TOTEMS WITHIN THE PHRATRIES

[1]Apparently, among the Kamilaroi, members of the same phratry may intermarry, avoiding unions in their own totems. Mathews (Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W.xxxi. 161, 162). Mr. Mathews calls a 'phratry' a 'group.'

[2]Second series, pp. 289-310.

[3]I shall, for my own part, use 'phratry' for the two 'primary exogamous divisions' of a tribe, and 'class' for the divisions within the 'phratry' which do not appear to be of totemic origin. Mr. Fison applies 'class' to both the primary divisions and those contained in each of them, observing that 'the Greek "phratria" would be the most correct term.' He is aware, of course, that this employment of phratria is arbitrary, but it is convenient. While he applies 'class' both to 'the primary divisions of a community, and their first subdivisions,' to the latter I restrict 'classes,' using phratry for the former (Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 24).

[4]Jour. and Proc. of the Roy. Soc. N.S.W., xxviii, xxxii, xxxiv.

[5]Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W.xxxiv. 120-122.

[6]Prov. Jour. Roy. Soc. N.S.W., xxxiv. 127. Mr. Fison makes an exception for some Kamilaroi.

[7]This view is discussed later.

[8]P. 27et seq.

[9]There is a tradition of an aboriginal Adam, who had two wives, Kilpara and Mukwara, these being the names of two phratries. On this showing brothers married paternal half-sisters (Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 33).

[10]Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 40.

[11]J. A. I.xiv. 142.

[12]Journal of the Anthropological Institute, xviii. 264.

[13]Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 107.

[14]Op. cit.p. 41.

[15]Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W.xxxi. 162.

[16]On the Organisation of Australian Tribes, p. 129;Transactions of Royal Society of Victoria, 1889.

[17]The natives retain sacred songs to Daramulun, but cannot (or will not?) translate them.Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W.xxxiv. 280.

[18]Spencer and Gillen, p. 152.

[19]Howitt,J. A. I.xviii. 37-39.

[20]Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 235, note.

[21]Op. cit.pp. 59, 62, 63, 66.

[22]New marriage prohibitions may have been, and, I believe, were added, but the divisions thus made were not, I think, totemistic.

[23]Organisation of Australian Tribes, p. 136.

[24]Harpocrations.v.γεννῆται Greek: genneitai.

[25]J. A. I.xiv. 160.

[26]Spencer and Gillen, pp. 72, 420.

The system which I advocate here, as to the smallness of the original human groups, and their later combination into larger unions, seems to have, as regards America, the support of the late Major Powell, the Director of the Bureau of Ethnology, and of Mr. McGee of the same department. This gentleman writes, 'Two postulates concerning primitive society, adopted by various ethnologic students of other countries, have been erroneously applied to the American aborigines ... The first postulate is that primitive men were originally assembled in chaotic hordes, and that organised society was developed out of the chaotic massby the segregation of groups...' This appears to be Mr. Hewitt's doctrine. In fact, Mr. McGee says, American research points, not to a primal horde, 'bisected' and 'subdivided' into an organised community, but to an early condition 'directly antithetic to the postulated horde, in which the scant population was segregated in small discrete bodies, probably family groups....' The process of advance was one of 'progressive combination rather than of continued differentiation.... It would appear that the original definitely organised groups occasionally coalesced with other groups, both simple and compound, whereby they were elaborated in structure....' Mr. McGee adds, 'always with some loss in definiteness and permanence.' As far as concerns Australia, I do not feel sure that the last remark applies, but, on the whole, Mr. McGee's observations,couched in abstract terms, appear to fit what I have written, in concrete terms, about the probable evolution of Australian tribal society.[1]

The theory thus suggested makes little demand on deliberate legislation, as we shall see later.

This I take to be important. It seems well to avoid, as far as possible, the hypothesis of deliberate legislation in times primeval, involving so sweeping a change as the legal establishment of exogamy through a decree based on common consent by an exogamous 'Bisection' consciously made. Exogamy must have been gradually evolved. But, if we begin with Mr. Howitt's original undivided commune, and suppose a deliberate bisection of it into two exogamous phratries, each somehow containing different totems; or if we suppose a tribe of only two totems, and imagine that the tribe deliberately made these totems exogamous, which they had not been before, and then subdivided them into many other totem groups, we see, indeed, why persons of the same totem may not intermarry. They now, after the decree, belong to the same exogamous 'phratry' within which marriage is deliberately forbidden. But, on this theory, I find no escape from the conclusion that the 'bisection' into 'phratries' was the result of a deliberate decree, intended to produce exogamy—for the bisection has not, and apparently cannot have, any other effect. Now I can neither imagine a motive for such a decree, nor any mode, in such early times, of procuring for it common consent. At this point we have laboured, and to it we shall return, observing that our hypothesis makes much less appeal to such early and deliberate legislation.

In any case, by Mr. Fison's and Mr. Howitt's theory and our own, we have totems almost all the way: totems in theso-called 'primary divisions' (phratries); totems in the so-calledgentes, and all these divisions (setting the Arunta apart) are strictly exogamous. The four or eight 'classes,' on the other hand, are apparently not of totemic origin. However much the systems may be complicated and inter-twisted, the basis of the whole, except of the four or eight 'classes,' is, I think, the totem exogamous prohibition. There are many examples of the type; thus the Urabunna 'are divided into two exogamous intermarrying classes, which are respectively called Matthurie and Kirarawa, and the members of these again are divided into a series of totemic groups, for which the native name isThunthunnie. A Matthurie man must marry a Kirarawa women' (as in the system of the Kamil-speaking tribes, or Kamilaroi, reported on by Mr. Fison)—'and not only this, but a man of one totem must marry a woman of another totem.' This is precisely what I should expect. It works out thus:

{ Old Local Totem Group }Matthurie.{ New 'Phratry' }{ Old Local Totem Group }Kirarawa.{ New 'Phratry' }

Each of these 'phratries' has five totems, not found in the other class, and how this occurred, if not by actual deliberate arrangement, I do not know. One thing is clear: totem and phratry are prior to 'class' divisions. They occur where 'class' divisions do not. But my theory does not involve the deliberate introduction of exogamy, by an exogamous bisection of groups not hitherto exogamous, or by making two pre-existing totem groups exogamous. I take the groups to have been exogamous already, before the blending inconnubiumof two local totem groups (now 'phratries'), each including numbers of already exogamous totem kindreds. They were exogamous before the 'phratries' existed, and after their falling into the two phratries, exogamous they remained.

Mr. McLennan, ere he had the information now before us, wrote, in 1865, 'Most probably contiguous groups would be composed of exactly the same stocks' (we can now, for 'stocks,' read 'totem kins')—'would contain gentes of precisely the same names.'[2]This is obvious, for Emu, Kangaroo, Wild Duck, Opossum, Snake, and Lizard, living in the same region, would raid each other (by the hypothesis) for wives, and each foreign wife would bring her own totem name into each group. Yet we find that the two 'primary classes' (phratries) of the Urabunna (which, on my theory, represent two primitive totem local groups, say Emu and Kangaroo, each with its representatives of all other totem groups within raiding distance)nevercontain the same totems.

It is mathematically impossible that this exclusiveness should be the result of accident. On a first consideration, therefore, I took it to be the result of deliberate legislative design, at the moment when on my hypothesis twolocaltotem groups, containing members of severaltotems of descent, united inconnubium. The totem names, I at first conceived, with reluctance, must have been consciously and deliberately meted out between the two local totem groups, now become phratries. This idea did not involve so stringent and useless a measure as that of segmenting the two phratries into minor totem groups: however the idea was still too much akin to that of Harpocration as regards the arbitrary drafting of the Attic population into γένη. But, on further reflection, I conceived that my first theory was superfluous. Given the existence of local groups, as such totemic, and of totem kins of descent within the original local totem groups, the actual results, I thought, arise automatically, as soon as two local totem groups agree to intermarry. Men and women must many out of their local totem group (now 'phratry') and must marry out of their totem of descent. Consequently, no one totem could possibly exist in both phratries. This I now, onthird thoughts, 'which are a wiser first,' deem erroneous. The automatic arraying of one set of totems into one, or another set into the other, phratry, would not occur. The totems have been divided between the two phratries.[3]This condition of affairs is universal in Australia, except where, as among the Arunta and similar tribes, the same totem comes to exist in both phratries, so that men and women of the same totem, but of opposite phratries, may intermarry. That breach of old rule, we shall try to show, arises from the peculiar animistic philosophy of the Arunta, by virtue of which totems are no longer totems of descent, but are otherwise obtained. The Kamilaroi practice of interphratry marriage arises out of respect for totem and neglect of phratry law.

My conjecture takes for granted, let me repeat, that,before the 'bisection,' or the amalgamation, which produced the two exogamous 'classes,' the totem kindreds were already exogamous. My reasons for this opinion have already been given, in the discussion of Mr. Crawley's theory of the origin of exogamy (supra), to which the reader may refer. My suggestion makes the growth of exogamy non-moral, gradual, and almost unconscious, till it is clinched and stereotyped by the totem tabu.[4]The opposite theory—namely, the deliberate bisection into exogamous 'classes,' of totem groups, or of an 'undivided commune' not previously exogamous, appeals too much, I repeat, to conscious and—as far as we can see—motiveless legislation, at an early stage. The bisection must have had a purpose, and has no visible purpose except the establishment o f exogamy, and why did the 'undivided commune' establish that?

It cannot be concealed that my conjecture is opposed to the mass of learned opinion, which represents the primary 'phratries' as the first exogamous bodies, and the totems in each as later subdivisions of the phratries. The writers who, like Mr. Fison, recognise that the primary subdivisions are themselves, in origin, totem divisions, do not (as I understand) regard these very ancient totem groups as already exogamous,beforethe institution of 'phratries.'

Again, turning from Australia to North America, we find Mr. Frazer, at least in one passage, on the side of the view generally held. Of the 'phratry,' in America, he says, 'the evidence goes to show that in many cases it was originally a totem clan which has undergone subdivision.'[5]Many examples are then given of the North American 'phratries,' which include totem groups within them. 'The Choctawswere divided into two phratries, each of which included four clans' (totem kins); 'marriage was prohibited between members of the same phratry, but members of either phratry could marry into any clan of the other.' Among the Senecas, one phratry included the Bear, Wolf, Beaver, and Turtle totems: the other held the Deer, Snipe, Heron, and Hawk totems; just as in Australia. Among the Thlinkets and Mohegans, 'each phratry bears a name which is also the name of one of the clans' (totems) 'included in it;' Mr. Frazer adds, 'it seems probable that the names of the Raven and Wolf were the two original clans of the Thlinkets, which afterwards by subdivision became phratries.'[6]This is precisely as if we were to argue that Matthurie and Kirarawa were the 'two original clans' of the Urabunna, 'which afterwards by subdivision' (into totem groups) 'became phratries,' or 'primary exogamous divisions.'

The objections to this theory, as advocated by Australian inquirers, apply to the American cases as interpreted here by Mr. Frazer. In the first place, how are we to conceive of a large tribe, like the Thlinkets, as originally containing only two totems, Raven and Wolf?[7]If we do take this view, we seem almost driven to suppose that, in exceedingly early times, the Thlinkets deliberately bisected themselves, for some reason, called one moiety Ravens, the other moiety Wolves, and then made the divisions exogamous. Or, perhaps, having two totems and only two, Raven and Wolf, they deliberately decided that members of neither group should marry within itself; but should always take wives from the other group. Later, the two tribes, Raven and Wolf, again deliberately subdivided themselves, or perhaps, as in Dr. Durkheim's view, Wolf threw off colonies whichbecame five totem kins, and Raven threw off colonies which became five other totem kins.

Is it not more readily credible that, over a large extent of Thlinket country, many small local groups came, by an unconscious process (see 'The Origin of Totemism'), to bear each a separate totem name? The two most important local groups, Raven and Wolf, would inevitably each contain, by the working of exogamy and female kin, members of all the other totems which would array themselves, five in each chief group, Raven and Wolf, as I have conjectured in speaking of the Australian cases.[8]

Again, I cannot believe that a tribe like the Thlinkets originally had but two totems, not yet exogamous, then made them exogamous, and then cut them up, or let them split off, into many exogamous totem groups. No motive is obvious: the people, by the theory, being exogamous already.

We shall later see that Messrs. Spencer and Gillen appear to advance, but also to qualify out of existence, a theory of a motive for an exogamous bisection of earlier non-exogamous local totem groups. They practically explain away their own explanation of—the great bisection, but it rests, while it exists, on certain recently discovered facts, which, in turn, are fatal, perhaps, to any theory that a tribe had originally but two totems, which became 'phratries,' on being subdivided into other totems. The new facts accepted and theorised on by Mr. Frazer and Mr. Spencer, wouldmake it seem perhaps impossible that a tribe like the Thlinkets should originally have possessed but two 'clans' or totems. The facts, as stated by Mr. Spencer, in 1899, are these, or rather, this is his hypothesis founded on his facts. 'In our Australian tribes theprimary[9]function of a totem group is that of ensuring, by magic means, a supply of the object which gives its name to the totem group.'[10]Mr. Frazer says, 'in its origin Totemism was, on our theory, simply an organised and co-operative system of magic.... Each totem group was charged with the superintendence and control of the particular department of nature from which it took its name....'[11]

But this is hardly the origin of Totemism, so long as we are not told how, or why, each totem group took its name from a department of nature. Had it the name, before it worked magic for its eponymous object, or did it take the name because it worked the magic?

Again, there are dozens of such departments,[12]which implies the existence of dozens of organised and co-operative totem groups: not of an original poor pair of such groups alone. Can we believe that, on Mr. Frazer's earlier theory, the Thlinkets formed but two such groups, one 'charged with' the duty to mollify the Wolf, the other to take care of the interests of the Raven? Manifestly this is unlikely. I elsewhere oppose this theory of the magical Origin of Totemism, made at first to fit the case of the Arunta and cognate tribes. If organised co-operation in magic is the source of Totemism, we may be pretty confident that no tribe began by appointing one half of all its members to do magic to propagate ravens, and the other half to mollify wolves. This would indicate, in the magical and co-operative tribe, a most oddly limited and feebly capitalised flotation of the company—merely 'Wolf and Raven.' No tribe would select ravens as the article of food which most required carefulpropagation and preservation, even if the Wolf most demanded to be propitiated and mollified. The new Australian facts (whatever their interpretation) are fatal to the older idea that a tribe could have had only two original totems: an idea which we may perhaps regard as now abandoned, at least by Mr. Frazer.

Thus Mr. Spencer himself remarks that, in Arunta tradition, there were numbers of totem groups before the great dichotomous division was made. That is my own opinion: though I do not hold it for Mr. Spencer's reasons, or believe in any 'bisection.'

It will be noted that Mr. Spencer's original totem groups existed for magical purposes only, and were not exogamous.

'The traditions of the Arunta tribe point to a very definite introduction of an exogamic system long after the totemic groups were fully developed, and, further, they point very clearly to the fact that the introduction was due to the deliberate action of certain ancestors. Our knowledge of the natives leads us to the opinion that it is quite possible that this really took place, that the exogamic groups were deliberately introduced so as to regulate marital relations.'

The Arunta 'exogamic groups' are 'classes,' and 'phratries,' the totem does not now regulate marriage among the Arunta. I shall later try to show, that, originally, totems did regulate marriage, among the Arunta. But here we find Mr. Spencer averring that possibly 'the exogamic groups were deliberately introduced so as to regulate marital relations' among the Arunta. This opinion surprises us, if we hold that exogamy was, in its original forms, the result, not of a deliberate enactment, but of gradual and unconscious processes, to which, later, conscious modifications have been added. Mr. Spencer, despite the passage cited, is obviously of the same opinion, for he proceeds to remark, 'By this we do not mean that the regulations had anything whatever todo with the idea of incest, or of any harm accruing from the union of individuals who were regarded as too nearly related.... It can only be said that far back in the early history of mankind, there was felt the need of some form of organisation, and that this gradually resulted in the development of exogamous groups.'

This statement must remind us of what the ancient ballad sings about Lord Bateman:

He shipped himself all aboard of a ship,Some foreign country for to see.

The scholiast (Thackeray, I think) explains, 'some foreign country he wished to see, and that was the extent of his desire: any foreign country would serve his purpose, all foreign countries were alike to him.' In the same way, long ago, the ancestors of the Australians 'felt the need of some form of organisation,' and that was the extent of their desire; any organisation would serve their purpose. Nevertheless, Mr. Spencer also says that, quite possibly, 'the exogamic groups were deliberately introduced so as to regulate marital relations.' But exogamic groups can regulate marital arrangements in one way only—that is, by introducing exogamy. Yet Mr. Spencer remarks that 'the development of exogamic groups'graduallyresulted from some organisation of unknown nature. I am unable to reconcile Mr. Spencer's statements with each other. The 'bisection' of his theory could not, I fear, be 'gradual.'

Mr. Frazer, in 1899, begins with numerous totem groups, primarily and originally arranged for mere purposes of co-operative magic, in the social interests of a large friendly tribe, itself no primitive institution, one thinks. Then he supposes that the exogamous bisection occurred (andwhydid it occur?), and then 'if the existing totem groups were arranged, as they naturally would be, some in one of the two new classes, and the rest in the other, the exogamy of the totem groups would follow,ipso facto.'[13]Mr. Frazer does not herepretend to guess why the bisection occurred. The rest is quite obvious: but it is unavoidably inconsistent with Mr. Frazer's earlier theory, that a tribe begins (or that the Thlinkets began) with two original totem groups, made them exogamous, and then 'subdivided' them up (or did they merely swarm off?) into many totem groups. It is against that almost universal theory, in 1899 abandoned (as I conceive) by Mr. Frazer, that I have so long been arguing. There was not first an exogamous bisection of a tribe, or the addition of the exogamous rule to two 'original clans,' or totem groups, and then the subdivision of each of the two sections into a number of totems. This cannot have occurred. Totems, I venture to think, did not come in that way, but pre-existing totem kins, granting the bisection, might fall into one or other phratry, if they had always been exogamous.

On my system, as has been already stated, the origin of exogamy may have been sexual jealousy, in small primitive groups, perhaps aided by 'sexual tabu,' with the strange superstitions on which it is based, and these causes would be strengthened enormously by the totem superstition, later. The totem name would now be the exogamous limit. The 'phratries' might result, quite naturally, and even gradually, now in one region, now in another, from the interlocking and alliance, withconnubium, of two large friendly local totem groups, an arrangement of which the advantages are so obvious that it might spread by way of imitation and accretion.

This view of the possible origin of what is usually called the 'bisection' of 'the undivided commune' had already been suggested by the late Mr. Daniel McLennan.[14]Writing before our information was so full as it now is, he says, as to the two 'phratries' Kumite and Kroki (answering to Matthurie and Kirarawa), 'were it worth while to makesurmises, it would not be unreasonable to surmise that at Mount Gambier two separate local tribes[15]containing different totem kindreds had, through the operation of exogamy and female kinship, become welded into one community.' Mr. Daniel McLennan, unluckily, inherited his brother's feud against Mr. Fison, and he opposed all that gentleman's doings. Later research has corroborated many of Mr. Fison's facts, and extended the range of their influence. On this point, however—namely, that the 'phratries' are not the result of a bisection, but of an amalgamation—Mr. Daniel McLennan appears to have had a good case. He illustrates his theory, and mine, by remarks on a tradition of the tribes of Northern Victoria.[16]

The exogamous 'phratries' of these tribes are Eagle-Hawk and Crow. The tradition represents these birds as hostile creative powers. They made peace on the terms 'that the Murray blacks should be divided into two classes' ('phratries'), 'the Makquarra, or Eagle-Hawk, and the Kilparra, or Crow.... Out of the enmities' (of the original Crow and Eagle-Hawk) 'arose the two classes, and thence a law governing marriage among these classes.' This tradition, it will be observed, espouses the theory of a bisection, deliberately made of 'the Murray blacks,' into two intermarrying and exogamous classes. Mr. McLennan writes, 'But what the tradition suggests is, not that the Crow and Eagle agreed to divide one tribe into two, with a view to the better regulation of marriage, but that Crow and Eagle or Eagle-Hawk were tribes (and they might have been constituted in the ordinary Australian way) which long waged war against each other, and that at length there came peace, and then their complete interfusion by means of friendly marriages.' The tradition asserts the reverse; it adopts, or rather it forestalls, the scientific theory of a 'bisection' of the Murray blacks, not the amalgamation of two tribes (or large local totem groups). But I agree with Mr. McLennan in prefering,for the reasons given, the theory of an amalgamation. It is rather curious and interesting to observe that almost every scientific hypothesis about totems and 'classes,' which I am obliged to reject, has, in fact, been forestalled by the theories which the natives themselves express in their explanatory myths. Myths, I fear, are never in the right. 'The aborigines themselves,' says Mr. Howitt, 'recognise the former existence of the undivided commune in their legends, but,' he judiciously adds, 'I do not rely upon this as having the force of evidence.'[17]

We shall presently see that other distinguished anthropologists do, to some extent, rely on Arunta myths, as 'bearing the stamp of authenticity.' The truth is that the native thinkers have hit on the same hypothesis as their European critics, the hypothesis of something like deliberate primeval legislation to a given end, the regulation of marriage. Far from accepting any such native myths, I am rather inclined to hold that, whatever theory be correct, the theory of the savage myth-makers must be wrong. It ought to be said that Mr. Fison, at least, knows what his own theory involves, and once even frankly accepted the possibility that the Dieri myth (the foundation of exogamy by divine decree) may be historically true. 'All I contend for is,' he says, 'that if the former existence of the undivided commune be taken for granted' (and Mr. Fison, unlike Mr. Howitt, regards the undivided commune as a mere unproved hypothesis), 'its division into exogamous clans must have had precisely the effect' (a consciously reformatory effect) 'which Mr. Morgan's theory requires. If such a community ever existed, I do not hesitate to say that Mr. Morgan's "reformatory movement" appears to me the most likely method by which it would begin its advance to a better system of marriage' than 'communal marriage.'

But what gave the impulse to the hypothetical moral reformation? Contact with a more advanced tribe isreckoned improbable by Mr. Fison (for how came the other tribe to be more advanced?), and so the moral impulse 'must have been derived from a higher power,' from the Good Spirit, or from ancestral spirits, as in the myths of the Dieri, the Woeworung, also of the Menomini Redmen of North America, a branch of the Algonquins; and the Euahlayi tribe.

According to the Menomini, there is, or was, a Being who 'made the earth.'[18]His name being interpreted means 'The Great Unknown,' but only extreme believers in the theory of religious borrowing will say that he was Sir Walter Scott, Bart. He (The Great Unknown) created 'manidos or spirits,' in the shape of animals, or birds. The chief birds (as often in Australia) were Eagles and Hawks. The Bear 'came out of the ground,' and was turned into an Indian, by the Great Unknown,alias'The Good Mystery.' He and the Beaver headed totem kins now in 'The Big Thunder phratry.' Other animals came in; there are now Bear, Eagle, Crane, and Moose 'phratries,' each containing a number of totems. All the people of a totem name in the Menomini tribe are akin to persons of the same totem in other tribes, say of the Sioux.[19]

These myths favourably illustrate the piety of the Dieri, Woeworung, Euahlayi men, and Menomini. Like Mr. Fison (at one time, and 'under all reserves') these tribes leaned to the hypothesis of divine or supernormal intervention in matters totemic. The Dieri may be right, but a less difficult hypothesis is that there was never 'an undivided commune,' in the sense of Mr. Morgan and Mr. Fison, and that, consequently, it never was 'divided into exogamous clans.' If so, no miracle is needed:Nec Deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus.My own scheme needs no divine aid, nor deliberate legislation, 'in the beginning.' But thatsuch legislation has intervened later, I think probable, or certain.

Messrs. Spencer and Gillen write: 'Rigidly conservative as the native is, it is yet possible for changes to be introduced.... There are certain men who are respected for their ability, and, after watching large numbers of the tribe, at a time when they were assembled together for months to perform certain of their most sacred ceremonies, we have come to the conclusion that, at a time such as this, when the older and more powerful men from various groups are met together, and when day by day, and night by night around their camp fires, they discuss matters of tribal interest, it is quite possible for changes of custom to be introduced.'[20]The Arunta traditions allege that such changes introduced by men of weight, and accepted after discussion, have been not unusual.[21]This is highly probable, now, but not in the beginning.

The Arunta historical traditions are of little value as to historical facts,[22]but the consciousness of the Central Australian tribes accepts the possibility that new customs may now be proposed, debated, and adopted. If no such thing ever occurred, the belief in its possibility could scarcely have arisen among the Arunta. But the possibility has its limits, and one of these is the deliberate primeval introduction of exogamy, for no conceivable reason, and its imposition on a society already totemic but not yet exogamous. Perhaps few critics will frankly say that exogamy was thus imposed; they will try to qualify or evade so improbable and antiquated a theory. Yet they cannot but slip back into it, while they believe in 'segmentations' of 'an undivided commune,' and of later totemic 'subdivisions' of the 'segmentations.'

In any case these Arunta and cognate tribes of similar usages, so recently discovered, so anomalous, so odd, are'the only begetters' of the latest hypotheses of Mr. Frazer and Mr. Spencer—namely, that totems, originally, were co-operative industrial groups with no influence on marriage rules. Do the Arunta, then, present a surviving model of primitive Totemism, in other regions modified and contaminated; or is their Totemism not, like their metaphysics and psychology, a 'freak,' an unique divergence from the normal development, as I have from the first maintained?[23]All these difficulties and confusions, as to 'phratries' and totems, inevitably arise from the doctrine that the original totem groups were not at first exogamous, and only became exogamous when separate sets of them were scheduled under the two more recent exogamous primary divisions, or were segmented out of them. In that case it is not easy to see how we can escape from the impossible theory that exogamy, and the primary divisions, were the result, of direct legislative enactment. Even if we could believe this, we see no conceivable motive, except Mr. Fison's divine intervention, an idea which, it appears, he put forward quite provisionally in an argument with Lord Avebury.[24]

The case of these Central Australian tribes, in regard to Totemism and marriage prohibitions, is so peculiar that it demands particular notice. Mr. Frazer some years ago propounded the hypothesis that the Arunta tribe, especially, are the most 'primitive' of living peoples, are still in 'the chrysalis stage' of humanity, whence it would follow that their singular kind of Totemism, and of marriage rules, is nearest to the beginning, and best represents the original type.[25]The Arunta, dwelling in the arid regions of the centre, have certainly been little contaminated by Europeaninfluences. They are naked, houseless, non-agricultural nomads, like all the Australian tribes, and it is asserted by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen and others that they have not yet discovered the rather obvious facts as to the reproduction of the species. All this has certainly a primitive air. But I have ventured to reply that the Arunta, as regards the family, are confessedly more advanced towards individual marriage than their neighbours, the Urabunna, with whom they freely intermarry.[26]Unlike what is told of the Urabunna, the Arunta recognise 'individual marriage.' They deliberately and ingeniously modify their system on the occasion of intermarriage with the Urabunna. These reckon descent in the female, the Arunta in the male line.[27]The office of Alatunja, or head man of a local group, among the Arunta, is hereditary in the male line, descending to a brother of the late Alatunja, if he leaves no adult son.[28]

Moreover, the Arunta, and cognate tribes, occupy an area of 750 miles, and their meetings and discussions last for months. A people trulyprimitivecannot be conceived as capable of such immense local associations, and of such prolonged and pacific assemblies. Again, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, rightly or wrongly, believe that 'communal marriage' is the earlier institution, and that it persists, 'slightly modified' among the Urabunna, but not among the Arunta. Thus, beyond all doubt, the Arunta are more developed, more advanced, than the Urabunna, and it is hardly safe to say that, where their organisation differs from that of the Urabunna, and other tribes in general, it differs because it is more 'primitive.' It must be less primitive, a special divergence from the type.

Again, as proof that they are in no chrysalis stage, the Arunta possess a reasoned theory of things, so ingenious and complex, so peculiar, so extraordinary, so carefully atheistic,that one could scarcely believe it possible for naked savages, were it not so well attested. The theory is that of the original evolution of types of life into plants and animals, which, with the minimum of extra-natural aid, became human. The human beings possessed souls, which on the death, or disappearance into earth, of the original owners, were hereditary, being reborn into Arunta children. These souls each of a given totem (the plant or animal or other thing which first became human) haunt certain local centres. One place is the centre of Grub totem souls, another of Cat totem souls, and so forth. Each new child is of the totem of the haunted locality where the mother supposes that she conceived it; a totem soul of that locality has become incarnate in her, and from her is born. Thus the wife may be of one totem, the child of another; the husband may be of the wife's totem, of the child's, or of another. The totem is thus no bar to marriage, and is not inherited, all this being the result of the peculiar philosophic system of the Arunta. Their totemism is thus a 'sport,' and not the original form of the institution.

We cannot reverse the case, the philosophy of hereditary totemic souls cannot be the result of the present mode of inheriting the totem from the group of souls that haunts each locality, it cannot be a myth invented to explain that custom. That custom requires the peculiar Arunta soul-belief as its basis, and cannot exist without the belief. If the child received its totem name from the place where it isborn, we might say, 'Originally the child was called after theplace of its birth.' (Arunta children still receive territorialpersonalnames from the place of their birth.) 'Later, Totemism came in with totem local names, each place having a totem title. The local totem name of the place where a child was born was then given to each child. Still later, arose a myth that totem souls haunted each place, and that the child received its totem name because a local totem soul was incarnated in it, at the place where it was born.' We cannot maintain this theory—which makes the presentArunta belief a myth to explain the present Arunta custom—because that custom it does not explain. The child receives its totem name, not from the place where it is born, but from the place where the totem soul entered into its mother. Nor can we assume that totem names were originally given, not to human groups, but to districts of territory. Thus the present Arunta mode of obtaining the totem, in each case, is the direct result of the Arunta philosophic belief. That belief is peculiar, is elsewhere unheard of, is the property of a tribe distinctly more advanced in marriage rules, and local solidarity, than some of its neighbours, and therefore cannot be primary. It follows that the Arunta mode of obtaining the totem, not by inheritance, is not 'primitive,' is not the original model from which the rest of savage mankind has diverged. This I state, because, as a rule, a belief exists to explain an institution, and, as a rule, an institution is not the result of a belief.

Each Arunta totem kin may now eat, in moderation, of its own totem, and each kin does magic (Intichiuma) for the benefit of its totem, as part of the food supply of the tribe in general. The traditions represent men and women of the same totem as, of old, usually intermarrying (that is, as endogamous): while they are also said, as a rule, to have fed almost exclusively on their totems, being thus endophagous.

All these usages, real or traditional (except doing magic for the benefit of the totem), are at the opposite pole from the customary exogamous and exophagous Totemism of savage tribes all over the world, and even in Australia. If, therefore, the Arunta and tribes practising the same usages are primitive (it may be, and has been argued), their Totemism is, in origin, the earliest known case of the division of labour; each group selecting and working (by magic) for the benefit of its totem, as part of the tribal food supply.I elsewhere argue that each group must probably have had a recognised connection with its totem, before it set out to do magic for the propagation of the creature.[29]But I have also maintained that the Arunta are far from being 'primitive,' but are rather a 'sport,' and that their usages represent a local variation from the central stream of Totemism; not Totemism in its earliest known form.

I had written on this topic in theFortnightly Review(June, 1899), and in another chapter of this book ('The Origin of Totemism'), before I saw the essay of Professor Durkheim, of Bordeaux,Sur le Totémisme.[30]It is encouraging to find that Dr. Durkheim, independently, has worked out the same theory—namely, that the Arunta are not in the primitive stage of Totemism, but represent a very peculiar divergence from the type, and that their historical legends (more or less accepted by Mr. Frazer and Mr. Spencer) are mainly myths, told to account for certain facts in their social arrangements. We are not to reason from their single case, says Dr. Durkheim, as against the great mass of our knowledge of Totemism and totemistic exogamy and exophagy. 'In place of being a perfectly pure example of the totemisticrégime, is not Arunta Totemism a later and disfigured (dénaturée) development?' For many reasons, says Dr. Durkheim, 'the Arunta are among the most advanced of the Australian peoples,'[31]and he gives his grounds for this opinion, some of which I had already adduced in 1899. Entering into detail, Dr. Durkheim readily shows that, though the Arunta now permit marriage between persons of the same totem (which is not hereditary on either side, but casual), they are, for all that, exogamous, in a fashion resulting from precise Totemism in their past.

They may not marry within the two primary divisions (which Dr. Durkheim styles 'phratries'). Each phratry contains two (sometimes four) other 'classes' (exogamous), and phratries arose in the combination of 'two elementary exogamous totem groups'—as I have already suggested. Now phratries, we have agreed with Mr. Howitt and Mr. Fison, were, in all probability, themselves originally totemic. Mr. Frazer also says, 'We should infer that the objects from which the Australian phratries take their names were originally totems. But there seems to be direct evidence that both the phratries and subphratries actually retain, in some tribes, their totems.'[32]If the opinion be correct, the phratries of the Arunta, which regulate their marriages, were originally local totem groups. On my system, then, namely, that totem kins were originally, or very early became, exogamous, were exogamous before 'phratries' arose, and before the so-called 'bisection' was made, then the Arunta organisation was originally that of exogamous Totemism. At first, though not now, totems regulated Arunta marriages.

Dr. Durkheim, in the passage cited, says that the two exogamous phratries are composed of 'two elementary totem groups,également exogames.'[33]Dr. Durkheim, who here is of my opinion, writes, 'It is not true that, among the Arunta, the totem has always been' (as it is now) 'without influence on marriages, nor, above all, is it true that Totemism, generally, implied endogamy.' Yet, according to Arunta myth, the ancestors of the 'dream-time' (Alcheringa) were endogamous, as a general rule, and, as a general rule, were endophagous, ate their totem animals or plants. The ancestors of their traditions fed on their own totems, 'as if by a functional necessity,' say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. But this simply cannot be true, for each totem is not in season, (plums, for instance), or accessible, all the year through, and, if it were, it would be exterminated by endophagy. The traditions, again, do not represent the men of the totem groups as really and religiously endogamous. They exercisedmarital privileges, not only over the women of their totem group, but over any other woman they could come across. Certain totem groups are represented in the legends as wandering across the land, the men living with women of their totem group, while 'there is nothing to show definitely that marital relations were prohibited between individuals of different totems.' The men accepted the caresses of such women of other totems as they encountered; but their habitual mates were the women of their own totem.[34]In the alleged state of perpetualtrek, the wives were naturally, in the opinion of the myth makers, of the group. At present an Arunta marries in or out of his totem; as he pleases.

The relations of the totem groups to the 'primary divisions,' or 'phratries,' among the Arunta and cognate tribes, are, as we have already stated, entirely peculiar. We have seen that, in North America, and in Australia generally, no phratry ever contains the same totems as its linked phratry, and we have seen that Mr. Frazer calls this the natural arrangement.[35]If so, the present Arunta arrangement is not natural; it is a divergence from the natural type. Among the Arunta, 'no totem is confined to either moiety' ('phratry') 'of the tribe.' There is only 'in each local centre a great predominance of one moiety.'[36]

Dr. Durkheim regards the present state of Arunta affairs (the totems not being peculiar to either phratry) asune dérogation. Originally, he thinks, as among the Urabunna, each phratry contained only totems which werenotin the other phratry; and he detects survivals, among the Arunta, of the earlier usage. At present the Arunta totems show 'a slight tendency to skip' (chevaucher)'from one into the other phratry, doubtless because the Arunta totem system is no longer complete'—and no wonder, as Arunta totems are now not hereditary, but derived from the totem souls haunting each locality. Again, in Arunta legend, the ancestors 'were divided into companies, the members of which bore the same totem name, and belonged as a rule to the same moiety' ('phratry') 'of the tribe,' as now among the Urabunna, 'who are in a less developed state than the Arunta.' So say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, and thus Arunta legend points to a past in which Arunta usage was, in this matter, as a rule the same as that of the less developed Urabunna: which I believe it really was.

But we can hardly accept the legends when they fit, and reject them when they do not fit, our theory! I lay no stress on the legends.

If, however, the Arunta 'phratries' originally, as Dr. Durkheim and I believe, never contained the same totems, then each Arunta totem group was, at that time, necessarily exogamous. No man or woman could then marry within the totem, as, at present, the Arunta can and do. They were barred by the phratry limit: persons of their totem were never in the phratry into which alone they could marry. So no one then could marry a member of his or her own totem kin. 'It is, therefore, untrue that marriage has always been permitted between members of a totem,' says Dr. Durkheim, though Arunta legend declares for the opposite view.

Here I am apt to agree with Dr. Durkheim. The evidence of the Arunta legends as to the customs of theAlcheringa, or 'dreamtime,' is 'such stuff as dreams are made of.' The legends are 'statements, invented mainly by popular fancy,' says Dr. Durkheim, 'to explain existing institutions, by attaching them to some mythical beings in the past. They are myths, in the proper sense of the word.' They are not marked by authenticity.

Against this idea we have the opinion of Mr. Frazer, and of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen.[37]The Arunta traditions, they say, and Mr. Frazer agrees with them, do not explain the present system, but deal with a former state of organisation and with customs quite different from the present. They do, but the Arunta invented the customs described in their myths, on purpose to explain, mythically, how the present customs arose out of deliberate modification of the alleged older customs. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen themselves assert this: 'the traditions point to a very definite introduction of an exogamic system, long after the totemic groups were fully developed, and, further, they point very clearly to the fact that the introduction was due to the deliberate action of certain ancestors,' which is the theory of Mr. Lewis Morgan!

The rest is true, but I, like Dr. Durkheim, conceive that all is (except where we have external evidence for deliberate modification of the 'classes') merely part of the Arunta ætiological or explanatory myth. That myth starts from the belief (Mr. Howitt's belief?) in primary totemic, but not exogamous groups, such as are precisely the present groups of the Arunta, though not of their neighbours the Urabunna, or of totemists in general. This exceptional condition of Arunta affairs needed explanation, and got it, in the myth that the groups were originally totemic, but not exogamous, as Arunta totem groups still are. Exogamy (not applying to totem groups, but to 'phratries') was brought in, the myth says, by deliberate action, by our old friend, 'the Legislator,' The Arunta traditions, therefore, do explain 'the origin of the present system,' of the Arunta, as far as exogamy goes; and their explanation is as much a speculative hypothesis as Mr. Morgan's equivalent theory. It is one more example of the coincidence of savage myth and scientific hypothesis.

I understand Messrs. Spencer and Gillen to contest this opinion, in one passage, and to assert it, under qualifications, in another. Their exact words must be given. 'If they' (Arunta traditions) 'simply explained the origin of the present system out of, as it were, no system, then we might regard them as simply myths invented to account for the former' (i.e. 'the present system'), 'but when we find that they deal with a gradual development, and with a former state of organisation and customs quite different from, and in important respects at variance with, the organisation and customs of the present day, we are probably right in regarding them as actually indicative of a time when these were different from those now in force.'[38]

Now to what do the traditions amount, as regards earlier marriage laws and customs at variance with those now in use among the Arunta? They amount to this: (1) Men of one totem had marital relations normally with women of the same totem. It is no longer the case that Arunta men have relations, normally and exclusively, with women of the same totem; a man may marry a woman of his own totem, or not, as he pleases. But so, in the traditions of the primeval trek, a man might, and did, take women of other totems as he pleased, by conquest probably; though these women seem to have lived, hitherto, solely with men of their own totem. The tradition starts from the hypothesis that all members of each mythical wandering totem group were originally of the same totem. That being so, the men naturally lived, when on trek, with women of their totem, taking women of other totems as they came across them. No longer on trek, the Arunta of to-day do the same thing, many women of their own or any other totem. The only shade of difference arises from the nature of the mythical theory, that many totem groups were originally migratory. But the present Aruntasystem of 'go as you please' in marriage (as far as totems are concerned) differs from the regular custom of the neighbouring Urabunna, for example. That difference, the Arunta probably feel, needs explanation. So their myth explains it, 'we Arunta always acted thus from the beginning.' So far the 'tradition' of Messrs Spencer and Gillen seems to me to be an ordinary explanatory myth.

(2) At the supposed time (a time when many human types were still in the husk!) men and women of what are now 'exogamic groups' ('phratries' or 'classes') had marital relations contrary to present usage.

But did the phratries or classes then, according to tradition, exist at all? The legend says that the men of the Little Hawk totemhadthese 'phratries' and classes, Kumura and Purula and so on (the names then carrying no known exogamous prohibition, as now, for the legend does not say that these 'classes' were exogamous). The Little Hawk men had arrived at the arts of making flint knives, and using them in circumcision. This they taught to less advanced groups, who tooled with fire sticks. But they only let their pupils have 'very rough' stone knives (Palæolithic, probably), at first. 'It was these Little Hawks,' say our authors, 'who first gave to the Arunta the four "class" names. We may presume that along with them there was instituted some system of marriage regulations, but what exactly this was there is no evidence to show.' Either the Little Hawks introduced exogamy, or they did not, a valuable result of traditional evidence.[39]'As yet we have no indication of any restrictions with regard to marriage as far as either totems or classes are concerned,' say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. Then why does the legend aver that the class names existed? Why did they exist? Now the existing restrictions of the 'classes' need explanation, and get it, from the myth; but, as there are no Aruntatotemrestrictions on marriage, at present the myth naturally says nothing about them. At this mythic period, 'persons of the Purula and Kumura classes, who may notnow marry one another, are represented as living together.'[40](3) Next 'the organisation now in vogue was adopted.' But, in its first shape, due to the wisdom of Emu men, it permitted marriages, which are now (4) forbidden by the superior intelligence of men dwelling further north, 'and it was decided to adopt the new system,' that is, the present Arunta 'class' system.

Now the Arunta are still accepting innovations from the North, andthispart of the myth need not be mythical.

But the whole traditions, full of stark mythical inventions (including a myth like that of Isis and the mutilation of Osiris), amount merely to this. Society was totemic, but the totems were not exogamous; rather endogamous of the two. Society among the Arunta is still totemic, but not, as far as totems go, exogamous. In this it differs from the usual rule, and the myth explains why,—'it was always so.' But Arunta society is exogamous as regards the 'phratries' and classes, andthathas to be explained by the myth. The myth therefore explains by saying that Emu men introduced a deficient, and northern men an adequate, system of exogamy—that which now prevails. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, however, appear to deny that the 'traditions' 'simply explain the origin of the present system, out of, as it were, no system. It is true that the traditions do give stages in the arrangement of the present system; but they also do 'explain the origin of the present system.' And Messrs. Spencer and Gillen not only admit this, but, as we saw, even think the explanation 'quite possible.' The explanation, I repeat, is that the system 'is due to the deliberate action of certain ancestors,' Emu men and wiser Northern men.

Of course, as we tried to show, that explanation of primeval exogamy is improbable, but it is the explanation given by the Arunta legend. With a grain of fact, as to innovations from the North, the legend is a myth, an ætiological myth, a myth explanatory of the origin of the present organisation. History it is not. The Arunta'traditions' are not historical evidence in favour of the new hypothesis that the Arunta are 'primitive,' are in 'the chrysalis stage' of humanity; (this they deny): that Totemism, in origin, was a magical co-operative and industrial association; that the original totems were not exogamous; and that exogamy was superimposed by legislation, or grew out of an organisation so imposed on a society of non-exogamous totem groups. Whatever the value of that hypothesis, it has no historical support from the Arunta traditions. History is a very different thing.

The Arunta still marry, at pleasure, in or out of the totem, merely because their totems are now scattered about among their exogamous divisions. This is not the 'natural arrangement' (as Mr. Frazer assures us), is not the inevitable original arrangement, and is not the case with their neighbours, the Urabunna, who are confessedly 'less developed than the Arunta.' The Urabunna system, therefore, is more archaic,ex hypothesithan that of the Arunta, which must be less archaic. It is, I repeat, peculiar, isolated, needs explanation, and the Arunta traditions give the explanation. The ancestors took women in or out of the totem, as at present the Arunta do; exogamy byclasseswas later imposed, says the myth. Dr. Durkheim appears here to hold the more logical position. There was, I conceive, with Dr. Durkheim, and have stated, though Messrs Spencer and Gillen and others deny it, 'a primary relationship between the totemic system and exogamy.'[41]

Back to Index Next