Social Origins and Primal Law

204

Custom and Myth, p. 262.

205

Contributions to the Science of Mythology, i. 201.

206

The Principles of Sociology, i. 362, 1876.

207

The whole passage will be found in the work cited. Vol. i. 359-368.

208

I am haunted by the impression that I have met examples, but where I know not.

209

Howitt, Journal of the Anthropological Institute, xviii. 58.

210

Golden Bough, iii. 416, note 3.

211

It is possible that I have failed to understand the mode of reconciling the two hypotheses, and Mr. Frazer is not to be understood as committed to either or both in the present state of our information.

212

Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 280.

213

J. A. I. xiii. 191, note 1.

214

Tylor, Remarks on Totemism, pp. 146-147, 1898.

215

The Import of the Totem, by Alice C. Fletcher, Salem Press, Mass., 1897.

216

Op. cit. p. 12.

217

'The Origin of the Totemism of the Inhabitants of British Columbia,' Transactions of Royal Society of Canada, second series, vol. vii., 1901-1902. Quaritch, London.

218

J. A. I. xxxi. 196, et seq.

219

Golden Bough, iii. 419, note 5.

220

Hose and McDougall, op. cit. p. 211.

221

Mr. Haddon's theory involves the existence of barter between groups that had special articles of food. Under 'Hypothetical early groups' I show proof of the extreme hostility of adjacent groups in some regions. The merchant, with his articles of barter, would there himself be eaten. Mr. Atkinson's cook was eaten by his neighbours. Mr. Haddon does not hold that the primitive human groups were thus mutually hostile. Here we differ in opinion.

222

J. A. I. xiii.; Folk Lore, 10, 491.

223

Macbain, Etymological Dictionary, 1896, quoting manuscript of 1456.

224

Descent of Man, ii. 362.

225

Studies in Ancient History, second series, p. 50.

226

This is the opinion not only of Mr. Darwin but of Major Powell and Mr. McGee.

227

Spencer and Gillen, p. 57, note.

228

J. A. I. May 1897, p. 181.

229

Blason Populaire de la France, p. 5. Paris, Cerf, 1884.

230

Pseudonyms were given to avoid arousing local attention, when I put forth these facts in The Athenæum. For reasons, I retain the pseudonyms; but for the real village names see p. 173, note 1.

231

Some objections are noticed later.

232

Report of American Bureau of Ethnology, 1893-1894, p. 213 et seq.

233

Thirteenth Report of the Committee of Devonshire Folk-Lore, Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, 1895, xxvii. 61-74.

234

Many other animal and vegetable names – totem names in America, village names in England – have already been cited. See p. 170.

235

Mr. Haddon agrees on this point.

236

Codrington, The Melanesians, chaps, iii. iv.

237

Op. cit. p. 21.

238

Op. cit. p. 22.

239

Ibid. p. 26.

240

Op. cit. p. 32.

241

Tylor, J. A. I., August, November. 1898, p. 147.

242

Op. cit. p. 33.

243

Ibid. p. 40.

244

Ibid. p. 22.

245

Dr. Codrington's exact words are 'The buto is in all probability a form of the custom which prevails in Ulawa,' and the banana story follows.

246

Op. cit. pp. 33, 59-68.

247

Ibid. pp. 36-37.

248

Ibid. p. 50.

249

Op. cit. pp. 124-130.

250

Danks, J. A. I. xviii. 3, 281-282.

251

Ibid. pp. 131-132.

252

Codrington, op. cit. pp. 154-156.

253

Golden Bough, iii. 416-417.

254

Mrs. Langloh Parker writes, concerning the Euahlayi Baiame-worshipping tribe of New South Wales: 'A person has often a second or individual totem of his name, not hereditary, and given him by the wirreenuns' (medicine men), 'called his yunbeai, any hurt to which injures him, and which he may never eat – his hereditary totem he may. He is supposed to be able, if he be a great wirreenun, to take the form of his yunbeai, which will also give him assistance in time of trouble or danger, is a sort of alter ego, as it were.' In this tribe the yunbeai (nyarong, nagual, manitu) is of more importance to the individual than his hereditary totem, which, however, by Baiame's law, regulates marriage, as elsewhere (Folk-Lore, x. 491, 492). The tribe studied by Mrs. Langloh Parker speaks a dialect (Euahlayi) akin to the Kamilaroi, but the Kamilaroi of Mr. Ridley are seated three or four hundred miles away.

255

Roth, Ethnological Studies, 71-90. Dr. Roth gives the signs for the animals, but does not say that they are used for signalling totem names; indeed, he says nothing about totems.

256

Origin of Civilisation, p. 183.

257

Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 165. In his edition of 1902, Lord Avebury does not reply to these arguments.

258

Kamilaroi and Kurnai, pp. 274-278.

259

Spencer and Gillen, ch. vi.

260

Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' Bureau of Ethnology, 1881-1882, p. 225.

261

Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' Bureau of Ethnology, 1881-1882, pp. 238-239.

262

Dorsey, 'Siouan Cults,' Bureau of Ethnology, 1889-1890 (1894), p. 537.

263

Spencer and Gillen, pp. 169, 191.

264

Nutt, 1900, pp. 108-112.

265

J. A. I., August, November, 1898, p. 144.

266

J.A.I. xiv. 142, 181.

267

Politics of Aristotle, Bolland and Lang, 1876; 'Family' in Encyclopædia Britannica.

268

Dem. Centra Neæram 17.

269

Introduction to the History of Religion, pp. 125-126.

270

Mr. Atkinson's theory is based on the idea that our supposed anthropoid ancestor was eminently unsocial. – A. L.

271

Darwin, Descent of Man, ii. 361-363 (1871).

272

I ought to have said 'within the community, whether local or of recognised kindred, indicated by the totem name.' – A. L.

273

This was written before the appearance of Mr. Crawley's Mystic Rose (1902).

274

Cf. V. de Rochas, La Nouvelle-Calédonie, p. 239; Crawley, Mystic Rose, p. 217.

275

Native Tribes of Central Australia, pp. 88, 89. – A. L..

276

Mr. Atkinson's forecast was correct. Brother and sister avoidance is very widely diffused. – A. L.

277

The author does not give examples of words for 'sister' implying avoidance. But we elsewhere show that in Lifu (Melanesia) the word for 'sister' means 'not to be touched.' – A. L.

278

Other speculations have now been advanced, especially by Mr. Crawley. – A. L.

279

Why 'single? – A. L.

280

Descent of Man, p. 501.

281

This fact is well known to anglers for trout. – A. L.

282

See Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, ch. ii., 1891. The subject is obscure.

283

How do we know that homo was still alalus? – A. L.

284

Later, as we further analyse the chords in the great hymn of human existence, we shall find that this first of all rules of intelligent moral action, however little it may have had of ethical intention in its inception, will ever remain (in its effects) the fundamental note in the harmony of psychical life. All succeeding law is its inevitable corollary, and vibrating in cadence with this fundamental note.

285

It is clear that, for this reason, natural selection would favour the new kind of group. The arrangement would be imitated. – A. L.

286

With portentous endurance of custom towards these.

287

Herr Cunow, as we showed, regards the 'classes' (not the 'phratries') of Australian tribes as based on a rough and ready calculation of non-intermarrying generations. – A. L.

288

See also Westermarck, pp. 458, 459, on the Khyoungtha, a Chittagong hill tribe. After marriage a younger brother is allowed to touch the hand, to speak and laugh with his elder brother's wife, but it is thought improper for the elder brother even to look at the wife of his younger brother. This is a custom more or less among all hill tribes, it is found carried to even a preposterous extent among the Santals.

289

As a fact the 'classes' (probably distinctions, originally, of generations) do not, I think, indicate 'group marriage.' – A. L.

290

Westermarck, ut supra, pp. 387-389, 546, agrees. For the opposite view, cf. Crawley, p. 367. Westermarck does not seem very sure of his own mind. – A. L.

291

As to group marriage the editor cannot follow Mr. Atkinson.

292

I have here slightly altered Mr. Atkinson's terminology. As the passage stands in his manuscript he confuses totem kins with the Australian intermarrying 'classes.' In his manuscript the passage runs thus: 'In later days they' (the outside mates) 'will be found as the male members of a certain class generation in one group' (by which he means a 'class,' say Ippai, in a 'phratry,' say Dilbi) 'and, de facto, eligible in group marriage with all and certain females of the same category as regards birth in another group.' Here he obviously should have written 'eligible in marriage with all females of the corresponding category in the other "phratry" of an all-embracing tribe.' 'As indeed with actual Australians where, by right of birth alone, each totem group contains the natural born husbands and wives of another totem group.' This is not the case: men of one totem kin are not compelled to take wives from one other totem kin; but men of one 'class' must take wives of one other 'class,' and men of one 'phratry' must take wives out of the other 'phratry.'. To avoid confusion I have, in the text, inserted the correct terminology. – A. L.

293

All the younger generation of females would be reserved for themselves, and thus not only their own daughters, but the daughters of their brothers-in-law, who, as of the same generation, were all classed together as sisters.

294

These groups would be phratries, or the germs of phratries. – A. L.

295

The breach between father and sons could only be healed by the submission of the fathers. Then prerogative in incest would gradually decay, for strange to say no vestige of law in avoidance can be traced.

296

It will be observed that Mr. Atkinson, when he writes of 'the cleavage of the old type of horde into two intermarriageable clans, creating the tribe,' differs from the opinions already expressed by his editor. By 'clans' Mr. Atkinson here means 'phratries,' and we have shown that phratries, even now, often bear totemic names, and probably were, in origin, local totem groups; each containing members (by female descent) of several other totem groups. Mr. Atkinson, as far as his MS. goes, appears to have given no attention to the origin and evolution of totem names, totem groups, and totem kins. Thus he writes, 'the presence of the offspring of the outside suitor in the formerly purely consanguine circle will be recognised.' But if the heterogeneity in the circle was only recognised as marked by female descent, and by the totem name of the female mate from without, male parentage of 'the children of the outside suitor' would not come into the purview of customary laws, would not cause the 'cleavage into two intermarriageable clans,' or 'phratries.' There was no such 'cleavage,' as we have argued, and the permission of cross-cousin marriage is due (I suspect), not to such early legal recognition of male descent, but simply to the natural working of the totemic exogamy, plus female descent.

Mr. Atkinson's theory of 'cleavage,' it will be remarked, does not involve the idea that the members of an 'undivided commune,' being pricked in conscience, bisected it for reformatory purposes. He merely suggests that his clients found, in their group, persons marriageable according to their existing rules of the game, and married them. But these persons are, according to him, recognised as the offspring of 'outside suitors' male, and are also recognised as cousins, on the female side, though even now no name for cousins exists in Australian society. This involves counting both on the male and female sides, which, in practice, may have occurred. But the theory of Mr. Atkinson avoids all the problems of the different totemic names given both to the born members of his original group, and to other members thereof, consisting of the offspring of the outside suitors. If totemic group names already existed, these suitors must have been of many totem group names. Whence, then, came the two different and distinct totemic group names of the two sets of cross-cousins – now phratries on Mr. Atkinson's theory?

Give his original group a name, say Emu. With Totemism it will contain captive wives of various groups, say Bat, Cat, Rat. It will also contain outside suitors, probably of the same names. These men are allowed to marry women of the group, and, by Mr. Atkinson's theory, the offspring of these unions, or 'cross-cousins,' are allowed to marry the children of their aunts within the group. There are thus, within the group, two intermarrying 'sides of the house,' veve, as in Melanesia. But why or how do these sides of the house, practically phratries, now receive totemic names, say Yungaru and Wutaru, or Wolf and Raven? Perhaps Mr. Atkinson would have replied, 'by a mere extension of the habit of adopting totemic names,' which, of course, involves the pre-existence of that habit. – A. L.

297

But not tempting, according to Dr. Westermarck! – A. L.

298

It will be interesting to see if research will bring to light the fact that even with so irresponsible and imperious a dynasty as the Ramesids some form of lustration was not considered necessary in the event of such unions. This is the case with the people of Madagascar under similar circumstances.

299

Well-known instances of this marital shyness are the Spartan and Red Indian usage of only entering the wife's bower, or wigwam, under cover of darkness. There are also Fijian and New Caledonian cases (Crawley, pp. 39-40). Mr. Crawley would regard these as cases of 'sexual tabu,' but various other cases may be readily conjectured. – A. L.

300

See Note at the end of chap. V.

301

With the consequent accession of power to the resident female thus accruing, capture would have become more rare. In any case it would certainly become connected in the minds of the more advanced and powerful tribes with the rape of women, other than their own, and probably inferior in type, mentally and physically; the comparison of this degraded captive in their midst with their own free females would not be at all likely to have led in connection with her to any spontaneous idea of symbolic consecration in marriage, or aught else.

302

When two groups, despite the isolating tendency of the habit of capture, did at length form a union sufficiently close to permit of marriage by consent between the respective group members, then, with capture as regards outsiders still rife amongst them, we can understand how the symbol would come to be attached to the peaceful connubium.

303

'Phratries' are here meant, where the word 'clan' is used, or local totem groups. – A. L. Cf. Note, p. 260.

304

The exact relation of each to the females being defined by the classificatory system by generations.

305

As mentioned by Tylor.

306

Here I really do not know what 'clan' is meant to denote – 'phratry,' I think. – A. L.

307

See Mr. Crawley's 'Sexual tabu' theory of this avoidance, Mystic Rose, pp. 399-414. – A. L.

308

Apparently 'clans' here = totem kins, Mr. Atkinson seems to think that totem kins kept on being added to the two original 'phratries.' – A. L.

309

Lubbock, Origin of Civilisation, p. 13 et seq.

310

Hlonipa, to avoid mention of his name, &c.

311

Origin of Civilisation, p. 14. Lubbock quoting 'Report of Select Committee on Aborigines,' Vict. 1859, p. 73. Tylor, Early History of Mankind, p. 288.

312

Among the Veddahs the fact that the avoidance begins after puberty, and in each case in relation to the opposite sex, is evidence that here the sexual feelings are concerned.

313

Tylor, Early History of Mankind, p. 291.

314

E. B. Tylor. On a method of investigating the development of institutions: applied to laws of marriage and descent. J. A. I. 1889, xviii. No. 3, 245-269.

315

The matter here is highly technical, and must be compared, if it is to be understood, with Mr. Tylor's essay, cited in the previous note. W stands for Wife, H for Husband, D is Daughter, F is Female, M is Mother, and is also Male! A is Avoidance. – A. L.

316

Ancient Society, p. 384, Lewis H. Morgan.

317

Ibid. p. 402.

318

Ibid. p. 409.

319

Ibid. p. 385.

320

Ancient Society, p. 391, Lewis H. Morgan.

321

Kamilaroi and Kurnai, Lorimer and Fison. Cf. note at end of chapter. I have already stated my objections to the theory of 'group marriage.' – A. L.

322

'Totems arose to distinguish cousins as such.' This implies that the totem name was assigned to each group for a definite social purpose, the regulation of degrees of kin. But, on any feasible theory of the 'totem' it 'came otherwise,' and was only used as a mark of kinship after it had come, just as a place name might have been used, had it been equally convenient. On the system of descent of the totem on the female side, A (man), an Emu, marries B (woman), a Kangaroo. Their sons and daughters are Kangaroos. C, one of the sisters, marries D, a Witchetty Grub, her children are Kangaroos. E, C's brother, marries F, a Frog, his children are Frogs, and may, as far as the totem rule goes, marry their cousins, C's children, who are Kangaroos. – A. L.

323

Studies in Ancient History, McLennan, p. 269 et seq.

324

The most distinctive feature to-day in the inter-relations of generations is a most strict ordinance to celibacy between members of different generations.

325

How can marriage be communal, granting Mr. Atkinson's views about sexual jealousy? – A. L.

326

Where is sexual jealousy? – A. L.

327

Cf. Mr. Tylor, J. A. I. xviii. 3, 265, who expresses the same opinion.

328

Western Antiquary, vol. ix., pt. ii., p. 37, August, 1899.

329

Les Baronga, Attinger, Neufchâtel, 1898, pp. 82-87.

330

Op. cit. pp. 487-489.