Parker), do not here concern me. They are\nnot _hereditary group names_.\n\nTHE AUTHOR\u2019S OWN CONJECTURE\n\nI now approach my own conjecture as to the origins of the genuine,\nhereditary, exogamous Totemism of groups of kin, real or imagined.\nTotemism as we know it, especially in some tribes of North America\nand in Australia, has certainly, as a necessary condition, that state\nof mind in which man regards all the things in the world as very much\non a level in personality; the beasts being even more powerful than\nhimself. Were it not so, the totem myths about human descent from\nbeasts and plants: about friendly beasts, beasts who may marry men, and\nabout metamorphoses, could not have been invented and believed, even\nto whatever extent myths _are_ believed. We may say that such beliefs\nare real, where they regulate conduct. So far, there is probably no\ndifference of opinion, among anthropologists.\n\nTHE CONNECTION BETWEEN GROUPS AND TOTEMS\n\nIn all theories, the real problem is, how did the early groups get\ntheir totem names? The names, once accepted and stereotyped, implied\na connection between each kindred, and the animal, plant, or other\nthing in nature whose name the kindred bore. Round the mystery of this\nconnection the savage mind would play freely, and would invent the\nexplanatory myths of descent from, and kinship with, or other friendly\nrelations with, the name-giving objects. A measure of respect for\nthe objects would be established: they might not be killed or eaten,\nexcept under necessity: magic might be worked by human Emus, Kangaroos,\nPlum-trees, and Grubs for their propagation, as among the Arunta and\nother tribes; or against them, to bar their ravaging of the crops, as\namong the Sioux. As a man should not spear a real Emu, if the Emu was\nhis totem, so he does not, for reasons to be adduced, marry or have an\namour with a woman who is also of the Emu blood. That is part of the\ntabu, resulting from the circumstances presently to be explained.\n\nAll these things, given the savage stage of thought, would inevitably\nfollow from the recognised but mysterious _connection_ between\nmen and the plants and animals from which they were named. All\nsuch connections, to the savage, are blood-relationships, and such\nrelationship involves the duties which are recognised and performed.\n_But how did the early groups come to be named after the plants and\nanimals_; the name suggesting the idea of connection, and the idea of\nconnection involving the duties of the totemist to his totem, and of\nthe totem to the totemist?\n\nNO \u2018DISEASE OF LANGUAGE\u2019\n\nThe names, I repeat, requiring and receiving mythical explanations,\nand the explanations necessarily suggesting conduct to match, are the\ncauses of Totemism. This theory is not a form of the philological\ndoctrine, _nomina numina_. This is no case of disease of language, in\nMr. Max M\u00fcller\u2019s sense of the words. A man is called a Cat, all of his\nkin are Cats. The language is not diseased, but the man has to invent\nsome reason for the name common to his kin. It is not even a case of\nFolk Etymology, as when a myth is invented to explain the _meaning_ of\nthe name of a place, or person, or thing. Thus the Loch of Duddingston,\nnear Edinburgh, is explained by the myth that Queen Mary, as a child,\nused to play at \u2018dudding\u2019 (or skipping) stones across the water:\n\u2018making ducks and drakes.\u2019 Or again, marmalade is derived from _Marie\nmalade_. Queen Mary, as a child, was seasick in crossing to France, and\nasked for _confiture_ of oranges; hence _Marie malade_--\u2018marmalade.\u2019\nIn both cases, the name to be explained is perverted. There is no real\n\u2018stone\u2019 in Duddingston--\u2018Duddings\u2019 town,\u2019 the _ton_ or _tun_ of the\nDuddings; while \u2018marmalade\u2019 is a late form of \u2018marmalet,\u2019 a word older\nthan Queen Mary\u2019s day.\n\nAn example of a folk etymology bordering on Totemism is the supposed\ndescent of Clan Chattan, and of the House of Sutherland, from the Wild\nCat of their heraldic crests. Now Clan Chattan is named, not from the\ncat, but from Gilla Catain, \u2018the servant of Saint Catan,\u2019 a common sort\nof Celtic personal name, as in Gilchrist.[39] The Sutherland cat-crest\nis, apparently, derived from Catness, or Caithness. That name, again,\nis mythically derived from Cat, one of the Seven Sons of Cruithne who\ngave their names to the seven Pictish provinces, as Fib to Fife, and\nso on. These Seven Sons of Cruithne, like Ion and Dorus in Greece\n(Ionians, Dorians), are mere mythical \u2018eponymoi\u2019 or name-giving-heroes,\ninvented to explain the names of certain districts. In Totemism this is\nnot so. Not fancied names, like _Duddingstone_, or _Marmalade_, are,\nin Totemism, explained by popular etymologies. Emu, Kangaroo, Wolf,\nBear, Raven, are real, not perverted names, the question is, why are\nthese names borne by groups of human beings? Answers are: given in\nall the numerous savage myths, whether of a divine ordinance (Dieri,\nWoeworung) or of descent and kinship, of intermarriage with beasts, or\nof adventures with beasts, or of a woman giving birth to beasts, or\nof evolution out of bestial types, and all these myths suggest mutual\nduties between men and their totems, as between men and their human\nkinsfolk. It will be seen that here no disease of language is involved,\nnot even a _volks-etymologie_ (a _vera causa_ of myth).\n\nIf it could be shown by philologists that many totem names originally\nmeant something other than they now do, and that they were\nmisunderstood, and supposed to be names of plants and animals, then\n\u2018disease of language\u2019 would be present. Thus \u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f05\u03c1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 have\nreally been regarded, as meaning, each of them \u2018the bright\none,\u2019 and the Wolf Hero of Athens, and the Bear of the Arcadians, have\nbeen explained away, as results of \u2018disease of language.\u2019 But nobody\nwill apply that obsolete theory to the vast menagerie of savage totem\nnames.\n\nHYPOTHETICAL EARLY GROUPS BEFORE TOTEMISM\n\nBut, discarding this old philological hypothesis, how did the\npristine groups get their totem names? We ought first to return to\nour conjecture as to what these pristine groups were like. They must\nhave varied in various environments. Where the sea, or a large lake,\nyields an abundant food-supply, men are likely to have assembled\nin considerable numbers, as \u2018kitchen middens\u2019 show, at favourable\nstations. In great woods and jungles the conditions of food-supply are\nnot the same as in wide steppes and prairies, especially in the uniform\nand arid plateaus of Central Australia. Rivers, like seas and lakes,\nare favourable to settlement; steppes make nomadism inevitable, before\nthe rise of agriculture. But, if the earliest groups were mutually\nhostile, strongly resenting any encroachment on their region of\nfood-supply, the groups would necessarily be small, as in Mr. Darwin\u2019s\ntheory of small pristine groups, the male, with his females, daughters,\nand male sons not adult.[40] A bay, or inlet, or a good set of pools\nand streams, would be appropriated and watchfully guarded by a group,\njust as every area of Central Australia has its recognised native\nowners, who wander about it, feeding on grubs, lizards, snakes, rats,\nfrogs, grass-seeds, roots, emus, kangaroos, and opossums.\n\nThe pristine groups, we may be allowed to conjecture, were small. If\nthey were not, the hypotheses which I venture to present are of no\nvalue, while that of Mr. Atkinson shares their doom. Mr. McLennan,\nas far as one can conjecture from the fragments of his speculations,\nregarded the earliest groups as at least so large, and so bereft\nof women, that polyandry was the general rule. Mr. Darwin, on the\nother hand, began with Polygyny and Monogamy, \u2018jealousy determining\nthe first stage.\u2019[41] This meant that there was a jealous old sire,\nwho kept the women to himself, as in Mr. Atkinson\u2019s theory. As we\ncan scarcely expect to reach certainty on this essential point,\nanthropology becomes (like history in the opinion of a character in\n_Silas Marner_) \u2018a process of ingenious guessing.\u2019 But, embarking on\nconjecture, I venture to suggest that the problem of the commissariat\nmust have kept the pristine groups very small.[42]\n\nThey \u2018lived on the country,\u2019 and the country was untilled. They\nsubsisted on the natural supplies, and the more backward their material\nculture, the sooner would they eat the country bare, as far as its\nresources were within their means of attainment. One can hardly\nconceive that such human beings herded in large hordes, rather they\nwould wander in small \u2018family\u2019 groups. These would be mutually hostile,\nor at least jealous: they could scarcely yet have established a _modus\nvivendi_, and coalesced into the friendly aggregate of a local tribe,\nsuch as Arunta, Dieri, Urabunna, and so on. Such tribes have now their\ncommon councils and mysteries lasting for months among the Arunta. We\ncannot predicate such friendly union of groups in a tribe, for the\nsmall and jealous knots of really early men; watchfully resenting\nintrusion on their favourite bays, pools, and hunting of browsing\ngrounds. As to marriage relations, it is not improbable that \u2018sexual\nsolidarity\u2019 (as Mr. Crawley calls it), the separation of the sexes--the\nlittle boys accompanying the men, the little girls accompanying the\nwomen--and perhaps that \u2018sexual tabu,\u2019 coupled with the jealousy of\nmale heads of groups, may already have led to prohibition of marriage\nwithin the group, and to raids for women upon hostile groups. The\nsmaller the group, the more easily would sexual jealousy prohibit the\nlads from dealings with the lasses of their own group. There might\nthus, in different degrees, arise a tendency towards exogamy, and\nspecially against son and mother, or father\u2019s mates, and brother and\nsister marriage. The thing would not yet be a sin, forbidden by a\nsuperstition, but still, the tendency might (as we have already said)\nrun strong against marriage within each little group.\n\nHOW THE GROUPS GOT NAMES\n\nUp to this point we may conceive that the groups were _anonymous_.\nEach group would probably speak of itself as \u2018the Men\u2019 (according to\na well-recognised custom among the _tribes_ of to-day; for instance,\nthe Gournditch-mara of Australia, _mara_ meaning \u2018men\u2019; Kurnai and\nNarinyeri, also mean \u2018the men\u2019), while it would know neighbouring\ngroups as \u2018the others,\u2019 or \u2018the wild blacks.\u2019 But this arrangement\nmanifestly lacks distinctness. Even \u2018the others down there\u2019 is too\nlike the vague manner in which the Mulligan indicated his place\nof residence. Each group will need a special name for each of its\nunfriendly neighbours.\n\nThese names, as likely as not, or more likely than not, will be animal\nor plant names, given for various reasons, perhaps, among others from\nfancied resemblances. It may be objected that an individual may bear\na resemblance to this or that animal, but that a group cannot. But it\nis a peculiarity of human nature, to think that strangers (of another\nschool eleven, say) are all very like each other, and if one of them\nreminds us of an Emu or a Kangaroo, all of them will. Moreover the name\nmay be based on some real or fancied group trait of character, good or\nbad, which also marks this or that type of animal, such as cunning,\ncruelty, cowardice, strength, and so forth, and animal names may even\nbe laudatory. We have also to reckon with the kinds of animals, plants,\ntrees, useful flints, and other objects which may be more prevalent in\nthe area occupied by each group; and with specialities in the food of\neach group\u2019s area, as in Mr. Haddon\u2019s theory. Thus there are plenty of\nreasons for the giving of plant and animal names, which, I suggest,\nwere imposed on each group _from without_.\n\nIt is true that local names would serve the turn, if they were in use.\nBut the \u2018hill-men,\u2019 \u2018the river-men,\u2019 \u2018the bush-men,\u2019 \u2018the men of the\nthorn country,\u2019 \u2018the rock-men,\u2019 are at once too scanty and too general.\nMany groups might fall collectively under each such local name. Again,\nit is as society moves away from Totemism, towards male kinship,\nand settled abodes, that local names are given to human groups, as\nin Melanesia, or even to individuals, as in the case of the Arunta,\nand the Gournditcha Mara. Among the Arunta a child is \u2018of\u2019 the place\nwhere he or she was born, like our _de_ and _von_.[43] The piquancy\nof plant and animal names for groups probably hostile must also be\nconsidered. We are dealing with a stage of society far behind that of\nMincopies, or Punans of Borneo, or Australians, and in imagining that\nthe groups were, as a rule, hostile, we may or may not be making a\nfalse assumption. We are presuming that the jealousy of the elder males\ndrove the younger males out of the group, or at least compelled them to\nbring in females from other groups, which would mean war. We are also\nassuming jealousy of all encroachments on feeding grounds. These are\nthe premises, which cannot be demonstrated, but only put in for the\nsake of argument. In any case no more hostility than our and the French\nvillages have for each other is enough to provide the giving of animal\n_sobriquets_.\n\nAs to hostility, Mr. Atkinson, in New Caledonia, had a set of labourers\nbrought in from a distant island. Among them was a young boy, who,\nbeing employed as cook, had a good deal of popularity with his mates.\nHe went home for a holiday, with a few men from his own island. He was\nput down at their little harbour, only a few miles from that of his\ntribe, and was instantly killed and eaten.\n\nIn \u2018Notice sur la Nouvelle-Cal\u00e9donie\u2019 (1900) this ferocious hostility\nbetween near neighbouring groups is corroborated. It is certain death\nfor the crew of a canoe to be driven into a harbour, however near their\nown, which is not their own. This is among the islanders not under\nthe French. Count von Pfeil remarks on the violent hostility between\nKanakas and others near adjacent.[44]\n\nOn this point of unfriendly _sobriquets_ I may quote MM. Gaidoz and\nS\u00e9billot.[45]\n\n\u2018In all ages men love to speak ill of their neighbour: to blazon him,\nin the old phrase of a time when our speech was less prudish, and\nmore gay. Pleasantries are exchanged not only between man and man,\nbut between village and village. Sometimes in one expressive word,\nthe defect, or the quality (usually the defect), the dominant and\napparently hereditary trait of the people of a race or a province is\nstated ... in a kind of verbal caricature.... _Les hommes se sont donc\nblazonn\u00e9s de tout le temps_?\n\n_De tout le temps!_ MM. Gaidoz and S\u00e9billot were not thinking of the\norigin of totem names, but their theory applies \u2018to all ages,\u2019 even the\nmost primitive. Among French village _sobriquets_ I note, at a hasty\nglance,\n\nLargitzen    Cows          Houmeau    Frogs\nAngoul\u00eame    Lizards       Artois     Dogs\nAire         Pigeons       Avalon     Birds\n\nand villages named as eaters of:\n\nOld Ewes\nOnions\nCrows.\n\nWe shall see that many Sioux groups, many English villages are\nblazoned, as in Mr. Haddon\u2019s theory, by the names of the things which\nthey eat: or are accused of eating.\n\nThus, among very early men, the names by which the groups knew their\nneighbours would be names given from without. To call them \u2018nicknames,\u2019\nis to invite the objection that nicknames are essentially _derisive_,\nand that groups so low could not yet use the language of derision. I\nsee no reason why early articulate-speaking men (or even men whose\nlanguage is gesture language) should be so modern as to lack all sense\nof humour, all delight in derision. But the names need not have been\nderisive. If these people had the present savage belief in the wakan,\nor mystic power of animals, the names may even have been laudatory. I\nask for no more than names conferred from without, call them nicknames,\n_sobriquets_, or what you like.\n\nWe are acquainted with no race that is just entered on Totemism,\nunless we agree with Mr. Hill Tout that Totemism is nascent among the\nSalish tribe, who live in village communities. Consequently we cannot\n_prove_ that early hostile groups would name each other after plants\nand animals. I am only able to demonstrate that, alike in English and\nFrench folk-lore, and among American tribes who reckon by the male\nline, who are agricultural and settled, the villages or groups are\nnamed, _from without_, after plants and animals, and after what they\nare supposed to be specially apt to use as articles of food, and also\nby nick-names--often derisive. What I present is, not proof that the\nprimal groups named each other after plants and animals, but proof that\namong our rustics, by congruity of fancy, such names are given, with\nother names exactly analogous to those now used among settled savages\nmoving away from Totemism.\n\nILLUSTRATION FROM FOLK-LORE\n\nI select illustrative examples from the _blason populaire_ of\nmodern folk-lore. Here we find the use of plant and animal names\nfor neighbouring groups, villages, or parishes. Thus two informants\nin a rural district of Cornwall, living at a village which I shall\ncall Loughton, found that, when they walked through the neighbouring\nvillage, Hillborough, the little boys \u2018called cuckoo at the sight of\nus.\u2019 They learned that the cuckoo was the badge, in folk-lore, of their\nvillage. An ancient carved and gilded dove in the Loughton church \u2018was\nfirmly believed by many of the inhabitants to be a representation of\nthe Loughton Cuckoo,\u2019 and all Loughton folk were Cuckoos. \u2018It seems as\nif the inhabitants do not care to talk about these things, for some\nreason or other.\u2019 A travelled Loughtonian \u2018believes the animal names\nand symbols to be very ancient, and that each village has its symbol.\u2019\nMy informants think that \u2018some modern badges have been substituted\nfor more ancient ones,\u2019 such as tiger and monkey. There is apparently\nno veneration of the local beast, bird, or insect, which seems often,\non the other hand, to have been imposed from without as a token of\nderision. Australians make a great totem of the Witchetty Grub (as\nSpencer and Gillen report), but the village of Oakditch is not proud of\nits potato grub, the natives themselves being styled \u2018tater grubs.\u2019 I\nappend a list of villages (with false names[46]) and of their badges:\n\nHillborough      Mice              Brailing         Peesweeps\nLoughton         Cuckoos           Wickley          Tigers\nMiltown          Mules             Fenton           Rooks\n              (it used to be rats) Linton           Men\nAshley           Monkeys           Oakditch         Potato grubs\nYarby            Geese             St. Aldate\u2019s     Fools\nWatworth         Bulldogs\n\nAt Loughton, when the Hillborough boys pass through on a holiday\nexcursion, the Loughton boys hang out dead mice, the Hillborough badge,\nin derision. The boys have even their \u2018personal totem,\u2019 and a lad who\nwishes for a companion in nocturnal adventure will utter the cry of\nhis peculiar beast or bird, and a friend will answer with _his_. If\nboys remained always boys (that is, savages), and if civilisation were\nconsequently wiped out, myths about these group names of villages would\nbe developed, and Totemism would flourish again. Later I give other\ninstances of village names answering to totem names, and in an Appendix\nI give analogous cases collected by Miss Burne in Shropshire, and\nothers, we saw, are to be found in the _blason populaire_ of France.\n\nIt appears to me that totem group names may, originally, have been\nimposed _from without_, just as the Eskimo are really Inuits; \u2018Eskimo,\u2019\n\u2018Eaters of raw flesh,\u2019 being the derisive name conferred by their\nIndian neighbours. Of course I do not mean that the group names would\nalways, or perhaps often, have been, in origin, derisive nicknames.\nMany reasons, as has been said, might prompt the name-giving. But each\nsuch group would, I suggest, evolve animal and vegetable nicknames for\neach neighbouring group. Finally some names would \u2018stick,\u2019 would be\nstereotyped, and each group would come to answer to its nickname, just\nas \u2018Pussy Moncrieff,\u2019 or \u2018Bulldog Irving,\u2019 or \u2018Piggy Frazer,\u2019 or \u2018Cow\nMaitland,\u2019 does at school.\n\nHOW THE NAMES BECAME KNOWN\n\nHere the questions arise, how would each group come to know by what\nname each of its neighbours called it, and how would hostile groups\nCome to have the same nicknames for each other? Well, they would know\nthe nicknames through taunts exchanged in battle.\n\n    \u2018Run, you deer, run!\u2019\n    \u2018Off with you, you hares!\u2019\n    \u2018Skuttle, you skunks!\u2019\n\nThey would readily recognise the appropriateness of the names, if\nderived from the plants, trees, or animals most abundant in their area,\nand most important to their food supply: for, at this hypothetical\nstage, and before myths had crystallised round the names, they would\nhave no scruples about eating their name-giving plants, fruits,\nfishes, birds, and animals. They would also hear their names from war\ncaptives at the torture stake, or on the road to the oven, or the\nbutcher. But the chief way in which the new group names spread would\nbe through captured women; for, though there might as yet be only a\ntendency towards exogamy, still girls of alien groups would be captured\nas mates. \u2018We call you the Skunks,\u2019 or whatever it might be, such a\nbride might remark, and so knowledge of the new group names would be\ndiffused. These names would adhere to groups, on my hypothesis, already\nexogamous in tendency, and, when the totem myth arose, the exogamy\nwould be sanctioned by the totem tabu.[47]\n\n\nTOTEMIC AND OTHER GROUP NAMES--ENGLISH AND NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN\n\nIt may seem almost flippant to suggest that this old mystery of\nTotemism arises only from group names given from without, some of them,\nperhaps, derisive. But I am able to demonstrate that, in North America,\nthe names of what some American authorities call _gentes_ (meaning old\ntotem groups, which now reckon descent through the male, not the female\nline), actually _are_ nicknames--in certain cases derisive. Moreover,\nI am able to prove that, when the names of these American gentes are\nnot merely totem names, they answer, with literal precision, to our\nfolk-lore village _sobriquets_, even when these are not names of plants\nor animals. The late Rev. James Owen Dorsey left, at his death, a paper\non _The Siouan Sociology_.[48] Among the _gentes_ (old totem kindreds\nwith male descent) he noted, the _gentes_ of a tribe, \u2018The Mysterious\nLake Tribe.\u2019 There were, in 1880, seven _gentes_. Three names were\nderived from localities. One name meant \u2018Breakers of (exogamous) Law.\u2019\nOne was \u2018Not encumbered with much baggage.\u2019 One was Rogues (\u2018Bad\nNation\u2019). These three last names are derisive nicknames. The seventh\nname was \u2018Eats no Geese,\u2019 obviously a totemic survival. Of the Wahpeton\ntribe all the seven _gentes_ derived their names from localities. Of\nthe Sisseton tribe, the twelve names of _gentes_ were either nicknames\n(one, \u2018a name of derision\u2019), or derived from localities.\n\nOf the Yankton _gentes_, five names out of seven were nicknames,\nmostly derisive, the sixth was \u2018Bad Nation\u2019 (\u2018Rogues\u2019), the seventh\nwas a totem name, \u2018Wild Cat.\u2019 Of the Hunpatina (seven _gentes_), three\nnames were totemic (Drifting Goose, Dogs, Eat no Buffalo Cows); the\nothers were nicknames, such as \u2018Eat the Scrapings of Hides.\u2019 Of the\nSitcanxu, there were thirteen gentes. Six or seven of their titles\nwere nicknames, three were totemic, the others were dubious, such as\n\u2018Smellers of Fish.\u2019 The Itaziptec had seven gentes; of their names all\nwere nicknames, including \u2018Eat dried venison from the hind quarter.\u2019 Of\nthe Minikooju, there were nine _gentes_. Eight names were nicknames,\nincluding \u2018Dung Eaters.\u2019 One seems totemic, \u2018Eat no Dogs.\u2019 Of five\nAsineboin gentes the names were nicknames from the habits or localities\nof the communities. One was \u2018Girl\u2019s Band,\u2019 that is, \u2018Girls.\u2019\n\nNow compare parish _sobriquets_ in Western England.[49] In this list\nof parish or village nicknames, twenty-one are derived from plants and\nanimals, like most totemic names. We also find \u2018Dog Eaters,\u2019 \u2018Bread\nEaters,\u2019 \u2018Burd Eaters,\u2019 \u2018Whitpot Eaters,\u2019 and, answering to \u2018Girl\u2019s\nBand\u2019 (_Gens des Filles_), \u2018Pretty Maidens:\u2019 answering to \u2018Bad Nation,\u2019\n\u2018Rogues\u2019: answering to \u2018Eaters of Hide Scrapings\u2019 \u2018Bone Pickers\u2019: while\nthere are, as among the Siouans, names derived from various practices\nattributed to the English villagers, as to the Red Indian _gentes_.\n\nNo closer parallel between our rural folk-lore _sobriquets_ of village\ngroups, given from without, and the names given from without of old\nsavage totem groups (now reckoning in the male line, and, therefore,\nnow settled together in given localities) could be invented. (For\nother examples see Appendix A.) I conceive, therefore, that my\nsuggestion--the totem names of pristine groups were originally given\nfrom without, and were accepted (as in the case of the nicknames of\nSiouan _gentes_, now accepted by them)--may be reckoned no strain\non our sense of probability. It is demonstrated that the name-giving\nprocesses of our villagers exist among American savage groups which\nreckon descent in the male line, and that they also existed among the\nsavage groups which reckoned descent in the female line is, surely, a\nnot unreasonable surmise. I add a list in parallel columns.\n\n    English Village Names        Siouan Group Names\n\n    Rogues                          Bad Sorts\n    Stags[50]                          Elk[50]\n    Bull Dogs                       Common Dogs\n    Horse Heads                     Warts on Horses\u2019 Legs\n    Bone Pickers                    Hide Scrapers\n    Pretty Girls                    Girl Folk\n      Eaters of                       Eaters of\n    Whitpot                         Dried Venison\n    Cheese                          Fish\n    Barley Bread                    Dung\n    Dog.\n\n\nTHEORY THAT SIOUAN GENTES NAMES ARE OF EUROPEAN ORIGIN\n\nTo produce, from North America, examples of group names conferred from\nwithout, as in the instances of our English villages, may, to some\nstudents, seem inadequate evidence. For example an unconvinced critic\nmay say that the nicknames of Mr. Dorsey\u2019s \u2018Siouan _gentes_\u2019 were\noriginally given by white men; the Sioux, Dacota, Asineboin, and other\ntribes having been long in contact with Europeans. Now it is quite\npossible that some of the names had this origin, as Mr. Dorsey himself\nobserved. But no critic will go on to urge that the common totemic\nnames which still designate many _gentes_ were imposed by Europeans who\ncame from English villages of \u2018Mice,\u2019 \u2018Cuckoos,\u2019 \u2018Tater Grubs,\u2019 \u2018Dogs,\u2019\nand so forth. We might as wisely say that our peasantry borrowed these\nvillage names from what they had read about totem names in Cooper\u2019s\nnovels. To name individuals, or groups, after animals, is certainly a\nnatural tendency of the mind, whether in savage or civilised society.\n\nIf we take the famous Mandan tribe, now reckoning descent in the male\nline, but with undeniable survivals of descent in the female line, we\nfind that the _gentes_ are:\n\n    Wolf    Bear               Prairie Chicken        _Good Knife_\n    Eagle   _Flat Head_   _High Village_\n\nHere, out of seven _gentes_, four names are totemic; one is a name\nof locality, \u2018High Village,\u2019 not a possible name in pristine nomadic\nsociety. While there are hundreds of such cases, we cannot reasonably\nregard the American group nicknames as generally of European origin.\nStill more does this theory fail us in the case of Melanesia, where\ncontact with Europeans is recent and relatively slight. Among such\ntribes as the Mandans, and other Siouan peoples, we see Totemism with\nexogamy and female kinship waning, while kinship, recognised by male\ndescent, _plus_ settled conditions, brings in local names for _gentes_,\nand tends to cause the substitution of local names and nicknames for\nthe totem group name. Precisely the same phenomena meet us, as we are\nto see, in Melanesia.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: As to the _word_ \u2018totem,\u2019 but little is certainly known.\nIts earliest occurrence in literature, to my knowledge, is in a work by\nJ. Long (1791), _Voyages and Travels of an Indian Interpreter_. Long\nsojourned among the Algonquin branch of the North American Indians. He\nspells the word \u2018Totam,\u2019 and even speaks of \u2018Totamism.\u2019 Mr. Tylor has\npointed out that Long in one place confuses the totem, the hereditary\ngroup name, and protective object, with what used to be called the\n_manitu_ or \u2018medicine,\u2019 of each individual Indian, chosen by him, or\nher, after a fast, at puberty. _Remarks on Totemism_, 1898, pp. 139-40.\nCf. _infra_, 135, note.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Man_, 1902, No. 75.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Totemism_, p. 2, 1887.]\n\n[Footnote 4: So also Mr. Hartland writes, _Man_, 1902, No. 84. But\n_manitu_ is perhaps too wide and vague a term: it usually connotes\nanything mystical or supernormal.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Introduction to the History of Religion_, p. 214. Major\nPowell has said something to the same effect, but that was in a journal\nof \u2018popular science.\u2019]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Bureau of Ethnology_, 1893-1894, p. 241.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _L\u2019Ann\u00e9e Sociologique_, v. 93, 99, 100. As far as the\nproof rests on Arunta _traditions_, I lay no stress upon it.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _J. A. I._ vol. xviii., no. 3, p. 254.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Frazer, _Totemism_, p. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Major Powell, _Man_, 1901, no. 75.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Howitt, _J. A. I._ xx. 40-41, 1891.]\n\n[Footnote 12: The Marquis d\u2019Eguilles kindly sends me extracts from an\nofficial \u2018Notice sur la Nouvelle-Cal\u00e9donie,\u2019 drawn up for the Paris\nExhibition of 1900. The author says that the names of relationships are\nexpressed, by the Kanaka, \u2018in a touching manner.\u2019 One name includes our\n\u2018uncle\u2019 and \u2018father,\u2019 another our \u2018mother\u2019 and \u2018aunts;\u2019 another name\nincludes our \u2018brothers,\u2019 \u2018sisters,\u2019 and \u2018cousins.\u2019 This, of course, is\n\u2018the classificatory system.\u2019 About animal \u2018fathers\u2019 nothing is said.]\n\n[Footnote 13: Tylor, _Remarks on Totemism_, pp. 141-143. _Myth, Ritual,\nand Religion_, ii. 56-58. Turner\u2019s _Samoa_, p. 17 (1884).]\n\n[Footnote 14: Howitt, _On the Organisation of Australian Tribes_, p.\n136, note, 1889.]\n\n[Footnote 15: The Mura Mura appear really to answer to the fabled\nancestors of the Arunta, but are addressed in prayers. Cf. Miss Howitt,\n_Folk Lore_, January 1903.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Tylor, _Remarks on Totemism_, p. 134.]\n\n[Footnote 17: So also to explain the crest of the Hamiltons, the\nSkenes, and many others.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Frazer, _Totemism_, p. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Hose and McDougall, _J. A. I._ xxxi. 193, 1901.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Custom and Myth_, p. 262.]\n\n[Footnote 21: _Contributions to the Science of Mythology_, i. 201.]\n\n[Footnote 22: _The Principles of Sociology_, i. 362, 1876.]\n\n[Footnote 23: The whole passage will be found in the work cited. Vol.\ni. 359-368.]\n\n[Footnote 24: I am haunted by the impression that I have met examples,\nbut where I know not.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Howitt, _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_,\nxviii. 58.]\n\n[Footnote 26: _Golden Bough_, iii. 416, note 3.]\n\n[Footnote 27: It is possible that I have failed to understand the\nmode of reconciling the two hypotheses, and Mr. Frazer is not to be\nunderstood as committed to either or both in the present state of our\ninformation.]\n\n[Footnote 28: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 280.]\n\n[Footnote 29: _J. A. I._ xiii. 191, note 1.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Tylor, _Remarks on Totemism_, pp. 146-147, 1898.]\n\n[Footnote 31: _The Import of the Totem_, by Alice C. Fletcher, Salem\nPress, Mass., 1897.]\n\n[Footnote 32: _Op. cit._ p. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 33: \u2018The Origin of the Totemism of the Inhabitants of British\nColumbia,\u2019 _Transactions of Royal Society of Canada_, second series,\nvol. vii., 1901-1902. Quaritch, London.]\n\n[Footnote 34: _J. A. I._ xxxi. 196, _et seq._]\n\n[Footnote 35: _Golden Bough_, iii. 419, note 5.]\n\n[Footnote 36: _Hose and McDougall_, _op. cit._ p. 211.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Mr. Haddon\u2019s theory involves the existence of barter\nbetween groups that had special articles of food. Under \u2018Hypothetical\nearly groups\u2019 I show proof of the extreme hostility of adjacent groups\nin some regions. The merchant, with his articles of barter, would there\nhimself be eaten. Mr. Atkinson\u2019s cook was eaten by his neighbours. Mr.\nHaddon does not hold that the primitive human groups were thus mutually\nhostile. Here we differ in opinion.]\n\n[Footnote 38: _J. A. I._ xiii.; Folk Lore, 10, 491.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Macbain, _Etymological Dictionary_, 1896, quoting\nmanuscript of 1456.]\n\n[Footnote 40: _Descent of Man_, ii. 362.]\n\n[Footnote 41: _Studies in Ancient History_, second series, p. 50.]\n\n[Footnote 42: This is the opinion not only of Mr. Darwin but of Major\nPowell and Mr. McGee.]\n\n[Footnote 43: Spencer and Gillen, p. 57, note.]\n\n[Footnote 44: _J. A. I._ May 1897, p. 181.]\n\n[Footnote 45: _Blason Populaire de la France_, p. 5. Paris, Cerf, 1884.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Pseudonyms were given to avoid arousing local attention,\nwhen I put forth these facts in _The Athen\u00e6um_. For reasons, I retain\nthe pseudonyms; but for the real village names see p. 173, note 1.]\n\n[Footnote 47: Some objections are noticed later.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Report of _American Bureau of Ethnology_, 1893-1894, p.\n213 et seq.]\n\n[Footnote 49: _Thirteenth Report of the Committee of Devonshire\nFolk-Lore_, Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science,\n1895, xxvii. 61-74.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Many other animal and vegetable names--totem names in\nAmerica, village names in England--have already been cited. See p.\n170.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE MELANESIAN SYSTEMS\n\n\nWe have, fortunately, an opportunity in Melanesia of studying, as\nit seems, the Australian marriage system in a state of decay.[1]\nThe institutions of Melanesia bear every note of being Australian\ninstitutions, decadent, dislocated, contaminated and partially\nobliterated. Starting from New Guinea, we find a long archipelago\nsloping down, away from the east side of Australia, towards the Fiji\nIslands. The archipelago consists mainly, in the order given, of\nNew Ireland, New Britain, the Solomon Group, Banks Island, the New\nHebrides, Loyalty Island, and New Caledonia. The inhabitants are a\nfusion of many oceanic elements, and are much more advanced in culture\nthan the natives of Australia: they have chiefs, whose office tends\nto be hereditary (and in one place, Saa, _is_ hereditary), in the\nmale line, the father handing on to the son his magical acquirements\nand properties, and leaving to him his wealth, as far as he may. This\nis not very far, as, curious to say, descent in the female line is\ngenerally prevalent. Wealth is both real and personal: landed property\nconsisting (1) of Town Lots, (2) of Gardens (\u1f13\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2),\n(3) of the Waste (\u2018the Bush\u2019). The \u2018town lots\u2019 and gardens pass by\ninheritance; the possessor being only \u2018possessor,\u2019 not proprietor,\nand real property passing in the female line, where that line still\nprevails. The reclaiming of land from the Waste tends, however, to\ndirect property into the male line, which, except in certain districts,\nis not dominant. Money is divided, on a death, among brothers,\nnephews--and sons, \u2018if they can get it\u2019--the money being the native\nshell currency. The tendency towards the substitution, as heirs, of a\nman\u2019s sons for his sister\u2019s sons, is powerful.[2]\n\nThis is a curious and anomalous condition of the family. As regards\nmaterial advantages (\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03af\u03b1) Melanesian society is\ngreatly in advance of Australian. It is in possession of houses, fruit\ntrees, agricultural allotments, domesticated animals, and a native\ncurrency. Thus there is much property to be inherited, and where that\nis the case, and where the family has a house of its own, the desire of\nmen to leave their goods and dwellings to their sons usually results\nin the reckoning of descent on the sword side. Yet, in this respect,\nthe Melanesians of many regions are behind the naked, houseless Arunta,\nand other Australian tribes with male descent.. What influences caused\nthese tribes to depart from the reckoning in the female line, still\nused among their equally destitute neighbours, the Urabunna, is a\nmost difficult question; indeed the number of distinct grades, in\nrelation to family laws among the Australians, is an enigma. Among\nthe Melanesians, at all events, material advance and accumulation of\nproperty have often failed to bring inheritance out of the female into\nthe male line.\n\nInsular conditions are apt to develop divergences from any given\ntype--local varieties--while the mixture of races, and the introduction\ninto one island, or part of it, of the customs of settlers from other\nislands, produces peculiarities and anomalies in Melanesia. We expect,\ntherefore, to find Melanesian marriage rules rather dislocated and\ncontaminated, and to see that the archaic type is half obliterated.\nIn fact, this is the case, and Totemism, if it exists, survives in\nfragments and vestiges.\n\n\u2018Where are the totems?\u2019 Dr. Codrington asks, and we can only reply that\nthey seem to be half obliterated. \u2018Nothing is more fundamental than the\ndivision of the people into two or more classes, which are exogamous,\nand in which descent is counted through the women.\u2019[3] This answers to\nthe Australian \u2018primary divisions,\u2019 or \u2018phratries.\u2019 But, in Australia,\nas we showed, these divisions appear to be of totemic origin. If this\nwas so, in Melanesia, the evidence for the fact is much less distinct.\nIn a large region of the Solomon Islands \u2018there is no division of the\npeople into kindreds, as elsewhere, and descent follows the father....\nThe particular or local causes which have brought this exceptional\nstate of things are unknown.\u2019[4]\n\nSpeaking generally, however, the two primary exogamous classes exist,\nand to a Melanesian man, all women of his own generation count either\nas \u2018sisters\u2019 (barred) or as (potential) \u2018wives.\u2019 The appropriation of\nactual wives to their actual husbands \u2018has by no means so strong a hold\non native society,\u2019 as the exogamous class divisions. By many students\nthis license will be considered a survival of \u2018group marriage.\u2019\nPrenuptial unchastity is wrong, but a breach of the exogamous rule used\nto be punished by death. Wife-lending used to be common, as in Central\nAustralia, if the wife and guest were of opposite \u2018divisions.\u2019 Whether\nthe license of certain feasts (as among Australians and Fijians) smiles\non breaches of the exogamous law, does not seem quite certain.[5]\n\nIn Banks Island and the North New Hebrides, there are but the two\n\u2018primary class divisions.\u2019 These have not names as in Australia--if\nonce they had names, the names are lost. We find merely \u2018divisions\u2019\n(veve), two \u2018sides of the house.\u2019 Every man knows his own division; all\nthe women in it are tabu to him; all the women of the other division,\nin the same generation, are potential wives (with certain restrictions\nin practice).\n\nIn Merlav, one of the Banks Islands, there are \u2018families within the\nkin\u2019 (answering to _gentes_--totem kins--in Australia). These families\nhave _local_ names, as a rule: one has its name from the Octopus, but\neats it freely.\n\nIt is not inconceivable that here we have broken down and obliterated\nTotemism, among a settled agricultural people, probably dwelling, as a\nrule, in close contiguity.\n\nIn Florida, and adjacent parts of the Solomon Islands, not merely\ntwo, but _six_ \u2018kema\u2019 or exogamous divisions (\u2018phratries?\u2019) exist. Two\nof the six have names derived from localities, two have animal names,\nEagle and Crab: two _kema_ came in from abroad. All this points to\ncontamination, and rearrangement, under new circumstances. Each _kema_\nin Florida has one or more _buto_, the clam, pig, pigeon, and so on,\nnot to be eaten by members of the kema. This looks like the \u2018totemic\nsubdivisions\u2019 (that is, the totem groups within the \u2018phratries\u2019) of\nthe Australians. Again, these butos within each _kema_, animals and\nplants not to be eaten, are exactly like the survivals of Totemism in\nthe names of the Siouan totem kins with male descent, \u2018Do not eat small\nBirds,\u2019 \u2018Do not eat Dogs,\u2019 \u2018Do not eat Buffalo,\u2019 and so forth. The\n_buto_ of each kin within the Melanesian exogamous _kemas_, then, seems\nto me to be the old totem of the kin, now relegated to a position more\nobscure, in the changes of society, and, with one exception, not giving\nits name and tabu to the kema. Only in one case is the animal which is\nthe buto, also the animal which gives its name to the _kema_. The Kakau\n_kema_ may not eat Kakau--the crab. The Manukuma (eagle) kema may eat\nthe eagle: one fancies that they find it tough. In the same way the\nNarrinyeri and other tribes in Australia permit their totem kins to eat\ntheir totems. Members of each _kema_ are apt to speak of their _butos_\n(which they may not eat) as their _ancestors_, as in Totemism, but this\nis a mere mythical explanation of why they may not eat the _buto_. With\nhalf a dozen other myths, it is used by totemists to explain why they\nmay not eat their totems.\n\nDr. Codrington, on the other hand, writes, \u2018the _buto_ of each _kema_\nis probably comparatively recent in Florida, it has been introduced\nat Bugotu within the memory of living men.\u2019[6] Dr. Codrington, as\nwe have already seen, inclines to the theory which derives totems\noriginally from individuals. He cites Mr. Sleigh, of Lifu (mentioned\nby us before), who writes, \u2018When a father was about to die, surrounded\nby members of his family, he might say what animal he will be, say a\nbutterfly or some kind of bird. That creature would be sacred to his\nfamily, who would not injure or kill it; on seeing or falling in with\nsuch a creature the person would say, \u201cThat is _kaka_\u201d (papa), and\nwould, if possible, offer him a young cocoa-nut. But they did not thus\nadopt the name of a tribe.\u2019[7]\n\nWe need not repeat the objections to all such theories of the\nderivation of pristine totem group names from individuals, The _butos_,\nancestors, not to be eaten, have all the air of archaic totems, now\nreduced to a lower plane, and, save in one case out of six, not giving\nthe name to a _kema_, in Florida. Thus the _butos_ of each _kema_\nwould be, originally, totemic, but immigrations, settled conditions,\nthe tendency to male descent, and the introduction of local or place\nnames for some groups, of nicknames for others, broke down the old\ntotemic nomenclature, leaving only the Kakau, or crabs, true to their\ncolours and to their totem and totem name, while the other _kemas_ got\nlocal names or nicknames--the Hongokikki being named from the pastime\nof Cat\u2019s Cradle--clearly a nickname. Apparently the pigeon is their\n_buto_. How did these conditions arise?\n\nSay that there were once four exogamous totem groups in\nEttrickdale--Grouse, Deer, Hares, Partridges. Say that there came in\ntwo alien groups, Trout and Plover. Of these two, one might come to\nbe called Quoits, from their skill in that game.--Two of the original\nfour might get local names, from their places of residence, say\nSinglee and Tushielaw. One might keep its old totem, Grouse, and its\nold totem name, abstaining from grouse. One might get a new name, Roe\nDeer, but all, under the names of Tushielaw, Singlee, Quoits, Roe\nDeer, and Grouse (with another not given), would retain their old\ntotems as _butos_, ancestral in some way, and not to be eaten. But the\nnew, not the totemic, names would now mark off the exogamous _kemas_.\nSomething of this kind must have occurred in Florida, under new social\nconditions, and the stress of immigrants. But Dr. Codrington gives a\ncase in which the banana was tabued, just before his death, by \u2018a man\nof much influence who said that he would be in the banana.\u2019[8]\n\nThis origin of Totemism (namely, in animism, a man of influence\ntabuing, and bequeathing to his descendants for ever, the animal or\nplant that is to be his soul vehicle) is approved of, as the original\ncause of Totemism, by Dr. Wilken. But could it arise in a much lower\nstate of society, wherein \u2018men of much influence\u2019 are rare, and are\nreadily forgotten? Now in Melanesia, generally, a man\u2019s fame, however\ngreat, perishes with those who remember him in his life.[9] Again,\nthis sort of tabuing the banana affected \u2018all the people\u2019 of the isle\nUlawa, and so could not be the base of an exogamous prohibition,\nunless all brides were to be brought in from foreign islands. If the\nprohibition was confined to known descendants of the banana man, then\nwe have the patriarchal family, founded by a known ancestor, and\nexogamous. Now, in Ulawa, descent is reckoned in the male line, and\nthere are no exogamous divisions.[10] \u2018This is an exceptional state of\nthings,\u2019 says Dr. Codrington (p. 22), yet he thinks it (p. 32) \u2018in all\nprobability\u2019--_plus_ the tabuing of an object by a dying patriarch--the\ncause of the _buto_ prohibition in the _kemas_ of Florida. Thus a\nsolitary case from an isle without exogamous divisions (\u2018the only\nrestriction on marriage is nearness in blood\u2019), and with male descent,\nis supposed by Dr. Codrington to cause the _buto_ prohibition in an\nisland with exogamous divisions, and with female descent.[11]\n\nHis theory is manifestly inconsistent with his facts--moreover, it\ninvolves the existence of the patriarchal system at the time when\ntotems first arose.\n\nOn the whole, this reasoning does not convince, but, if Dr. Codrington\nis right, Melanesian institutions are shattered, dislocated,\ncontaminated, and worn down to a remarkable degree. Yet, behind them,\nwhere the two, or the six exogamous divisions prevail, with descent\ncounted in the female line, we can scarcely help recognising a basis\nof Australian customary law, with obsolescence of the totem, slowly\ntending towards inheritance through the father. \u2018A chief\u2019s sons are\nnone of them of his own kin; and, as will be shown, he passes on what\nhe can of his property and authority to them.\u2019[12] In spite of the\n\u2018generation names,\u2019 \u2018father,\u2019 \u2018brothers and sisters,\u2019 \u2018children,\u2019 the\nreal distinctions of own father, cousin, and so forth, are understood,\nand expressed, as they usually are, everywhere.[13]\n\nThus Melanesia shows us some of the ways out from Totemism, exogamy,\nand descent in the female line. It also shows us, what Australia does\nnot, ghost worship: most prominently in Saa, where, with descent\nin the male line, and hereditary chiefship, eleven generations of\nancestors are remembered, \u2018by the invocation of their successive names\nin sacrifices.\u2019[14] This is a solitary case of such genealogical\nknowledge among Melanesians, as distinct from Polynesians. It is made\npossible by the sacrifices to the ancestors. Now, in Australia, there\nare no such sacrifices. Without them ancestors among low savages cannot\nbe remembered, and could not hand down, as an hereditary totem, the\nanimal or other object which is their \u2018soul-box,\u2019 or the vehicle of\nthe ancestral soul after death. There appears to myself to exist, in\nMelanesia, a notable tendency to adore, nay, almost to deify, a dead\nman, as a _tindalo_. Dr. Codrington cites, from Bishop Selwyn, a case\nin which a renowned brave man was slain in action. A house, or shrine,\nwas built over his head, and he was canonised, or made a _tindalo_.\n\nHis claims to sanctity were automatically certified by canoe tilting,\nin principle like our table tilting. The men in the canoe cease\npaddling, \u2018in a quiet place,\u2019 and, when the canoe begins to tilt,\nthey call over a roll of names of tindalos (human ghosts). At the\nname of the dead warrior,\u2019the canoe shook again.\u2019 A successful raid\nfollowed, a new shrine was built for the warrior, and fish and food\nwere sacrificed to him. By this means a great man\u2019s memory is, now\nand then, contrary to general custom, kept green in this region of\nMelanesia. Occasionally he seems to be on the way towards godship,\nas a departmental deity, perhaps as god of war.[15] Pigs are common\nvictims, now, in sacrifice. We do not hear of any \u2018totem sacrifice,\u2019 if\never such a thing anywhere existed. In the case of a _tindalo_ called\nManoga, deification seems close at hand. His \u2018dwelling is the light of\nsetting suns,\u2019 or of the dawn: or in high heaven, or in the Pleiades,\nor Orion\u2019s belt. It is a remarkable circumstance that this discarnate\nspirit is the _tindalo_ or saint of a _kema_, or exogamous division,\none of the six of Florida, and all of the six possess their tindalo,\na ghost patron in receipt of sacrifice, as well as their _buto_, or\nanimal not to be eaten.[16]\n\nStill more remarkable it is that, in certain Melanesian isles of the\nNew Britain group, the two exogamous divisions are neither anonymous,\nnor totemic, nor of local names, nor bear nicknames, but are named\nafter the two opposing powers of Dualism, the God and Devil of savage\ntheology. Of these Te Kabinana is \u2018the founder, creator, or inventor\nof all good and useful things, usages, and institutions.\u2019 On the other\nhand To Kovuvura is the Epimetheus of this savage Prometheus: Te\nKabinana created good land: To Kovuvura created bad land, mountains\nand everything clumsy and ill formed. These powers captain the\ntwo exogamous divisions, an office assumed by two totems in the\nneighbouring Duke of York group.[17] Nothing can prove more clearly the\nblending of different stages of thought in Melanesia.\n\nOn the whole, Totemism is breaking down, and something very like\nPolytheism, of an animistic type, is beginning to emerge, in Melanesia.\nThere is a _tindalo_ of the sea, of war, and of gardens,--Poseidon,\nAres, and Priapus in the making. Sacrifice and prayer exist, neither\nis found (perhaps with an exception as regards prayers for the souls\nof the dead) in Australia. On the other hand, only the smallest of\nsmall change for the Australian conception of such makers and judges\nas Baiame is noted in Melanesia, mainly in the myths of and prayers\nto Qat, and myths of a creative unworshipped female being. These are\n_Vuis_, not ghosts; they are spirits never incarnate, unlike the\n_tindalos_.[18] Qat appears to hover between the estate of a lowly\ncreative being, born of a rock, and that of a culture hero, and rather\nresembles the Zulu Unkulunkulu. Thus Melanesia seems, in society and\nbeliefs, to show an advance from Totemism, nomadic life, and from an\nunworshipped female creative being, towards Animism and Polytheism, and\ndescent reckoned in the male line: agricultural and settled existence,\nwith mixture of race, and foreign contamination of custom, being marked\nagents in the developement.\n\nAs _tindalos_ (human ghosts, in one case the patron of a kema) thrive\nto Gods\u2019 estate, while _butos_ remain ancestral plants or animals,\nnot to be eaten, it would be a natural step to imagine later that the\nfamily God (_tindalo_) of ghost origin, incarnates himself in the\n_buto_, the sacred animal of the kin. That would be an explanatory\nmyth. If accepted, it would produce the Samoan and Fijian belief, that\nthe animals and plants not to be eaten by the kindreds (old totems) are\nincarnations of gods. Thus the Florida beliefs and customs are a stage\nbetween those of Australia and those of Samoa and Fiji.\n\nHOW THE ORIGIN OF TOTEM NAMES WAS FORGOTTEN\n\nIt appears, at least to the mind of the maker of an hypothesis, that\nthe names of Melanesian kemas, as well as the new names of American\n\u2018_gentes_\u2019 (totem kins with male descent), indicate the probability\nthat, from the first--as among our villagers--group names were given\n(in the majority of cases) from without, as in many American and\nsome Melanesian cases they certainly are. We see that it is so:\nno group would call itself \u2018Cat\u2019s Cradle Players,\u2019 or \u2018Eaters of\nHide-scrapings,\u2019 or \u2018Bone Pickers,\u2019 as in Florida; among the Sioux; and\nin Western England. We cannot possibly expect to find any groups in\nthe process of becoming totemic and of having plant and animal names\ngiven to them from without. But we certainly do observe that names, or\nnicknames, relatively recent, are given to savage groups, on their way\nout of Totemism--the totem name often still lingering on in America,\nlike the _butos_ in Melanesia--and that these names, or nicknames, are\ngiven from without. Nearer to demonstration that the totem names were\ngiven in the same way (as \u2018Whig\u2019 and \u2018Tory\u2019 were given), we cannot\nexpect to come.\n\nIt may be said that my conjecture is only a form of that suggested (if\nI understand him) by Mr. Herbert Spencer. An individual had an animal\nname or nickname. He died: his ghost was revered by his old name, say\nBear. He was forgotten, and his descendants, who kept up his worship,\ncame to think that they were descended from a real bear, and were akin\nto bears. I need not once more reiterate the objections to this theory,\nbut, like my own suggestion, it involves forgetfulness of a fact,--here\nthe fact that \u2018Bear\u2019 was a human ancestor. Against the chances of this\nforgetfulness was the circumstance that individuals were constantly\nbeing named Bear, Wolf, Eagle, and so on, in daily experience, usually\nwith a qualifying epithet, \u2018_Sitting_ Bull,\u2019 \u2018_Howling_ Wolf,\u2019 and so\nforth. These facts might have prevented Mr. Spencer\u2019s savages from\nforgetting that the ancestral Bear was a Bear of human kind, like\nthemselves and their contemporaries.\n\nIn my hypothesis, forgetfulness, on the other hand, might readily\noccur. When all the group names in each area had become organised and\nstereotyped, there would necessarily be no new giving of group names to\nremind the savages how these titles came into existence. On the other\nhand the myth-making stage, as to kinship with the name-giving plants\nand animals, would set in, and then would come reverent behaviour\ntowards these creatures, as if they were kinsmen and friends. Respect\nfor the totem, in each case, will clinch the tendency to group exogamy.\nI have supposed, for the reasons given, that there was already a\ntendency against marriage within the group. That tendency must have\nbeen confirmed by the totem tabu against making any use of any member\nof the totem kin, and a woman of the totem would be exempted from\nmarital use by her male fellow-totemists. The totem belief would add a\nsupernormal sanction to the exogamous tendency.\n\n\nOTHER SOURCES OF SACREDNESS IN PLANTS AND ANIMALS\n\nNow any such superstitious respect for an animal, whatever its origin,\nwill take the same inevitable forms; and thus, if individuals select\n_nyarongs, naguals_, and so on, they must necessarily behave to these\nthings as they do to their hereditary totems. There is no other way\nin which they can behave, if they regard the animals as mysteriously\nfriendly and protective, though the idea that they are friendly and\nprotective has different origins, in either case.\n\nThus the exigencies of my guess as to the origin of Totemism, compel\nme to disagree with a _dictum_ of Mr. Frazer, \u2018if the relations are\nsimilar, the explanation which holds good of the one ought equally\nto hold good of the other.\u2019[19] The conclusion is not necessary. You\nmay revere a rat (your totem), and a cat (your _nagual_) for quite\ndifferent reasons, and in quite different capacities, you being the\nkinsman of your totem, the prot\u00e9g\u00e9 of your _nagual_; but, if you revere\nthem, your reverence can only show itself in the same ways. There are\nno other ways.[20]\n\n\nRECAPITULATION\n\nDoes my guess at the origin of totems seem out of harmony with human\nnature? You, belonging to a local group, must call other groups by\none name or another. Plant and animal names come very handy. The\nnames fluctuate at first, but are at last accepted by the groups to\nwhich they are applied. The origin of the names being forgotten, an\nexplanation of them is needed, and, as in every case where it is\nneeded, it is provided in myths. The myths, once believed in, are acted\nupon; they become the parents of tabus, magic, rites of various kinds.\nSocial rules must be developed, some already exist; and each group\ncalled by an animal, plant, or other such name, becomes, under that\nname, a social unit, and accepts, as such, the customary legislation,\njust as a parish does. You must not marry within the totem name: either\nbecause of the totem tabu in general, or because the totem comes to\nbe conceived of as denoting kinship, and (for one reason or another)\nyou had already a tendency not to marry within the limit of the group.\nThe usual totem rules may be thwarted by other rules derived from a\npeculiar system of animism, very philosophically elaborated, as among\nthe Arunta of Central Australia. The institution, in short, may develop\nor may dwindle, may persist in practice, or fade into faint survival,\nor blend with analogous superstitions, or wholly vanish, in varying\nconditions. Totemism affects art; to some extent it may have affected\nreligious evolution. It is certainly a source of innumerable myths.\n\nBut, if my guess holds water, Totemism arose out of names given from\nwithout, these names being of a serviceable sort, as they could be,\nand are, not only readily expressed in words, but readily conveyed _in\ngesture language_ from a considerable distance. The names could be\n\u2018signalled.\u2019[21] \u2018There is an Emu man: look out!\u2019 This could easily\nand silently be expressed in gesture language. Place-names, and many\nnicknames, could not so be signalled.\n\nThis theory, of course, is not in accordance with any savage\nexplanations of the origin of their totem. It could not be! Their\nexplanations are such fables as only men in their intellectual\ncondition could invent: they are _myths_, they involve impossibilities.\nMy hypothesis (or myth) does not, I think, involve anything impossible\nor far-fetched, or incapable of proof in a general way. It is human, it\nis inevitable, that plant and animal names should be given, especially\namong groups more or less hostile. We call the French \u2018frogs.\u2019 It is\nalso a fact that names given from without come to be accepted. It is a\nfact that names, once accepted, are explained by myths; it is a fact\nthat myths come to be believed, and that belief influences behaviour.\n\nAN OBJECTION ANSWERED\n\nHere I foresee an objection; it will be said that, on the other\nhand, behaviour produces myths. Men find themselves performing some\napparently idiotic rite: they ask themselves, \u2018Why do we do this\nthing?\u2019 and they invent a myth as an answer. Certainly they do, but\nyou believe in a God, or in Saints, and act (or you ought to act) in\na manner pleasing to these guardians of conduct. You don\u2019t believe in\na God, because you behave well, and it is not because you behave well\nto a totem that you believe in a totem. You treat him as game, not as\nvermin, because you believe in him, and your belief is based on the\nmyth which your ancestors invented to account for their having a totem.\n\nMy guess has the advantage of going behind the age of settled\ndwellings, agriculture, kinship through males, and the causal action\nof individuals. It reverts to the group stage of human life. Groups\ngive and accept the names; invent the myths, act on their belief in\nthe myths, and so introduce the sanction of what had perhaps been a\nmere tendency towards exogamy. On the other hand, my guess has the\ndisadvantage of dealing with a hypothetical stage of society, behind\nexperience. But this cannot be avoided, for if we base our hypotheses\nof the origin of Totemism on our experience of the ways of societies\nwhich have passed, or are passing, out of Totemism, our theories must\nnecessarily be invalidated. It may be replied that I have myself given\nillustrations of my theory from the folk-lore of civilised society. But\nthe only begetters of these illustrative cases are boys--and boys are\nin the savage stage, \u2018at least as far as they are able.\u2019\n\nIn a tone more serious, it may be reiterated that no theory of the\norigin of Totemism is likely to be correct which derives the totem,\nin the first instance, in any way, from the _individual_, the private\nman. Long ago, Mr. Fison wrote, \u2018Sir John Lubbock considers that\nthe \u201cworship of plants and animals is susceptible of a very simple\nexplanation, and has really originated from the practice of naming,\nfirst _individuals_, and then their families, after particular\nanimals.\u201d[22] Mr. Fison replied, \u2018This is surely a reversal of the\ntrue order. The Australian divisions show that the totem is, in the\nfirst place, the badge of a group, not of an individual. The individual\ntakes it, in common with his fellows, only because he is a member of\nthe group. And, even if it were first given to an individual, his\nfamily, i.e. his children, could not inherit it from him,\u2019 when descent\nis reckoned on the female side.[23]\n\nIt is a commonplace, perhaps an overworked commonplace, that the\ngroup, not the individual, is the earlier social unit. Yet the\nhypotheses of Lord Avebury, Mr. Herbert Spencer, Dr. Wilken, Mr. Boas,\nMiss Alice Fletcher, and Messrs. Hose and McDougall, all derive from\n_individuals_, in one way or other, the most archaic names of human\n_groups_. The hypothesis of Mr. Max M\u00fcller leaves the origin of the\ngroup name unexplained. The later hypothesis (especially provisional),\nof Mr. Frazer, does start from the group name, but I am not certain\nwhether we are to understand that each group name is derived from the\nplant Or animal or selected by the group as the object of its magical\nrites, or whether, for some unknown reason, each group already bore\nthe name of the animal, or plant, or element, _before_ entering on the\ngreat co-operative industrial system. Now it seems to me certain that\nthe names, in each case, were originally not names of individuals,\nor in any way derived from individuals, but were names of groups. As\nto how pristine groups might obtain such names I have offered what,\nin the nature of the case, has to be only a conjecture. But named,\nas soon as men had intelligence and speech, the groups, as groups,\nhad to be, and the actual names are such as, whether in savagery or\nin full civilisation, are given to individuals, and are also, in\ncivilised rural society, given to local groups, to members of parishes\nand villages. So far, the cause which I suggest is a _vera causa_ of\ncollective group names.\n\nOTHER OBJECTIONS ANSWERED\n\nA well-known Folk-lorist to whom I submitted my theory, rather \u2018in the\nrough,\u2019 replied to me thus: \u2018I have thought of Totemism as meaning a\nsocial system, that is, as including belief, worship, kinship, society.\nAnd therefore, the animal or plant names are an essential part of the\nsystem. You, as I understand it, come along and say the name is the\nresult of one of the trifles of the human mind, therefore did not enter\ninto the totem system very deeply, and certainly did not belong to the\nbeliefs and the worship, except as the result of a later myth-making\nage. Of course your book may explain all, and I shall look forward to\nstudying it, as I have always enjoyed your studies.\n\n\u2018But I confess I don\u2019t much believe in these accidents causing or\nrather entering into so widely spread a system as Totemism. Cut away\nthe name and nothing is left to Totemism except myth, survivals, and a\nsocial grouping without any apparent cement. Blood kinship as a basis\nof society surely arose much later, unless Dr. Reevers\u2019s remarkable\nevidence from the Haddon expedition to New Guinea helps the matter. He\nfound, you remember, blood kinship traceable by definite genealogies\nbeneath, so to speak, a system of Totemism, and but for the most minute\nexamination blood kinship would have escaped observation once more and\nTotemism only would have been reported. Is this blood kinship the true\nsocial basis and Totemism only a veneer?\n\n\u2018I have goodly notes on Totemism and non-Totemism, and I confess it\ndifficult to eliminate the name as an important part of the system. It\ncovers every part--is the shell into which all the rest fits. Now I\nhave too much respect for our savage friends to think they used myth\nany further than we do. We go every Sunday saying \u201cI believe,\u201d but we\ndon\u2019t build up much upon this. Our social fabric, nay our religion, is\nnot of this. And so of the savage. If I grant you the myth of descent\nfrom an animal to have arisen out of a _pre-existing_ name system, I am\nno nearer the understanding of totem-kinship as the basis of a social\ngroup.\u2019\n\nThese are natural objections, on a first view of my suggestions.\nTotemism _is_ a social system, but there was an age before totemism,\nan age of undeveloped totemism; into these we try to peer. But the\nmethod of name-giving which I postulate is hardly \u2018a trifle of the\nhuman mind.\u2019 It is, as I have proved, a widely diffused, probably\nan universal tendency of the human mind. Not less universal, in the\nsavage intellectual condition, is the belief in the personality and\nhuman characteristics of all things whatsoever; man is only one tribe\nin the cosmic kinship, and is capable of specially close kinship with\nanimals. Nobody denies this, and the resulting myths to explain the\nconnection of the groups and their totems are not only natural, but\ninevitable--the real origin of the connection, \u2018in the dark backward\nand abysm of time,\u2019 being forgotten. We may go to church, and say \u2018I\nbelieve,\u2019 and we may not act up to our creeds. \u2018And so of the savage.\u2019\nBut it is not \u2018so of the savage.\u2019 His belief in a myth of kinship with\nan Emu is carried into practice, and regulates his conduct, magical\nand social. This is not contestable. In the same way a Christian who\nbelieves in the efficacy of masses for the welfare of his dead friends,\npays for masses. At the lowest, he \u2018thinks the experiment well worth\ntrying.\u2019 To other myths, say as to the origin of the spots on a beast,\na savage may \u2018give but a doubtsome credit.\u2019 They are not of a nature\nto affect his conduct in any way. But the totem myths do affect his\nconduct, quite undeniably, and, even if there are sceptics, public\nopinion and customary law compel them to regulate their behaviour on\nthe lines of the general belief. We are not to be told that nobody\nbelieves in anything! The \u2018social grouping\u2019 consequent on the beliefs\nis _not_ \u2018without any apparent cement.\u2019 The cement is the belief in the\nactual kinship of all persons having the same totem name, and sacred\ntotem blood, even if they belong to remote and hostile tribes. All\nwolves are brethren in the wolf; all bears are brethren in the bear;\nand so men-bears are sisters to women-bears, and brothers may not marry\nsisters. Here is \u2018apparent cement\u2019 of the very best quality, and in\nabundance, given the acknowledged condition of the savage intellect.\n\nManifestly these ideas belong, as a whole, to \u2018a later myth-making\nage\u2019--that is to an age later than the dateless period of the\nhypothetical anonymous groups. But, between that hypothetical period and\nthe evolution of the idea of group kinship with animals and plants, and\nwith all men of the same animal and plant stock names, there is time\nenough and to spare for the full evolution of Totemism.\n\nAgain, to a Darwinian, the enormous influence of \u2018accidents\u2019 in\nevolution ought not to be a matter hard of belief; without \u2018accidents\u2019\n(in the Darwinian sense of the word), there would be no differentiation\nat all, and no evolution. The Darwinian \u2018accident\u2019 seems to mean a\nvariation of unknown cause. But the giving of plant and animal group\nnames is hardly an \u2018accident\u2019 of this kind. \u2018What else are you to call\nit?\u2019 the player asked, when questioned as to the origin of the words \u2018a\nyorker.\u2019 And by what names so handy and serviceable as plant and animal\nnames were pristine men to call the neighbouring groups?\n\nI have shown why place names were less handy, and how, in nomadic\nlife, they were scarcely possible. Local names come in as Totemism\ngoes out. Long nicknames, \u2018Boil-food-with-the-paunch-skin,\u2019\n\u2018Take down their leggings,\u2019 \u2018Travel-with-very-light-baggage,\u2019\n\u2018Shot-at-some-white-object\u2019 (Siouan nicknames of _gentes_), are much\nless handy, much less easy to be signalled by gesture language, and\nare certainly much later than \u2018Emu,\u2019 \u2018Wolf,\u2019 \u2018Kangaroo,\u2019 \u2018Eagle,\u2019\n\u2018Skunk,\u2019 and other totem names. If such totem names were, originally,\nthe favourite form of nomenclature for hostile groups (like our \u2018Sick\nVulture\u2019 for a famous scholar, or \u2018Talking Potato,\u2019 for Mr. J. W.\nCroker), I see not much of an \u2018accident\u2019 in the circumstance.\n\nThe totem names, then, came in upon a very early society: and myth,\nbelief, custom, and rite, crystallised round them, and round the idea\nof blood kindred, which must be very early indeed.\n\nMy critic asks, \u2018Is blood kinship the true social basis, and Totemism\nonly a veneer?\u2019 That question I have already answered. In my opinion\nmankind, in evolving prohibitions of marriage, first had their eyes\non contiguity, that of \u2018hearth-mates.\u2019 Groups of hearth-mates were\nnext distinguished by totem names. But these names could give no\nsuperstitious sanction to customary laws, till the idea of \u2018blood\nkinship\u2019 with, or descent from, or evolution out of, or other form of\nkinship with the totem was developed. At this period, the totem name\nroughly indicated ties of blood kinship. But the Australians, as we\nsaw, have now reached a clearer idea of what blood kinship is, and,\nby a bye-law, prohibit marriages of \u2018too near flesh,\u2019 in cases where,\nthough the persons are akin by blood, totem law does not interfere.\nTotem law has had an educating influence in developing the objection to\nmarriages between people contiguous as hearth-mates, into the objection\nto marriages between persons too near in blood kinship. Thus Totemism\nis not \u2018only a veneer.\u2019\n\nOn the foundation of all these blended ideas, Totemism arose, a stately\nbut fantastic structure, varying in shape under changing conditions,\nlike an iceberg in summer seas. It is, indeed, \u2018a far cry\u2019 from\nanonymous human groups, and groups of plant or animal names, to Helen,\nthe daughter of the swan, that was Zeus! But the pedigree is hardly\ndisputable.\n\nOn the other hand, suppress the totem names, give the original\ngroups such titles as the Sioux \u2018Take-down-their-leggings,\u2019\nor \u2018Boil-meat-in-the-paunch-skin\u2019 (some names you must give\nthem), and what is left? Suppose such names to have been\nthose of pristine groups, and suppose them to be tending to\nexogamy. A \u2018Boil-meat-in-the-paunch-skin\u2019 man may not marry\na \u2018Boil-meat-in-the-paunch-skin\u2019 girl; but must marry a\n\u2018Take-down-their-leggings\u2019 girl, or a \u2018shoot-in-the-woods\u2019 girl,\nor a \u2018Do-not-split-the-body-of-a-buffalo-with-a-knife-but-cut\n-it-up-as-they-please\u2019 girl! That is rather cumbrous: marriage rules on\nthat basis are not readily conceivable.\n\nAnd where is here the tabu sanction? Brother Wolf or Brother\nEmu is a thinkable, powerful, sacred kinsman, who will\nnot have his tabu tampered with. But there is no sanctity\nin Do-not-split-the-body-of-a-buffalo-with-a-knife-but\n-cut-it-up-as-they-please!\n\nLuckily we have here a case in point. My theory is that animal names\nbeing once given to the groups, the animal, in accordance with savage\nideas, became a kinsman and protector. The animal or vegetable or\nother type, in each case, sanctioned various tabus, including exogamy.\nHad the name been another kind of nickname, as \u2018Boil-meat-in-the\npaunch-skin,\u2019 what was there to sanction the tabu? Or, if the group\nname was a local name, where was the sanction? Exogamy does persist\nwhere totem groups have become local, and are now known by the names of\ntheir places of settlement. But not always. Of an Australian tribe, the\nGournditch Mara, we read that it consisted of four _local_ divisions,\nwater (mere?), swamp, mountain, and river. But there was no exogamous\nrule affecting marriage. A man of the group dwelling in the swamp might\nmarry a woman of the same group. There was descent in the male line;\nwife-lending was highly condemned. The office of headman was hereditary\nin the male line, \u2018before any whites came into the country.\u2019 The\nbenighted tribe was not devoid of superstition.\n\n\u2018They believed that there was a future good and bright place, to which\nthose who were good went after death, and that there was a Man at that\nplace who took care of the world and of all the people.\u2019 The place was\ncalled M\u016bmble-Mirring. The dark, bad place was Burreet Barrat. \u2018This\nbelief they had before there was any white person in the country.\u2019\n\nAs these statements are odious to most anthropologists, they cannot be\ntrue, and thus a slur is cast on all that we learn about the Gournditch\nMara. But though a missionary (the Rev. Mr. St\u00e4hle) cannot, of course,\nbe trusted _here_, he had no professional motive for fictions about the\nmarriage laws of the tribe. They had no ceremonies of initiation, no\nseasons of license, apparently no totems, and the merely local names\nof groups naturally carried no exogamous prohibition: conveyed no tabu\nsanction.[24] Had there never been any totem names, exogamy might never\nhave arisen.\n\nHow my friendly critic is \u2018no nearer to the understanding of totem\nkinship as the basis of a social group,\u2019 if, for the sake of the\nargument, he grants \u2018the myth of descent from an animal to have arisen\nfrom a pre-existing name system,\u2019 I am at a loss to comprehend. Here\nare groups, Bear, Wolf, Trout, Racoon, firmly, though erroneously,\nbelieving that they are akin to these animals. Naturally they \u2018behave\nas such.\u2019 Each racoon has duties to other racoons, and to the actual\nracoons. He does not shoot a racoon if he can get anything else; he\ndoes not shoot a racoon sitting. He is brother to racoons of his own\nsex, and to sisters in the racoon of the other sex. He does not marry\nthem. The belief in the racoon kinship is the basis of that social\ngroup--the man has other social groups of other kinds. Savages believe\nin their beliefs, to the extent of dying from fear after infringing\na tabu in which they believe. Thus I would reply to the objections\noffered after a first glance at my conjecture.\n\nTOTEMS AND MAGICAL SOCIETIES\n\nA man has other social groups than his own totem group in certain\nregions. Totem groups among the Arunta, we have seen, work magic \u2018to\nsecure the increase of the plant or animal which gives its name to the\ntotem.\u2019 The Arunta have no myth as to the origin of these performances,\nstyled Intichiuma.[25] This, as far as Australia is concerned, seems\nto be a peculiarity of the Arunta system alone, or all but alone, and,\nas we saw, it has even been suggested that these rites are the origin\nof Totemism. But such rites appear to be most firmly established and\norganised among societies which are passing out of Totemism. Such a\nsociety is that of the Omaha tribe of North America, where descent is\nreckoned in the male line.[26] Among the Omahas we find the Elk totem\ngroup with male kinship; they may not touch a male Elk, or eat its\nflesh: if they do, as in New Caledonia, they break out into sores. This\nkindred, with the Bears, \u2018worship the thunder\u2019 in spring. Their special\nbusiness and duty is \u2018to stop the rain.\u2019 But, if they are a Weather\nSociety, in this respect, that fact does not appear in their totem\nnames, Elk and Bear.\n\nOther Omaha _gentes_, or \u2018subgentes,\u2019 are also totemic, and are named\nfrom that which they may not eat, as wild turkeys, wild geese, cranes,\nand blackbirds. The people of the black-bird totem actually do a little\ntotem magic, _against_ their totem; they chew and spit out corn, to\nprevent the blackbirds from feeding on the crops.[27] The reptile group\ndoes not touch or eat reptiles, but, if worms injure the corn, they\npound a few worms up into flour, make a soup thereof, and eat it (is\nthis \u2018totem sacrifice\u2019?), all for the good of the crops. The worm group\ndoes this magic (involving the eating of its totem) not for the benefit\nof worms (as among the Arunta) but to control the mischievous action of\nworms.\n\nNow turning to Magical or Magico-Religious Societies among these\nIndians, we find a Wind Society, _but it contains members of many\ntotems_, buffalo, eagle, hawk, and so on, plus \u2018The South wind\npeople,\u2019 who, apparently, may be a totem group of that name, which,\nas among the Arunta, might work wind-magic.[28] But our authority,\nthe late Mr. Dorsey, calls all the members of this Wind Magic Society\n\u2018Wind _gentes_,\u2019 and surely this breeds much confusion. By a _gens_\nhe usually means a totem kin with male descent (by \u2018clan,\u2019 he means\na totem kin with female descent). Thus all \u2018wind _gentes_\u2019 ought to\nbe wind totem groups: only wind totem groups ought to be in the Wind\nSociety, which is not the case: and all water gentes, or earth, or fire\ngentes ought to be of water, earth, or fire totems. But this, again, is\nnot the case.\n\nAll sorts of totem kindreds enter into the earth, wind, fire, and\nwater Magical Societies, or Magico-Religious Societies. They belong\nto them as members of any universities, or of certain selected\nuniversities, may belong to an University Club: or, again, may be\nCatholics, Anglicans, Brownists, or Presbyterians. These American\nMagical Societies, though composed of members of totem kindreds, are\nnot, in themselves, totemic societies. Members of other totems serve\nin the societies which work magic for earth, wind, fire, and so on.\nAmong the Arunta, on the other hand, the magic for each object is\nworked solely by the men who have that object for totem. To a certain\nextent, however, this rule is changing, and members of other totems\nmay, at least, be present at each totem\u2019s _Intichiuma_, or magical\nrites.[29] \u2018In addition to the members of the totem\u2019 (water) \u2018other men\nare invited to come, though they will not be allowed to take any part\nin the actual _Intichiuma_ ceremony.\u2019 From presence, by invitation, to\nparticipation in the rites (as in the American Shamanistic Societies),\nis a step which may come to be taken, and thus the Arunta totem groups\nwould become mere \u2018Shamanistic Societies.\u2019\n\nA most curious and interesting account of the Omaha Magical Societies\nis given by Miss Alice Fletcher, in her essay, already cited, on \u2018The\nImport of the Totem.\u2019 To obtain the \u2018personal totem\u2019 (manitu) a youth\nmust first listen to his elders. They tell him \u2018to go forth to cry to\nWa-kon-da. You shall not ask for any particular thing, whatever is\ngood, that may Wa-kon-da give.\u2019\n\n_Fiat voluntas tua!_\n\n\u2018Four days and nights upon the hills the youth shall pray, crying, and,\nwhen he stops, shall wipe his tears with the palms of his hands, lift\nhis wet hands to heaven, then lay them on the earth.\u2019\n\nTo the ordinary mind, this describes such prayers as are the petitions\nof the Saints. But, in accordance with the views of the official school\nof American anthropology, it is averred that nothing of the kind is\nintended by the Omaha. \u2018There is no evidence that they did regard the\npower represented by that word (Wa-kon-da) as a supreme being, nor is\nthere any intimation that they had ever conceived of a single great\nruling spirit,\u2019 says Miss Fletcher (1897).\n\nThe prayer is evidence enough. Prayer is directed to a person, and\nwhether he is envisaged as \u2018a spirit,\u2019 or not, is a mere detail of\nmetaphysical terminology. If Miss Fletcher is right, Wa-kon-da is a\npantheistic conception, but as He, (or It) also listens to prayer,\nHe (or It) is personal. We see rather an anthropomorphic conception\nof deity, passing towards pantheism, or to divinity no longer\nanthropomorphic, than a notion of impersonal force immanent in the\nuniverse, passing towards anthropomorphism--as in Miss Fletcher\u2019s\ntheory. The idea of such a force, or cosmic _rapport_ (the Maori\n_mana_), is, indeed, familiar to us in the speculations of the lower\nbarbaric races. It does credit to their metaphysics, but, _prima\nfacie_, seems likely to be later in evolution than the idea of an\nanthropomorphic Maker, like the Australian Baiame.\n\nAt all events, the Omaha appears to live, in prayer, on a high\nreligious level, and it is open to the friends of religious borrowing,\nto say that he took his creed from Europeans. I am not certain that\nMiss Fletcher is indisposed to agree with me on this point of Red\nIndian unborrowed theism. In her _Indian Song and Story_,[30] she gives\nPawnee songs, \u2018hitherto sealed from the knowledge of the white race.\u2019\nHere is one:\n\n    Lift thine eyes! \u2019Tis the gods who come near,\n    Bringing thee joy, release from all pain.\n    Sending sorrow and sighing\n    Far from the child, Ti-ra-wa makes fain.\n\n    Ah, you look, you know who comes,\n    Claiming you his, and bidding you rise,\n    Blithely smiling and happy,\n    Child of Ti-ra-wa, Lord of the Skies!\n\nTi-ra-wa is Hau-ars, \u2018a contraction of the word meaning father.\u2019 The\nsong is used to still children who cry at a religious ceremony.\n\nHowever it be, the Omaha prays to Wa-kon-da, not for \u2018any particular\nthing,\u2019 but for whatever, in the gift of Wa-kon-da, is good, and mainly\nfor a manitu (\u2018personal totem\u2019). The Omaha also believe in telepathy.\n\u2018Thought and will can be projected to help a friend.\u2019 A magical society\nexists, to concentrate and direct this expenditure of energy, and\nthe process is strengthened by such things as the neophyte beholds\nin vision, after prayer to Wa-kon-da. He sent an answer to prayer, a\nfeather of a bird, a tuft of a beast\u2019s hair, a crystal, a black stone,\nrepresenting the species, or element of nature, which was to be the\nneophyte\u2019s \u2018personal totem,\u2019 or _manitu_. If it were thunder, the man\ncould control the elements; if it were an eagle, he had an eagle eye\nfor the future; if it were a bear (or a badger), he was not so gifted.\n\nNow, according to Miss Fletcher, the Bear Magical Society is composed\nof men, who, after prayer, have seen the bear in dream or vision; those\nwho saw representatives \u2018of thunder or water beings\u2019 form the Society\nwhich deals with the weather. \u2018The membership came from every kinship\ngroup\u2019 (totem kin) \u2018in the tribe.\u2019 Thus the Magical Societies are\ncomposed of men of any totem, and, the less purely totemic the tribe,\nthe stronger is the Magical Society.\n\nThe totem kins now, among the Omaha, have descent in the male line.\nAll this is \u2018late,\u2019 and \u2018late\u2019 is the totem priesthood held by\n\u2018hereditary chiefs of the _gens_.\u2019 Miss Fletcher regards the totem of\nthe \u2018_gens_,\u2019 with the beliefs crystallised around it, as an ingenious\n\u2018expedient,\u2019 with a social \u2018purpose!\u2019 the totem of each kindred having\nbeen inherited from the vision and _manitu_ of some ancestral chief.\nWe need not again point out that, even now, among the Omaha, advanced\nas they are, _manitus_ are not hereditable, and that Miss Fletcher\u2019s\nsystem cannot account for Totemism in tribes which reckon descent on\nthe spindle side. Miss Fletcher justly remarks that the real totem,\n\u2018the gentile totem,\u2019 \u2018gave no immediate hold upon the supernatural,\nas did the individual totem\u2019 (_manitu_) \u2018to its possessor. It served\nsolely as a mark of kinship, and its connection with the supernatural\nwas manifest only in its punishment of the violation of tabu.\u2019\n\nIn brief, the real totem, and the individual _manitu_, with its magical\nsocieties, are two things totally apart, and apart we must keep them,\nin our studies of early society. Not to do so is to make the topic\nincomprehensible.\n\n\nTOTEM SURVIVALS\n\nIn other books, especially in _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, and _Custom\nand Myth_, I have examined apparent survivals of Totemism, in ancient\nGreece, ancient Egypt, and other civilised countries. Of these the\nmost notable are the Greek myths of descent of families from animals,\nexplained as the temporary vehicles of Zeus or Apollo: and the worship\nof special animals by each of the Nomes of Egypt. Other arguments I\nhave offered, especially in the case of Apollo and the Shrew Mouse. I\nremain of the opinion that many of the Greek mythical and religious\nphenomena noted, are most probably to be explained as survivals of a\ntotemic past. Of course Totemism is only one element in animal worship,\nand the Corn Spirit, disguised as almost any animal you please, may be\none of the other elements. But, as far as I have studied the subject,\nI agree with Mr. Tylor in his \u2018protest against the manner in which\ntotems have been placed almost at the foundation of religion. Totemism\n... has been exaggerated out of proportion to its real theological\nmagnitude.... The rise and growth of ideas of deity, a branch of\nknowledge requiring the largest range of information and the greatest\ncare in inference, cannot, I hold, be judged on the basis of a section\nof theology of secondary importance--namely, animal worship--much less\nof a special section of that--namely, the association of a species of\nanimals (and of a vast variety of other things) \u2018with a clan of men\nwhich results in Totemism. A theoretical structure has been raised\nquite too wide and high for such a foundation.\u2019[31] The totem god\nhimself I regard as only the hypothesis by which certain barbaric races\naccount to themselves for the survivals of Totemism among them. The\nso-called \u2018totem sacrament\u2019 is not \u2018god-eating,\u2019 but a piece of magic,\nused in ceremonies designed to foster--or to vex and annoy--the totem.\nAs Mr. Tylor writes, \u2018till the totem sacrament is vouched for by some\nmore real proof, it had better fall out of speculative theology.\u2019\n\nDID THE ANCESTORS OF THE CIVILISED RACES PASS THROUGH THE AUSTRALIAN\nSTAGE?\n\nThat the ancestors of the Aryan-speaking peoples passed through the\n\u2018stone age\u2019 of culture, few will deny. That they also passed through\nthe totemic stage as regards marriage law is, however, a problem\nperhaps not to be solved. For reasons unknown, the \u2018white\u2019 races\n(not to speak of Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, and Japanese) have\na peculiar aptitude for civilisation, are peculiarly accessible to\nideas. It might therefore be argued that conceivably they were readily\naccessible to the idea of blood kinship. The maternal affection, in a\nrace whose children (unlike the offspring of the lower animals) are\nso long in attaining maturity, cannot but suggest the idea of blood\nkinship. Among totemic peoples it seems that this idea was originally\ndefined by the totem name, a definition at once too wide and too\nnarrow. It is not physically unthinkable that our own ancestors may\nhave been more acutely intelligent, and, if so, why should not they\nsimply forbid unions between persons too near akin in blood? We have\nfound no such moral or instinctive reason among totemic peoples who\nwere, apparently, led to exogamy, first by non-moral causes, or causes\nin which the moral element was not explicit, and then, by aid of\ncorollaries from rules thus based, came to forbid marriages of \u2018too\nnear flesh.\u2019 Without the training of totemic institutions, it is hard\nto see how the Aryan-speaking peoples (however naturally gifted from\nthe first) arrived at the same conception of incest. It seems absurd\nto suppose that black men and red men arrived at the idea of incest,\nand at the laws which prohibit it, by the devious and unpromising path\nof Totemism, while white men reached the same point in some other way.\nYet if it has appeared difficult to find traces of Totemism among the\nMelanesians, much more difficult must it be to prove that races with\nso long a civilised history as, for example, the Greeks, were once\nunder totemic institutions.\n\nI have already indicated my inclination to believe that Totemism has\nleft its traces, in Greece, in the myths of descent from bulls, bears,\nswans, dogs, ants, and so forth, and in certain peculiar aspects\nof animal worship. It is usual for scholars to explain these facts\naway, as things borrowed by early Greeks from some other race. But\n\u2018the receiver is as bad as the thief,\u2019 and if Greeks were capable\nof accepting totemic ideas, they were capable of evolving totemic\ninstitutions. We are not to invent an ideal \u2018Aryan,\u2019 and then to\nexplain all his traces of savagery as borrowings by him from some\nunknown prior race. There is no reason at all for supposing that the\npeoples who speak languages called, for convenience, \u2018Aryan,\u2019 were\nbetter bred than any other peoples at the beginning.\n\nIt would greatly add to the force of the presumptions in favour of an\n\u2018Aryan\u2019 totemic past, if we could point to apparent survivals not only\nin myth and early art, but in actual institutions. Now there are Greek\ninstitutions, in Attica, the \u2018deme,\u2019 the _genos_, and the _phratria_,\nwhich may be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as survivals of Totemism.\nWe have seen that gens (equivalent to the Greek \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) and\nthat phratria (\u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1) are used, by certain students, to designate\nthe totem kin, and the two \u2018primary exogamous divisions\u2019 (say _Dilbi_\nand _Kupathin_) of Australia and North America. To use gens thus is\nmisleading, especially as \u2018totem kin\u2019 is adequate and unambiguous. But\nwe have here employed \u2018phratria\u2019 to designate the \u2018primary exogamous\ndivision,\u2019 because no better word is handy, while we do not maintain\nthat the Attic phratria is a survival of the institution usual in\nAustralia.\n\nMessrs. Fison and Howitt, in an instructive paper, have offered, as\na provisional hypothesis, the theory that the Attic deme (a _local_\nassociation) may have arisen from the kind of _local_ tribe (or\n_horde_) in Australia, while the Attic phratries and \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 (associations\ndepending on _birth_ and _kinship_) were survivals\nof the \u2018primary exogamous divisions\u2019 and totem kins.[32] The present\nwriter had made similar suggestions long ago.[33] Concerning the \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\nand \u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 we know but little: inevitably, for we have seen that,\neven in Australia, still more in Melanesia, _local_ names and _local_\ncommunities are beginning to encroach on and usurp the authority of\nthe totem kin, and other associations based on common blood, real or\nreputed. Infinitely more must this have been the case in Greece. If\nsavage phratries and totem kins once existed in Attica, they must have\nbeen nearly obliterated long before the historical period. At most\nthey would only survive in connection with ritual and religion. Again,\nour definitions of \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 [genos] and \u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 are derived from late\ngrammarians and lexicographers. Thus our means of knowledge are limited\nand darkling.\n\nMessrs. Howitt and Fison start from the horde, or tribe, the horde\nmeaning the largest local Australian community, composed of subtribes,\nif we are not merely to say \u2018tribe,\u2019 and leave \u2018horde\u2019 out of the\nquestion. The members of the horde or tribe are, as we know, of many\nvarious totems, but of only two \u2018primary exogamous divisions\u2019 or\nphratries. Into these the members are born, mostly taking the mother\u2019s\nphratry and totem. As a rule, both father and mother belong to the\ntribe, but if a woman does come in out of an alien tribe, her children,\nthough deriving totem and phratry names through her, are of their\nfather\u2019s local tribe. An alien woman may be assigned, by the elder men,\nto this or that totem: or to the totem corresponding to that which she\nhad in her own local tribe. The children of male aliens follow the\ntotem of their mother, a member of the tribe.\n\nIn Attica, too, was a _local_ community, the deme--thus Thucydides\nwas a Halimusian by deme. The historical demes were organised by\nCleisthenes, on a local basis. Some of them bore the names of the\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 which occupied them, and often the names were derived from\nplants. Either these plants were characteristic of the localities, or\nconceivably the \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 had old totemic plant names, like the plum and\nother vegetable totems of the Australians. All about the local demes,\nthe members of the phratri\u00e6 were scattered, like members of various\ntotem names among the Australian local tribes. An alien could belong\nto a local deme, but not to a \u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1. His children, if by marriage\nwith a free woman, were reckoned in her father\u2019s \u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 male descent\nprevailing, of course, in Attica. In Australia the tribes-woman\u2019s\nchildren by an alien would usually go to her totem and \u2018primary\nexogamous division.\u2019 The child of an alien woman, in Attica, even if\nthe father was high born, could not be admitted to a \u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1: which\ncertainly looks like a survival of the archaic reckoning by female\ndescent. To try to insert an alien child in a deme was a civil, in a\n\u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 was a religious offence.[34] The ancient court of the Areopagus\nhad to do with these offences against customary religion. Messrs. Fison\nand Howitt draw a parallel between the Areopagus and the Great Council\nof the Dieri tribe, whose headman was inspired by \u2018the great spirit\nKuchi,\u2019 of whom one would like to know more.\n\nAn Attic boy was presented to his \u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 at once; full membership of\nthe local deme came with adolescence, and after military training and\nservice. As we know, a series of initiations, and instruction \u2018as to\nthe existence of a great spirit,\u2019 with a probation of a year, are to\nbe passed before the Australian lad is allowed to marry and attend the\nassembly of his local tribe. Better examples of initiation, and of a\nretreat in the hills in company with an adult, and instructor, are\nto be found in Sparta than in Athens. But the Australian \u2018and Attic\nanalogies are pretty close. On the most important point there is no\nanalogy. There were plenty of \u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, of \u2018phratries\u2019 each Australian\ntribe has only two. Again, these two are exogamous: that is their main\n_raison d\u2019\u00eatre_. We have not a glimpse of exogamy in the \u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 of\nAttica.\n\nThe \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, we may agree, I think, with Messrs. Fison and Howitt, was,\noriginally, like the totem kin, an association of persons supposed\nto be related by ties of blood. The grammarian Pollux says \u2018they who\nbelonged to the \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 were styled \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u2019 (men of the \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and \u2018men\nof the same milk\u2019), \u2018not that they were related \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, but they were\nso called from their union (or assemblage--\u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd).\u2019 What\nis meant by \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u2018not genealogically related\u2019? I\nconceive Pollux to mean that the members of the \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 were not all of\ntraceable or recognised degrees of kinship. Thus a Cameron, if asked\nwhether he is related to another Cameron, may say, and not so long ago\nwould have said, \u2018he is not my relation, but my clansman.\u2019 Messrs.\nFison and Howitt take much the same view. By \u2018relations,\u2019 Pollux meant\n\u2018such as parents, sons, brothers, and those before them, and their\nprogeny,\u2019 that is, from grandfathers and granduncles to grandsons and\ngreat-nephews. This might be the notion of relationship in the time of\nPollux, the second century of our era, but, as Messrs. Fison and Howitt\njustly remark, Attic ideas of kinship before the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 ascribed\nto Theseus would be much more extensive, as in Scotland and Britanny.\nThe humblest Stewart, Douglas, Ruthven, or Hamilton would call himself\n\u2018the King\u2019s poor cousin.\u2019 But the Greeks of our second century were\nmore modern, more like the English.\n\nYet the very words \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and _gens_ indicate the idea of blood\nrelationship, just as \u2018clan\u2019 does. The \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 had common sacra, and a\ncommon place of burial. They were clans, but we have no proof that\nthey were ever exogamous or totemic. However, the myths and rituals of\nGreece certainly yield facts of which a totemic past seems the most\nplausible explanation. Mr. Jevons writes, \u2018we find fragments of the\nsystem\u2019 (Totemism), \u2018one here and another there, which, if only they\nhad not been scattered, but had been found together, would have made a\nliving whole. Thus we have families whose names indicate that they were\noriginally totem clans, _e.g._ there were Cynad\u00e6 at Athens, as there\nwas a Dog clan among the Mohicans; but we have no evidence to show that\nthe dog was sacred to the Cynad\u00e6.... On the other hand, storks were\nrevered by the Thessalians, but there is nothing to show that there was\na stork clan in Thessaly.\u2019[35] Wolves were buried solemnly in Attica,\nwhere there was a wolf hero, and lobsters were buried in Seriphos,\nlike the gazelle in Arabia. But we have no evidence of a wolf kin in\nAttica, though we have in Italy (the Hirpi) nor of a lobster kin in\nSeriphos. (For other traces, fairly numerous, I may refer to my _Custom\nand Myth_, and _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, while deprecating the idea\nthat all worship or reverence of animals is of totemistic origin.)\n\nIt will probably be admitted that, if Greeks (or ancient dwellers\non Greek soil) were at some remote period totemistic, and next, by\nreckoning descent in the male line, became attached to localities,\nthen something like demes, phratries, and \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 might very naturally\nbe evolved. And many traces in ritual, myth, and custom do point to\nTotemism in the remote past. Indeed, it is remarkable that we should\nstill be able to point to so many apparent relics of institutions\nalready almost obliterated among the Melanesians.\n\nOn the whole, I regard it as more probable than not, that, in the\neducation of mankind, Totemism has played a part everywhere; a\nbeneficent part. But this is only a private opinion: one believes in it\nas one believes in telepathy, without asserting that the evidence is of\nconstraining value.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Mr. Haddon agrees on this point.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Codrington, _The Melanesians_, chaps, iii. iv.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Op. cit._ p. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Op. cit._ p. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Ibid._ p. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Op. cit._ p. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Tylor, _J. A. I._, August, November. 1898, p. 147.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Op. cit._ p. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _Ibid._ p. 40.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _Ibid._ p. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Dr. Codrington\u2019s exact words are \u2018The _buto_ is in all\nprobability a form of the custom which prevails in Ulawa,\u2019 and the\nbanana story follows.]\n\n[Footnote 12: _Op. cit._ pp. 33, 59-68.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Ibid._ pp. 36-37.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Ibid._ p. 50.]\n\n[Footnote 15: _Op. cit._ pp. 124-130.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Danks, _J. A. I._ xviii. 3, 281-282.]\n\n[Footnote 17: _Ibid._ pp. 131-132.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Codrington, _op. cit._ pp. 154-156.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _Golden Bough_, iii. 416-417.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Mrs. Langloh Parker writes, concerning the Euahlayi\nBaiame-worshipping tribe of New South Wales: \u2018A person has often a\nsecond or individual totem of his name, not hereditary, and given him\nby the _wirreenuns_\u2019 (medicine men), \u2018called his _yunbeai_, any hurt\nto which injures him, and which he may never eat--his hereditary totem\nhe may. He is supposed to be able, if he be a great _wirreenun_, to\ntake the form of his _yunbeai_, which will also give him assistance\nin time of trouble or danger, is a sort of _alter ego_, as it were.\u2019\nIn this tribe the _yunbeai_ (_nyarong, nagual_, _manitu_) is of more\nimportance to the individual than his hereditary totem, which, however,\nby Baiame\u2019s law, regulates marriage, as elsewhere (Folk-Lore, x.\n491, 492). The tribe studied by Mrs. Langloh Parker speaks a dialect\n(Euahlayi) akin to the Kamilaroi, but the Kamilaroi of Mr. Ridley are\nseated three or four hundred miles away.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Roth, Ethnological Studies, 71-90. Dr. Roth gives\nthe signs for the animals, but does not say that they are used for\nsignalling totem names; indeed, he says nothing about totems.]\n\n[Footnote 22: _Origin of Civilisation_, p. 183.]\n\n[Footnote 23: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 165. In his edition of 1902,\nLord Avebury does not reply to these arguments.]\n\n[Footnote 24: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, pp. 274-278.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Spencer and Gillen, ch. vi.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Dorsey, \u2018Omaha Sociology,\u2019 _Bureau of Ethnology_,\n1881-1882, p. 225.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Dorsey, \u2018Omaha Sociology,\u2019 _Bureau of Ethnology_,\n1881-1882, pp. 238-239.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Dorsey, \u2018Siouan Cults,\u2019 _Bureau of Ethnology_, 1889-1890\n(1894), p. 537.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 169, 191.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Nutt, 1900, pp. 108-112.]\n\n[Footnote 31: _J. A. I._, August, November, 1898, p. 144.]\n\n[Footnote 32: _J.A.I._ xiv. 142, 181.]\n\n[Footnote 33: _Politics of Aristotle_, Bolland and Lang, 1876; \u2018Family\u2019\nin Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Dem. _Centra Ne\u00e6ram_ 17.]\n\n[Footnote 35: _Introduction to the History of Religion_, pp. 125-126.]\n\n\n\n\nPRIMAL LAW\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nMAN IN THE BRUTAL STAGE\n\n\nMr. Darwin on the primitive relations of the sexes.--Primitive man\nmonogamous or polygamous.--His jealousy.--Expulsion of young males.--\nThe author\u2019s inferences as to the evolution of Primal Law.--A customary\nRule of Conduct evolved.--Traces surviving in savage life.--The customs\nof Avoidance.--Custom of Exogamy arose in the animal stage.--Brother\nand Sister Avoidance.--The author\u2019s own observation of this custom in\nNew Caledonia.--Strangeness of such a custom among houseless nomads in\nAustralia--Rapid decay under European influences.\n\n\n\u2018Man, as I have attempted to show, is certainly descended from some\nApelike Creature. We may, indeed, conclude, from what we know of the\njealousy of all Male Quadrupeds, armed as many of them are with special\nweapons for battling with their rivals, that promiscuous intercourse\nin a state of Nature is extremely improbable. Therefore, looking far\nenough back in the Stream of Time, and judging from the Social habits\nof Man as he now exists, the most probable view is that he aboriginally\nlived in small communities, each with a single wife, or, if powerful,\nwith several, whom he jealously guarded against all other Men. Or he\nmay not have been a social animal[1] and yet have lived with several\nwives like the Gorilla--for all the natives agree that but one adult\nmale is seen in a band; when the young male grows up, a contest takes\nplace for the mastery, and the strongest, by killing or driving out\nthe others, establishes himself as head of the Community.\n\n\u2018Younger males, being thus expelled and wandering about, would, when at\nlast successful in finding a partner, prevent too close interbreeding\nwithin the limits of the same family.\u2019[2]\n\nMr. Darwin, in the foregoing sentences, affirms the improbability of\nPromiscuity in the Sexual Relations of Man during the Animal Stage,\nand, incidentally, the Unity of the Human Race in its origin. Both\ntheories are contested. The following thesis, however, on the Genesis\nof Primal Law in Human Marriage, treats of a _conjectural_ series\nof events in the Ascent of Man, events which involve a state of the\ninter-sexual relationships amidst our primitive ancestors identical\nwith that portrayed in the _Descent of Man_. My essay includes further,\nas regards the continued evolution of society, the development of a\ntheory, based on my \u2018Primal Law,\u2019 which, if correct, would seem also to\nconfirm Mr. Darwin\u2019s ideas as to Unity of Origin.\n\nI am content, for my part, to hope that my hypothesis, however novel\nsome of its conclusions, is in its general tenor in accord with the\nviews of so great a naturalist as Mr. Darwin. His exposition of the\nprobable relations, within the family group, of the male and female\nprototypes of mankind, and more especially of the antagonistic\nattitude, inter se, of the older and younger males, is indeed literally\nprophetic of the Primal Law, whose existence I surmise. This law is\nthe inevitable corollary of Mr. Darwin\u2019s statement, if Man was ever to\nemerge from the Brute. My theory, in fact, viewed as to its genesis,\nis simply evolved from a consideration of the potential results of the\nattitude of such creatures as our ancestors then were, when subjected\nto the effects of those changes of environment, which alone, to my\ndeeming, could have fixed modifications towards the human type. Mr.\nDarwin\u2019s premises, indeed, as to the Early Social economy of our Race\nin the animal stage, inevitably entail, if progress was to be made,\nthe evolution of law in regulation of Marriage relationship, having\nregard to the fierce sexual jealousy of the males, on the one hand, and\non the other to the patent truth that in the peaceful aggregation of\nour ancestors alone lay the germ of Society.\n\nThis would above all be the case if, reasoning by analogy, we\nprovisionally accept, as the probable nearest approach to man\u2019s\ndirect ancestors, the actual Anthropoids. These, such as the Gorilla,\nare undoubtedly amongst the most unsocial of animals as regards the\nattitude of the adult males _inter se_. From the very difficulty of\nthe problem of the congregation of such creatures in friendly unison\nwithin the group, we may infer that, in its solution, there will be\nfound the key to the whole question of the Ascent from Brute to Man.\nIn that ascent, Habit, the parent of Law, must have been conquered,\nand modified into the direction of novel Custom, a shock to the older\neconomy of life. Again, the new rule of conduct, necessarily inchoate\n(considering the presumed feeble intellectuality of the creatures\nconcerned, animals more or less brutish) must yet be of facile\ninterpretation to its subjects, though, as befits _Homo alalus_, it\nmust have been quite mute in operation. The new Rule of Conduct would\nnot be expressed in terms of speech, a function, _ex hypothesi_ not\nyet evolved. The rule, as it was to my mind, I here propose to attempt\nto unfold as the \u2018Primal Law;\u2019 hoping to show that therein lay the\nbeginning of law and order, and that, whilst itself arising in a\nnatural manner, in its incidental creation of a first standard of a\npossible right and wrong, it laid, so to speak, one of the foundations\nof that moral sense, which has seemed to place so wide a space between\nman and other creatures.\n\nThe prior existence of this law, in the semi-brutish stage of our\nphysical and ethical evolution, might have been deductively evolved,\neven if no traces of it had remained to our day. It will be, however,\nmy endeavour to point out that evidence of its existence (abundant\nas it appears to me) is to be found in certain obscure customs which\nare common to most actual savage races. The customs of so-called\n\u2018avoidance\u2019 between near relations will have the principal interest\nfor us, although primitive marriage and inheritance will be found of\ncorroborative value. Survivals and myths can be shown to point to the\nundeniable occurrence of this \u2018Primal Law\u2019 in the earlier life-history\nof the non-civilised peoples. The myths, however, may be merely early\nguesses about the unknown past of the race.\n\nAmongst marriage customs that which has given rise to most discussion\nas regards its origin is \u2018Exogamy\u2019 or marriage outside the family\ngroup, or outside the limit of the totem name. My general argument, as\nwill be seen, places me in antagonism with all theories yet advanced\non the subject. But Mr. Lang, in _Custom and Myth_, 1884 (p. 258),\nhazards, as his own impression, a conception of this matter which I\nwill note--namely, that \u2018Exogamy, may be connected with some early\nidea of which we have lost touch,\u2019 and he adds, \u2018If we only knew the\norigin of the prohibition to marry within the _family_[3] all would be\nplain sailing.\u2019 However utterly beyond human ken, in these our latter\ndays, any truthful image of so remote a past may seem to be, it is\nyet precisely this hypothetic early idea which I hope to be able to\nexpose. (If I am correct, we shall find that it was connected with\nthe sexual relations of primitive man, _whilst in the animal stage_,\nand especially with the mutual marital rights of the males within\na group.) Such idea in travail, hastened and sharpened by needs of\nenvironment, created issues which necessarily gave birth to a \u2018Primal\nLaw\u2019 prohibitory of marriage between certain members of a family or\nlocal group, and thus, in natural sequence, led to _forced_ connubial\nunion _beyond_ its circle the family, or local group--that is, led to\nExogamy. But if such was in reality the original order of succession\nin the growth of custom, it becomes evident that Exogamy as a _habit_\n(not as an expressed law) must have been of primordial evolution.\nThus (in contra-distinction to generally received opinion and to\nMr. McLennan\u2019s theory in particular) Exogamy must have been a cause\nrather than an effect in relation to its ordinary concomitants, i.e.\nFemale Infanticide as a custom, Polyandry as a fixed institution, and\nTotemism as connected with exogamous groups, within which marriage was\nforbidden. As thus my new hypothesis finds itself in opposition to\nthose of recognised authorities, it is evident that it will require to\naccount for all the facts if it is to hold its ground.\n\nHowever convinced the author may be by the array of seemingly\nconfirmatory details in favour of his hypothesis, it is possible that\nfrom their paucity they may yet to others seem to constitute but a\nfeeble line of defensive proof. But if the theory shall prove in itself\nto have merit, this defect (arising, as I believe, from lack of general\nanthropological knowledge on my part, for I dwell \u2018far from books\u2019)\nwill quickly be remedied, for a hundred other details in favour of my\nview will be at once perceived by more experienced students. Should my\nhypothesis really furnish the clue to the problem of the prohibition\nto marry within the family name, or totem name, all the rest will\ndoubtless become \u2018plain sailing\u2019 in competent hands.\n\nIn any case before my conjecture is definitely laid aside as\nerroneous, it may, let us hope, be considered desirable to await\nfuller evidence as to the extent of the operation, in actual savage\nlife, of that particular custom of \u2018Avoidance\u2019 which I consider, in\nits inception, and as the earliest law, to have been a \u2018vera causa\u2019\nof widest operation in primitive social evolution. \u2018Avoidance\u2019 is,\nhowever, to-day, a mere faint image of a remote past, and its genetic\nsignificance has utterly faded from among even those people who yet,\nwith strange conservatism, still blindly yield an everyday obedience to\nit, in form at least. Belonging to a class of savage habits presenting\nfeatures so extraordinary, \u2018Avoidance between brother and sister\u2019\nhas ever been a puzzle to inquirers. This Avoidance is only the most\nobscure of all the numerous cases of the strange habit, but it is also\nthat which, up to the present, seems least to have attracted the\nnotice of anthropologists. In this class of custom, the Avoidance of\nwhich most frequent mention has been made in literature, is avoidance\nbetween mother-in-law and son-in-law, whereas that between brother and\nsister is to my knowledge but rarely mentioned.[4] And yet, as far\nas my own experience goes (and it extends over more than a quarter\nof a century among primitive peoples in the South Seas), Avoidance\nof brother and sister is not only as common as, but infinitely more\nstrict and severe in action than, the Avoidance of \u2018Mothers-in-law.\u2019\nIt is indeed probable that the very severity of observance has led to\nits being so little noticed. For by the action of this law, a brother\nand a sister, after childhood, are kept so far apart from one another,\nthat only those who have actually lived long amidst natives can be\nexpected to have had a chance of being aware of the restraints to\nintercourse between them. Even then it would be from some such casual\noccurrence as the accidental rencontre of the two, placing them thus\nin sudden and unavoidable proximity to each other, which would lead to\nan observation, by an European, of their extraordinary attitude and\nbehaviour under such circumstances.\n\nMy own attention was primarily only drawn to this matter by noting\nthe grave scandal and excitement caused in a native community by the\nmomentary isolation, in a canoe, of a brother and sister. The affair\nbecame so very serious for the brother that he disappeared from the\ntribe for over a year. Indeed, the rigorous severity of this particular\nlaw in daily action is almost incredible. In New Caledonia, for\ninstance, all intercourse between a brother and sister by speech or\nsign is absolutely prohibited from a very early age. Whilst the girl\nwill remain in the paternal home, the boy, at the age of seven or eight\n(when not, as is usual, adopted by the maternal uncle), only comes\nthere for his meals, partaken again solely with the other males.[5]\nHe dwells until married in the large general bachelors\u2019 hut, set\napart for youths in all villages. Even after marriage, if brother and\nsister have to communicate with each other on family matters, such\ncommunication must be made through the intermediary of a third person,\nnor can the sister enter the brother\u2019s hut even after his marriage,\ndespite the presence of her sister-in-law therein. If the two should\nunexpectedly meet in some narrow path, the girl will throw herself\nface downwards into the nearest bush, whilst the boy will pass without\nturning his head, and as if unaware of her presence.\n\nThey cannot mention each other\u2019s names, and if the sister\u2019s name is\nmentioned publicly before the brother, he will show much embarrassment,\nand if it is repeated he will retire precipitately. She can eat\nnothing he has carried or cooked. Whilst, then, such propinquity as is\nimplied in the mutual habitation of the same hut by these two would be\nscandalously impossible, it is not uncommon to find a mother-in-law\nand son-in-law, whilst in Avoidance, living under the same roof. It\nis obvious that in the latter case each detail of \u2018Avoidance\u2019 in act\nor speech would be easily remarked by Europeans, whereas no chance of\nsuch observation between the adult brother and sister could possibly\narise, they being kept, as we see, so utterly apart. It is to be noted,\nhowever, that the seemingly instinctive natural affection between two\nso nearly related is not quenched by these strange restraints. They\nremain interested in each other\u2019s welfare, and in cases of sickness,\nfor instance, keep themselves informed of each other\u2019s condition\nthrough third persons. So great, however, is the depth in action (on\nthese lines) of the feeling of avoidance in this matter, that I am\nconvinced that the infanticide of twins, which only takes place in New\nCaledonia when the children are of different sexes, arises from the\nidea of a too close propinquity in the womb. Further evidence as to\nthe very widespread existence of this custom in the South Seas I will\nleave to a later stage, only noting here that I have been astonished to\nfind, in answer to inquiries, that it is well recognised amongst the\naborigines, of Australia.\n\n[Mr. Atkinson has left a blank space for an expected communication\nfrom the late Mr. Curr. On \u2018Avoidance\u2019 in Australia, between brother\nand sister, Messrs Spencer and Gillen write: \u2018A curious custom exists\nwith regard to the mutual behaviour of elder and younger sisters and\ntheir brothers. A man may speak freely to his elder sisters in blood,\nbut those who are tribal _Ungaraitcha_ must only be spoken to at a\nconsiderable distance. To younger sisters, blood and tribal, he may\nnot speak, or, at least, only at such a distance that the features\nare indistinguishable.... We cannot discover any explanation of this\nrestriction in regard to the younger sister; it can hardly be supposed\nthat it has anything to do with the dread of anything like incest,\nelse why is there not as strong a restriction in the case of the elder\nsisters?[6]\n\nNow the occurrence of this particular habit amidst a race of nomad\nhunters, forced by the exigencies of the chase to wander about in\nisolated groups, composed for the most part of single families, and\nwhere the separation of the sexes cannot possibly be arranged, as\nwith the hut and village dwelling Caledonians, is a most remarkable\nfact. When we take into consideration the disturbing effects of such\nan avoidance in the internal economy of such a family circle, the\nsignificance of the circumstance is great as regards our general\nargument. It becomes, indeed, evident that the fundamental cause of the\ncustom involving this daily and hourly dislocation of domestic life,\nmust lie very deep in savage society. If, however, our theory as to the\nidea which dominated the inception of this strange habit shall turn\nout to be correct, then it will be seen that no surprise need be felt,\nif the genesis of this rule should prove to be in the animal stage,\nthat traces of the superstructure should exist to our day. Now that\nattention will perhaps be more closely drawn to this, till recently the\nleast observed of the cases of Avoidance, I feel sure that proof of its\nexistence will be found in abundance in the present or past of all\nprimitive peoples.[7] In view of its unexpectedly wide dissemination\nin Australia, hope may be felt that research will find it as a working\nfactor in many peoples where its presence has been least expected, and\nnot only in Australasia. It is possible that a stricter examination of\nthe inner life of lower races in Africa and Asia will allow a perfectly\nlegitimate inference that they are still under the influence of its\neffect, although the custom itself may be no longer in actual force. It\nis also possible, as I have said, that Survivals and Myths may point\nconclusively to its having had its day amongst the highest nations,\nwith whom all traditions of it have been lost before the dawn of\nhistory. [Rather the reverse is the case; see the marriage of Zeus and\nHera, brother and sister, and of the Incas, &c.--A. L.]\n\nIn many cases philological evidence based on the derivation of the\nroot syllable of the word \u2018sister, a word which in the tongues of\npeoples still obedient to this law is from a root implying \u2018Avoidance,\u2019\nmay afford affirmative proof, as circumstantial as unexpected, that\nthis custom was once as universal as my theory would require.\u2019[8] If\ndifficulty is felt in the acceptation of an hypothesis of such wide\nsignificance, simply based on an obscure lower custom so little noted\nin anthropological literature as to permit doubts of its existence,\nI can only repeat that a cognisance of the traits of this particular\nhabit of avoidance and its effect as a factor in savage life demands\nsuch conditions of residence and chances of observation, as can fall to\nthe lot of few. I may add that it is one of the very first customs to\ndisappear after contact with whites, especially missionaries, being,\nas it is, in such extreme divergence with the economy of the European\nfamily, in regard to the mutual attitude of brother and sister.\n\nIt is more than a quarter of a century since the author had his\nattention first drawn to the practice. The evolution of the idea\nof its possible identity with the Primal Law has led to a continued\nand close observation; he is thus able to certify as to its rapid\ndisappearance. Brother and sister avoidance was at that time, thirty\nyears ago, quite universal in New Caledonia; now in many places it is\nunknown, even as a tradition, among the younger aborigines. In view\nof the probability of a similar oblivion among other peoples, the\nimmediate collection of evidence is urgent, and further delay seems\ndangerous and even culpable.\n\nThus, however much to the present advantage of the theory as regards\nthe custom it would have been to cull larger proofs from that vast\nfield of literature only to be procured in older lands, it has seemed\ndesirable to make this thesis public without further delay. As we have\nsaid, if the theory is correct, wider students will bring forward\ncogent facts in further proof from existing knowledge, whilst continued\nresearch should afford evidence so complete of the widespread existence\nof the custom in the present and past of the human race, as to render\nmy speculation as to its origin less seemingly illegitimate.[9]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Mr. Atkinson\u2019s theory is based on the idea that our\nsupposed anthropoid ancestor was eminently unsocial.--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Darwin, _Descent of Man_, ii. 361-363 (1871).]\n\n[Footnote 3: I ought to have said \u2018within the community, whether local\nor of recognised kindred, indicated by the totem name.\u2019--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 4: This was written before the appearance of Mr. Crawley\u2019s\n_Mystic Rose_ (1902).]\n\n[Footnote 5: Cf. V. de Rochas, _La Nouvelle-Cal\u00e9donie_, p. 239;\nCrawley, _Mystic Rose_, p. 217.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, pp. 88, 89.--A. L..]\n\n[Footnote 7: Mr. Atkinson\u2019s forecast was correct. Brother and sister\navoidance is very widely diffused.--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 8: The author does not give examples of words for \u2018sister\u2019\nimplying avoidance. But we elsewhere show that in Lifu (Melanesia) the\nword for \u2018sister\u2019 means \u2018not to be touched.\u2019--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Other speculations have now been advanced, especially by\nMr. Crawley.--A. L.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nSEXUAL RELATIONS OF ANIMALS\n\n\nBrother and Sister Avoidance, a partial usage among the higher\nmammals.--Males\u2019 attitude to females in a group dominated by a single\nmale head.--Band of exiled young males.--Their relations to the sire.\n--Examples in cattle and horses--In game-fowl.--Strict localisation\nof animals.--Exiled young males hover on the fringe of the parent\ngroup.--Parricide.\n\n\nAnother difficulty in connection with the evolution of the so-called\nPrimal Law of Avoidance between brother and sister from that early\nidea which we will presently disclose, seems to lie in the fact that\nif, as we uphold, such law was the first factor in the ascent of\nman, it must have taken its rise whilst he was still some ape-like\ncreature. It remains, however, to be shown from its peculiar form\nthat in its primitive application, the law would not have required\nfor its intelligence greater mental power than is possessed by\nactual anthropoids. The law may indeed be said to be practically an\ninchoate fact, an actual if partial usage, for the regulation of the\nintersexual relations among most of the higher mammals. It could, at\nany rate, have come into full intelligent application as a well-defined\nsocial institution, in the actual sense of the term, whilst the\nanthropomorphic progenitor of man was still so little removed from the\nape that\n\n    His speech was yet as halting as his gait,\n    Only less brutish than his moral state.\n\nBriefly, the law of Avoidance concerns (more particularly) the relation\n\u2018inter se,\u2019 from a sexual point of view, of the male and female\noffspring of any given parents. In other words it determines the\nmutual attitude to the females within a (single) family group dominated\nby a male head.\n\nBefore, however, entering into the argument in this connection, it\nwill be desirable to make a paraphrase on Mr. Darwin\u2019s dictum as to\nthe social condition of man in the animal stage in general, and more\nparticularly in regard to his intermarital relations, and to compare\nthis with that of actual mammals. It is to be noted that he does not\npronounce definitely as to whether, in the era of pure animalism, the\noriginal type of man\u2019s ancestor was social or non-social in habit. But\nwe may judge from the extract already made from the _Descent of Man_\nthat Darwin evidently inclines to the opinion that, even primitively,\nhe was a social animal, as seemingly more in accord with the present\neminently social conditions.\n\nThe very significant counter-fact, however, remains, that none of the\nactual anthropoids, as far as regards the adult males, are in any way\nsocial or even gregarious; the conclusion thus seems evident that,\nlike these his nearest compeers of to-day, man was on the contrary\na non-social animal, and that, as with the gorilla, only one grown\nmale would have been seen in a band. We must then imagine our more or\nless human ancestor, roaming the forest in search of daily food, as a\nsolitary polygamous male, with wife or wives and female children; the\nunsocial head of a _solitary_ isolated group.\n\nWith equal strength and probably already greater cunning than any\n_actual_ animal of to-day, he had perhaps acquired dominance over most\nof the other beasts of the field. The patriarch had only one enemy whom\nhe should dread, an enemy with each coming year more and more to be\nfeared--deadly rivals of his very own flesh and blood, and the fruit\nof his loins--namely, that neighbouring group of young males exiled\nby sexual jealousy from his own and similar family groups--a youthful\nband of brothers living together in forced celibacy, or at most in\npolyandrous relation with some single female captive.[1] A horde as yet\nweak in their impubescence, they are, but they would, when strength\nwas gained with time, inevitably wrench by combined attacks, renewed\nagain and again, both wife and life from the paternal tyrant. But they\nthemselves, after brief communistic enjoyment, would be segregated\nanew by the fierce fire of sexual jealousy, each survivor of the\nslaughter relapsing into lonely sovereignty, the head of the typical\ngroup with its characteristic feature of a single adult male member in\nantagonism with every other adult male. Now it can be shown that this\nvicious circle of the stream of social life is common to most mammals.\nThe facts of the circumstance can be most easily observed amidst the\nhalf-wild, half-domesticated animals met with in colonial farming\nexperience, in New Caledonia, for instance, where European horses and\ncattle have been allowed to return almost to a state of nature.\n\nIn this respect the economy of life in a herd of even such gregarious\ncreatures as the bovine race, is a very curious and instructive study.\nThere is no fact more striking than the subordination in which the\nyounger bulls are kept; as long as they are at all tolerated in the\nherd by its patriarch, their intercourse with the females is most\nlimited, and only takes place by stealth and at the risk of life and\nlimb.\n\nNothing, as breeders are aware, is so fatal to the well-being of a\nherd, or leads so quickly to degeneration, as the perpetuation of\nthe race by immature males. That procreation should be the act of\nthe robust adult alone, is evidently an axiom with nature herself\nin successful production; it is doubtless of the highest importance\nto keep up the normal standard of strength and size. As a fact, the\npresence of the immature male among a herd of cattle is only permitted\nwhilst he is still quite impubescent. Then banishment by the master of\nthe herd is inevitable at a later stage. These exiles, although thus\napart from the main herd, remain in touch with it, so to speak, and\nwe find in consequence, in continual proximity of the troop of the\npatriarch and his females, a small band of males, which, as is evident\nfrom their colour and general physical resemblance, are its direct\nproduct. The relations between this mob and the old male are always\nstrained, the latter has constantly to be on the watch to _shield his\nmarital rights_.\n\nFor long the mere menace of his presence suffices for such protection,\nbut with age--the young bulls becoming more bold--struggles take place\nwhich sooner or later, from mere force of numbers, end in the rout or\ndeath of the parent. We may here cite the mention made by Mr. Darwin[2]\nof Lord Tankerville\u2019s account of the battles of the wild bulls in\nChillingham Park: \u2018In 1861 several contended for mastery, and it was\nobserved that two of the younger bulls attacked in concert the old\nleader of the herd, overthrew and disabled him, so that he was believed\nby the keepers to be lying mortally wounded in a neighbouring wood.\nBut a few days afterwards one of the young bulls approached the wood\nalone, and then the monarch of the chase, who had been lashing himself\nup for vengeance, came out and in a short time killed his antagonist.\nHe then quietly joined the herd, and long held undisputed sway.\u2019 I may\nadd from my own observation among half-wild herds in the colonies, that\noften when the old patriarch is not absolutely killed in such cases, he\nis forced to quit the herd. He then becomes a solitary exile, always\nexceptionally savage and dangerous to approach or molest. It seems to\nme probable that we have here an explanation of the occurrence of the\nexistence of the well-known \u2018rogue\u2019 elephant, which is always a male\nand notoriously dangerous.\n\nOne important fact must here, however, be noted; that before such death\nor exile takes place, and the sons reach an age which enables them\nsuccessfully to dispute the supremacy of the father, the daughters have\nreached puberty and borne produce to the sire--this matter, as will be\nseen later, has an important bearing on our general argument--on our\ntheory of Primal Law. Amongst horses, again, which have become wild,\nexactly the same facts are to be observed. Each herd has one head, and\nthis, as natural selection would imply, is the most powerful stallion;\nhe is the master and owner of the females, and this mastery he retains\nuntil overpowered by other males, which, as before, are almost\ninvariably his own progeny. In fact, any strange male would probably\nhave first to run the gauntlet of this outlying herd of exiled sons\nbefore he could reach the father. It is, however, again to be noted\nthat he is rarely thus overpowered by even the combined efforts of his\nsons, before his daughters have reached such an age as to have produced\noffspring to their father.\n\nThis system of sequence of generations in breeding is, indeed, so\nuniversal in a state of nature amongst all animals, as to seem to point\nto the fact that in-breeding between father and daughter cannot be so\nprejudicial as some believe. Its efficacy in type-fixing is at least\nvery great, if, as experiments of my own in pig-breeding on these\nlines would lead me to think, the question of prepotency is merely a\nmatter of such close in-breeding repeated for generations. We may note\nhere that if, as is probable, the produce, on the contrary, of a full\nbrother and sister are degenerate, nature seems to attempt to prevent\nits occurrence. On the succession of the sons to the father\u2019s rights,\nspeedy conflicts from sexual jealousy arise amidst the former and lead\nto a rapid segregation of the herd, in which the chances of own brother\nand sister continuing to mate are slight. Until this segregration,\nhowever, does take place, nothing is more curious to watch than the\nattitude and relations of these young males among themselves, the\noldest and strongest claiming prior marital rights, but no more.\n\nThe same phenomena in social economy may be observed with even greater\nintensity in lower ranks of life than the quadrupeds. For instance,\nin a large flock of game fowl which I had an opportunity to observe\nclosely for several years, during which they had nearly relapsed into a\nstate of nature, there was an exact reproduction of all these details.\nThere existed the same division into small family groups, each headed\nby an adult male, the same subordination imposed on the junior males of\ntheir banishment at puberty, as also their inevitable combined attack,\nwhen sufficiently powerful, on their paternal enemy. His death resulted\nin the same communistic assumption of his rights, with a subsequent\ndisruption, from jealousy, into the typical smaller and separate groups.\n\nWe thus find an identical condition of the sexual relations between\nthe females of a group and its older and younger male members to be\ncommon in the animal world--the domination, in fact, of an idea that\nmight, in the person of the senior male, confers marital rights over\nthe female members of the family, and an inchoate rule of action\nresulting therefrom; which bars from the enjoyment of such right each\njunior male. To hold that man, whilst in the animal stage, should\nform an exception to the general rule seems unreasonable. If, as we\nare inclined to believe, he was originally a quite non-social animal,\nthe fact becomes more possible still that, as with modern types of\nanthropoid apes, each adult as head of a group was at feud with every\nother. As regards the social evolution, it would indeed seem most\nnatural that, as Mr. Darwin conceived, the first step in progress\nshould have been taken by animals already united gregariously, and thus\nalready imbued with some social feelings. Strange to say, the path in\nadvance which the ancestor of man, in the light of our hypothesis, was\ndestined to follow, disclosed itself as an indirect consequence of the\nvery intensity of his non-social characteristic. In fact, as I fancy\nmil become evident in the development of our argument, the only line\nof progress open to man was one inaccessible to animals of gregarious\nhabits, judging by the economy of life in a troop of mandrills or\nbaboons.\n\nHaving ventured to differ from the great naturalist on this point, I\nwould with deference take exception to his further statement--\u2018That the\nyounger males, being thus expelled and wandering about, would, when at\nlast successful in finding a partner, prevent too close inter-breeding\nwithin the limits of the same family.\u2019 This, if I understand it\nrightly, would convey the idea that this youthful band quitted the\nscene of their birth, and deserted entirely their original habitat\nin the forest. I cannot help considering it an error to imagine that\nsuch wanderings could thus be without bounds. Nothing seems to me more\nremarkable and irrevocable in savage Nature than the rigid localisation\nof all living things in her realm. No fish in the sea, no bird in the\nair, but has its local habitation, which only becomes free to the\nstranger on the death of the occupant.[3] No corner on earth but seems\nto hold its lawful tenant, and the bounds thereof are defined within\nrigid limits. Within, there is safety, with a sense of ownership;\nwithout, is the great unknown, possessed by others, fiercely ready\nto defend their rights, and threaten every danger and death to the\nstranger intruder--unless quite otherwise formidable than adolescent\nyouth.\n\nIt is thus probable, in fact, that in common with the lower animals,\nthe band of exiled young males of our anthropoid ancestor haunted the\nneighbourhood of the parent herd, remaining thus on familiar ground,\nand in hearing of friendly voices. For we must remember that their\nfeud was only with the paternal parent. In the magic alembic of time\nthe constantly increasing shadow of their presence would take sudden\ndreadful form, but in parricidal crime alone. The _sequel in disastrous\nincest, which Mr. Darwin would here conjecture at, Nature alone has\never been impotent to deal with_. The problem of an effectual bar to\nundesirable union between brother and sister was solved by man alone,\nand in the Primal Law. An effort of his embryonic intellect, thus early\ndefiant of Nature, the law placed ethically, for once and for ever, a\ndistinction between him and every other creature.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Why \u2018single?--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Descent of Man_, p. 501.]\n\n[Footnote 3: This fact is well known to anglers for trout.--A. L.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nMAN VARYING FROM ANIMALS\n\n\nEffect of the absence of a special pairing season on nascent\nman.--Consequent state of ceaseless war between sire and young\nmales.--Man already more than an ape.--Results of his prolonged infancy\nand of maternal love.--A young male permitted to live in the parent\ngroup.--Conditions in which this novelty arose.\n\n\nIn common, then, with their nearest congeners of to-day, we have\nfound each male head of a group of our anthropoid ancestors in direct\nantagonism with every other male, and a consequent disruption of the\nfamily at each encounter with a superior force. This disruption, in its\neffects on a species of non-gregarious habits, would result not only in\nthe dispersal of its members, but in the destruction of what material\nprogress in the accumulation of property might have accrued. As this\nwould have included all germs of mechanical discovery, again doubtless\ndue solely to the superior constructive faculties of the male, it is\nevident that advance in a race thus socially constituted was quite\nimpossible.\n\nNow this antagonism of male with male, with all its retrograde\nconsequences, a struggle fierce enough in all animals, had a more\nintense effect on nascent man than on any other creature that had ever\nexisted. An added force was caused by the disappearance in the nascent\nhuman species of that season of physical and mental repose, granted\nby Nature to the rest of creation, when not actually in the moment\nor season of rut. This ever-recurring but limited period, ordinarily\nappearing for a certain fixed epoch in each year, by the exigencies\nof supply and demand in the necessarily abundant food required for\nnursing mothers, had lost its date-fixing power with this new\ncreation--Man. With the very first steps in progress would come his\nadaptation to a more or less omnivorous and consequently more regular\ndiet. The consequent modification would be profound in the matter of\nsexual habit and appetite. Man needed no longer to put limits to the\nseason of love and desire.[1] This was a crime against Nature, new in\nthe history of the world, a crime which Nature would probably have\navenged by race-deterioration or extermination, if the germs of mental\npower had not been already strong enough to lift him, Man, to be, of\nall creatures, almost completely beyond the influence of environment,\nthence of Nature herself.\n\nThe intensity of the evil led to its cure. In a state of society where\nliterally every male creature\u2019s hand was against the other, and life\none continual uproar from their contending strife; where not only was\nthere no instant\u2019s truce in the war-fare, but each blow dealt was\nemphasised (fatally) by the intellectual finesse which now directed it,\nit became a question of forced advance in progress or straight retreat\nin annihilation as a species. However difficult it may be to imagine\nby what path such a creature was ever to emerge from the materialistic\nlabyrinth in which we thus find him involved, it is sure that he\nneither could nor did remain there. A forward step was somehow taken,\nsome road out of the maze was somehow found.\n\nIt remains for us to trace, by what dim light of custom and tradition\nwe may, the faint trail of those momentous footprints, which, however\nlame and halting, took the strait and difficult way to a higher life.\nWe may expect to find, as is but natural, that the path was one before\nuntrodden. As man followed it, at first unconsciously, from the\nshoulders of this new pilgrim, predestined to worthier burdens, would\nfall some of the heavy load of the mere animal nature.\n\nThere was now, in fact, to be a break in the economy of animal nature,\nas regards that vicious circle, where we found an ever-recurring\nviolent succession to the solitary paternal tyrant, by sons whose\nparricidal hands were so soon again clenched in fratricidal strife.\nIn the dawn of peace between this father and son we shall find the\nsignpost to the new highway.\n\nBefore going further, we may here state our assumption that, when our\nancestor had arrived at this crisis in his life, a crisis involving\nthe vast psychological step in advance implied in the development of\nsociety, and the intelligence necessary for the evolution of the law\nin its regulation, he was already somewhat more than ape. The animal\nstage as forming part of the ladder of ascent from brute to man would\nbe marked by degrees of progression, each a step further removed from\nthe original type. These very earliest steps we indeed propose to\nexamine later in detail, for the present we will suppose they have\nbeen taken, and that the influence of environment, under certain\nhypothetic conditions, to be also detailed hereafter, has fostered\nphysical modifications towards the human type such as we found in the\nmatter of rut. But in nature the relation is very close between the\nphysical and the mental qualities. The advance in one would possibly\nlead to a corresponding development of the other. Each is the necessary\ncomplement of each. For instance, as Mr. Darwin has pointed out, while\nthe lower extremities become more and more used for progression alone,\nso the upper, thus left free, would be specialised as prehensile\norgans, so becoming both valet and tutor to the nascent brain. To push\nour metaphor to an extreme, we may say that when Homo Alalus trod\nthe new path, it was already as a biped in an upright attitude, thus\nleaving at least his hand free to point it out to others, for as yet\nhis tongue, at least by the hypothesis, was inarticulate.\n\nOur line of research as regards the new departure was at once narrowed\nwhen we indicated that it ended in the peaceful conjunction of father\nand son. Our path will lie in the examination of the question as to\nwhat possible series of natural circumstances, in the domestic life of\nthe race, could lead to such conjunction, and what law in such an age\ncould suffice for regulation of such association if formed. We shall\nhave to examine more closely (as far as our imagination will aid us)\nthe exact conditions of the family life of the semi-human group which\nwe have supposed typical in that era, i.e. the small isolated band of\nanthropoids, composed of a single polygamous adult male with dependent\nwives and offspring. His possible relations with these, especially his\nattitude towards his male children, will interest us. Therein should\ncertainly be found the desired series of circumstances entailing a\ncritical situation, whose happy resolution shall furnish the clue to\nthe problem of that possible aggregation on which all future progress\ndepends. However strange it may appear, it will be found, as we have\nalready said, that the abnormal conditions imposed by the unnatural\nmodifications of the sexual functions have served as a means to the end\nof advance in progress. And as, by their action in the past, anthropoid\nman had become the most sexually jealous and intractable of all\ncreatures, so it may be expected that the series of causes which shall\nhave for effect the restraint of such excess of passion, will possess\nfurther vast potentiality of action. Such latency in potentiality is\nevidently indispensable when we consider that there is here concerned\nthe evolution of law in opposition to nature, and its triumph for all\ntime over the mere brute.\n\nBut first as regards the fact of the association of adult males on\nfriendly terms within the group, which fact has seemed to us to\nconstitute the whole problem of progress, it would on a hasty view\nappear as if it had been already found in the band of exiled sons\nwhich we have seen haunting the parent horde. Here we meet with that\naggregation of individuals whose combination in peaceful union should\napparently be the result of some law in regulation. This idea would\neven seem to gain support from the fact that all the members being\nbrothers, and living most probably in a state of polyandry, we here\nappear to find fulfilled exactly those genetic conditions of primitive\nmarriage imperative according to Mr. McLennan\u2019s theory of the origin\nof society. It will not, however, be difficult to prove that, at\nleast at this stage in evolution, such a group would lack the most\nessential elements of stability. Their unity, in fact, as has been\nalready pointed out, could only endure as long as the youthfulness of\nthe members necessitated union for protection, and their immaturity\nprevented the full play of the sexual passion. The horde would\ninevitably dissolve under the influence of jealousy at the adult stage,\nespecially if, as is probable, the number of their female captives had\nincreased with the gain in years and power. The necessary Primal Law\nwhich alone could determine peace within a family circle by recognising\na _distinction between female and female_ (the indispensable antecedent\nto a definition of marital rights) could never have arisen in such a\nbody. It follows that if such law was ever evoked, it must have been\nfrom within the only other assembly in existence, viz. that headed by\nthe solitary polygamous patriarch, \u2018the Cyclopean family.\u2019\n\nWe have said that this family would be composed of the male head and\nhis wives, the latter consisting of captured females, and further, let\nus note, of his own adult female offspring, accompanied by a troop\nof infants of both sexes. The absence of male offspring beyond those\nof tender years would be another most notable phenomenon. These sons\nwould, as we have seen, have been banished at puberty from the herd, in\ncommon with the habit of most animals.\n\nNow we have surmised that at this stage our subject has been modified,\nboth physically and mentally, to a certain extent in approach to the\nhuman type, and there is precisely one special modification which would\nhave been of paramount importance in view of the problem of advance in\nprogress. For if we may thus infer a certain increase in the longevity\nof the nascent race at even so early a stage in evolution, then that\nevidently entails _a more prolonged infancy_. It follows that, however\nprecocious, the young males before exile must have passed at least nine\nto ten helpless years under their mother\u2019s care. But, again, the rise\nof superior intellectual faculties in general presupposes a decided\nincrease in the powers of memory, and this agent, in connection with\nthat of the longer companionship, would here set in movement, sooner or\nlater, a psychological factor of strangely magnified force as compared\nwith what it is in the mere brute--namely, human maternal love.\n\nSeparation, however caused, between this mother and her child would\nbe far more severely felt than by any other animal. At the renewed\nbanishment of each of her male progeny by the jealous patriarch, the\nmother\u2019s feelings and instinct would be increasingly lacerated and\noutraged. Her agonised efforts to retain at least her last and youngest\nwould be even stronger than with her first-born. It is exceedingly\nimportant to observe that her chances of success in this case would be\nmuch greater. When this last and dearest son approached adolescence,\nit is not difficult to perceive that the patriarch must have reached\nan age when the fire of desire may have become somewhat dull; whilst,\nagain, his harem, from the presence of numerous adult daughters, would\nbe increased to an extent that might have overtaxed his once more\nactive powers. Given some such rather exceptional situation, where a\nhappy opportunity in superlative mother love wrestled with a for once\nsatiated paternal appetite in desire, we may here discern a possible\nkey of the sociological problem which occupies us, and which consisted\nin a conjunction within one group of two adult males.\n\nWe must conceive that, in the march of the centuries, on some fateful\nday, the bloody tragedy in the last act of the familiar drama was\navoided, and the edict of exile or death left unpronounced. Pure\nmaternal love triumphed over the demons of lust and jealousy. A mother\nsucceeded in keeping by her side a male child, and thus, by a strange\ncoincidence, that father and son, who, amongst all mammals, had been\nthe most deadly of enemies, were now the first to join hands. So\nportentous an alliance might well bring the world to their feet. The\nfamily group would now present, for the first time, the till then\nunknown spectacle of the inclusion within a domestic circle, and amidst\nits component females, of an adolescent male youth. It must, however,\nbe admitted that such an event, at such an epoch, demanded imperatively\nvery exceptional qualities, both physiological and psychological, in\nthe primitive agents. The new happy ending to that old-world drama\nwhich had run for so long through blood and tears, was an innovation\nrequiring very unusually gifted actors. How many failures had doubtless\ntaken place in its rehearsal during the centuries, with less able or\nhappy interpreters! It is probable that, in the new experiment, success\nwas rendered possible by the rise of new powers in nascent man. Some\nfeeble germ of altruism may already have arisen to make its force felt\nas an important factor.\n\nIt is also certain that, with such prolonged infancy, there had been\nopportunity for the development of paternal philo-progenitiveness. It\nis evident that such long-continued presence of sons could but result\nin a certain mutual sympathy, however inevitable the eventual exile.\n\nThe love and care of a parent for his offspring is, after all,\nethically speaking, the normal condition. Habitual desertion at too\nearly an age would be fatal. Their dissociation, the abnormal and\nonly one, took place under the influence of the strongest passion in\nnature, again largely exaggerated in primitive man. But in such an era\npurely physical characteristics would undoubtedly have also a vast\ninfluence in the development of the incident we have tried to depict.\nThe fiercely solitary patriarch who first consented to the intrusive\npresence within his family circle of another adult male was, as I think\nwe can prove, a being of abnormal physical power as compared with his\nfellows. For we have assumed satiety in desire to have been a powerful\nfactor in the _innovatory_ struggle we have witnessed. But such satiety\nimplies extensive polygamy, and yet again a large harem composed\nexclusively of unwilling outside captives is incredible, escape for\nthem in the primeval forest being too facile. Thus the harem would\ncertainly be formed of the female offspring of the tyrant himself.\nThese alone would need no watch or guard, for them the unknown outside\nworld was hostile ground. But again very many adult daughters imply a\nfather stricken in years. That one of such advanced age, in an epoch\nwhen force was all in all, could, defiant of rivals, still retain\npossession of his female kind, presupposes vast enduring physical\npower, or at least the protective tradition of past exceptional\nstrength, still enduring in terror. If, again, at so early a date in\nthe history of man we may be permitted to surmise any development of\nthe faculty of psychogenesis, then we may again perceive how extreme\nphysical qualities might have facilitated the solution of the problem\nof the admission of the intrusive male. For it is credible that long\nundisputed supremacy of power as the result of personal vigour might,\nin its incredulous contempt of a possible rivalry, show a tolerance of\na situation utterly impossible to a weaker nature.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: See Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, ch. ii.,\n1891. The subject is obscure.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nEARLIEST EVOLUTION OF LAW\n\n\nTrace between semi-human sire and son.--Consequent distinction taken\nbetween female and female, as such--Consequent rise of habit of Brother\nand Sister Avoidance.--Result, son seeks female mate from without Note\nby the editor.\n\n\nIn what, then, we are willing to concede, must have been exceptional\ncircumstances, may thus have been taken that first step in progress\nwhich was to lead to such vast advance. In a development of the\n_social_ qualities depended the whole future of mankind, and here we\nseem to see their germ and birth.\n\nWhen, however, we affirm that the triumph of maternal love in the\ncontinued companionship of a male child, constituted the solution of\nthe social problem before us, we do not intend to convey the idea that\nit lay solely in the fact of a simple inclusion of male offspring\nwithin a group. Such a condition, however significant in the actual\ncase, has nothing in itself but what is common to the family economy\nof many animals. It is the normal one, for instance, among many\npithecoids, as baboons, &c., where we find the younger males still form\nan integral part of the horde, although denied all marital rights. But,\nhowever inexorable among such species the temporary separation from\nthe females during the actual season of rut, there is at other times\na propinquity in amity as members of the same herd, which lessened\ndoubtless the fierceness of the strife during the periodic play of\npassion, a truce in fact admitting of peace and alliance in offence and\ndefence during most of the year.\n\nWith our ancestors there could be no such healing pause, the unnatural\nsexual modification of the race had rendered it impossible. The\nnon-periodicity of the sexual function in rut would have made the\nwhole year, with two adult males in presence, an interval of trial\ninsupportable to the mere brute. With this race the banishment of the\nyouth would be for all time, and the loss would be not only that of\nan ally, each exile would become an active enemy. Now we have hinted\nthat the importance, in a potential sense, of a movement towards union,\nin such creatures, arose precisely from the fact that, on account of\nthe intensity of the relations between male and male, and especially\nbetween father and son, their amicable conjunction was only possible\nunder such exceptional conditions as would probably conduce to its\nstability whenever it did take place.\n\nIndeed such inchoate rule or habit, a corollary of the early idea, as\nreigns in regulation of marital rights among lower creatures, would\nnot be fully adequate for this higher creation. With lower creatures,\nmight alone confers rights, which feebler force ever seeks each chance\nto invade, all stratagems being legitimate as a means to that end.\nWith inchoate man such imperfect rule of action had become utterly\nimpossible. The greater endowment in memory and reason entailed a too\nfatally added hate on non-compliance. For inchoate men the requisite\nlaw required such further exactness in definition as should leave no\ndoubt of a meaning, not only to be understood, but to be accepted and\nobeyed unconditionally.\n\nFor between this father and son there was yet no real peace, only a\ntruce, and that enduring but so long as the latter respected those\nmarital rights of the former which we found extending over all that\nwas feminine in the horde. The intelligent acceptance by the intruding\njunior of the sole right of the senior to union with the females of a\ngroup, was its _sine qua non_, which the dawn of intellectuality in\nthe race as inevitably imposed as it happily permitted. Such a step\nin advance as a possible obedience, _ex animo_, to such a law would\nbe immense. Therefrom would issue the vital point of a conception of\nmoral reserves in marital rights as regards the other sex; the germ\nof a profound and fundamental difference between brute and man. For\nthe first time in the history of the world we encounter the factor\nwhich is to be the leading power in future social metamorphosis,\ni.e. _an explicit distinction between female and female, as such_.\nThe superlative fact, indeed, in relation to our general argument,\nappears--namely, that certain females are now to become sacred to\ncertain males, and that both (_nota bene_) are members of the same\nfamily circle.\n\nBut what shall be, in such an age, the notes of a law conveying this\nnoble sentiment of sanctity, which, disarming jealousy, could permit\npeace where before strife reigned? How give the outer expression of\nthe inner feeling, now aroused, of a change in the past intersexual\nattitude of certain group members? Whence borrow the eloquence which\nshall ordain rules in restriction of intercourse whilst yet, for\nHomo Alalus, they must needs be mute in expression.[1] In the primal\nlaw alone, as I hope in its portrayal to show, can each condition be\ncomprised and found as such. It will be marked and recognised by a\nphysical trait whose presence is as significant and imperative as it is\ncharacteristic of the epoch. For a sentiment of restraint in feeling,\nwhilst articulate speech was yet lacking, could only be expressed by\nrestrictive checks in act and deed, requiring mere visual perception\nfor interpretation--acts we may here note, which, as insulating the\nindividual, would also inevitably tend to consecration.\n\nNow we mentioned in our first chapter that, in connection with the\nprimal law, certain cases of so-called avoidance, and especially\nthat between near relatives, would have interest for us and probably\nafford aid in proof. We drew attention to the strange features\nmarking these customs, which had rendered their origin a source of\nwondering conjecture to all inquirers. It may be that precisely the\nactual anomalism of these characteristics may render them eloquent\nin our case. In view of our past argument, in very deed, nothing\nnow becomes insignificant in these quaint rules of non-propinquity\nbetween certain near relations; nothing inexpressive in the ordinance\nof non-recognition between individuals well known to each other;\nnothing not suggestive in the dread of mere contact between those whom\nnature would place closest together, no lack of import in the strange\ntaciturnity so incongruous with our garrulous later days of unloosed\ntongues. There is a possible vestige of a past era of dumb show in\ntheir eloquent muteness; of connection in their actual utter unreason\nwith a long dead past of all unfamiliar habits and manners. Further, is\nverily aught lacking, in these latter-day customs of avoidance, of the\nnecessarily archaic features of a possible primeval law? If these in\ntruth were still existent, would they not, with such traits in common,\nbe simply classed with those? Undoubtedly so, as it seems to me.\n\nNow in the course of our argument it has appeared that the inclusion\nof the son as the second adult male in a group would evolve, as the\nmost primitive rule of action, restriction of intercourse between\nits component females and the intruder. But in such a group, the\nformer would necessarily be to the latter in the relation of mother\nand sisters. Such restriction, again, taking the only possible form,\nwould be avoidance of these relations, and thus there is a concurrence\nin resemblance with that particular habit of avoidance on which we\nenlarged in our first pages, viz. that between brother and sister (and\nnow less strictly), between mother and son. Do we not thus seem to lay\na finger on an actual law, still an every-day working factor in savage\nlife, which is not only identical with, but is in very deed the primal\nlaw itself, in form at least? The acceptation of such intolerably\nirksome restraints as avoidance, in the daily economy of savage life,\nhas seemed forcibly to imply a fundamental cause of profound depth.\nThis cause now seems laid open to us. The unaccountable and seemingly\nunreasonable restrictions on intercourse which mark it thus betray\ntheir appropriate origin in a time of comparative unreason.\n\nThis then, the primal law--avoidance between a brother and sister--with\nappalling conservatism has descended through the ages (in conservance\nof form, if not of ultimate purpose). It ordained in the dawn of time\na barrier between mother and son, and brother and sister, and that\nordinance is still binding on all mankind [but in Egypt and Peru,\nfor example, the opposite of this rule, for special reasons, has\nprevailed]. Between these for ever, a bit was placed in the mouth of\ndesire, and chains on the feet of lust. Their mutual relationship is\none that has been held sacred from a sexual point of view, in most\nlater ages. It only remains for us to repeat that it follows that\nthis law, as applied in the group composed of a single family, is, as\nwe pointed out, the parent of exogamy; continuance within the group\nnecessarily and logically entailed marriage without; but, again as we\nsaid, it was itself the offspring of the early idea. For this idea,\nin its assumption that sovereignty in marital right was compatible\nwith solitude alone, was shaken to its depths when a second presence\nthreatened rivalry, and demanded remedy in the action of law, which it\nhas seemed to us could only take the form we have tried to portray[2]\nin the primal law.\n\nNOTE TO CHAPTER IV\n\nTo the Editor this theory seems worthy of the ingenuity of his old\nfriend and kinsman. Granting that early man was a speechless jealous\nbrute, dwelling in groups consisting of a patriarchal beast, and all\nthe females whom he could catch, and all the females whom he could\nbeget; granting that he drove all his adolescent sons out; and finally\n(under the circumstances described) kept one or a few sons at home, his\nrule would tabu all females of the group to these sons. Otherwise there\nwould be a fight.\n\nThe sons would have to bring in mates from without--the result is\nExogamy. But Mr. Atkinson does not observe the numerous tabus existing\namong savages, on ordinary (not sexual) intercourse between men and\nwomen; as if each individual, of each sex, was or might be dangerous to\neach individual of the other sex; _that_ is no idea of our speechless\nbrute ancestors, of Mr. Atkinson\u2019s hypothesis. These tabus do not\namount to absolute avoidance, but they do amount to very marked\nrestrictions; for example, on eating together, or sleeping under the\nsame roof, even where husbands and wives are concerned. For the facts,\nto save repetition, it is enough to refer to Mr. Crawley\u2019s book, _The\nMystic Rose_. Now if these less rigid tabus between the sexes (which\nMr. Atkinson noted in his observations on the life of New Caledonian\nnatives) arose in the general savage superstitious dread of everything\nnot a man\u2019s or woman\u2019s own self, they might become more rigid as\npropinquity increased. The most dangerous female would be the female\nwho had most chance of being dangerous, by virtue of propinquity,\nnamely the sister. She would therefore be the most strictly barred. The\nclosest of all relations, that of lover and lover, and man and wife,\nwould be most severely guarded, as most dangerous, by tabus. All this\nwould happen (granting the verifiable condition of savage superstitious\ndread) even if Mr. Atkinson\u2019s theory of our speechless beast ancestors\u2019\nway of life were wrong.\n\nWe should probably find the effects (Avoidance and Exogamy) even if\nthe primeval causes postulated by him never actually existed. Moreover\nany avoidance between mother and son that may exist (as in the case of\nthe mothers of chiefs, in New Caledonia, and their sons) is perhaps no\nmore than part of the general rule of restricted familiarity between\nthe sexes, whether that rule arises from a superstition, or from\nthe circumstance that men and women sometimes \u2018disturb each other\ndamnably,\u2019 as Lord Byron remarked to his wife. It might be argued that\nthe exogamous prohibition is only one aspect of the general totem tabu;\nand that, in the case of brothers and sisters, incest against the\ntotem tabu needed to be guarded against (as most likely to occur) by\nprecautions of avoidance peculiarly stringent. These precautions, then,\nwould not necessarily come down from the time of our hypothetical\nspeechless beast ancestors. They _might_ come down from that time,\nbut the descent, it may be objected, is not necessary. The rules\nmight have arisen among men as human as we are--Totemists. On the\nother hand, it might be argued for Mr. Atkinson that his hypothetical\ngroups must be infinitely older than Totemism. When totem names were\nimposed on the earlier groups, the totem name and mark would only be\na method of distinguishing group from group, probably becoming the\ngerm of later superstitions by which everything connected with the\ntotem was tabued, in each case, to the groups bearing its name. Either\nalternative hypothesis is easily conceivable: on the whole, I prefer\nthe theory that exogamy arose, or an exogamous tendency arose, as\nin Mr. Atkinson\u2019s hypothesis, and was later sanctioned by the totem\nsuperstition.\n\nAs to brother and sister avoidance, if there is an \u2018instinct,\u2019 as\nWestermarck thinks, against marriage between near relations, if \u2018close\nliving together inspires an aversion to intermarriage\u2019 (pp. 352, 545),\nthen the avoidance of brother and sister would make them especially\napt to fall in love together. But they don\u2019t. Brother and sister,\nunder the tabu, are the greatest possible strangers to each other.\nThey have _not_ \u2018lived in long-continued intimate relationship from a\nperiod of life at which the action of desire is out of the question\u2019\n(Westermarck, p. 353). They have done precisely the reverse. So why\nthey do not fall in love with each other is what we have still to\nexplain. All the rigid systems of brother and sister avoidance exist,\nit would seem, to prevent what never would have occurred, had the young\npeople been allowed to grow up together. For in _that_ case they could\nhave had (we are to fancy) no erotic desires towards each other; that\nis Dr. Westermarck\u2019s idea. But could they not? He tells us that, among\nthe Annamese, \u2018no girl who is twelve years old and has a brother is a\nvirgin\u2019 (p. 292). And the Hottentots do not \u2018marry out of their own\nkraals\u2019 (p. 347).\n\nThen where are we, exactly? If there is \u2018a real powerful instinct\u2019\nagainst love between persons who \u2018have lived in a long-continued\nintimate relationship\u2019 from childhood--why does the instinct fail to\naffect Annamese and Hottentots, for instance? And if to be absolute\nstrangers to each other is apt to make two young people fall in love,\nwhy do New-Caledonian brothers and sisters never do it? (Compare Mr.\nCrawley, _The Mystic Rose_, pp. 444-446.)\n\n\n[Footnote 1: How do we know that _homo_ was still _alalus_?--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Later, as we further analyse the chords in the great hymn\nof human existence, we shall find that this first of all rules of\nintelligent moral action, however little it may have had of ethical\nintention in its inception, will ever remain (in its effects) the\nfundamental note in the harmony of psychical life. All succeeding\nlaw is its inevitable corollary, and vibrating in cadence with this\nfundamental note.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nAVOIDANCES\n\nResults in strengthening the groups which admit several\nadult males.--Disappearance of hostile band of exiled young\nmales.--Relations of sire and female mates of young males now within\nthe group.--Father-in-law and daughter-in-law avoidance.--Rights as\nbetween two generations.--Elder brother and younger brother\u2019s wife\navoidances.--Note on Hostile Capture.\n\n\nIf we can admit the argument as to the sequence of incidents which\nthus led to the primary amicable conjunction of two males within the\nsame group, it is not necessary to enter very minutely into the exact\nmanner in which it would grow into a habit and spread throughout the\nland. We may surmise that, in spite of the advantages presented, its\nprogress would, from the isolation of the groups, and their mutual\nhostility, be very slow. This would specially be the case if, as with\nphysical variations, this point of departure in social development was\na purely individual one, and so had to spread from a single centre by\nnatural selection acting through a beneficial variation. It is, in\nfact, difficult to conceive, in view of the series of the abnormal\nfactors we have supposed necessary for the genesis of such evolution,\nthat any coincident departure of the same nature would be likely to\noccur in any other centre. It is even certain that the full possible\nbenefit of the innovation would not be able to make itself felt even\nin the group of its creators. It is easy to understand that, in spite\nof the shield-like love of the mother, there would be friction between\nfather and son in such unfamiliar circumstances, not only novel to\nthe individual, but unhabitual to the race. In fact, it may be taken\nfor granted that on the part of the father there was at first only a\nsulky tolerance of the new arrangement, a tacit but very unwilling\nacquiescence in the presence of the son.\n\nOn the part of the son would exist a watchful reserve, with an\never-haunting sense of insecurity, born of a novel and precarious\nsituation. Even on such terms, however, and with what little might be\nof conciliation between the two, it is evident that a momentous forward\nstep has been taken: the powers of the group in offence and defence,\nas against outsiders, would be enormously increased;[1] the fire of\nyouth and the wisdom of old age for the first time joined forces, and\npaternal experience comes to the aid of filial courage and ardour.\nOn the death of the patriarch the family found a natural protector,\nand what potential germs of advance, material or spiritual, had been\nevolved, would remain intact.\n\nThe real significance of the circumstance of such conjunction will,\nhowever, be found to lie in the character of its consequences as\nentailing further progress. Thus we have suggested that the original\ninnovation consisted in the toleration of the presence of a single male\noffspring. But the way was evidently thus paved for the acceptance, at\nleast in later generations, of others of the young males, although at\nfirst only of those who, not too much rivalling the fathers in power,\nwould offer least grounds for jealousy. Now if we may accept it as an\naxiom in the matter of social progress in this race, that everything\ndepended on aggregation of numbers in peaceful union, then such renewed\ninclusion presents itself in an important light. When it grew into a\nhabit, the vast increase in power with every succeeding generation to a\ngroup, which is implied in the fact of each male child counting as an\nunit of strength, becomes evident. The new superiority to the original\nCyclopean form of family, with its solitary male head, is enormous. The\nextinction of the latter type would only be a matter of time, it would\nfinally result from the easy capture, by better organised rivals, of\ntheir females. With the gradual disappearance of those who clung to the\nold order, the leaven of progress would spread in permanence through\nthe whole mass. It would eventually become the rule that all the male\noffspring should remain within a group, to form henceforth an integral\npart of it.\n\nThis result would be very important from another point of view. Such\nretention of sons would lead to the elimination of one of the greatest\npast elements of disorder--that band of exiled young males, which we\nfound as a constantly menacing adjunct of the Cyclopean family, would\ncease to exist. But, again, a very slight reflection will enable\nus to perceive that such a modification as the presence of these\ncelibate young males in the family circle must soon have entailed\nconsequences in social evolution of a new and strange complexion,\nthoroughly embarrassing, in such an era, to those interested. Primitive\nsocial economy was now, in fact, to enter on phases presenting such\npossibilities of complication and disruption as must forcibly have led\nto the continued evolution of law in regulation. Such complications\nwill become at once apparent on an examination of the probable sequence\nof events in the family life of the race. Such law in regulation will\nbe shown to have been evolved, and, as before, to be still existent\nas a rule of action in these latter days, and with all those weird\ncharacteristics of mutism and general anomalism which prove its archaic\norigin.\n\nGranted a group consisting of a patriarch whose marital rights extend\nover all its females, and of young males whose attitude,[2] from a\nsexual point of view, is marked by the strict reserve ordained by the\nprimal law, it by no means follows that such celibacy of the young\nmales would extend beyond the feminine element of their own troop. On\nthe contrary, the whole of the outside world remains free for them to\nchoose from. In fact, it is evident that it is there, in the world\noutside of the group, that their future mates must be found. On the\ncomponent females of the parent horde a ban has been for ever laid,\nbut all else of womankind are free of the interdict; they are beyond\nthe law, and \u2018Sin is not imputed where there is no law.\u2019 Here, then, in\nthe outer world, would their wives be sought. The complication we have\nmentioned would arise when, after successful captures of females by the\nyoung males, captures which it is hardly necessary to state would have\nbeen \u2018hostile,\u2019 the introduction of their captives within the parental\ngroup took place. The presence of females not to be his own within a\ncircle where all that was feminine had ever been his in undisputed\nright, would certainly stir to its depths the soul of the Cyclopean\ntype of parent. Such a situation must in its inception have caused a\nfriction full of menace to the new order of things.\n\nThe only solution would be, as we have said, in the further evolution\nof law in remedy. We shall, as before, expect to find the law ordaining\nrestrictions on intercourse between certain individuals, and marked\nwith the archaic characteristic of mere visual action being sufficient\nfor its interpretation. Such, then, as it was, we still find it, in the\nhabit still common with many races of avoidance between father-in-law\nand daughter-in-law. In mute avoidance between these two could peace\nalone endure in the new crisis. The new rule implied the development\nof the same respect by the father for the marital rights of the son,\nas we have seen the primal law to have had for effect as regards the\npaternal prerogatives. Natural selection would come into play in the\nconsolidation of this new stage in legislative evolution. For the\ngroup which first adopted such a _modus vivendi_ would gain so great\nan advantage with each generation, in point of numbers alone, as would\nquickly give it supremacy. On the other hand, the forcible infringement\nby the father on the rights of possession by the sons in their\ncaptives, would simply result in the withdrawal of the sons and their\nwomen. Hence disruption of the group, and a fatal retrogression to the\narchaic type with all the weakness implied in a sole male component.\n\nHere then we find renewed, in act of custom, another bar to\nintercourse between certain individuals of different sexes. And not\nonly as a peace-conferring covenant would the fresh step in progress\nbe important. It marks another stride in advance from brute to man, in\nthe further recognition of points of difference between one female and\nanother from a sexual point of view, the genetic evolution of which\nsentiment, in the primal law, foreshadowed such latent potentiality\nas already distinctive of mankind alone. Social advance to this stage\nhas entailed the genesis of law in definition of respective marital\nrights as _between the two generations_, viz. fathers and sons, but\nfurther evolution in regulation of the individual right, as within\nthe generation itself, is evidently indicated. For all members of\nthe latter, as is the case to-day with many lower people, would be\nconsidered, _de facto_, a _class_, in which all are regarded as\nbrothers, own or tribal, whose interest in all things regarding their\nclassificatory rights would be in common.[3]\n\nSuch would be more especially the case in respect to female captives,\nwhose capture would be the act of all. Here sexual jealousy, if\nuncontrolled, would inevitably lead to repetitions of that violent\nsegregation of the members which occurred under the same circumstances\namidst their primitive prototypes--i.e. that band of isolated young\nmales, contemporaries of and exiles from some Cyclopean family. We\nmay, however, surmise that, now or soon, the general development of\nintelligence and advance in social feeling would permit the action of\nthe necessary rule in remedy. That rule would doubtless take the form\nwe still find existing to-day for regulation in parallel circumstances,\na rule which simply accords priority of right in accordance with\nseniority in birth. Such right would in itself accrue naturally as\nwith other animals, from the fact that superior strength is found with\ngreater age. This prior possession is not incompatible with an amicable\nrecognition of the privilege of later participation by others. If such\nrecognition took place in favour of the rights of the juniors, whilst\nthey again peacefully accepted the larger pretensions of the seniors\nwithin their class, then natural selection would again act in their\nfavour by the elimination of groups unable to abide such conditions.\nThe arrogation of sole possession could but lead to the disintegration\nof the troop.[4]\n\nAnother solution of the problem of rights as between brothers may here\nbe noted: it is that which is common to such widely separated spots as\nNew Caledonia and Orissa, viz. the law of avoidance between an elder\nbrother and a younger brother\u2019s wife. It is one of the most strict and\nsevere. It is, however, incompatible with group marriage, which we are\nnow dealing with.[5] It marks the genetic stage of monandry.\n\nSo far, then, we have thus traced the evolutionary process of group\nformation--and we seem to find confirmed that affirmation as to the\nprimordial order of succession in the genetic growth of custom which\nI ventured to submit in my first pages, viz. primo: the existence of\nan early idea of concupiscent lust, distinctive of the male head of\na group, which led to his pretensions in marital right over all its\ncomponent females in necessary incestuous union; secundo, the evolution\nof the primal law (with what little of originally ethical intention\nis now immaterial), in protection of such right when threatened by\nintruders; tertio, its acceptance by the latter, and, as an inevitable\nsequel, their indispensable capture of outside females as sole possible\nmates.[6]\n\nBut then this question of the absolute necessity of the rape of\nstrange females as mates by the young males of a group, opens up\nto view another remarkable coincidence of effect in custom, still\nenduring to our day. As such it may furnish a clue to a feature in\nsavage habits, to which we have already alluded as the cause of more\ndiscussion, concerning its origin, than any other. For habitual\nhostile capture of females outside a group by its male members, with\na coincidental bar to sexual union with its component females, seems\nsimply a definition of that habit among many actual peoples which has\nbeen called Exogamy by Mr. J. F. McLennan. Hence comes the evident\ncorollary to the argument that the primal law and exogamy stand to\neach other in the mutual relation of cause and effect. We stated that\nif this was in reality the case, and if here we have the origin of\nmarriage outside the group, then the novelty of the view, and the fact\nthat it finds itself in opposition to other theories on the matter,\nweighty from the eminence of their propounders, would still require\nthe production of a clear series of proofs in its favour if it was to\nbe accepted. Such proofs, however, we predicted, would with research\nbe found abundantly. We hope that already in our thesis, as far as it\nhas gone, we may be considered to have advanced some such testimony\nin the seemingly necessary identity of custom, in form at least, in a\nhypothetic ancient and an actual modern era. There is surely here more\nthan mere fortuitous coincidence in social evolution.\n\nIt seems, indeed, a legitimate inference that the divers habits of\navoidance which we have cited, intelligible only by their congruency\nwith such phases of genetic growth of custom as we have surmised,\nwhilst presenting features utterly anomalous as latter-day creations,\nare in reality of the archaic origin we would assign to them.\nTheir extraordinary vitality, which becomes almost bewildering to\ncontemplate, may be explained by the fact that, as the first steps in\nprogress, they would be necessarily woven into the whole social fabric.\n\nIt remains to be seen if, in further unravelling its tangled web, other\nthreads of actual custom may not be found as apparently eloquent of\na far distant, unfamiliar past, in their present abnormal features;\nother usages in every-day lower (savage) life, which in the light of\na primal law shall furnish an unexpected solution of many perplexing\nproblems in social evolution. If it can be shown that their inception\nwould have been in happy accordance with the resolution of necessary\nincidents in evolutionary progress, may we not legitimately infer both\nthat such customs thus had their origin, and again that these incidents\nreally occurred? Our further research into the development of social\ninstitutions will point out indisputably, that primitive society was\nnow on the eve of a succession of events in social order, presenting\nquite a series of menacing complications--their resolution will\nseemingly entail inevitably the continuous evolution of law in remedy,\nwhich law would have presented features identical with the actual laws\nof avoidance and others.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: It is clear that, for this reason, natural selection would\nfavour the new kind of group. The arrangement would be imitated.--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 2: With portentous endurance of custom towards these.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Herr Cunow, as we showed, regards the \u2018classes\u2019 (not\nthe \u2018phratries\u2019) of Australian tribes as based on a rough and ready\ncalculation of non-intermarrying generations.--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 4: See also Westermarck, pp. 458, 459, on the Khyoungtha, a\nChittagong hill tribe. After marriage a younger brother is allowed to\ntouch the hand, to speak and laugh with his elder brother\u2019s wife, but\nit is thought improper for the elder brother even to look at the wife\nof his younger brother. This is a custom more or less among all hill\ntribes, it is found carried to even a preposterous extent among the\nSantals.]\n\n[Footnote 5: As a fact the \u2018classes\u2019 (probably distinctions,\noriginally, of generations) do not, I think, indicate \u2018group\nmarriage.\u2019--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Westermarck, _ut supra_, pp. 387-389, 546, agrees. For the\nopposite view, cf. Crawley, p. 367. Westermarck does not seem very sure\nof his own mind.--A. L.]\n\n\n\n\nNOTE TO CHAPTER V\n\nMarriage by Hostile Capture\n\n\nMr. Atkinson accepts, for the excessively early stage of semi-human\nsociety with which his hypothesis deals, the necessity of procuring\nmates for the young bucks by capture from a hostile group. Now Dr.\nWestermarck writes, \u2018Mr. McLennan thinks that marriage by capture arose\nfrom the rule of exogamy;\u2019 and Mr. Atkinson holds that it arose from\nthe necessity of the case. The old patriarch allowed no female born\nwithin his group to be united to his sons. Dr. Westermarck says, \u2018It\nseems to me extremely probable that the practice of capturing women\nfor wives is due chiefly to the aversion to close intermarrying ...\ntogether with the difficulty a savage man has in procuring a wife in a\nfriendly manner, without giving compensation for the loss he inflicts\non her father\u2019 (Westermarck, 368-369). He admits a period when \u2018the\nidea of barter had hardly occurred to man\u2019s mind,\u2019 But Mr. Atkinson\nis thinking of a state of affairs in which the idea of barter had not\noccurred at all. Even at Dr. Westermarck\u2019s stage of the dawn of barter,\n\u2018marriage by capture must have been very common.\u2019 But Mr. Crawley\nargues that because, in his opinion, \u2018types of formal and connubial\ncapture\u2019 are not survivals from actual capture, therefore \u2018the theory\nthat mankind ... ever, in normal circumstances, were accustomed to\nobtain their wives by capture from other tribes, may be regarded as\nexploded\u2019 (_Mystic Rose_, p. 367). This dictum does not affect Mr.\nAtkinson\u2019s theory. Semi-human beings, in the conditions imagined by\nhim, might be obliged to get their wives by capture, whether existing\ntypes of so-called formal capture are survivals of actual hostile\ncapture or not. If Mr. Atkinson accepts the formal abductions as\nsurvivals of real captures and so as proofs of his argument, and if\nsuch formal abductions are not survivals of real capture--still, as Dr.\nWestermarck says, even after the supposed stage of semi-human life,\n\u2018marriages by capture must have been very common\u2019--in Mr. Atkinson\u2019s\nhypothetical still earlier stage, they must have been universal.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nFROM THE GROUP TO THE TRIBE\n\n\nResemblance of semi-brutal group, at this stage, to actual savage\ntribe.--Resemblance merely superficial.--In this hypothetical\nsemi-brutal group paternal incest survives.--Causes of its decline\nand extinction.--The Sire\u2019s widows in the group.--Arrival of outside\nsuitors for them.--Brothers of wives of the group.--New comers\nbarred from marital rights over their daughters.--Jealousy of their\nwives intervenes.--Value of sisters to be bartered for sisters\nof another group discovered.--Consequent resistance to incest of\ngroup sire.--Natural selection favours groups where resistance is\nsuccessful.--Cousinage recognised in practice.--Intermarrying sets\nof cousins become phratries.--Exceptional cases of permitted incest\nin chiefs and kings.--No known trace of avoidance between father and\ndaughter.--Progress had rendered such law superfluous.\n\n\nA superficial view of the group we have examined might, from its\ngeneral resemblance in custom to others among actual lower types of\nman, lead to a hasty conception of perfect identity, from a social\npoint of view, in nearly all other respects. We see that exogamy,\nhostile capture, group marriage,[1] and obedience to certain\naccepted rules of avoidance, are common to both, to the hypothetical\nsemi-bestial and to the actual savage groups.\n\nThe impression, however, would be very erroneous.\n\nIn the former, the hypothetical archaic stage, still lurked as a\nfestering canker, an archaic element in marital prerogative, which\nmarks it as of an epoch in the life-history of our race when the brute\nstill triumphed over the man, an epoch far removed from our own. It\npossessed a feature in connubial relations as between certain group\nmembers which placed a profound gulf between it and any existing form\nof these days--a trait which, whilst it endured, would tend to render\nall further social progress difficult, if not impossible. It barred the\nroad to that next great gradation in sociological evolution which is\nimplied in the friendly conjunction of groups in a tribe. The latter\nstage was a vast upward step, but still it was only one round in the\nladder of ascent to man, and indeed derived its chief importance from\nthis fact as such. The tribe was the real goal; there, only, could be\nfound the vital quality of social stability to be conferred by peaceful\n_connubium_ between united groups as opposed to hostile capture between\nisolated families. Each group must come to be in itself complete,\nand yet each must form the necessary complementary parts of the\nactual _Tribe_ common to all lower races, with its typical divisional\ninter-marriageable group classes [\u2018phratries\u2019]. The fatal bar to a\nhigher platform was a heritage from the anthropoid ancestor, and, as\nsuch, eminently characteristic of an animal stage.\n\nThis odious inheritance was the habit of incest between father and\ndaughter, which we have found to be common to all the mammalia as a\ndominant domestic feature. As a factor in evolution we have seen that\nit actually had as direct outcome the primal law itself, and thus,\nwith a strange irony, it may be said to have so laid the foundation of\nan ultimate moral sense. In such or other action in the past it had,\nhowever, served its useful purpose. Its operation in the future could\nbe but detrimental; so opposed to all advance does it become, that,\nas we shall find, it is to be finally swept aside so completely as to\npermit to some students doubts of its existence, though \u2018In Saturn\u2019s\ntime such mixture was not held a crime.\u2019 Leaving no traces of action in\nactual usage save in such exceptions as prove the rule, it will not be\ndifficult to show that, in giving birth to the primal law, it doomed\nits own existence, and this apart from any ethical connection. The\ncontinued progress of society led almost mechanically to developments\neminently inimical to its continuance as a custom, whilst again it\nwould be found even injurious to the order of things as constituted in\nthe earliest group-_plus_-tribe stage. If we bear in mind the axiom\nthat, other things being equal, the largest assemblage of individuals\nin amity would have the greatest chance of survival, as possessing more\nnumerous units of strength, then father-and-daughter marriage would be\npernicious by preventing an assembly from profiting to a full extent\nby the productive powers of all its members. For such incest implies\nsole marital rights by a senior generation of males over a junior\ngeneration of females. As the latter would always, from mere disparity\nof age, outlive the former, it follows that, on the death of a father\nthe daughters would remain unproductive, the only other males in the\nfamily group being their own brothers, and as such barred to them by\nthe primal law.\n\nThis situation, in itself an element of weakness, became doubly so,\nif, as is probable, these young widowed females seceded to other and\nhostile groups with whom union to them was free. Such groups would\nin consequence be by so much strengthened, at the expense of their\noriginal circle. If, on the other hand, these widows remained in their\nown circle, their presence as useless mouths would be embarrassing, and\na possible source of danger as a temptation to outside suitors. Again,\ncelibacy being quite an anomaly in such an era, complications might\narise from possible infractions of the primal law itself within a group.\n\nBut it is in special relation to the further movement in advance\nimplied in the friendly aggregation of groups into a tribe that the\neffects of paternal incest would be most fatally felt. For while it\nreigned as a custom and a father usurped sole marital right over the\nwhole feminine element, the immigration into the group of outside\nsuitors for their hands would be impossible, their possession by the\nlatter would be only possible after capture, which, being hostile,\nwould tend to keep asunder the different groups. And yet in the next\nand higher stage of social evolution, as presented in the amalgamation\nof groups into a tribe, the acceptation of these outside mates in\npeaceful connubium is precisely the most characteristic feature. In\nlater days they will be found as the male members of a certain \u2018class\u2019\nin one \u2018phratry,\u2019 and, _de facto_, eligible in group marriage with all\nand certain females of the corresponding category as regards birth in\nanother phratry, within an all-embracing tribe. As indeed with actual\nAustralians, where, by right of birth alone each \u2018class\u2019 contains the\nnatural born husbands of the wives of another \u2018class.\u2019 Such connubium\nis evidently impossible while incest flourished as a custom, it could\nonly arise after its decay.[2]\n\nIt thus becomes necessary to study by what possible conjunction of\naffairs so desirable a result was arrived at. We will find that,\nhowever fortuitous the event of the primary inclusion of an outside\npossible suitor within a group, however timid and hesitating his entry,\nhis presence there would be the signal of the beginning of the end.\nNow it is evidently hopeless to look for any voluntary acceptance of\nhis claims by the living father, to whom the temptation to so easy\na procuring of an inmate of his harem as his own daughter would be\nirresistible. There would be also on his side all habit and tradition,\nand with no direct group interest in opposition, the brothers being\nunconcerned. The initiative in change must then arise irrespective\nof him, and without the obstacle of his presence. This could only be\npossible thus after his death.\n\nNow it is important to observe that precisely the embarrassment we\nhave seen arise after this event must be a means to the end of the\nconjunction we seek. We have noted the danger of the situation under\nsuch circumstances; ineligible in union by the primal law with the\nremaining male element, which is composed of their own brothers,\ntemptations to its infraction would be as frequent as fatal, on the\npart of the early widowed sisters. On the other hand, the anomaly of\na celibate existence in the animal stage would tend to the secession\nof widows, so to speak, to hostile hordes, or to constant attempts at\nhostile capture by the outside suitor. But with the friendly entry of\nthe latter and his acceptance as a group member, all these disturbing\ninfluences would at once cease; further, the value of an extra unit of\nstrength in his presence would soon make itself felt.\n\nLet us then imagine a band of brothers willing to aid in the sustenance\nof their widowed sisters, strong enough to defy their capture by\nothers, and determined to frustrate any attempt at escape on their\npart. The inevitable result would be the attraction within their own\ncircle of suitors for their hands. Now it is worthy of note that the\nfeasibility of the process of such attraction and inclusion becomes\nmore obvious when we reflect that if, as is probable, they belonged to\na neighbouring group, they would thus by no means find themselves quite\nstrangers in their new home. For it is precisely from near neighbours\nthat their wives would have been captured by the males of the assembly\nthey have now joined. These wives, in fact, would be probably own\nsisters to the immigrants. As such, then, we can understand an\neasier tolerance of their presence by the resident males, their new\nbrothers-in-law; as brothers and sisters the primal law created such\na bar in division between their own wives and the new comers, as put\naside any possible chance of friction in jealousy.\n\nNow the significance of the entry of outside males would be vast, from\nmany points of view. In a general sense we here find that further\naggregation of numbers in unison which we considered important, as\nprophetic of the present social condition of to-day. Again, there\narises a renewed distinction of that difference as between one female\nand another, so peculiar to mankind. For here we see that for the first\ntime a sister no longer ranks in exactly the same line, from a marital\npoint of view, as a mother. A daughter, in fact, may now evidently\nhave as mate other than the husband-father. As the primitive mind\nhabituated itself to this idea, the first serious blow was dealt at the\nold parental prerogative. Again, in other ways, in other minds than\nown brother and sister, will this change in the old order of things be\nthus brought home--to no one more clearly than to the outside suitor\nhimself, when, later, he becomes a father; the trains of circumstances\nleading to it are very curious, but would arise in a perfectly natural\nmanner. The result in this connection would make itself felt by him\nin the next generation, with the advent to the adult stage of his own\nfemale offspring.\n\nIs it credible, indeed, that the original male members of a group who\nhad solely accepted his entry as mate for those ineligible females,\ntheir sisters, would consent to his further participation in marital\nright with other female group members? Evidently not: for thus the\nsexual prerogatives of the strangers would be much greater than their\nown--for the resident males are barred by the primal law from the\nwives of the new comers, who yet, as resident females, form probably\nmuch the most numerous section of the feminine element in the horde.\nIf the new comers further inherited the ordinary right of intercourse\nwith their own daughters, who would be correspondingly numerous, then\nthe extent of their rights would entirely outbalance that of their\nbrothers-in-law. As original residents the latter would, however, be\nthe law-makers, and we can have no doubt as to what form in such a case\nlaw would take.[3] Thus is struck a blow again, however indirect, to\nincest as a custom, a blow whose power would be the more effective,\ninsomuch as here it is the living father himself, in the outside\nsuitor, who would be in cause. But even admitting that it is possible\nto conceive a complacency in regard to such participation in sexual\nrights on the part of the brother, there would still be another much\nmore formidable obstacle to incestuous license as regards his daughter\nconfronting the male intruder in the person of the precedent sister,\nnow his wife.\n\nA psychological factor of enormous power was now for the first time\nin the history of the world to make itself felt. It would be the play\nof the natural feeling of sexual jealousy on the part of his resident\nfemale mate. The jealousy of a woman, in fact, is at length able to\nmake its strength appear, to some purpose. As a wife who had not been\ncaptured, who, in fact, as an actual member of the group itself, was,\nso to speak, the capturer, her position in regard to her dependent\nhusband would be profoundly modified in comparison with that of the\nordinary captive female. Whereas such a captive, seized by the usual\nprocess of hostile capture, had been a mere chattel utterly without\npower; _she_, as a free agent in her own home, with her will backed by\nthat of her brothers, could impose law on her subject spouse, and such\nlaw dictated by jealousy would undoubtedly ordain a bar to intercourse\nbetween him and her more youthful, and hence more attractive, daughter.\n\nBy these then, and other incidents, each of vast value, we may\nperceive how the primitive mind became gradually prepared for a change\nso imperatively necessary for all future progress, and how a habit\neven so deeply ingrafted as incest may primarily have been forced to\nslacken its hold. It is even possible to imagine how from such a point\nof departure, the custom might at once have entirely ceased among\nall, or at least a portion of, mankind. If we could conceive at this\nstage a secession from their original group of its resident component\nfemales, accompanied by their outside mates, with a continuance of the\nacceptance of the subordinate strange suitors in future generations of\nthe new colony, then we could admit the probability of rapid evolution\nin approach to a well-known actual group formation. The persistent\nimportation of the always dependent outsider would accentuate the\nmovement already begun against incest--with two such associations in\nunison, cousinship would be recognised, and peaceful _connubium_ in\n\u2018cross-cousin\u2019 marriage between groups would become a habit, and female\ndescent the rule.[4] But at such a stage in social evolution, it is\nimpossible to accept the dominance of the unsupported female or \u2018feme\nsole.\u2019 _Gyn\u00e6cocracy_, if it has indeed ever existed, is evidently as\nyet incredible. Not thus was dealt the final fatal blow at this last\ngreat trait of archaism. We must rather seek it in the familiar economy\nof the type of group we have left, which is characterised, as with\nother animals, by the predominance of the male.\n\nIn our study of the various incidents in primitive social economy which\nwould have had effect in a sense inimical to the custom of incest, we\nhave only considered the matter from the point of view of the entry\nof the outside suitor after the death of the paternal tyrant. The\nincestuous rights of the living group-fathers are thereby in no way\ndirectly affected. In the absence of any direct personal interest\nin the matter on the part of the group-sons, the only other male\ncomponents and law-makers might indeed continue to remain unopposed\nindefinitely. Thus a resolution of the problem of decay of incest would\nseem as far off as ever. Happily this is not in reality the case--the\nreal significance of the entry of the outsider, even on such terms\nas we have examined, lay in the co-ordination of movement of these\nresultant primary checks, and the inevitable synchronous evolution of\nthe most characteristic feature of the next and higher type of group,\nas in itself a mere component of a tribe. The outsider\u2019s admission, in\nfact, really contained the germ of progress in group formation which\nwas to entail the total required decay [of incest].\n\nUp to the present, although the entire male element in a group was\ndivided into two classes, by generations whose interests had little\nin common, between them no antagonism had arisen which could not be\nappeased by the evolution of such a law in remedy as we have noted.\nThe case would now be altered; an irreconcilable breach was about to\ndivide them. It will be seen that the advent of the outsider had been\na real portent. Where, for instance, and under the circumstances we\nhave portrayed, he had become a more accustomed figure as an immigrant,\nhe would form a valuable connecting link between groups. Each would\ncertainly possess some females seized from the other by more or less\nforcible capture, but each now possessed a certain proportion of these\nmales, brothers of those females, whose intrusion had been peaceably\naccepted. With less strained relations and greater intercourse, capture\nwould become a little more rare, and a friendly interchange of women\nmore common. There would be then discovered by the brother a hitherto\nundreamt-of virtue in the young female, his sister; in fact, her value\nas a negotiable article would appear.\n\nAs brothers and sisters, and thus barred in union by the primal law,\ntheir relative interest in each other had been of the feeblest in the\npast. The ultimate destiny of the sister might be a matter of the most\nperfect indifference to the brother. With the new order of things she\nhad suddenly become more precious. As an object of barter for the\nsister of another man, she would show herself to be invaluable. In view\nof the difficulty and danger attending hostile capture, the temptation\nto such easy procuration of mates as sister-barter offered would be\nirresistible. Coming at first into practice when only the death of\nthe father had left his widowed daughter free, its advantages to the\nsons would impose a gradual encroachment on the rights of possession\nby the living parent. In prejudice to incest were now opposed the two\nmost powerful passions in human nature, sexual desire, and a love of\nmaterial gain, and the successful barter of a sister for another man\u2019s\nsister satisfied both. For attempts at capture might be unsuccessful,\nand purchase might be more or less unsatisfactory. And these passions\nwould be aroused in bosoms able to make their power felt. The sons, as\nalso resident males, would be among the law-makers. However powerful\nthe father in past authority and tradition, in the end the force\nof numbers would tell. However numerous the group of fathers, they\nwould always be outnumbered by the group of brother sons, and victory\nwould thus ultimately incline to these.[5] However long and doubtful\nthe struggle, as the latter possessed the longer lease of life, the\n_quantum_ of the exchange value of a sister would always finally be\nmade to show itself, and the determination to profit thereby would be\nmore strongly impressed on each generation.\n\nNatural selection would again certainly come into play in favour\nof such groups, thus curtailing the monstrous prerogatives of the\nold-world fathers, by dint of numbers alone. The superiority which\nwould ensue with each generation, would speedily ensure the triumph of\nthat assembly which could definitely accept the presence of the outside\nsuitor. He would come as a multiple unit of strength, a willing ally\nwho would otherwise have been an active enemy--the generator of the\nproductive power to females who would either have remained as sterile\nresidents, or seceded to hostile hordes as breeders of new foes.\n\nThus, then, we may at length perceive how a custom even so deeply\ningrained in nascent man as paternal incest, may finally have become\nextinct as a custom. In the action of such circumstances we can\naccept the idea of its ultimate decay and death. By the numerical\npreponderance of the individuals within a group interested in its\ndisappearance, was alone such a result feasible. This necessary\ncondition we here find fulfilled.\n\nIn opposition to the father we now see arrayed not only the\nwife-mother jealous of her mate, not only the daughter inclined\ninstinctively to youth and the unknown, but, most important of all, the\nson, now egged on by most powerful personal feelings and interests. And\nfor these latter ones, as we have seen, time itself would fight; to\nyouth each hour and day is a gain in strength, to old age each moment\nmeans a loss of power. With the decay of the custom we see that the\nway lies clear to progress in group formation. Sooner or later the\npresence of the offspring of the outside suitors in the formerly purely\nconsanguine circle will be recognised, their recognition as cousins to\nthe younger resident members will be made, and the old type of horde by\na process of cleavage divides itself into two intermarriageable clans,\n(phratries?), and the savage tribe is created.[6]\n\nThus did the custom of paternal incest disappear, and so completely as\nnot to leave a trace of its passage in recognised usage among actual\npeoples. But as an unauthorised habit it long existed, nay, it still\nlurks, and as such it is probably much more common among the lowest\nclasses of even most civilised peoples than is generally imagined.\nThe continual domiciliary propinquity of such close relatives makes\nthe crime easy[7] and detection difficult. Amidst the savage races,\nalthough rare, it is by no means unknown. It is not a crime by the\nlaws of totem kinship with female descent, the daughter in such a case\nbeing always of the same totem as her mother, and thus theoretically\neligible. The only bar is the classificatory system which, based on\nsequence in birth, forbids all connection between those of different\ngenerations. Thus this form of incest, when it does occur, in no\nway creates the utter horror which we find universal at any union\nbetween brother and sister. An old native chief whom I questioned on\nthe matter certainly spat with disgust at the idea, but again, to my\nown knowledge, a case occurred where a girl bore a child to her own\nfather, and when the fact was mentioned among the people, it only\ncaused coarse laughter. It is true that in this case the culprit was\na great chief--it is possible that there would have been more adverse\ncomment if he had been a commoner. It is certain that the betrayal\nof the vested interests of the future husband (for in New Caledonia\nall children are betrothed at a very early age) would have been more\nresented in the latter case. But license in sexual intercourse within\nforbidden relationships seems everywhere the privilege of irresponsible\nrank, if we may judge by the Kalmuck proverb, \u2018Great folk and the\nbeasts marry where they please.\u2019\n\nHowever, its occurrence in such cases may be traced to sources which\nshow that here the exception proves the rule. Indeed, the fact of its\noccurring almost solely among the higher classes [as among the Incas],\npoints clearly to a probable connection with an idea of pride of race,\nor a question of inheritance. Now we may note that with descent in the\nfemale line the right of direct succession to the paternal name, or\nplace of power, or property, is not in the gift of a father. The only\nlegal conveyers of the blood right within him are females in whose\nveins is to be found that same blood, i.e. his mother and sisters.\nHowever regal a personage his child by a foreign woman, it is cut off\nfrom that heritage, nor in connection with this offspring can pride of\nrace find a place. Thus, then, we may understand how union, although\nillegal, with a sister was so frequent in, and even enjoined on, the\nroyal race amidst certain peoples. The purity of the royal blood thus\nalone remained intact, and from a king was born a king. For it is a\nremarkable fact which must be more than a coincidence that amongst\nthese very peoples, such as the ancient Egyptians, Persians, and\nPeruvians, whose rulers were addicted to the habit, female descent\nwas the custom [?]. At least I am not personally acquainted with any\nexception to the rule. In consonance with this descent through females\nonly and where any approach has been made to gyn\u00e6cocracy, we shall\nexpect to find that there would be only one legal wife. Such was indeed\nthe case also in Ancient Egypt, there is no instance of two consorts\ngiven in any of the inscriptions. This fact, taken in connection with\nthat which conduced to incestuous union under this form of descent,\ninvites us to make a digression in a curious reflection, not however\nentirely foreign to our general theme. For the same effect as regards\ninheritance on the offspring which would be produced by union with a\nsister, would also occur in marriage with a daughter whose parents\nhad been themselves brother and sister. Thus we may guess the lineage\nof the unknown mother of the great royal wife Nefer-ari, daughter\nand consort of the Pharaoh of the oppressive Rameses the Great. This\ndaughter had, in fact, been probably chosen among others for wife\nprecisely because her mother had herself been both his sister and his\nwife.[8]\n\nWe may now renew our affirmation that paternal incest as a custom, is\nno longer generally recognised anywhere. The primitive unquestioned\nmarital right in incest is quite unknown. It has disappeared, and so\ncompletely have even traces of its past general occurrence faded, that\ndoubts of the reality of the fact may be pardonably entertained. The\nquestion is of importance in connection with our thesis, for as may\nbe seen the whole theory of the primal law is based on the idea of\nits primitive universal prevalence. We hope, however, to have shown\nthe inherent possibility of the fact as being a habit common to all\nthe mammalia--and it has seemed against reason to suppose that man\u2019s\nancestor, whilst in the animal stage, would be an exception to so\ngeneral a rule. Our further argument has adduced circumstances in\nfavour of a final decay so complete that oblivion could not but follow.\n\nPerhaps not the least remarkable fact to the anthropologist in\nconnection with its life and death, is that only as between a father\nand a daughter, of all blood relationships, do we find no trace among\nactual peoples of any law in Avoidance. The fact is significant, as we\nmay thus surmise that the process of decay was very long delayed, in\nfact to a time when such inchoate form of law as Avoidance had become\nan archaism, or until general progress had rendered any law unnecessary.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: As to group marriage the editor cannot follow Mr.\nAtkinson.]\n\n[Footnote 2: I have here slightly altered Mr. Atkinson\u2019s terminology.\nAs the passage stands in his manuscript he confuses totem kins with\nthe Australian intermarrying \u2018classes.\u2019 In his manuscript the passage\nruns thus: \u2018In later days they\u2019 (the outside mates) \u2018will be found as\nthe male members of a certain class generation in one group\u2019 (by which\nhe means a \u2018class,\u2019 say Ippai, in a \u2018phratry,\u2019 say Dilbi) \u2018and, _de\nfacto,_ eligible in group marriage with all and certain females of the\n_same_ category as regards birth in another group.\u2019 Here he obviously\nshould have written \u2018eligible in marriage with all females of the\n_corresponding_ category in the other \u201cphratry\u201d of an all-embracing\ntribe.\u2019 \u2018As indeed with actual Australians where, by right of birth\nalone, each totem group contains the natural born husbands and wives of\nanother totem group.\u2019 This is not the case: men of one totem kin are\nnot compelled to take wives from one other totem kin; but men of one\n\u2018class\u2019 must take wives of one other \u2018class,\u2019 and men of one \u2018phratry\u2019\nmust take wives out of the other \u2018phratry.\u2019. To avoid confusion I have,\nin the text, inserted the correct terminology.--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 3: All the younger generation of females would be reserved\nfor themselves, and thus not only their own daughters, but the\ndaughters of their brothers-in-law, who, as of the same generation,\nwere all classed together as sisters.]\n\n[Footnote 4: These groups would be phratries, or the germs of\nphratries.--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 5: The breach between father and sons could only be healed\nby the submission of the fathers. Then prerogative in incest would\ngradually decay, for strange to say no vestige of law in avoidance can\nbe traced.]\n\n[Footnote 6: It will be observed that Mr. Atkinson, when he writes\nof \u2018the cleavage of the old type of horde into two intermarriageable\nclans, creating the tribe,\u2019 differs from the opinions already expressed\nby his editor. By \u2018clans\u2019 Mr. Atkinson here means \u2018phratries,\u2019 and we\nhave shown that phratries, even now, often bear totemic names, and\nprobably were, in origin, local totem groups; each containing members\n(by female descent) of several other totem groups. Mr. Atkinson, as\nfar as his MS. goes, appears to have given no attention to the origin\nand evolution of totem names, totem groups, and totem kins. Thus he\nwrites, \u2018the presence of the offspring of the outside suitor in the\nformerly purely consanguine circle will be recognised.\u2019 But if the\nheterogeneity in the circle was only recognised as marked by female\ndescent, and by the totem name of the female mate from without, _male_\nparentage of \u2018the children of the outside suitor\u2019 would not come into\nthe purview of customary laws, would not cause the \u2018cleavage into two\nintermarriageable clans,\u2019 or \u2018phratries.\u2019 There was no such \u2018cleavage,\u2019\nas we have argued, and the permission of cross-cousin marriage is due\n(I suspect), not to such early legal recognition of male descent, but\nsimply to the natural working of the totemic exogamy, _plus_ female\ndescent.\n\nMr. Atkinson\u2019s theory of \u2018cleavage,\u2019 it will be remarked, does not\ninvolve the idea that the members of an \u2018undivided commune,\u2019 being\npricked in conscience, bisected it for reformatory purposes. He merely\nsuggests that his clients found, in their group, persons marriageable\naccording to their existing rules of the game, and married them. But\nthese persons are, according to him, recognised as the offspring of\n\u2018outside suitors\u2019 _male_, and are also recognised as cousins, on the\nfemale side, though even now no name for cousins exists in Australian\nsociety. This involves counting both on the male and female sides,\nwhich, in practice, may have occurred. But the theory of Mr. Atkinson\navoids all the problems of the different totemic names given both to\nthe born members of his original group, and to other members thereof,\nconsisting of the offspring of the outside suitors. If totemic group\nnames already existed, these suitors must have been of many totem group\nnames. Whence, then, came the two different and distinct totemic group\nnames of the two sets of cross-cousins--now phratries on Mr. Atkinson\u2019s\ntheory?\n\nGive his original group a name, say Emu. With Totemism it will contain\ncaptive wives of various groups, say Bat, Cat, Rat. It will also\ncontain outside suitors, probably of the same names. These men are\nallowed to marry women of the group, and, by Mr. Atkinson\u2019s theory, the\noffspring of these unions, or \u2018cross-cousins,\u2019 are allowed to marry the\nchildren of their aunts within the group. There are thus, within the\ngroup, two intermarrying \u2018sides of the house,\u2019 _veve_, as in Melanesia.\nBut why or how do these sides of the house, practically phratries,\nnow receive totemic names, say Yungaru and Wutaru, or Wolf and Raven?\nPerhaps Mr. Atkinson would have replied, \u2018by a mere extension of the\nhabit of adopting totemic names,\u2019 which, of course, involves the\npre-existence of that habit.--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 7: But not tempting, according to Dr. Westermarck!--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 8: It will be interesting to see if research will bring to\nlight the fact that even with so irresponsible and imperious a dynasty\nas the Ramesids some form of lustration was not considered necessary\nin the event of such unions. This is the case with the people of\nMadagascar under similar circumstances.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTRACES OF PERIOD OF TRANSITION--AVOIDANCES\n\n\nSurvivals in custom testify to a long period of transition from group\nto tribe.--Stealthy meetings of husband and wife.--Examples.--Evidence\nto a past of jealousy of incestuous group sire.--Evidence from\nTeknonymy.--Husband named as father of his child.--Formal capture\nas a symbol of legal marriage.--Avoidance between father-in-law and\nson-in-law.--Arose in stage of transition.--Causes of mother-in-law and\nson-in-law avoidance.--Influence of jealousy.--Examples.--Mr. Tylor\u2019s\nstatistics.--Resentment of capture not primal cause of this avoidance.\n--Note on avoidance.\n\n\nWith a custom so deeply ingrained as incest would be in the nature of\nman\u2019s ancestor, still doubtless vastly animal, we may indeed surmise\nthat the process of its decay was long and tedious. The temptation, as\nwe have said, to such easy procuration of a mate in comparison with the\ndanger and comparatively scanty results of capture, was very great,\nwhilst the continual propinquity of father and daughter would tend\nto constant recrudescence, especially in default of any trace of law\nagainst it. There must, then, evidently have been a transition era of\nvast durance, between the type of the isolated consanguine group whose\nonly resource in matrimony was exogamic hostile capture, as the outcome\nof the incestuous lust of its solitary male head, and the all-embracing\ntribe composed of an aggregation of several groups, and possessing thus\n_ipso facto_ all the necessary elements of an endogamic connubium quite\nincompatible with such incest. In such a tribe, a group of women in\nmany cases formed the pivotal centre, and capture was often found only\nas a form in survival. Is it possible to retrace the main features of\nan epoch of such evident importance in social evolution? In view of\nthe fact that, in the past course of our argument, such law as would\nseemingly have been necessarily evolved in regulation of each step in\nprimitive progress has been found identical in form with some actual\nsavage custom, may not a deeper investigation of savage custom disclose\nfurther co-ordination, and prove equally fertile in interpretation of\nthe past? Whilst, again, many obscure observances in actual lower life,\nin consonance with such archaic genesis, may take a rational form,\nthough the origin seems apparently lost for ever.\n\nSuch research will, I think, clearly show that many social features\nin modern savage habit afford internal evidence that, as a fact,\nthey could only have arisen in such a transition era. They also bear\nmarks of a very lengthened evolutionary process, and thus confirm the\nnatural idea of a halt of portentous length at the threshold of the\npresent haven of comparative social rest. We shall doubtless find that\nthe door left ajar by the entrance of the outside suitor was not to\nyield further with ease to the pressure of new needs, half-hearted as\nmen would be, from the conservative force of old ideas, of incest and\nentire masculine dominance.\n\nThere is, for instance, one curious trait in actual savage custom which\nevidently dates from a very early stage of this epoch. It is that of\nthe strange forms of \u2018stealthy\u2019 intercourse, being the indispensable\npreliminary symbols of the legality of an after marriage between the\nresident female of a group and an outside male. These forms are well\nknown to anthropologists as occurring among many lower peoples. Here we\nfind that the visits of the male suitor are supposed to be distinctly\nclandestine, taking place only by night, although in reality the fact\nis perfectly in the cognisance of the whole group. Now such fugitive\nand secret meetings are exactly what would have taken place when a\ngroup had arrived at a stage in which, although filial incest was\ndecaying as a custom, there were still recognised certain marital\nrights over his daughter by the living father; when, in fact, tolerance\nof the presence of the outsider was yet in a tentative stage--and he\nwas still regarded with suspicion, if not disfavour.[1]\n\nIn consonance with the view we have advanced of the circumstances\nattending the entry of an immigrant suitor, it has seemed to ensue that\nhis position would have been quite dependent, and himself considered\nas a foreign element. That such was actually the case seems again\nproved by another trait in modern custom, whose genesis, however, was\nof very much later date, and when speech had made some progress. In\nour own day clandestine intercourse, as above described, may continue\nto pregnancy. On the birth of the child alone does the father become\nrecognised as part of the group. But even so his nomenclatory power as\nregards his offspring is absolutely nil. Far from giving a name to the\nchild, his own is taken from his offspring. Till now, in fact, he has\nbeen nameless; in future he will be known as the father of so-and-so,\nof Telemachus, in the case of Odysseus. To this point we will, however,\nhave to return when we arrive at the question of the evolution of\npersonal descent from that of descent recognised by locality, which we\nconsider to have been the most primitive form. [Mr. Atkinson probably\nmeans descent from a local group, say Crow, not descent denoted by a\nplace name, as \u2018de Rutherford.\u2019]\n\nThere is another trait in actual custom which also could only have\nacquired its most remarkable features in this era of change, and that\nis hostile capture itself, in its legacy of those \u2018forms\u2019 of capture\nwhich we find connected with more peaceful connubium all over the\nworld. Such \u2018forms\u2019 have rightly been considered as mere survivals, and\nthus in agreement with our own theory capture is generally accepted\nas the earliest form of outside marriage.[2] But in some minds the\nbrutality necessarily attending real capture, and its occurrence\nsolely among very low races with whom any idea of sexual restraint is\nexpected to be quite unfamiliar, has simply connected the process with\nthe general lawlessness which, amongst such peoples, is supposed to\ncharacterise the relations between the sexes. Its occurrence in form of\nsurvival among higher races has been considered a meaningless ceremony,\nand its evident symbolism in legality dismissed as incredible. Students\nare, however, aware how much in error is the idea of utter lawlessness\nin connection with the marriage relationships of any savage race. On\nthe contrary, as is well known, the list of prohibited kindred is not\nonly much wider than our own, but no stage in the marital arrangements\nis without irksome and minute legislative restraints, strictly limiting\nand defining the rights of each individual, male and female.\n\nTo other minds the fact that a \u2018hostile capture,\u2019 presenting as its\nmost characteristic feature an utter violence, should ever have been\nconstituted into a symbol of legality in marriage, has given rise to\nmuch perplexity. Mr. McLennan in fact remarks--\u2018It is impossible to\nbelieve that the mere lawlessness of savages should be consecrated\ninto a legal symbol\u2019--an assertion which we may accept, however little\nwe are prepared to accept his general views on early society. It is\nevident that the whole difficulty has arisen from the apparent complete\nincompatibility of a seeming method in violence with a virtual act\nin law. The hypothesis we have presented of the \u2018primal law,\u2019 and\nits exogamous sequel, would seem however to throw a new light on the\nmatter. All unions within the group being by the action of primal\nlaw, as we have shown, considered incestuous and illicit, marriage\ncould only take place with an outside mate. The presence of a captured\nfemale within the camp would thus, as we see, actually constitute in\nitself a proof, and the only one possible at the epoch, of the legal\nconsummation of marriage as ordained by the primal law. It is thus\neasy to see how a form of capture should be retained as a symbol of\nlegality in later connubium. Its continued vitality results from the\nintense conservatism of lower peoples, and from the fact of the halo\nof prowess that surrounds it.\n\nIts evolution as a _symbol_ only arose, however, when, during the\ntransition era, by the conjunction of groups into a tribe, friendly\nunions were possible. It would not have occurred with the earliest\nforms of horde, for these were isolated and hostile, and real capture\nitself was the sole form of marriage; nor would it have occurred with\nthat later type, in which, with matriarchal descent, the relative\npositions of males and females were reversed, as far at least as suit\nin union is concerned.[3] It took its rise with that other great\ntype of group characterised by patriarchal descent, which in all the\nafter history of the world (for, as we shall see, their evolution was\ncoincident and had for cause the same factor) was to dispute supremacy\nwith that which accepted uterine descent. Here, as in the original\ntype, the male continued to preserve his predominance and continued its\ntraditions of capture.[4]\n\nThere remain other actual traits whose connection with this era is\nequally evident. For instance, avoidance between father-in-law and\nson-in-law could not have had its genesis in the very earliest type of\nassembly. Whilst parental incest ruled as the custom, each group must\nhave been isolated from and hostile to every other. These two could\nnever have been in habitual presence one of the other. But, again,\nthe habit could not have arisen in the later form, as represented by\na tribal horde with uterine descent, as primitively composed of only\ntwo intermarrying groups, each of which formed a clan distinguished by\na different totem emblem.[5] The relative clan-relationship of each\nmember of the horde would, by the aid of this distinctive totem, be\ndistinctly defined, and, with female descent, the father-in-law and\nson-in-law would find themselves members of the same clan [phratry].\nAs thus being both males and of the same \u2018phratry,\u2019 there could not\npossibly be avoidance or enmity, real or simulated, between them.[6]\nBy all the sacred ties of blood [phratry] they were conjoined in\noffence and in defence. Further, where descent is uterine we find that\nthe disposal of a daughter is in the hands of the mother or maternal\nuncle alone--the father has no voice whatever in the question, nor\nany part in her value as an object of barter or sale. Thus he is\nperfectly disinterested in the matter of his children. So far from\nbeing in disunion with his son-in-law, his sympathies, in case of a\ntribal quarrel, would be certainly with him. But the younger man, in\ninternal quarrels, might be found fighting to the death with his own\nreal father, not (as I have seen it stated in mention of just such an\nincident)[7] because he has become part of his wife\u2019s clan,[8] which\ncould never be, but because, with descent through the female, his\nfather would be a member of the different group and of other blood to\nhimself, and to his father-in-law also.\n\nThe genesis of this particular avoidance (father-in-law and son-in-law)\ntook place during that stage of the transition era, when, incest still\nlingering, the immigrant suitor was so far acknowledged that his entry\ninto a group was not always delayed till the death of his proposed\nfather-in-law. As they were thus possible rivals there was a chance of\nfriction, only to be averted by the law in question. Avoidance would\narise at the same time between mother-in-law and son-in-law, but this\ntime as a measure of protection for the marital rights of the husband\nof the former.[9] It could not have arisen in the early Cyclopean era.\nThe son-in-law as such, could evidently not have had existence when the\nmother\u2019s daughter was the father\u2019s wife, nor, later, when, with the\ngeneral recognition of the classifactory system, there arose a strict\ninterdiction of sexual union between members of different generations.\nThere would in such circumstances be no further risk of danger from\nthe jealousy of a father as regards his wife, and the husband of his\ndaughter. It had its origin in the fact that when the outside suitor\nhad originally been granted entry, it would only have been after the\ndeath of the patriarch sire, and as a mate for his widowed females.\nBut as these would include both mother and daughter, there would\nthereby be created a precedent, so to speak, which required regulation,\nwhen later, with the decay of incest, the living father remained in\npresence. In fact, avoidance between mothers-in-law and sons-in-law\ndefined fathers-in-law\u2019s rights.\n\nWe may here again note another step in advance to purely human\nattributes in the fresh distinction between female and female, which\nhas now again arisen as between a mother and her daughter as regards\nthe immigrant suitor. But whereas with these, as indeed with most of\nthe cases of avoidance we have studied, sexual jealousy has been the\nprimary cause, we may now trace the action of quite another factor,\nwhich would certainly tend to a conservation of the habit, and in a\nmanner intensify it. This would be association of idea with hostile\ncapture.\n\nAs regards the father-in-law, however, the custom, as far as capture\nis concerned, would not occur with female descent, for the reasons we\nhave already given of clan kinship in such a case. It might, however,\nbe found as a factor to a certain extent with male kinship, for here\nit is the father-in-law who is of the same clan as his daughter, and\nthus interested in her negotiable value. Thus it is possible to\nimagine enmity between him and her possible captor, who is also of a\ndifferent clan from himself. As regards avoidance of mother-in-law it\nhas again, perhaps, been accentuated by forcible capture. The effect,\nhowever, in relation to descent would be exactly the reverse of that\nwith the father. With early male descent in the primitive tribe as\ncomposed of only two clan groups [phratries], it is she who would be\nof the same stock as her daughter\u2019s husband, and the habit would not\narise, the captor is, in fact, a member of the tribe from which she\nherself has been stolen; although later, when more than two clans\nwere conjoined,[10] it might happen that her son-in-law belonged to\nanother, and here there might arise feelings of animosity. With uterine\ndescent the case is certainly altered. As a mother, and as member\nof a clan different from that of the male suitor, the figure of the\nson-in-law might be dreaded as a possible captor of her daughter and\nother young female members. But here again a difficulty arises, for\nwhen the capture becomes an accomplished fact, the mother-in-law and\nson-in-law would probably not meet again, at least in primitive times:\nhe belonging to the group having patriarchal descent, with capture\nas the rule; she, to the matriarchal, where the female is normally\nimmobile, between which two forms of group no friendly intercourse\ncould occur. The fact of avoidance in any form presumes contiguity or\nthe habitual presence of the individuals concerned, and this in such a\ncase could not arise. So as in Tylor\u2019s figures we find that in W to H,\nas the latter is completely cut off from his family, there is not one\nsingle case of avoidance between the wife and the husband\u2019s relatives.\nIt is evident that the same rarity of contiguity must have arisen also\nwith the father in male descent; there is here certainly cause of\ndisagreement in the rape, but if the parties see each other no more\nthere would be no necessity of evolution of avoidance to mark the fact.\nIndeed, I cannot help thinking that the importance of association with\nhostile capture has been much exaggerated as a factor in the evolution\nof Avoidance. The question of \u2018residence\u2019 and \u2018descent\u2019 has not been\nheld sufficiently in account by those who insist on the capture as the\nsole cause of avoidance. Despite the eminence of the authors favouring\nthis view, I would venture to submit that the balance of proof would\nmuch favour sexual jealousy, which we have heretofore found the sole\nmotive power in all changes.\n\nThose who would uphold anger roused by capture as the cause of\navoidance with the wife\u2019s relatives, for instance, must be prepared\nto show that it would be strongest with the one who was most deeply\ninterested in the wife, one whose voice in her destiny was of greater\npower than her own mother\u2019s, and that was her maternal uncle, the head\nof her clan. Now I have failed as yet to find a single trace of such\na case as avoidance between the latter and his sister\u2019s daughter\u2019s\nhusband.\n\nAgain, jealousy, or a desire for regulations in matters of sexual\nunion, will explain certain details in the accounts we have received\nof individual cases which seem otherwise obscure or irrelevant. These\nhave been overlooked, as they are minute, but from my point of view\nare full of significance when closely examined. Mr. Lubbock says,[11]\nquoting Franklin as to American Indians: \u2018It is _extremely improper_\nfor a mother-in-law to speak or even look at him, i.e. her son-in-law.\u2019\nQuoting Baegert: \u2018The son-in-law was not allowed _for some time_ to\nlook into the face of his mother-in-law.\u2019 Further, \u2018among the Mongols\na woman must not speak to her _father-in-law_, nor _sit down_ in his\npresence. Among the Ostiaks, _Une fille mari\u00e9e \u00e9vite autant qu\u2019il\nlui est possible la pr\u00e9sence du p\u00e8re de son mari tant qu\u2019elle n\u2019a\npas d\u2019enfant, et le mari pendant ce temps n\u2019ose pas para\u00eetre devant\nla m\u00e8re de sa femme_\u2019 (Pallas). In China the father-in-law after\nthe wedding-day never sees the face of his daughter-in-law again,\nhe never visits her, and if they chance to meet he hides himself.\nAmong the Kaffirs a married woman is required to _hlonipa_[12] her\nfather-in-law, and all her husband\u2019s male relations in the ascending\nline, i.e. to be cut off from all intercourse with them.\n\nAgain, in Australia, it is compulsory on the mothers-in-law to avoid\nthe sight of their sons-in-law, by-making the former take a very\ncircuitous route on all occasions, to avoid being seen, and they\nhide the face or figure with the rug which the female carries with\nher. So strict is the rule, that if married men are jealous of any\none, they sometimes promise to give him a daughter in marriage. This\nplaces the married man\u2019s wife, according to custom, in the position\nof mother-in-law, and renders any communication between her and her\nfuture son-in-law a capital crime.[13] Also among the Sioux or Dacotas,\nMr. Philander Prescott remarks on the fear of uttering certain names.\nThe father and mother-in-law must not call their son-in-law by name,\nand _vice versa_, and there are other relationships to which the\nprohibition applies. He has known an infringement of this rule punished\nby cutting the offender\u2019s clothes off his back and throwing them away.\nHarmon says \u2018that among the Indians east of the Rocky Mountains it is\nindecent for the father or mother-in-law to look at or speak to the\nson or daughter-in-law.\u2019 Among the Yakuts, Adolf Erman noticed a more\npeculiar custom. As in other northern regions the custom of wearing\nbut little clothing in the hot stifling interior of the huts is common\nthere, and the women often go about their domestic work stripped to\nthe waist, nor do they object to this disarray in the presence of\nstrangers; but there are two persons before whom a Yakut woman must\nnot appear in this guise, her father-in-law and her husband\u2019s elder\nbrother. Again, quoting J. G. Wood, he says the native term for these\ncustoms of avoidance is, \u2018being ashamed of the mother-in-law.\u2019 The\nBasuto custom forbids a wife to look in the face of her father-in-law\ntill the birth of her first child--and among the Banyai a man must sit\nwith his knees bent in presence of his mother-in-law, and must not put\nout his feet towards her.\n\nNow an important circumstance to be remarked in nearly all cases of\nAvoidance is, that it principally exists between people of different\nsexes,--thus an _a priori_ inference may be drawn that the primary\ncause lay in some relation to the sexual question. It is significant\nthat a woman\u2019s avoidance of her husband\u2019s relations is with those in\nthe ascending line, i.e. with his seniors. Against his juniors he\ncan defend himself, against his seniors he needs the protection of\nlaw. In the cases we have cited, it is significant that, besides the\nfather-in-law, _hlonipaed_ among the Kaffirs, the woman must _hlonipa_\nall her husband\u2019s male relations in the ascending line. Among the\nYakuts she must not appear unclothed before her husband\u2019s elder brother.\n\nAmong the Veddahs of Ceylon a father will not see his daughter, nor a\nmother her son, after they have _come to years of maturity_.[14]\n\nIf we examine the words italicised in the quotations above, they\nseem to convey more nearly an idea of impropriety in any approach\nto intimacy than that of \u2018cutting\u2019 from enmity, as Dr. Tylor has\nsuggested. Indeed, we observe here just the same horror that a too\nfamiliar attitude between forbidden kindred, as uncle and niece, would\nexcite amongst ourselves, arising from the same idea of repugnance.\n\nWe see that various observers use the terms \u2018improper\u2019 (Franklin),\n\u2018the fear of\u2019 (P. Prescott), \u2018indecent\u2019 (Harmon), \u2018cut off from all\nintercourse with them,\u2019 and no doubt they have[15] each expressed the\nimpression made on themselves in observation. We note again that the\nonly case where the native term in designation of the custom is given\nthat it means \u2018being ashamed.\u2019 The limit in time for the avoidance is\nagain significant. \u2018For some time,\u2019 Baegart says; \u2018tant qu\u2019elle n\u2019a\npas d\u2019enfant\u2019 (Pallas). \u2018Till the birth of the first child.\u2019 These\nlimitations in time would not exist if enmity because of capture was\nthe cause, whereas we can quite understand them if, the circumstances\nnow proving the consummation of marriage, jealousy might then be\nsupposed to cease. The reserve as to a too familiar attitude that this\nidea of indecency would imply, is shown where a Mongol daughter-in-law\n\u2018cannot sit down in the presence of the father-in-law,\u2019 and where\nthe Banyai man \u2018must not put out his feet towards his mother-in-law,\nbut sit with his knees bent in her presence.\u2019 In China it is the\nfather-in-law who hides himself, and this surely would hardly be the\nact of a captor, nor can we imagine a man having his clothes cut off\nhis back simply because he had not \u2018cut\u2019 some one sufficiently.\n\nHowever, in connection with our argument we have Adolf Erman\u2019s account\nof the custom among the Yakuts, and where we find the husbands elder\nbrother joined with the father-in-law in an avoidance, there a distinct\nfeeling of impropriety in connection with these relations in law of the\nwife is indicated. The diffidence cited is exactly what would occur if\nunion was undesirable and yet not impossible, between the persons in\navoidance, and hence temptation was to be avoided. It is very important\nto note that no idea of enmity from capture can be associated with\nthe husbands elder brother. Again, the custom of avoidance with an\nelder brother, where its connection with jealousy is evident, is very\nwidespread, and very strict in observance; as we have already noted, it\noccurs in Orissa and among the Kyonthas in India, whilst I have also\nobserved it in practice in New Caledonia, where it is most undoubtedly\na means to an end, to protect the younger brother\u2019s marital rights. As\nto the significance of the fact mentioned in the case of the natives of\nAustralia, where, as regards their wives, they are jealous of a man--\nand give him a daughter to place him in avoidance with her mother,\ncomment is unnecessary.\n\nThese facts seem to me to be conclusive; but the question of the exact\norigin of avoidance is so important to my general argument, that I\nam glad to be able to find what I fancy is added proof from another\nsource. If this furnishes the requisite evidence that sexual jealousy\nwas the real factor, and not hostile capture, our hypothesis of the\nprimal law acquires valuable inferential evidence in its favour. Such\nadded proof we hope to be able to show in Dr. Tylor\u2019s figures.[16]\n\n          ----                    Theory as         practice        --\n\n In Residence, H to W: 65\n    Avoidance H to W relations    (a) 9 cases       (b) 14 cases    (A)\n    Avoidance W to H relations        3  \u201d               0  \u201d       (B)\n\nIn Residence, W to H:\n     Avoidance W to H relations        5  \u201d              8  \u201d       (C)\n     Avoidance H to W relations       18  \u201d              9  \u201d       (D)\n\n\nThese figures, which are extracted from Dr. Tylor\u2019s work, would seem to\nbe eloquent against hostile capture being the sole cause of Avoidance.\nThey are derived from a comparison of Avoidance as occurring, (a)\nquite independent of residence, and (b) as actually resulting where\ncoincidence of Avoidance and residence is found.\n\nNow as regards the question of jealousy as cause of Avoidance,\nresidence and propinquity will evidently have a powerful effect.\n\n(A) As we have seen, any Avoidance under these circumstances would be\nremarkable without a prior stage in quite other conditions than those\nfound generally with H to W residence. We note that whereas we might\nexpect under even the above conditions to find only 9, there are 14.\nHere sexual jealousy has been an important cause.\n\nThe Avoidance of the Mother-in-law (for, of course, there was none here\nwith father-in-law, who was a nonentity in such a family circle, and\nof the same clan as the son-in-law) arose as a matter of protection\nfor the marital rights of the daughter as against her mother, both\ninhabiting the same large house common to matriarchal descent.\n\n(B) Here, again, we expect to find 3, and see there are actually none,\nfrom which it would seem to result that W capture had nothing whatever\nto do with the origin of A, H to W, for, admitting the almost entire\nseparation of the W from H family, which would make the case rarer, a\ntradition of capture would exist which would have effect when they were\nlater grouped together. Whereas the non-Avoidance is explained by lack\nof jealousy, from absence of male relations of H.\n\n(C) Here it is again quite impossible to accept any idea of W capture\nas the motive cause. Avoidance arose between W and father-in-law to\nprotect rights of son-in-law and mother-in-law. It was evolved, as we\nhave seen, as a measure of protection for that generation of males who\nwere the actual captors, each generation by the classificatory system\nhaving individual rights. That the necessity for such legislation was\nurgent we see in the proportion of the figures 5 to 8.\n\nHere, again, the fallacy of capture as primal cause of Avoidance\nis clearly evident. If this was the case, we might expect it to be\nalmost universal, whereas in reality, instead of the 18 cases which\nthe average should give us, we find only 9. It really had its origin\nin the reason we have already given, of sexual jealousy as a primary\ncause, and was later augmented as serving to impress on many the\nclassificatory distinction between M and D, who otherwise, as far as\ntotems went, were eligible to the same person. Where both father-in-law\nand mother-in-law are in avoidance, we may surmise a change in descent\nfrom the F to the M in the tribe, the converse change of M to F of\ncourse never occurring. The question of change of descent will explain\nproblems in the nomenclature of Morgan\u2019s tables as regards nephews and\nsons, which have been overlooked.[17]\n\nNOTE TO CHAPTER VII\n\nMr. Crawley reckons three interpretations of the origin of the\navoidance of mother-in-law and son-in-law. 1. Fison (_Kamilaroi and\nKurnai_, p. 103), \u2018It is that the rule is due to a fear of intercourse\nwhich is unlawful, though theoretically allowed on some classificatory\nsystems.\u2019 Mr. Crawley remarks, \u2018this explanation is the one most\nlikely to occur to explorers who have personal knowledge of savages,\u2019\nwhich was Mr. Atkinson\u2019s case. Mr. Crawley objects the antecedent\nimprobability of any man, \u2018not to mention a savage, ever falling in\nlove with a woman old enough to be his mother or mother-in-law, and\nthe improbability of so many peoples being afraid of this.\u2019 Now \u2018in\nlove\u2019 is one thing, and an access of lust is another. Moreover, the\nmother-in-law, in prospective, not infrequently is her daughter\u2019s\nrival, even in modern life. She has to be guarded against, even if\nthe son-in-law is less dangerous. And he is very apt to be \u2018a general\nlover.\u2019 \u2018Theoretically the mother-in-law is marriageable in many\nsystems,\u2019 says Mr. Crawley, \u2018and so there would be no incest ...\u2019 But\nMr. Atkinson is not contemplating the danger of incest as the cause\nof mother-in-law avoidance; his theory postulates jealousy--that of\nthe mother-in-law\u2019s husband, and, for what it is worth, that of the\nmother-in-law\u2019s daughter. Mr. Crawley\u2019s objection, I think, does not\ninvalidate Mr. Atkinson\u2019s theory; especially as he does not reflect\nthat the possible mother-in-law may have a caprice for her son-in-law,\nwhile the would-be son-in-law, less frequently, may follow the course\nof Colonel Henry Esmond.\n\n2. Sir John Lubbock\u2019s (Lord Avebury\u2019s) theory, of enmity caused by\ncapture, Mr. Atkinson has dealt with; it is rejected by Mr. Crawley.\n\n3. Mr. Tylor\u2019s theory (_Journal Anthrop. Institute_, xviii. 247), is\nthat of \u2018cutting\u2019 \u2018an outsider,\u2019 not one of the family, not recognised\ntill his first child is born. For various reasons, Mr. Crawley rejects\nthis explanation, rightly, I venture to think. Mr. Crawley holds that\nthe mother-in-law avoidance \u2018seems to be causally connected with\na man\u2019s avoidance of his own wife,\u2019 which he regards as only one\naspect of the tabu between the two sexes, superstitiously regarded as\ndangerous to each other. But, like Mr. Atkinson, I much doubt whether\nthe \u2018avoidance,\u2019 as far as it goes, of husband and wife is, in the\nmain, the result of this superstition, though it plays its part on\nspecial occasions, as before the women sow the crops, and before the\nmen go forth to war. Mr. Crawley\u2019s suggestion that, as husband and wife\nare perpetually breaking the alleged sexual tabu, the mother-in-law\nbecomes \u2018a substitute to receive the onus of tabu,\u2019 \u2018a good instance of\nsavage make-believe\u2019 does not carry conviction. Mr. Atkinson\u2019s theory\nseems \u2018as good as a better\u2019 (_Mystic Rose_, pp. 400-414).--A. L.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Well-known instances of this marital shyness are the\nSpartan and Red Indian usage of only entering the wife\u2019s bower,\nor wigwam, under cover of darkness. There are also Fijian and New\nCaledonian cases (Crawley, pp. 39-40). Mr. Crawley would regard these\nas cases of \u2018sexual tabu,\u2019 but various other cases may be readily\nconjectured.--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See Note at the end of chap. V.]\n\n[Footnote 3: With the consequent accession of power to the resident\nfemale thus accruing, capture would have become more rare. In any case\nit would certainly become connected in the minds of the more advanced\nand powerful tribes with the rape of women, other than their own, and\nprobably inferior in type, mentally and physically; the comparison\nof this degraded captive in their midst with their own free females\nwould not be at all likely to have led in connection with her to any\nspontaneous idea of symbolic consecration in marriage, or aught else.]\n\n[Footnote 4: When two groups, despite the isolating tendency of the\nhabit of capture, did at length form a union sufficiently close to\npermit of marriage by consent between the respective group members,\nthen, with capture as regards outsiders still rife amongst them, we can\nunderstand how the symbol would come to be attached to the peaceful\nconnubium.]\n\n[Footnote 5: \u2018Phratries\u2019 are here meant, where the word \u2018clan\u2019 is used,\nor local totem groups.--A. L. Cf. Note, p. 260.]\n\n[Footnote 6: The exact relation of each to the females being defined by\nthe classificatory system by generations.]\n\n[Footnote 7: As mentioned by Tylor.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Here I really do not know what \u2018clan\u2019 is meant to\ndenote--\u2018phratry,\u2019 I think.--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 9: See Mr. Crawley\u2019s \u2018Sexual tabu\u2019 theory of this avoidance,\n_Mystic Rose_, pp. 399-414.--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Apparently \u2018clans\u2019 here = totem kins, Mr. Atkinson seems\nto think that totem kins kept on being added to the two original\n\u2018phratries.\u2019--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Lubbock, _Origin of Civilisation_, p. 13 _et seq_.]\n\n[Footnote 12: _Hlonipa_, to avoid mention of his name, &c.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Origin of Civilisation_, p. 14. Lubbock quoting \u2018Report\nof Select Committee on Aborigines,\u2019 Vict. 1859, p. 73. Tylor, _Early\nHistory of Mankind_, p. 288.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Among the Veddahs the fact that the avoidance begins\nafter puberty, and in each case in relation to the opposite sex, is\nevidence that here the sexual feelings are concerned.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Tylor, _Early History of Mankind_, p. 291.]\n\n[Footnote 16: E. B. Tylor. On a method of investigating the development\nof institutions: applied to laws of marriage and descent. _J. A. I_.\n1889, xviii. No. 3, 245-269.]\n\n\n[Footnote 17: The matter here is highly technical, and must be\ncompared, if it is to be understood, with Mr. Tylor\u2019s essay, cited in\nthe previous note. W stands for Wife, H for Husband, D is Daughter, F\nis Female, M is Mother, and is also Male! A is Avoidance.--A. L.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE CLASSIFICATORY SYSTEM\n\n\nThe classificatory system.--The author\u2019s theory is the opposite\nof Mr. Morgan\u2019s, of original brother and sister marriage.--That\ntheory is based on Malayan terms of relationship.--Nephew,\nniece, and cousin, all named \u2018sons and daughters.\u2019--This fact of\nnomenclature used as an argument for promiscuity.--The author\u2019s\ntheory.--The names for relationship given as regards the group,\nnot the individual.--The names and rules evolved in the respective\ninterests of three generations.--They apply to food as well as to\nmarriage.--Each generation is a strictly defined class.--Terms\nfor relationship indicate, _not kinship_, but relative seniority\nand rights in relation to the group.--The distinction of age in\ngenerations breaks down in practice.--Methods of bilking the letter\nof the law.--Communal marriage.--Outside suitors and cousinage.\n--The fact of cousinage unperceived and unnamed.--Cousins are still\ncalled brothers and sisters; thus, when a man styles his sister\u2019s\nson his son, the fact does not prove, as in Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory,\nthat his sister is his wife.--Terms of address between brothers\nand sisters.--And between members of the same and of different\nphratries.--These corroborate the author\u2019s theory.--Distinction as\nto sexual rights yields the classificatory system.--Progress outran\nrecognition and verbal expression.--Errors of Mr. Morgan and Mr.\nMcLennan.--Conclusion.--Note.--\u2019 \u2018Group marriage.\u2019\n\n\nIn the gradual evolution of the group into the tribe during the long\nperiod of transition, the modifications in the internal organisation,\nwhich took place as the necessary result in the march in progress,\nshould have left traces which we may also be able to follow in living\ncustom. The immigration of the outside suitor, in its synchronism\nwith the decay of paternal incest, must have entailed continual\ncomplications demanding regulation, and the resolution of each problem\nwould lead to an almost mechanical step in advance. When by force of\ncircumstances of environment or others such a step became retrograde,\nthen we may expect an aberrant form whose very anomalism should lead\nto a facile recognition, and prove equally fertile in interpretation.\nIndeed, a curious vestige of the effect in action of the habit of\nincest, when brought into inevitable contact with progressive social\nevolution, is to be discerned in the nomenclature of that earliest\nphase of the classificatory system which Mr. L. H. Morgan has called\nthe Malayan. From the general prevalence among lower races of a\ndivision into classes by generations of the members of group, and\nthe deduction we see drawn in _Ancient Society_ from the Hawaiian\nterms of relationship therein detailed, as to a previous state of\ngeneral promiscuity, it will be desirable thoroughly to examine the\nwhole question of the so-called classificatory system. It is doubly\nimperative in view of our own hypothesis, which, as regards the primary\norigin of society, may be said to be exactly the reverse of that of Mr.\nMorgan, in as far as the sexual inter-relations of brother and sister\nare concerned.\n\nWe have tried to portray the imperative evolution of a primal law as\nthe sole possible condition of the first steps in social progress,\na law which had so specially in view the bar to sexual intercourse\nbetween a brother and sister that it might, if a name for it were\nneeded, be called the _anadelphogamous_ law. [Mr. Atkinson wrote\n\u2018asororogamic,\u2019 which is really too impossible a word for even science\nto employ.] Mr. Morgan, on the contrary, says,[1] \u2018The primitive or\nconsanguine family was founded upon the inter-marriage of brothers and\nsisters own and collateral in a group.\u2019 He adds,[2] \u2018The Malayan system\ndefines the relationship that would exist in a consanguine family,\nand it demands the existence of such a family to account for its own\nexistence.\u2019 And again,[3] \u2018It is impossible to explain the system as\na natural growth, upon any other hypothesis than the one named, since\nthis form of marriage alone can furnish a key to its interpretation.\u2019\nHe bases his argument on the fact that[4] \u2018under the Malayan system all\nconsanguines, near and remote, fall within some one of the following\nrelationships, viz. parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother\nand sister--no other blood relationships are recognised,\u2019 and says,\nspeaking of promiscuity, that[5] \u2018a man calls his brother\u2019s son, his\nson, because his brother\u2019s wife is _his_ wife as well as his brother\u2019s,\nand his sister\u2019s son is also _his_ son because his sister is his wife.\u2019\n\nNow that a brother\u2019s son should be called a son is quite simple,\nas being a natural effect of the group marriage of brothers, the\nprevalence of which as a habit, and its effects, MM. Lorimer and\nFison so well show among the Australians.[6] But that a sister\u2019s son\nshould also be termed, by her brother, a \u2018son\u2019 is certainly a very\ndifferent thing indeed, despite Mr. McLennan\u2019s and other arguments\nto the contrary. In this verbal detail lies the whole crux of the\nmatter as regards Mr. Morgan. That it should have given rise to such\ndiversity of opinion and suggested his theory of brother and sister\nmarriage need hardly be matter of surprise. For it is at once, evident\nthat a group holding such nomenclature ignored cousinship, even if it\nexisted. To all later seeming my sister\u2019s son must be nephew to _ego_\nquite necessarily. That at any stage he should be unrecognised as such\nseems the more astonishing, as even in the very early times when totems\nfirst arose, and arose probably and precisely to distinguish cousins\nas such,[7] each cousin is of a different totem to the other, and\nthus not only eligible in marriage with another cousin, but in many\nlower races the born spouse each of the other. The whole question thus\nresolves itself into the exact value of the term we find used in the\nHawaiian designation of the sister\u2019s son by her brother. Now it is\nimportant to note that two causes might have for effect the form of\nnomenclature in which a brother and sister each call the child a son,\nand thus ignore a possible cousinship. One cause is that some factor\nin self-interest or otherwise allowed such relationship to remain\nunrecognised, although existent, and another is that, as cousinship\ndid not exist at all, there could be no recognition, or, as Mr. Morgan\nputs it, \u2018his sister\u2019s son is also his son because his sister is his\nwife.\u2019 To determine which is correct certainly seems difficult, and the\nwhole thing has evidently been considered a most stubborn fact for the\nopponents of promiscuity.\n\nThat Mr. Morgan should have seized it in support of his theory, and\nthat the theory should be so largely accepted, is not astonishing.\nHappily the great value of his ensuing argument as regards tribal\ndevelopment is in no way impaired if it can be shown, as we hope to do,\nthat there is no necessity for an hypothesis of promiscuity to explain\nthe terms in the Malayan table, which apparent need seems primarily to\nhave led Mr. Morgan to evolve the idea of his primitive group. In fact,\nit becomes evident that, if we can furnish a clue as to how a sister\u2019s\nson came also to be a brother\u2019s son, without having recourse to the\ntheory of an incestuous union of brothers and sisters, we at least\ndiscount the need of Mr. Morgan\u2019s \u2018consanguine family,\u2019 in which such\nincest is supposed to be a most characteristic and essential feature.\nWe hope to prove that the terms which misled him are more apparent than\nreal as proofs of any real affinity in blood, and that the original\nconception in causal connection was something quite apart.\n\nSir John Lubbock (Lord Avebury) has observed that the lower the\n_milieu_ of a social status the less we see of the individual and the\nmore of the group. In the case before us the individual as such does\nnot exist at all, and there is only question of the group in its\nrelation to its component classes. To confound one with the other led\nto Mr. Morgan\u2019s error.\n\nThere was much, in fact, in Mr. McLennan\u2019s shrewd remark in criticism\nof Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory that he did not seek the origin of the system\nof nomenclature in the origin of the classification of the connected\npersons, and that he courted failure in attempting to solve the problem\nby explaining the relationships comprised in the system in detail.\u2019[8]\nBut it seems to me that Mr. McLennan fell into the same error when he\ncontented himself with the misleading analogies which a comparison\nwith the Nair family system presented. These, however striking, are,\nas we shall find, simply the result of the fact that class or communal\nmarriage was the common trait of the polyandrous and the Cyclopean\nfamily, nor can I see that Mr. McLennan followed his own excellent\nadvice as regards the possible identity in origin of nomenclature and\nclassification; if he had so done, his acute mind could not have failed\nin a resolution of the whole problem, whereas his final resume of the\nargument is in terms which I profess to be quite unable to grasp.\n\nBefore entering into the matter ourselves, we must keep in mind our\naffirmation as to the axiom which must, in my opinion, guide us in\nall research into the hidden causes of early social evolution. All\ninnovations, as we have said, in the regulation of society, all novel\nlegislative procedure so to speak, will be found to have relation to\nthe sexual feelings in jealousy. This already is the genesis of the\nprimal law, and, in each case of avoidance, we have found jealousy the\nleading factor. It is the same in the case before us. Bearing this\nin mind, let us then follow Mr. McLennan\u2019s advice as to seeking the\norigin of the classification of connected persons. Now what would be\nthe family economy of the primitive group, and who are its component\nindividuals, whose interests, in sexual matters, are likely to clash,\nand whose mutual relationship in this respect demanded distinction in\nfurtherance of regulation of their respective rights?\n\nThe original primitive type of family, which we have called \u2018the\nCyclopean,\u2019 has disappeared, giving place to a higher form, which, by\nthe inclusion of male offspring, has permitted the existence of several\ngenerations in presence. The component individuals, speaking of one sex\nonly, would be old males, males, and young males representing three\ngenerations. It is the interests of these generations, which, in sexual\nmatters and in choice of food, &c. would be likely to clash, for we\nmay be sure that the seniors, as with actual savages, would desire the\nlion\u2019s share. Distinction then being necessary, it would naturally,\nas with individuals, be based on relativity of age, seniority within\ncertain limits confering priority. Thus gradually each generation, as\nindeed with actual lower races, would, _qua_ generation, come to be a\ndistinctly defined class with certain separate rights and obligations.\nIn this simple necessity of a classification of the connected\npersons, we see the origin of the classificatory system itself, as an\ninstitution. Divers interests, as between seniors and juniors, demanded\nstrict demarcation, and the limits of a generation furnished the\nrequired lines to mark them.\n\nThe very natural distinction by relativity of age was simply, as with\nindividuals, utilised as the requisite machinery in regulation of\nmutual rights of the individual himself. His rights are a matter of\nconcern simply within his generation, in which the relation is purely\npaternal and communal, with the sole reservation of rights conferred by\nseniority.\n\nEven when later denominative expression was given to the idea of\na generation, terms almost identical of male, old male, and young\nmale are used, as there is no desire to convey any idea of personal\nkinship, and there is merely in view reference to relativity of age\nof a class in relation to the group. Later, as Mr. McLennan says (p.\n277): \u2018Whatever class names primitively signified, Kiki would come to\nmean child, Kina parent, Moopuna grandchild, Kapuna grandparent, but\noriginally no such idea of kinship was in view.\u2019 The classificatory\nsystem evolved itself simply as the result of a desire to define\ncertain rights, and the division by generations was the most natural\nand feasible for the purpose. But the very simplicity and paucity\nof the original terms show that it was applied to any simple group\nform. In fact, we are here dealing with that primitive form which\nbound people together, by the mere tie of residence and locality, and\nwas purely exogamous in habit. Now when we consider that this fixed\nrelativity of age by generation was originally evolved in view of the\nrelations within such a family, we can imagine that complications\nmight arise from such arbitrary definitions, when, later, this family\nexpanded into the numerically large tribe composed of two intermarrying\ntotem clan groups [phratries].\n\nPrimitively, doubtless, as between the classes, the genetic idea as\nregards sexual matters was (as still with savages in questions of\nfood) to favour the seniors and defend their rights in defining each\none\u2019s status. But actually, with the decay of incest, it would become\nwhat it is as among lower races, where nothing is more remarkable\nthan the strict interdict upon any union between members of different\ngenerations.[9]\n\nIt is evident that hence complications might arise perplexing to the\nsavage mind. For instance, we may expect to find cases where the niece\nis an adult, whilst the aunt is still an infant, and yet marriage\nbetween the former and the son of the latter is obligatory, as they\nare cousins of the same generation. Here, probably, we have a clue to\none of the most bizarre facts in anthropology, where the universal\nrule as to sexual connection between generations seems to be wantonly\ndisobeyed, although in reality the reverse may be seen to be the case\non examination. It is recorded of the Keddies of Southern India that\na very singular custom exists among them, a young woman of sixteen or\ntwenty years of age may be married to a boy of five or six years. She,\nhowever, lives with some other adult male (perhaps a maternal uncle or\ncousin), but is also allowed to form a connection with the father\u2019s\nrelatives, occasionally it may be the boy\u2019s father himself, i.e. the\nwoman\u2019s father-in-law! Should there be children from these liaisons,\nthey are fathered on the boy husband. When the boy grows, the wife is\neither old or past child-bearing, when he in turn takes some other\nboy\u2019s wife in a manner precisely similar to that in his own case and\nprocreates children for the boy husband.\n\nBy the classificatory system, as each in fact is a member of the\nsame generation, they are born husbands and wives. The enforced\nvirginity of the wife, implied under such conditions, entailed a\ncelibacy incompatible with all lower ideas. It is easy to imagine\nthe compromise between his conscience and his desires which a savage\nwould make in such a case when favoured (or forced) by circumstances\nof environment, for it is unknown elsewhere. The infant nephew goes\nthrough the ceremony of marriage, which, by a fiction, being thus\nlegally consummated, the wife is left free to follow her desires.\nThese, however, are by no means allowed to run riot. They are regulated\nin a fashion of which, although the peculiarity is noted by the authors\nof the extract, the full significance can only be appreciated in\nconnection with our hypothesis. She formed indeed connections outside\nof her husband, but solely with those of the legally eligible totem.\nAs I believe the Keddies have male descent, these would be sons of the\nfather\u2019s sister, or sons of the mother\u2019s brother, or again with the\nlatter himself, who was her father-in-law, whereas union with the sons\nof the father\u2019s brothers, or of the mother\u2019s sisters, as being of the\nsame totem, would not take place--and this we find to be the actual\nfact, as evidence proves.\n\nBut still other complications will be found to arise as the effect of\nthe original concept of the classificatory system when brought face\nto face with new and advanced social order, which will have closer\nrelation to our present argument. The distinctive feature in the\neconomy of the primitive group in its relation to all other groups\nwas mutual hostility. The instinctive distrust of strangers would be\naccentuated by the habitual hostile capture of females, for such\ngroups, except in the case of the incest between father and daughter,\nwere yet purely exogamous. But such mutual hostility implies isolation\nof each community. Thus all law evolved, as we have said, would be\npurely with a view to regulation of the internal economy of a single\nconsanguine group alone. Now in such a group, the division into\ngenerations of old male, male, and young male implied (although not as\nyet understood as between generations) the relationship of parents and\nchildren. Each generation is either child or parent to the other. As\nmarriage is communal,[10] all the fathers in one generation are fathers\nto all the children in the next indiscriminately, and conversely these\nchildren recognise as fathers all the males of the senior generation.\nIt follows that the relationship of all the members of a generation\nis purely fraternal, all are brothers and sisters to each other, and\nin this consanguine family they were really either actually so, or at\nleast half brothers and half sisters.\n\nBetween these the primal law of celibacy between brother and sister\nas such embraced the whole generation. Now as long as the family was\nthus simply constituted, no friction would arise. The brothers, in\ncommon, captured and married in common some outside female,[11] and\ntheir children constituted solely the next generation. The sisters were\neither stolen or emigrated to other groups; but we have seen that a\nmoment would come when this process ceased to be universal. The sister\ncame to remain in her own group, and she was joined by some outside\nsuitor; with the advent of their children, who are cousins to the\nothers, would arise dire perplexities, in view of the old law.\n\nWe may now begin to see more distinctly, in the fact of the presence\nof the cousins, the resolution of the problem as to how a sister\u2019s\nson came to be also a brother\u2019s, and we will find that Mr. Morgan was\nnot the first to be baffled by the problem. It was too intricate for\nprimitive man at any rate. When first presented to him, we may surmise\nthat he, in fact, refused to recognise it as a problem at all. Since\nthe beginning of things in the group, as constituted by all tradition,\nthe children of one generation were children of another simply, and\nnothing more. That as a result of the presence of the outside male,\nsome intricate process of scission had occurred, and things were not\nas they seemed, was an idea far too abstract to be readily seized. All\nin a generation had been ever, to early man, brother and sister, and\nbrother and sister they should continue.\n\nWe have seen in a past chapter that it was actually to the interest of\nsenior male group-members, while incest reigned, that this condition\nof things should endure. It put at their sole disposal the daughters\nof their brothers-in-law, and in the primal law placed a ban on\nsexual intercourse between all the younger male and female members,\nas constituting them brothers and sisters. As a factor in this case,\nhowever, the effect of incest was more or less temporary. The real\nagent in the tardy or non-recognition of the cousinship thus created,\nwas the conservative force of old habit and tradition. We must remember\nthat, in so early a group, personal descent as such was in no way\nrecognised. Mere local contiguity alone constituted the sense of\nrelationship, exogamy for instance took the form of local exogamy,\nfor as all within a locality were (locally) relations, so all outside\nwere, as strangers, free in marriage. While then so strong a sense of\nthe value of contiguity continued, and was in practice, the evolution\nof an idea of non-relationship of two individuals with a common\nhabitat would be too complex. Again, a recognition in fact implies a\nvast modification of the whole organisation of the group, which thus\ncontains in cousins the elements of marriage within itself. But this is\nthe latest and highest type of group and constitutes the tribe. We can\nunderstand that such a step was not taken at once by early man. Even\nwhen recognised we know that definition lags behind the event.\n\nThus in such a case as cited, and at the stage we are studying, if we\nfind two cousins in presence, who are yet unrecognised as cousins,\nthen, if nomenclature has taken place, we should find exactly the terms\nemployed in the Malayan table which misled Mr. Morgan. A sister\u2019s son\nwould be termed the brother\u2019s son, simply because the individual was\nas yet ignored, although existent, as a cousin, as members of the same\ngeneration they were brother and sister. Classes by generations alone\nwere recognised.\n\nNow as regards the validity of our assumption that relativity in age\nserved as a means to determine privilege as to wedlock, proof can be\nfurnished by certain nomenclatory features, as between members of a\nclass or generation, to be found in the Malayan table in _Ancient\nSociety_ and elsewhere. This will afford, incidentally, strong negative\nproof of our theory as to non-union between brother and sister. It will\nalso incidentally furnish the strongest negative evidence that, so far\nfrom brother and sister living in incest, as Morgan holds, brother and\nsister were regarded as quite apart in the sense of any sexual relation\nbetween them. It will be seen that there is a profound distinction made\nin address between inter-marriageable people and those between whom\ncelibacy is enjoined.\n\nBoth Mr. Morgan and Mr. McLennan have drawn attention to the\npeculiarities in the terms of address as between \u2018brothers\u2019 and as\nbetween \u2018sisters.\u2019 It is curious that the full significance of the\nphenomena therein presented escaped two such keen intellects. We find\nhere that terms of address as between persons of the same sex and of\nthe same generation, and _ergo_ brothers or sisters, present the very\nremarkable features that\n\n(1) \u2018The age of the person spoken to compared with that of the speaker\nplays a very important part in the matter of denomination.\u2019\n\n(2) \u2018Such names refer not to the absolute age of the person addressed.\u2019\n\n(3) \u2018The relationships of brother and sister are conceived in the\ntwofold form of elder and younger, and not in the abstract, and there\nare special terms for each among the Seneca Iroquois.\u2019\n\n(4) \u2018There is no name for brother and sister (Malayan system). On the\nother hand, there are a variety of names for use in salutations between\n\u201cbrother\u201d and \u201csister\u201d according to the age and sex of the person\nspeaking in relation to the age and sex of the person addressed.\u2019\n\n(5) Among the Eskimo the form of the terms of relationship appears to\ndepend, in some cases, more on the sex of the speaker than on that of\nthe person to whom the term refers.\n\n(6) In Eastern Central Africa, if a man has a brother and a sister, he\nis called one thing by the brother, but quite a different thing by the\nsister.\n\nWe will now illustrate the idea more completely by an extract of terms\nfrom the table of Hawaiian relationships in _Ancient Society_. An older\nor a younger brother is to a sister simply addressed or mentioned\nby the general term Kaiku nana, but to her, in address or mention\nof an older or a younger sister, they are respectively Kaik a\u2019ana\nand Kaika-i-na. Again, an older or a younger sister is to a brother\ncollectively Kaikuwaheena, but to him an elder or a younger brother is\nrespectively Kaiknana and Kaikaina.\n\nNow in view of our argument as regards the origin of these diversities\nin some sexual feelings, it is a most significant feature in these\ndetails of the terms of address that the expression of the relativity\nof age between the speakers is confined solely to the intercourse\nbetween members of the same sex. That a brother is the senior or the\njunior of Ego is carefully noted, but a sister is simply and vaguely\na sister. Why? simply because whereas, by virtue of the primal law,\nno possible question whatever of mutual interest in sexual matters\ncould possibly arise between a brother and a sister, on the other\nhand friction might hourly occur between brothers or between sisters.\nIn fact, if our theory is correct, then, as questions of sexual\nprivilege or precedence could cause jealousy between members of the\nsame sex, distinctions would be necessary by definition of seniority\nwhen address took place between these, and in these cases alone, and\nthis indeed we find to be the fact. As conclusive evidence we would\ncite the further important fact that these very same distinctions of\nsenior and junior are used, _inter se_, between all those of the same\ntotem [phratry] as now existing, but are never employed for their\ntribal cousins of the other totem [phratry]. And the reason is the\nsame. The latter naturally do not marry (in groups formed of only two\nclasses) [phratries] into the same totem [phratry] as the former,\nand thus there is no cause for jealousy or necessity of definition,\nwhereas individuals of the same totem [phratry] are _ipso facto_ group\n[potential] husbands of the same group [potential] wives, or are at\nleast eligible in marriage with the same totem groups [phratries], and\nhence necessity for the exact definition by age of each one\u2019s rights.\n\nThus, as with other laws or institutions we have traced, we find\na desire for distinction as regards rights in sexual union to be\nthe genetic cause of the classificatory system both as regards the\ngeneration and its component members.\n\nIn all periods of transition which a process in change in progress\nimplies, we expect to find cases where the conservative force of\ntradition from the past has delayed recognition of the too novel\npresent, and we discover that circumstances have moved too rapidly for\nthe intelligence of the times. If we keep this fact in view, we have\nthus seemed to find a natural explanation of the knotty point which\nwas the cause of dispute between Mr. Morgan and Mr. McLennan,[12] and\nwe may thus venture to say that each was both wrong and right in his\nviews of the classificatory system in general. Each has mistaken a part\nfor a whole, and they were ignorant that they were upholding two sides\nof the same question. Mr. Morgan was in error in assuming the system\u2019s\ntoo intimate connection with a determination of affinities in blood,\nin relation to which primarily, as we hope to have shown, it had\nreally neither purpose nor aim, as also in his too hasty assumption of\na consanguine family founded on brother and sister incest, based on a\nmere conjectural solution of a verbal detail, an assumption which he\nhimself acknowledges had no other foundation.\n\nMr. McLennan was in error in maintaining that the classificatory\nsystem concerned terms of address alone. To quote his own words:\n\u2018What duties or rights are affected by the \u201crelationships\u201d comprised\nin the classificatory system? Absolutely none; they are barren of\nconsequences, except indeed as comprising a code of courtesies and\nceremonial addresses in social intercourse.\u2019 On the other hand, as\nwe have tried to show, the system had precisely both intention and\neffect in regulation, as regards sexual feeling, which is the strongest\npassion in nature. And yet each disputant again was right in a degree,\nfor, in later times, the classificatory distinctions really served\nas terms of address as regards the clan [tribe?], whilst again the\nprimitive terms, which simply describe generations of persons in their\nrelation to the group, were afterwards, by philological transmutation,\nto come to have a more definite meaning expressing the sense of the\npersonal parent.\n\n\nNOTE TO CHAPTER VIII\n\n_Group Marriage_\n\n\nThe idea that \u2018group marriage\u2019 exists among the dusky natives of\nAustralia, and that \u2018the group is the social unit as regards marriage\u2019\n(as explained in the earlier part of this book), was introduced by\nMessrs. Howitt and Fison in their _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_ (1880).\nMessrs. Spencer and Gillen, in their _Natives of Central Australia_\n(1899), support the views of Messrs. Fison and Howitt. \u2018Under certain\nmodifications group marriage still exists as an actual custom,\nregulated by fixed and well recognised rules, amongst various\nAustralian tribes\u2019 (p. 56). \u2018Individual marriage does not exist either\nin name or practice in the Urabunna tribe\u2019 (p. 63). Mr. Crawley\nargues, on the other hand, that individual marriage does exist among\nthe Urabunna, \u2018though slightly modified\u2019 (_Mystic Rose_, p. 482). For\neach \u2018slight modification,\u2019 the husband\u2019s consent must be obtained. The\nsystem is regarded by Mr. Crawley, not as a survival of promiscuity,\nmore or less modified, but as an \u2018abnormal development.\u2019 He believes in\nindividual marriage, as, from the earliest known times, \u2018the regular\ntype of union of man and woman.\u2019 \u2018One is struck by the high morality of\nprimitive man\u2019 (pp. 483-484).\n\nWhat Mr. Atkinson meant by saying that \u2018marriage is communal,\u2019 I do\nnot understand, as, on his theory, sexual jealousy must have prevented\neach man of a generation, in a group, from being equally the husband\nof each woman, not his sister. The young braves are supposed to bring\nin women captives from without, and to marry them \u2018communally,\u2019 Then\nwhat becomes of jealousy? They ought rather to have fought for their\ncaptive, on the principles of a golf tournament, the survivor and\nwinner taking the bride. Mr. Atkinson never saw his work except in his\nmanuscript, and might have made modifications on such points as this,\nwhere he seems to me to lose grasp of his idea, as in his theory of\nrecognition of the children of \u2018the outside suitor,\u2019 he seems to bring\nmale descent into action at a period when, as he asserts elsewhere, it\nwas not yet recognised by customary law. On the Keddies (p. 287) I have\nno information, the author giving no reference. A. L.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _Ancient Society_, p. 384, Lewis H. Morgan.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Ibid._ p. 402.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Ibid._ p. 409.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Ibid._ p. 385.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Ancient Society_, p. 391, Lewis H. Morgan.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, Lorimer and Fison. Cf. note at end\nof chapter. I have already stated my objections to the theory of \u2018group\nmarriage.\u2019--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 7: \u2018Totems arose to distinguish cousins as such.\u2019 This\nimplies that the totem name was assigned to each group for a definite\nsocial purpose, the regulation of degrees of kin. But, on any feasible\ntheory of the \u2018totem\u2019 it \u2018came otherwise,\u2019 and was only used as a\nmark of kinship _after_ it had come, just as a place name might have\nbeen used, had it been equally convenient. On the system of descent\nof the totem on the female side, A (man), an Emu, marries B (woman),\na Kangaroo. Their sons and daughters are Kangaroos. C, one of the\nsisters, marries D, a Witchetty Grub, her children are Kangaroos. E,\nC\u2019s brother, marries F, a Frog, _his_ children are Frogs, and may, as\nfar as the totem rule goes, marry their cousins, C\u2019s children, who are\nKangaroos.--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Studies in Ancient History_, McLennan, p. 269 _et seq._]\n\n[Footnote 9: The most distinctive feature to-day in the inter-relations\nof generations is a most strict ordinance to celibacy between members\nof different generations.]\n\n[Footnote 10: How can marriage be communal, granting Mr. Atkinson\u2019s\nviews about sexual jealousy?--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Where is sexual jealousy?--A. L.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Cf. Mr. Tylor, _J. A. I._ xviii. 3, 265, who expresses\nthe same opinion.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDICES\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\nORIGIN OF TOTEMISM\n\n\nIn the following village sobriquets from the south-western counties of\nEngland the people are styled \u2018eaters of\u2019 this or that.[1]\n\n       ENGLISH VILLAGE SOBRIQUETS\n\n                 Eaters\n\n     Ashreigney   --   Dog-eaters\n     Morchard     --   \u2018Burd\u2019-eaters\n     Roseash      --   Whitpot-eaters\n     Sandford     --   Cheese-eaters\n     Moreton      --   Tatie-eaters\n     Paignton     --   Pudding-eaters\n     Churston     --   Liver-eaters\n\nCompare with these the following sobriquets of Siouan old totem kins,\ncounting descent in the male line.\n\n         SIOUAN NAMES OF GENTES\n\n                 Eaters\n\n        Eat the scrapings of hides\n        Eat dried venison\n        Eat dung\n        Eat raw food\n\nAmong the Sioux we have also noted the sobriquets\n\n    _Non-Eaters of_\n      Deer\n      Buffalos\n      Swans\n      Cranes\n      Blackbirds, etc.\n\nThese sobriquets of non-eaters are probably totemic: the Deer kin does\nnot eat deer, nor does the Crane kin eat cranes, and so on. Totem kins\nare named from what they do not eat; many totem kins with male descent\nare nicknamed from what they do eat, or are alleged by their neighbours\nto eat.\n\nGROUP SOBRIQUETS IN ORKNEY.\n\nIn the following letter, which I owe to the kindness of Mr. Duncan\nRobertson, we read that, in Orkney and Shetland, local sobriquets are\nderived from what the people are alleged to eat. The tradition is, Mr.\nRobertson informs me, that each group is named after the edible plant\nor animal which it brought when engaged in building the Cathedral of\nKirkwall.\n\n\n                               Crantit House, St. Ola, Orkney,\n                                        Jan. 29, 1903.\n\n        Dear Mr. Lang,--My tyrannical doctor won\u2019t let me out\n        yet, so that I have not been able to collect all the\n        information I should like to get for you about the\n        Orkney nicknames--or \u2018bye-names,\u2019 as they are called\n        here.\n\n        Here follows the list as taken from Tudor\u2019s _The Orkneys\n        and Shetland_, with alterations:\n\n    I. MAINLAND OR POMONA\n\n    Kirkwall          Starlings\n    St. Andrews       Skerry-scrapers\n    Deemess           Skate-rumples\n    Holm              Hobblers\n    Orphir            Yearnings\n    Firth             Oysters\n    Stromness         Bloody-puddings\n    Sandwick          Assie-pattles\n    Harray            Crabs (of old, sheep)\n    Birsay            Hoes = dog-fish\n    Evie              Cauld kail\n    Rendall           Sheep-thieves\n\n\nII. SOUTH ISLES\n\n    Hoy            Hawks, Auks or Tammynories\n    Walls          Lyars (Manx Sheer-water)\n    Burray         Oily Bogies = the skin\n                   buoys used for herring\n                   nets\n\nSouth Ronaldshay\n\n    a.  Grimness            Gruties\n    b.  Hope                Scouties (Skuas)\n    c.  Widewall            Witches\n    d.  Herston             Hogs\n    e.  Sandwick            Birkies\n    f.  South Parish        Teeacks (Lapwings)\n\n\nIII.  NORTH ISLES\n\n    Gairsay                  Buckies\n    Wyre                     Whelks\n    Egilsay                  Burstin Lumps\n    Rousay                   Mares\n    Shapansey                Sheep\n    Stronsay                 Limpets\n    Sanday                   Gruelly Belkies\n    North Ronaldshay         Selkies = Seals (also called\n                             \u2018Tangie Whessos\u2019) and \u2018Hides\u2019\n    Eday                     Scarfs = Shag or small Cormorant\n    Westray                  Auks = the common Guillemot\n    Papa Westray             Doundies = spent Cod\n\n        These are all the names I know or can hear of in Orkney.\n        I wrote to Mr. Moodie Heddle of Cletts on the subject,\n        as I knew him to take a great and intelligent interest\n        in all such topics; and I have a most interesting\n        letter from him, of which I shall give you the gist.\n        He says he has no doubt that the origin of the names\n        is that which you suggest, though some of the names do\n        not at first sight appear to bear this out. _Kirkwall\n        \u2018Starlings\u2019_ are easily accounted for, assuming that\n        there have always been as many starlings about Kirkwall\n        as there are now. They may well have been eaten by the\n        townsfolk. I have tried them, and their breasts are not\n        at all bad.\n\n        _Skerry-scrapers_.--The allusion here is to men who\n        live off shell fish, \u2018dilse,\u2019 etc. off the skerries.\n        There are--or were--excellent oysters on the St. Andrews\n        skerries. Mr. Heddle tells me he has heard a woman\n        insulting a man by saying she supposed he would soon\n        leave no limpets in a certain bay, meaning that he was\n        too lazy to work for his living.\n\n        _Skate-rumple_ is, of course, the skate\u2019s tail. Deemess\n        is the nearest land to a famous piece of water for\n        skate, known as \u2018the skate-hole.\u2019\n\n        _Holm \u2018Hobblers\u2019_ I do not understand, but shall make\n        some further inquiries. I have an idea it is a reference\n        to some bird; Mr. Heddle thinks it has something to do\n        with seals, but neither of us knows.\n\n        _Yearnings_ are, of course, the dried stomachs of calves\n        used for making cheese.\n\n        _Oysters_.--The bay of Firth was famous for its oysters\n        till the beds were overfished and destroyed some thirty\n        years ago.\n\n        _Stromness \u2018Bloody-puddings\u2019_--Mr. Heddle suggests that\n        the people bled their cattle twice or thrice a year and\n        made \u2018puddings\u2019 of the blood. This, of course, was done\n        in the Highlands at one time.\n\n        _Assie-pattles_.--Either those who lay in the ashes\n        or, Mr. Heddle suggests, who ate cakes baked in the\n        ashes. Before iron girdles came much into use cakes\n        were baked on flat stones; and there is a hill, known\n        as \u2018Baking-stone Hill,\u2019 where the people used to come\n        for stones that would not split in the fire. The peats\n        used in Sandwick have a very red ash, which colours all\n        persons and things near it.\n\n        _Harray \u2018Crabs.\u2019_--Harray is the only parish in Orkney\n        which does not touch the sea, and the name is given in\n        irony. The old \u2018tee-name\u2019 is said to have been \u2018sheep.\u2019\n        The story is told that some fishermen passing through\n        Harray dropped a live crab. The men of Harray could not\n        make it out at all, and sent for the oldest inhabitant,\n        who was brought in a wheel-barrow. After gazing at the\n        monster for a few moments he exclaimed: \u2018Boys, hid\u2019s a\n        fiery draygon; tak\u2019 me hame!\u2019\n\n        I suspect there is some other tee-name than\n        \u2018sheep-thieves\u2019 for the Rendall people, but will try to\n        find out and let you know.\n\n        _Hoy \u2018Hawks\u2019_--Mr. Heddle, who was formerly proprietor\n        of Hoy, says he thinks \u2018auks\u2019 must have been the\n        original word, as he believes \u2018tammy-nories\u2019 was the old\n        name. \u2018Auk\u2019 is Orcadian for the common guillemot, and a\n        \u2018tammy-norie\u2019 is a puffin. Both of these birds abound in\n        Hoy.\n\n        Mr. Heddle also tells me that the old name of \u2018Lyars\u2019\n        for the people of Walls was to a great extent replaced\n        by \u2018Cockles.\u2019 The \u2018lyars\u2019 were very common in Walls at\n        one time, and were esteemed a great delicacy, but, Mr.\n        Heddle tells me, were to a great extent killed out by\n        the brown rat. He himself remembers men being bitten by\n        rats when putting their hands into holes to look for\n        young \u2018lyars.\u2019 Some three generations back enormous\n        numbers of cockles were taken and eaten by the people of\n        Walls, and they seem to have been called \u2018Cockles\u2019--or,\n        I presume, \u2018eaters of cockles\u2019--in consequence.\n\n        _Oily Bogies_.--I hardly see how this can have been\n        \u2018eaters of.\u2019 There might have been some old story to the\n        effect that the Burray men stole and ate these buoys,\n        but I never heard it.\n\n        South Ronaldshay has names for every district, which no\n        other island but the Mainland has.\n\n        _Gruties_ is, Mr. Heddle says, equivalent to\n        \u2018Skerry-scrapers\u2019--people who get their living from the\n        \u2018grut\u2019 or refuse left in bights by the tide. (\u2018Grut,\u2019\n        see Norse _gr\u00f6de_ = porridge or gruel.)\n\n        _Scouties_ may be derived from the skua, though Mr.\n        Heddle gives an unpresentable derivation. The word\n        _Birkies_ he did not know the meaning of, but asked two\n        or three people, who all said the Sandwick people were\n        so called \u2018because Sandwick was such a place for tangles\n        coming ashore, and the people had such a habit of eating\n        what they called \u201cbirken\u201d tangles, i.e. the stout or\n        lower ends of the large thick tangles.\u2019\n\n        _Burstin Lumps_ are a sort of preparation of oatmeal,\n        once a very favourite dish in the Isles.\n\n        _Rousay \u2018Mares\u2019_--There is an old tale of a Rousay man\n        who, being a coward, killed his mare and hid inside her\n        from his enemies. Mr. Heddle sends me an old rhyme on\n        the subject:\n\n    As the Rousay man said to his mare:\n    \u2018I wish I were in thee, for fear o\u2019 the war;\n    I wish I were in thee without any doubt,\n    Were it Martinmas Day before I cam\u2019 out.\u2019\n\n        The North Ronaldshay people did eat seals. Why _Hides_\n        I do not know. Mr. Heddle here suggests it may have had\n        to do with witchcraft, in which skins and especially\n        seals\u2019 flippers were much used. Within the last ten\n        years a man pulled down and rebuilt his byre because of\n        some \u2018ongoings with a selkie flipper.\u2019\n\n        The names are very old and must be of Scandinavian\n        origin.\n\n                                    Yours sincerely,\n\n                                      DUNCAN J. ROBERTSON.\n\n\nIn addition to these names of \u2018eaters,\u2019 simple names of animals, we\nhave shown in the text, are as commonly given to English villages as\ntotemic names are given to the totem groups of savages.\n\nANCIENT HEBREW VILLAGE NAMES\n\nIn Robertson Smith\u2019s _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_ (p. 219)\nhe says: \u2018I have argued that many place-names formed from the names of\nanimals are also to be regarded as having been originally taken from\nthe totem clans that inhabited them.\u2019 Now where totemism is a living\ninstitution I know no instance in which a locality is named from \u2018the\ntotem clan that inhabits it.\u2019 The thing cannot be where female descent\nprevails, as many totems are then everywhere mixed in each local group.\nWhere male descent prevails we do, indeed, get localities inhabited by\ngroups mainly of the same totem name. But their tendency is to let the\ntotem name merge in the territorial title, the name of the locality, as\nMessrs. Spencer and Gillen prove for the Arunta and Mr. Dorsey for the\nSioux.\n\nHaving found no instance where a totemic group gives its totem name\nto the locality which it inhabits, I was struck by a remark of Dean\nStanley in his _Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church_ (p. 319,\n1870). He there mentions the villages of Judah which were the scenes\nof some of Samson\u2019s adventures (Joshua xv. 32, 33; Judges i. 35). The\nvillages of Lebaoth, Shaalbim, Zorah, respectively mean Lions, Jackals,\nand Hornets. Nobody eats any of these three animals, and they may be\nnames of totem groups transferred to localities--though of this usage\nI know no example among savage totemists--or they may merely be old\nHebrew village sobriquets, as in England and France.\n\nOn consulting the _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, under \u2018Names\u2019 (vol. iii.\n3308, 3316) we find that \u2018there can be no doubt that many place-names\u2019\nin Palestine \u2018are identical with names of animals.\u2019 Those \u2018applied to\ntowns\u2019 (we may read villages probably) are much more common in the\nsouth than in the north. We have Stags, Lions, Leopards, Gazelles,\nWild Asses, Foxes, Hy\u00e6nas, Cows, Lizards, Hornets, Scorpions, Serpents,\nand so on. These may have been derived from old totem kins, though\nI think that theory improbable, or from the frequency of hornets or\nscorpions in this or that place, or the villagers\u2019 sobriquet may\nhave become the village name. The last hypothesis has hitherto been\noverlooked. The frequency of animal and plant names in the Roman\n_gentes_, Fabii (Beans), Asinii (Asses), Caninii (Dogs), is an instance\nthat readily occurs. These may be survivals of totemism or of less\narchaic sobriquets, while the totem names themselves, as we have\nargued, may have had their origin in sobriquets.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _Western Antiquary_, vol. ix., pt. ii., p. 37, August,\n1899.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B\n\nTHE BA RONGA TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP\n\n\nThe hypothesis that the Australian terms of relationship, as they\nnow exist, really denote status in customary law, may perhaps derive\ncorroboration from the classificatory system as it appears among the\nBa Ronga, near Delagoa Bay. Here the natives are rich, industrial,\ncommercial, and polygamous to the full extent of their available\ncapital. Polygamy, male kinship, and wife purchase, with elaborate\nlaws of dowry and divorce, have modified and complicated the terms of\nrelationship. They are described by an excellent authority, M. Henri\nJunod, a missionary.[1]\n\nM. Junod has obviously never heard of the \u2018classificatory system\u2019\namong other races, and his explanation of certain \u2018avoidances,\u2019 such\nas between the husband and his wife\u2019s brother, father, and mother, is\nprobably incorrect (turning, as it does, on the laws of wife-price\nand divorce), though it appears now to be accepted by the Ba Ronga\nthemselves. But what more concerns us is the nature of terms of\nrelationship. These terms denote status in customary law, determined\nby sex and seniority. Among the Basuto, \u2018a man is otherwise related\nto his sister than to his brother; his children are related to their\npaternal otherwise than to their maternal uncles and aunts,\u2019 and to\ntheir cousins in the same style. Relative seniority, entailing relative\nsocial duties, is also expressed in the terms of relationship. The\nmaternal aunt, senior to the mother, is \u2018grandmother.\u2019 The children of\nmy father\u2019s brother and of my mother\u2019s sister, are my \u2018brothers\u2019 or\n\u2018sisters;\u2019 the children of my maternal uncle and paternal aunt are not\nmy \u2018brothers\u2019 and \u2018sisters.\u2019 The children of a man\u2019s inferior wives\ncall the chief wife \u2018grandmother,\u2019 and the other wives, not their\nmother, \u2018maternal aunts.\u2019[2] The son of my wife\u2019s sister is my \u2018son,\u2019\nbecause I may succeed to her husband on his death, and his father\ncalls me \u2018brother.\u2019 The maternal uncle is the mere butt of his nephew,\nthe uncle\u2019s wives are the nephew\u2019s potential wives: he is one of the\nheirs to them. This kind of uncle (maternal) is not one of the tribal\n\u2018fathers\u2019 of the nephew, but the paternal uncle is, and is treated with\nthe utmost respect. In brief, each name for a \u2018relationship\u2019 is a name\ncarrying certain social duties or privileges, dependent on sex and\nseniority.\n\nWe have no such customary laws, and need no such names--the names are\nthe result and expression of the Basuto customary laws. Had we such\nideas of duty and privilege, then they would be expressed in our terms\nof relationship, which would be numerous. My maternal uncle would have\na name denoting the man with whose wife I may flirt. The wife of my\nbrother-in-law is the woman whom I must treat with the most distant\nrespect. If I am a woman, my father\u2019s sister\u2019s husband (my \u2018uncle by\nmarriage\u2019) is a man whose wife I may become, and so forth endlessly.\nConsequently there is a wealth of terms of relationship, just because\nof the peculiarities of Ba Ronga customary law.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _Les Baronga_, Attinger, Neufch\u00e2tel, 1898, pp. 82-87.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Op. cit._ pp. 487-489.]\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n    Aboriginal man, Mr. Darwin\u2019s view of, 209;\n      Mr. Atkinson on, 220\n    Affinity, degrees of, prohibiting marriage, 188;\n      most stringently applied by least civilised races, 2;\n      differences of opinion among students of the question, 2;\n      existing laws not an indication of primitive rules, 2;\n      Australian anomaly, 88\n    Age distinction and the classificatory system, Mr. Atkinson on, 290\n    Altruism, possible germ of, in nascent man, 232\n    American ethnological terms, 10\n    Andrews, Judge, on Hawaiian marriage relationships, 98\n    Animal guardians among savages, 131\n    Annamese family relationships, Dr. Westermarck on, 240\n    Anomaly, totem, among the Arunta, 85\n    Anthropoid adult males unsocial, 220\n    Aristotle and early human society, 7\n    Arunta tribe of Central Australia, 2, 11;\n      descent reckoned in the male line, 15, 69;\n      supposed ignorance of procreation, 20;\n      a \u2018marriage ceremony,\u2019 24;\n      reincarnation superstition, 31, 139;\n      totem marriage-prohibition now extinct, 41;\n      totem common to both phratries, 46, 56;\n      totem groups preceded phratries, 61;\n      Mr. Spencer on the introduction of exogamy, 61;\n      totem influence, 61;\n      traditions as to change of custom, 67;\n      Mr. Frazer\u2019s opinion of the tribe, 68;\n      intermarry with the Urabunna, 69;\n      theory of evolution, 70; totemism, 70;\n      belief in reincarnation, 71; totem eating, 71;\n      Dr. Durkheim\u2019s views, 72;\n      opinion of Spencer and Gillen, 73;\n      marital relationship, 74;\n      relations of totems and phratries, 74;\n      myths, 75; Dr. Durkheim on, 75;\n      Messrs. Spencer and Gillen\u2019s opinions, 76, 77;\n      institution of marriage regulations, 78;\n      phratries and totems, 81;\n      Dr. Durkheim\u2019s views on the phratry, 82;\n      totemic divisions, 83;\n      origin of the anomalous marriage system, 85;\n      philosophy of souls, 86;\n      relationships prohibiting marriage, 88;\n      curiosities of affinity, 88;\n      terms of relationship, 93;\n      relationship customs, 96; legislation, 108;\n      legend regarding marriage limits, 108;\n      class system with male descent, 120;\n      totems and magic, 196, 198\n    Atkinson, Mr., his speculations on human origin, 3;\n      on primitive man\u2019s polygamy, 4;\n      his theories and the Biblical account, 7;\n      disbelief in early promiscuity, 9;\n      views on the effect of sexual jealousy, 9, 18, 30;\n      his opinion on exogamy and totemism, 17;\n      his exogamous marriage hypothesis, 18;\n      his \u2018primal law,\u2019 19;\n      on the origin of the \u2018classificatory system,\u2019 108;\n      on New Caledonian totems, 136;\n      and the custom of avoidance, 212, 264;\n      on the origin of exogamy, 212, 238;\n      aboriginal man polygamous, 220;\n      man\u2019s distinction in the primal law, 225;\n      prolonged infancy in nascent man, 230;\n      origin of maternal love, 231;\n      possible germ of altruism, 232;\n      earliest evolution of law, 236;\n      wives procured by capture, 244; editor\u2019s note thereon, 248;\n      development from the group to the tribe, 250;\n      effect of female sexual jealousy, 256;\n      extinction of the patriarchal family, 261;\n      survivals of transition period, 264;\n      clan (phratry) relationship, 269;\n      editor\u2019s note on avoidances, 278;\n      the classificatory system, 280, 285;\n      on the original purpose of totems, 282;\n      on local contiguity constituting relationship, 289;\n      on age distinction and the classificatory system, 290;\n      on group marriage and the classificatory system, 292\n    Attic plant names, 205\n    Australia, marriage divisions in, 38;\n      consanguineous marriages forbidden, 40;\n      tribal variations of custom, 41\n    Australian group marriage, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen on, 293\n    Australian, native, society not primitive, 3;\n      complexity of social rules, 3, 4;\n      low state of culture, 4; divinities, 5;\n      languages and customs, 6; commerce, 6\n    Australian tribal division, Mr. Fison on, 42;\n      the author\u2019s view, 43\n    Australian sex protectors, 144\n    Avebury, Lord, on racial customs, 12; on totemism, 122;\n      on totem origin, 123; on communal marriage, 124;\n      vague terminology, 126, 130; on relationships, 128\n    \u2018Avoidance,\u2019 custom of, Mr. Atkinson on, 212; origin of, 276\n    Avoidance between father-in-law and son-in-law, 268; its origin, 269\n    Avoidance of mother-in-law, 270, 277; Mr. Crawley on its origin, 278\n\n    Bachofen\u2019s views on maternal kin-names, 9\n    Baiame, Australian divinity, 5, 29, 138, 184\n    Banks Island, two class divisions in, 178\n    Ba Ronga terms of relationship, 301\n    Barter between Australian tribes, 6\n    Basuto customary law, 301\n    \u2018Bisection\u2019 a misleading term, 36\n    Bishop, Rev. A., on Hawaiian marriage relationships, 98\n    Blood kinship implied by totem name, 193\n    Breeding between sire and daughter, effect of, 223\n    British Columbia clan totems, Mr. Hill Tout on, 152\n    Brother-and-sister \u2018avoidance,\u2019 213; in Australia, 216\n    Brother-and-sister \u2018avoidance,\u2019 Dr. Westermarck on, 240\n    Brother-and-sister marriage, primitive, Mr. Morgan on, 281\n    Bull-roarer, pal\u00e6olithic, 5; miniature, discovered in France, 5;\n      Mr. Frazer\u2019s bibliography of, 5 _n_\n\n    Calabar \u2018bush-souls,\u2019 143\n    Camerons of Glen Nevis properly MacSorlies, 8.\n    Chattan, Clan, crest of the, 163\n    Clan, definition of, 11\n    Clan (phratry) relationship, Mr. Atkinson on, 269\n    Clandestine intercourse preliminary to marriage, 265\n    Class system, the, 35; and Mr. Morgan, 89\n    Class system with male descent among the Arunta, 120\n    Class and generation correspond, 112\n    Class names, Herr Cunow on, 113, 118; Dr. Durkheim on, 118;\n      Mr. Mathews on, 119\n    Classes, Mr. Morgan\u2019s view of their origin, 92\n    Classificatory system, Mr. Atkinson on the, 108, 285;\n      division by generations the most natural one, 286;\n      age distinction, 290; and group marriage, 292\n    Classificatory terms, 100\n    Codrington, Dr., and totem descent, 135;\n      on Melanesian ancestor-worship, 150;\n      on social systems in Melanesia, 177;\n      his totem theory controverted, 181\n    Commerce, Australian inter-tribal, 6\n    Communal marriage, Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory, 90; Lord Avebury on, 124\n    Consanguineous marriages forbidden among Australian tribes, 40\n    Contiguity, local, constituting relationship, Mr. Atkinson on, 289\n    Crawley, Mr., on promiscuous sexual relationship, 9;\n      on the origin of prohibited marriages, 18;\n      on jealousy in the family, 19;\n      on the matriarchal theory, 20;\n      his theory of exogamy, 23;\n      his view of marriage among savages, 24;\n      on the prevention of incest, 26;\n      on terms of relationship, 95;\n      on marriage by capture, 249;\n      on mother-in-law avoidance, 278\n    Cult of the totem, 136\n    Cunow\u2019s, Herr, opinion on \u2018class\u2019 and \u2018phratry,\u2019 37, 112;\n      on class names, 113;\n      regards the \u2018horde\u2019 as the original stage of society, 114;\n      his theory of exogamy, 115;\n      on local totem groups, 116;\n      his class-name theory opposed by Dr. Durkheim, 118\n\n    Daramulun, Australian divinity, 5\n    Darwin, Mr., his theory of primitive polygamy, 4;\n      his views on sexual jealousy, 9;\n      opposed to theory of promiscuity, 99;\n      on primitive man, 209\n    Dieri, the, 41; myths, 65, 66, 91, 139, 159, 163;\n      piraura custom, 95, 105\n    Diet, effect of, on sexual appetite, 227\n    Distribution of totems in the \u2018phratries,\u2019 55\n    Divine intervention, savage and civilised ideas, 91\n    Domesticated animals in pal\u00e6olithic age, 4, 5\n    Dorsey, Mr., his definition of clan, 11;\n      on totem descent, 135;\n      and North American Indian group names, 172\n    Dual relationship, tribal and individual, 88\n    Durkheim, Dr., on marriage relationship, 19 n;\n      on blood and totem superstition, 57 n;\n      on Arunta totemism, 72;\n      on Arunta \u2018phratries\u2019 and marriage, 73;\n      on the relation of totem and phratry, 74, 82;\n      on Arunta legends, 75;\n      on totemic divisions, 83;\n      on Arunta anomalous marriage system, 85;\n      opposes Herr Cunow\u2019s theory of class names, 118;\n      on totem descent, 135\n\n    Early belief in mutual danger of mankind, 24\n    Eguilles, Marquis d\u2019, and Kanaka relationship names, 137\n    Egypt, royal intermarriage, 1, 262\n    Egyptian totemic myths, 201\n    Endogamy, meaning of, 12\n    English village sobriquets, 173, 295\n    Erman, Adolf, on Yakut avoidance, 275\n    Euahlayi, the, 29; Mrs. Langloh Parker on the, 186 n; myth, 66\n    Evolution of primal law of avoidance, Mr. Atkinson on the, 210\n    Exchange, commercial, among Australian tribes, 6\n    Exogamy, meaning of the term, 10;\n      anterior to totems, opinions on, 17;\n      Mr. McLennan\u2019s theory, 21;\n      Mr. Crawley\u2019s theory, 23;\n      Dr. Westermarck\u2019s theory, 33;\n      Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory, 33;\n      the author\u2019s theory, 34;\n      the result of evolution, 53;\n      Mr. Frazer\u2019s earlier ideas on, 57;\n      objections to, 59; his later theory, 62;\n      advantages of the system now proposed, 63;\n      ignored by theorists on group totemism, 160;\n      Mr. Atkinson on origin of, 212, 238;\n      earlier view quoted, 212\n    Exogamy among the Arunta, 61\n    Exogamy and totemism, Mr. Taylor\u2019s view, 17\n    Exogamy, local, origin of, 31\n\n    Family, the, its antiquity, 1; secured by dread of aberrations, 1;\n      laws and customs vary, 1; uncivilised races and prohibited\n       marriages, 2;\n      present-day institutions no guide to prehistoric customs, 2;\n      conjectures as to primitive state, 4; patriarchal family the\n      original social unit, 7; descent counted through the maternal\n       line, 8, 21;\n      suggestions as to early promiscuity, 9;\n      promiscuity prevented by sexual jealousy, 9;\n      totemism, 14; family group or \u2018fire circle,\u2019 14, 17;\n      exogamous tendencies, 17; Mr. Crawley on the effect of jealousy,\n       19;\n      matriarchal theory, 20; Mr. McLennan\u2019s theory of family exogamy,\n       21;\n      Mr. Crawley\u2019s theory, 23\n    Father--and--daughter avoidance, Veddah, 274\n    Father-in-law and daughter-in-law, customs concerning, 272, 275\n    Father-in-law avoidance, Mr. Atkinson on, 263, 277\n    Female infanticide in first stages of society, 21\n    Fijian \u2018totem gods,\u2019 137\n    Fison, Mr., on Kamilaroi marriage laws, 28;\n      and the class system in Australia, 37;\n      on Australian tribal division, 42;\n      controverted by the author, 43;\n      on the origin of totems, 45;\n      on the change of totems, 48;\n      on the origin of exogamy, 65, 97;\n      his suggestion of Divine intervention, 91;\n      on terms of relationship, 95;\n      quotes Mr. Lance on communal marriage, 106\n    Fison and Howitt, Messrs., on totemism, 16;\n      their theories insufficient, 51;\n      hypothesis as to Greek totemism, 203\n    Fletcher, Miss Alice, on totem origin, 151;\n      on Omaha magical societies, 198\n    Folk-lore illustrative of totem group names, 169\n    France, miniature pal\u00e6olithic bull-roarers found in, 5\n    Frazer, Mr., bibliography of the bull-roarer, 5;\n      regards the Arunta as primitive, 20, 68;\n      his early ideas of the exogamous phratry, 57;\n      objections to them, 59;\n      his later theory of exogamy, 62;\n      his view that totems did not influence marriage, 68;\n      on the arrangement of totems in phratries, 74;\n      on Arunta legends, 76;\n      names several varieties of totem, 132;\n      his theories as to totem origin, 143;\n      on the group totem, 144;\n      on the personal totem, 145\n    Freeman, Mr., and the patriarchal family, 7\n\n    Gaidoz and S\u00e9billot MM., on unfriendly sobriquets, 168\n    Ganowanian gentes, 92\n    Ghost-worship, Melanesian, 182\n    Gillen, Mr., _see_ Spencer\n    Gournditch Mara tribe, 195\n    Greek totemic myths, 201\n    Greek totemism, Messrs. Fison and Howitt\u2019s hypothesis, 203\n    Grey, Sir George, on totems in Western Australia, 144\n    Group marriage, 89; supposed survivals of, 104\n    Group marriage and the classificatory system, Mr. Atkinson on, 292;\n      editor\u2019s comments, 293\n    Group marriage, Australian, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen on, 293\n    Group names, theory as to, 166;\n      originated outside the group, 168, 171\n    Group totem, the hereditary, 160\n    Group totems, Mr. N. W. Thomas on, 148\n    Guatemala Indian nagual, 144\n\n    Haddon, Mr., on totem origin, 156\n    Hawaiian marriage relationships, 98\n    Hawaiian terms of relationship, 93\n    Hebrew village names, ancient, 300\n    Hesiod and early human society, 7\n    Horde, the foundation of Herr Cunow\u2019s theory, 114;\n      its division, 115\n    Hose and McDougall, Messrs., on Sarawak beliefs, 153\n    Hottentot marriages, Dr. Westermarck on, 240\n    Howitt, Mr., his ethnological nomenclature, 10 n;\n      and the class system in Australia, 37;\n      his opinion on Australian marriage customs, 41;\n      his views on the primary class divisions, 46;\n      considers totemism too old for theorising, 49;\n      regards the undivided commune as a probable hypothesis, 65;\n      _see also_ Fison\n    Human origin, Mr. Atkinson\u2019s speculations on, 3;\n      Biblical account differs from Mr. Atkinson\u2019s,\n      not from Mr. Morgan\u2019s hypothesis, 7\n    Human society, limit of historical research into origins of, 2;\n      progress of, 3; obscurity of the subject, 3\n    Hunter River totems, Mr. Rusden on, 148\n\n    Incas of Peru, royal intermarriage, 1\n    Incest to marry within totem name, 16\n    Incest, prevention of, Mr. Crawley\u2019s theory, 26\n    Individual totems, Mr. N. W. Thomas on, 148\n    Infancy prolonged in nascent man, Mr. Atkinson on, 230\n    Infanticide, female, and exogamy, 21\n\n    Jealousy the cause of exogamy, 19\n    Jealousy, sexual, the motive power in social changes, 272\n    Jevons, Mr., on totems, 134; on the Attic social system, 206\n    Junod, M. Henri, and the Baronga terms of relationship, 301\n\n    Kamilaroi, the, 35 n\n    Kamilaroi group laws, Mr. Mathews on, 46\n    Kamilaroi interphratry marriages, 56\n    Kamilaroi marriage laws, Mr. Mathews on, 27;\n      Mr. Fison on, 28\n    Keddies (Southern India), marriage custom among, 286\n    Kennedys of Galloway, 7\n    Kin name, maternal, 8\n    Kingsley, Miss, on the Calabar \u2018bush-souls,\u2019 143\n    Kinship among the earliest human groups, 19\n    Kurnai women and the sex totem, 146\n    Kyontha social customs, Dr. Westermarck on, 246 n\n    Kyonthas, avoidance among the, 275\n\n    Lance, Mr., on communal marriage survival, 106\n    Lang, Mr. G. S., quoted by Lord Avebury, 126\n    Lifu terms of relationship, 94, 100\n    Local exogamy, its origin, 13\n    Long\u2019s, J., mention of \u2018totam,\u2019 131 n\n\n    Macdonnells of Moidart and Glengarry, 7\n    McGee, W. J., his ethnological terminology, 11 n;\n      his views on the evolution of society, 52\n    McLennan, Mr. Daniel, on the origin of exogamy, 63;\n      on the phratries of Northern Victoria tribes, 64\n    McLennan, Mr. Donald, on exogamy and totemism, 14, 16, 17\n    McLennan, Mr. J. F., 3;\n      his views on maternal kin-names, 9;\n      his definition of exogamy, 10, 12;\n      his view of the most archaic marriage law, 13;\n      his opinion of kinship, 19, 20;\n      his theory of exogamy, 21;\n      the theory untenable, 22;\n      his views of \u2018primitive groups,\u2019 31;\n      and exogamous phratries, 37;\n      considers totemism anterior to exogamy, 44;\n      on totem kins, 55;\n      on terms of relationship, 95;\n      on marriage by capture, 267;\n      his criticism of Mr. Morgan\u2019s classification theory, 284;\n      remarks thereon by Mr. Atkinson, 284\n    MacSorlies part of Clan Cameron, 8\n    McUlrigs (Kennedys) of Galloway, 7\n    Magical societies, 197\n    Maine, Sir Henry, his \u2018Ancient Law,\u2019 7;\n      on the evolution of tribes and states, 7\n    Malayan relationship system, Mr. Morgan on, 90, 281\n    Mandeville, Sir John, referred to, 24\n    Man\u2019s distinction from other creatures, Mr. Atkinson on, 225\n    Marital relations among the Arunta 74\n    Marriage among savages, Mr. Crawley\u2019s view of, 24\n    Marriage by capture, Mr. Atkinson on, 244, 266;\n      editor\u2019s remarks on Mr. Atkinson\u2019s views, 248;\n      Mr. McLennan on, 267\n    Marriage ceremony, Arunta, 24\n    Marriage, communal, Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory, 90;\n      Lord Avebury on, 124\n    Marriage custom of the Keddies of Southern India, 286\n    Marriage divisions in Australia, 38\n    Marriage, group, 89; supposed survivals of, 104\n    Marriage laws, totemic and civilised, 87\n    Marriage regulations among the Arunta, 78\n    Marriage within the totem name prohibited, 16\n    Maternal kinship, 8\n    Maternal love, origin of, Mr. Atkinson on, 231\n    Mathews, Mr. John, on aboriginal jealousy, 9 n\n    Mathews, Mr., on Australian inter-tribal barter, 6;\n      on prohibited marriages, 27;\n      on group marriages, 35 n;\n      on marriage divisions in Australia, 38;\n      on class names, 119; on totem names, 120\n    Matriarchal theory, 20\n    Melanesian ghost-worship, 182;\n      sacrifices, 183\n    Melanesian social system, 176\n    Menomini myth, 66\n    Mincopies (Andamanese), 9\n    Modern theories of totem origin: Mr. A. H. Keane\u2019s theory, 140;\n      Mr. Max M\u00fcller\u2019s theory, 141;\n      Mr. Herbert Spencer\u2019s theory, 142;\n      Mr. Frazer\u2019s theories, 143;\n      Mr. N. W. Thomas\u2019s theory, 148;\n      Dr. Wilken\u2019s theory, 150; Miss\n      Alice Fletcher\u2019s theory, 151;\n      Mr. Hill Tout\u2019s theory, 152;\n      Messrs. Hose and McDougall\u2019s theory, 153;\n      Mr. Haddon\u2019s theory, 156:\n      an objection to these theories, 159;\n      the author\u2019s conjecture, 161\n    Modification of sexual habit, Mr. Atkinson on, 227\n    Morgan, Mr., on human origin, 7;\n      his criticism of Mr. McLennan\u2019s terms, 13 n;\n      his theory of exogamy, 33;\n      and exogamous phratries, 37;\n      his theory quoted by Mr. Fison, 65;\n      and the class system, 89;\n      his theory of communal marriage, 90;\n      the theory inexplicable, 91;\n      his views on the origin of classes and totems, 92;\n      on terms of relationship, 93;\n      on communal marriage in Hawaii, 98;\n      his theory opposed by Darwin, 98;\n      on primitive brother-and-sister marriage, 281\n    Mother kin, 20\n    Mother-and-son avoidance, Veddah, 274\n    Mother-in-law, \u2018avoidance\u2019 of, 277;\n      Mr. Atkinson on, 213;\n      Mr. Crawley on its origin, 278\n    Mother-in-law, customs concerning, 272, 273, 275\n    M\u00fcller, Mr. Max, and totem origin, 141\n    Mungun-ngaur, Australian divinity, 5\n    Munro, Dr., on primitive man, 4\n    Myth, savage, and scientific hypothesis, coincidence of, 76\n    Myths, Arunta, 75;\n      Greek and Egyptian totemic, 201\n\n    Nairs of Malabar, 22\n    Narrinyeri totem eaters, 179\n    Nascent man a solitary polygamous male, 220;\n      younger males expelled from family, 220;\n      absence of a paring season, 226;\n      effect of diet on sexual function, 227;\n      prolonged infancy, 230;\n      maternal love, 231;\n      retention of adult son in family, 232;\n      distinction between females in the family circle, 236;\n      rule of \u2018avoidance,\u2019 237;\n      primal law the parent of exogamy, 238;\n      the editor\u2019s view, 238;\n      sexual relations between sire and daughter, 251;\n      widows of the polygamous husband, 252;\n      introduction of outside males, 254;\n      effect of female sexual jealousy, 256;\n      recognition of cousinship, 257;\n      interchange of sisters, 258;\n      division of the group, 260\n    Nature-worship, Lord Avebury\u2019s synonym of totemism, 122\n    New Caledonia, separation of brother and sister, 214;\n      infanticide of twins, 215; avoidance in, 275\n    New Caledonia totems, 136\n    New Caledonian totem belief, 143\n    New Caledonian tribes, hostility between, 167\n    New Hebrides, North, class divisions in, 178\n    Nooreli, Australian divinity, 5, 138\n    North American Indian group names, 172\n    Northern Victoria, tribal tradition of, 64\n    Nyarongs, Sarawak, 153\n\n    Omaha magical societies, 197; Miss Alice Fletcher on, 198\n    Omaha manitus, Miss Fletcher on, 152\n    Omaha totem groups, 196\n    Origin of avoidance, Mr. Atkinson on, 276\n    Origin of classes and totems, Mr. Morgan\u2019s view, 92\n    Origin of totemism, theories regarding the, 49, 50;\n      Lord Avebury on, 123\n    Orissa, avoidance in 275\n    Orkney, group sobriquets in, 296\n\n    Pal\u00e6olithic man, Dr. Munro on, 4, 5;\n      possessed religous belief, 5\n    Pal\u00e6olithic remains found in France, 5\n    Parker, Mrs. Langloh, on the Euahlayi, 186 n.\n    Patriarchal family first social unit, 7;\n      Sir Henry Maine\u2019s opinion, 7;\n      Mr. Freeman\u2019s concurrence, 7;\n      absent from \u2018non-Aryan\u2019 races, 8\n    Persian royal marriages, 262\n    Peruvian Incas\u2019 marriages, 1, 262\n    Pfeil, Count von, on inter-tribal hostility, 168\n    Phratria, the Attic, 205\n    Phratries, 35; intended to produce exogamy, 53\n    Phratries and totem groups, relative antiquity, 35\n    Phratries and totems of the Arunta, 81\n    Phratries and totems, relations of, 74\n    Phratry, Herr Cunow on the development of, 116\n    Phratry names usually totemic, 116\n    Phratry, origin of the, Mr. McGee\u2019s view, 52;\n      Mr. Howitt\u2019s theory, 53;\n      Mr. Frazer\u2019s ideas, 57\n    Piets, royal, counted descent through female line, 21\n    Pinaru, Dieri headman\u2019s title, 105\n    Piraungaru arrangement, 105; among the Urabunna, 106\n    Pirmaheal, Australian divinity, 5\n    Plant names, Attic, 205\n    Pollux on the Attic genos, 206\n    Polyandry in Malabar, 22\n    Polyandry supposed origin of maternal kin-name, 9\n    Polygamy probable institution of primitive man, 4\n    Polygyny and monogamy, Mr. Darwin\u2019s group basis, 64\n    Powell\u2019s, Major, ethnological terminology, 10 n;\n      use of the word \u2018totem,\u2019 132\n    \u2018Primary divisions\u2019 totemic and exogamous, 43;\n      Mr. Howitt\u2019s hypothesis, 46;\n      probably the result of amalgamation, 181\n    Primitive brother-and-sister marriage, Mr. Morgan on, 281\n    Primitive man, opinions on, 4\n    Pristine groups necessarily small, 164;\n      governed by sexual jealousy, 165\n    Prohibited marriages, Arunta, by affinity, 88\n    Pundjel, Australian divinity, 5\n\n    Qat, Melanesian object of prayer, 184\n\n    Relationship by generations, 90;\n      Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory, 93\n    Relationship constituted by local contiguity, Mr. Atkinson on, 289\n    Relationship terms, origin of, 102;\n      difference of meaning between savage and civilised, 102;\n      family and tribal significance, 103;\n      express status, 129\n    Relationships, Lord Avebury on, 128\n    Relationships, Arunta, which preclude marriage, 88;\n      curious distinctions, 88\n    \u2018Religion,\u2019 Mr. Crawley\u2019s definition of, 23\n    Reverence for totems, nyarongs, and naguals, 186\n    Ridley, Rev. W., and Australian exogamous phratries, 37\n    Robertson, Mr. Duncan, on group sobriquets in Orkney, 296\n    Roman traditions as to tribal origin, 8\n    Roth, Dr., and Australian native customs, 6 n;\n      on the evolution of classes, 114\n    Rusden, Mr., on the Hunter River totems, 148\n\n    Sacred animals in savage society, 131\n    Sacrifices, Melanesian, 183\n    Samoan \u2018totem gods,\u2019 137\n    Sarawak, nyarongs in, 153\n    \u2018Second master,\u2019 Urabunna wife\u2019s, 104;\n      not a survival of communal marriage, 105\n    Selwyn, Bishop, quoted as to Melanesian ghost-worship, 182\n    Sex protector, Australian, 144\n    Sex totem, killing a, 146\n    Sexes mutually dangerous, savage beliefs, 19, 24\n    Sexual family relations common to all animals, 224\n    Sexual functions, modification of, Mr. Atkinson on, 227\n    Sexual jealousy, Mr. Atkinson on, 220, 272, 276\n    Sexual jealousy the pause of exogamous marriage, 18\n    Siouan gentes, Mr. Dorsey on, 172\n    Siouan gentes, names of, 295; probably totemic, 175\n    Siouan tribes, 11\n    Smith, Mr. Robertson, and totemism, 17;\n      on prohibited marriages, 27\n    Sobriquets, English village, 295;\n      Siouan, 295; Orkney and Shetland, 296;\n      Ancient Jewish, 300\n    Social changes the result of sexual jealousy, Mr. Atkinson on, 272\n    Social rules, growth of, in the tribe, 107\n    Social system of Melanesia, 176\n    Solomon Islands, no division into kindreds, 178;\n      exogamous groups, 179\n    Son-in-law, customs concerning, 272, 273, 275\n    Spencer, Mr., on the origin of totemism, 60, 142;\n      on exogamous groups in the Arunta tribe, 61;\n      his reason for their introduction, 62;\n      inconclusive statements, 62;\n      his latest hypothesis regarding totemism, 68\n    Spencer and Gillen on aboriginal jealousy, 9;\n      on totem groups, 15 n, 16;\n      on Urabunna descent, 20;\n      and the Arunta marriage ceremony, 24;\n      on the class system in Australia, 37;\n      on changes of tribal custom, 67;\n      and \u2018communal marriage,\u2019 69;\n      on Arunta totem eating, 73;\n      on Arunta marital relations, 74;\n      on totems and phratries, 74;\n      on Arunta legends, 76, 77;\n      on marriage regulations, 78;\n      on tribal and individual relationships, 89;\n      on terms of relationship, 95;\n      on \u2018classificatory\u2019 terms, 100;\n      on Urabunna customs, 101;\n      on totem origin, 141;\n      on brother-and-sister \u2018avoidance,\u2019 216;\n      on Australian group marriage, 293\n    State, origin of the, Sir H. Maine on, 7\n    Status implied by relationship terms, 101\n    \u2018Stealthy\u2019 intercourse preliminary to marriage, 265\n    Supremacy of women, supposed period of, 9\n    Sutherland crest, 163\n\n    Tankerville, Lord, on the Chillingham Park bulls, 222\n    Terminology, the author\u2019s, 37 n; Mr. Fison\u2019s, 38 n\n    Terminology, confusing, 10, 44, 126, 130\n    Terms of relationship, Mr. Morgan on, 93;\n      origin of, 102;\n      family and tribal significance, 103\n    Thlinket ideas of totems, 139\n    Thomas, Mr. N. W., on totemism, 148\n    Totem, restricted meaning of the word, 133;\n      original word doubtful, 135;\n      cult, the, 136;\n      origin probably not religious, 137\n    Totem alliance, Mr. Jevons on, 134\n    Totem eating, Arunta, 71\n    Totem group names, folk-lore illustrative of, 169,\n    Totem groups, local, 15;\n      heterogeneous, 30;\n      Mr. Morgan on the origin of, 92\n    Totem groups and magic, Arunta, 196, 198\n    Totem groups and phratries, relative antiquity, 35\n    Totem influence among the Arunta, 61\n    Totem kindreds, 10, 12\n    Totem name a bar to marriage, 16;\n      liable to change, 48;\n      origin forgotten, 184;\n      implies blood kinship, 193\n    Totem prohibition of tribal marriage, 35\n    Totemic divisions of the Arunta, 83\n    Totemic influence on the Keddies\u2019 marriage customs, 287\n    Totemic myths, ancient Greek and Egyptian, 201\n    Totemic rules differ from civilised marriage laws, 87\n    Totemic system and exogamy, 80\n    Totemism, Lord Avebury on, 122\n    Totemism among the Arunta, 68\n    Totemism and exogamy, 16\n    Totemism dying in Melanesia, 184\n    Totemism, group, exogamous, the author\u2019s conjecture, 161\n    Totemism, origin of, 14, 131;\n      theories regarding, 49, 50;\n      Mr. Spencer on, 60\n    Totems and phratries, relations of, 74\n    Totems, classification of, by Mr. Frazer, 132\n    Totems, distribution of, in the \u2018phratries,\u2019 55\n    Totems, Mr. Fison on the origin of, 45\n    Totems, original purpose of, Mr. Atkinson on, 282\n    Tout, Mr. Hill, on totem origin, 152\n    Tribal and individual relationship, 88\n    Tribal custom, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen on, 67\n    Tribal divisions totemic in origin, 54\n    Tribal heterogeneousness, 8\n    Tribe, origin of the, Sir H. Maine on, 7;\n      definition of the word, 11;\n      an aggregation, not a division, 98;\n      not a primitive institution, 103;\n      growth of social rules in the, 107\n    Turanian gentes, 92\n    Tylor, Mr., on exogamy and totemism, 17;\n      considers descent through female line the more archaic, 21;\n      his researches into laws of marriage and descent, 109;\n      on the word \u2018totem,\u2019 131 n;\n      on Fijian and Samoan totemism, 137;\n      supports Dr. Wilken\u2019s theory of totem origin, 150\n\n    Urabunna tribe of Central Australia, 1, 10; tribal divisions, 11;\n      marriage restrictions, 12; descent through the female line, 20,\n       69;\n      exogamous and totemic division, 54; intermarry with the Arunta,\n       69;\n      communal marriage among, 69; less developed than the Arunta, 75;\n      terms of relationship, 93; status implied by relationship terms,\n       101;\n      Spencer and Gillen on customs, 101; marriage laws, 104;\n      \u2018second masters\u2019 of married women, 104; Piraungaru custom, 105\n\n    Veddahs, avoidance of father and daughter, 274; of mother and son,\n     274\n    Victoria, Northern, tribal tradition of, 64\n    Village names, ancient Hebrew, 300\n    Village sobriquets, English, 173, 295\n\n    Westermarck, Dr., on promiscuous sexual relationship, 9;\n      on the matriarchal theory, 20;\n      on ape etiquette, 25;\n      his theory of exogamy, 33;\n      on terms of relationship, 95;\n      on brother-and-sister avoidance, 240;\n      on Annamese and Hottentot relationships, 240;\n      on marriage by Rapture, 248\n    Western Australia totem, Sir George Grey on, 144\n    Wilken\u2019s, Dr., theory of totemic origin, 150;\n      depends on the patriarchal theory, 151\n    Witchetty Grub, Australian totem, 170\n    Woeworung, the, 41; myths, 66, 139, 159, 163\n    Women, supremacy of, supposed period of, 9\n    Women, dominion of, 20\n\n    Yakuts, avoidance among the, 275\n\n    Zapotecs and their tona, 144\n    Zulu superstition, 136, 143","title":"Social Origins and Primal Law","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":109214}