The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, Volume 1

The dances of the Kol tribe consist partly of symbolical enactments of events which they desired to be successfully accomplished. Some variations of the dance, Colonel Dalton states, represent the different seasons and the necessary acts of cultivation that each brings with it. In one the dancers, bending down, make a motion with their hands, as though they were sowing the grain, keeping step with their feet all the time. Then comes the reaping of the crop and the binding of the sheaves, all done in perfect time and rhythm, and making, with the continuous droning of the voices, a quaint and picturesque performance.139 The Karma dance of the Gonds and Oraons is also connected with the crops, and probably was once an enactment of the work of cultivation.140 The Bhīls danced at their festivals and before battles. The men danced in a ring, holding sticks and striking them against one another. Before a battle they had a war-dance in which the performers were armed and imitated a combat. To be carried on the shoulders of one of the combatants was a great honour, perhaps because it symbolised being on horseback. The object was to obtain success in battle by going through an imitation of a successful battle beforehand. This was also the common custom of the Red Indians, whose war-dances are well known; they brandished their weapons and killed their foe in mimicry in order that they might soon do so in reality. The Sela dance of the Gonds and Baigas, in which they perform the figure of the grand chain of the lancers, only that they strike their sticks together instead of clasping hands as they pass, was probably once an imitation of a combat. It is still sometimes danced before their communal hunting and fishing parties. In these mimetic rehearsals of events with the object of causing them to occur we may perhaps discern the origin of the arts both of acting and dancing. Another, and perhaps later form, was the reproduction of important events, or those which had influenced history. For to the primitive mind, as already seen, the results were not conceived of as instrumentally caused by the event, but as part of the event itself and of its life and personality. Hence by the re-enactment of the event the beneficial results would be again obtained or at least preserved in undiminished potency and vigour. This was perhaps the root idea of the drama and the representation of sacred or heroic episodes on the stage.

64. The common life

Thus, resuming from paragraph 61, primitive man had no difficulty in conceiving of a life as shared between two or more persons or objects, and it does not seem impossible that he should have at first conceived it to extend through a whole species.141 A good instance of the common life is afforded by the gods of the Hindu and other pantheons. Each god was conceived of as performing some divine function, guiding the chariot of the sun, manipulating the thunder and so on; but at the same time thousands of temples existed throughout the country, and in each of these the god was alive and present in his image or idol, able to act independently, receive and consume sacrifices and offerings, protect suppliants and punish transgressors. No doubt at all can be entertained that each idol was in itself held to be a living god. In India food is offered to the idol, it goes through its ablutions, is fanned, and so on, exactly like a human king. The ideas of sanctuary and sacrilege appear to depend primarily on the belief in the actual presence of the god in his shrine. And in India no sanctity at all attaches to a temple from which the idol has been removed. Thus we see the life of the god distributed over a multitude of personalities. Again, the same god, as Vishnu or the sun, is held to have had a number of incarnations, as the boar, the tortoise, a man-lion, a dwarf, Rāma and Krishna, and these are venerated simultaneously as distinct deities. The whole Brāhman caste considered itself divine or as partaking in the life of the god, the original reason for this perhaps being that the Brāhmans obtained the exclusive right to perform sacrifices, and hence the life of the sacrificial animal or food passed to them, as in other societies it passed to the king who performed the sacrifice. A Brāhman further holds that the five gods, Indra, Brahma, Siva, Vishnu and Ganesh, are present in different parts of his body,142 and here again the life of the god is seen to be divided into innumerable fragments. The priests of the Vallabhachārya sect, the Gokulastha Gosains, were all held to be possessed by the god Krishna, so that it was esteemed a high privilege to perform the most menial offices for them, because to touch them was equivalent to touching the god, and perhaps assimilating by contact a fragment of his divine life and nature.143 The belief in a common life would also explain the veneration of domestic animals and the prohibition against killing them, because to kill one would injure the whole life of the species, from which the tribe drew its subsistence. Similarly in a number of cases the first idea of seasonal fasts is that the people abstain from the grain or fruit which is growing or sown in the ground. Thus in India during the rains the vegetables growing at this period are not eaten, and are again partaken of for the first time after the sacrificial offering of the new crop. This rule could not possibly be observed in the case of grain, but instead certain single fast-days are prescribed, and on these days no cultivated grain or fruit, but only those growing wild, should be eaten. These rules seem to indicate that the original motive of the fast was to avoid injuring the common life of the grain or fruit, which injury would be caused by a consumption of any part of it, at a time when the whole of the common life and vigour was required for its reproduction and multiplication. This idea may have operated to enable the savage to restrain himself from digging up and eating the grain sown in the ground, or slaughtering his domestic animals for food, and a taboo on the consumption of grain and fruits during their period of ripening may have first begun in their wild state. The Intichiuma ceremonies of the Australian natives are carried out with the object of increasing the supply of the totem for food purposes. In the Ilpirla or Manna totem the members of the clan go to a large boulder surrounded by stones, which are held to represent masses of Ilpirla or the manna of the mulga tree. A Churinga stone is dug up, which is supposed to represent another mass of manna, and this is rubbed over the boulder, and the smaller stones are also rubbed over it. While the leader does this, the others sing a song which is an invitation to the dust produced by the rubbing of the stones to go out and produce a plentiful supply of Ilpirla on the mulga trees.144 Then the dust is swept off the surface of the stones with twigs of the mulga tree. Here apparently the large boulder and other stones are held to be the centre or focus of the common life of the manna, and from them the seed issues forth which will produce a crop of manna on all the mulga trees. The deduction seems clear that the trees are not conceived of individually, but are held to have a common life. In the case of the hakea flower totem they go to a stone lying beneath an old tree, and one of the members lets his blood flow on to the stone until it is covered, while the others sing a song inciting the hakea tree to flower much and to the blossoms to be full of honey.145 The blood is said to represent a drink prepared from the hakea flowers, but probably it was originally meant to quicken the stone with the blood of a member of the totem, that is its own blood or life, in order that it might produce abundance of flowers. Here again the stone seems to be the centre of the common life of the hakea flower. The songs are sung with the idea that the repetition of words connoting a state of facts will have the effect of causing that state of facts to exist, in accordance with the belief already explained in the concrete virtue of words.

Sir E. B. Tylor states: “In Polynesia, if a village god were accustomed to appear as an owl, and one of his votaries found a dead owl by the roadside, he would mourn over the sacred bird and bury it with much ceremony, but the god himself would not be thought to be dead, for he remains incarnate in all existing owls. According to Father Geronimo Boscana, the Acagchemen tribe of Upper California furnish a curious parallel to this notion. They worshipped the panes bird, which seems to have been an eagle or vulture, and each year, in the temple of each village, one of them was solemnly killed without shedding blood, and the body buried. Yet the natives maintained and believed that it was the same individual bird they sacrificed each year, and more than this, that the same bird was slain by each of the villages.”146 An account of the North American Indians quoted by the same author states that they believe all the animals of each species to have an elder brother, who is as it were the principle and origin of all the individuals, and this elder brother is marvellously great and powerful. According to another view each species has its archetype in the land of souls; there exists, for example, a manitu or archetype of all oxen, which animates all oxen.147

Generally in the relations between the totem-clan and its totem-animal, and in all the fables about animals, one animal is taken as representing the species, and it is tacitly assumed that all the animals of the species have the same knowledge and qualities and would behave in the same manner as the typical one. Thus when the Majhwār says that the tiger would run away if he met a member of the tiger-clan who was free from sin, but would devour any member who had been put out of caste for an offence, he assumes that every tiger would know a member of the clan on meeting him, and also whether that member was in or out of caste. He therefore apparently supposes a common knowledge and intelligence to exist in all tigers as regards the clan, as if they were parts of one mind or intelligence. And since the tigers know instinctively when a member of the clan is out of caste, the mind and intelligence of the tigers must be the same as that of the clan. The Kols of the tiger clan think that if they were to sit up for a tiger over a kill the tiger would not come and would be deprived of his food, and that they themselves would fall ill. Here the evil effects of the want of food on one tiger are apparently held to extend to all tigers and also to all members of the tiger clan.

65. The common life of the clan

The totem-clan held itself to partake of the life of its totem, and on the above hypothesis one common life would flow through all the animals and plants of the totem and all the members of the clan. An Australian calls his totem his Wingong (friend) or Tumang (flesh), and nowadays expresses his sorrow when he has to eat it.148 If a man wishes to injure any man of a certain totem, he kills any animal of that man’s totem.149 This clearly shows that one common life is held to bind together all the animals of the totem-species and all the members of the totem-clan, and the belief seems to be inexplicable on any other hypothesis. The same is the case with the sex-totems of the Kurnai tribe. In addition to the clan-totems all the boys have the Superb Warbler bird as a sex-totem, and call it their elder brother; and all the girls the Emu-wren, and call it their elder sister. If the boys wish to annoy the girls, or vice versa, each kills or injures the other’s totem-bird, and such an act is always followed by a free fight between the boys and girls.150 Sex-totems are a peculiar development which need not be discussed here, but again it would appear that a common life runs through the birds of the totem and the members of the sex. Professor Robertson Smith describes the clan or kin as follows: “A kin was a group of persons whose lives were so bound up together, in what must be called a physical unity, that they could be treated as parts of one common life. The members of one kindred looked on themselves as one living whole, one single animated mass of blood, flesh and bones, of which no member could be touched without all the members suffering. This point of view is expressed in the Semitic tongue in many familiar forms of speech. In case of homicide Arabian tribesmen do not say, ‘The blood of M. or N. has been spilt’ (naming the man): they say, ‘Our blood has been spilt.’ In Hebrew the phrase by which one claims kinship is, ‘I am your bone and your flesh.’ Both in Hebrew and in Arabic flesh is synonymous with ‘clan’ or kindred group.”151 The custom of the blood-feud appears to have arisen from the belief in a common life of the clan. “The blood-feud is an institution not peculiar to tribes reckoning descent through females; and it is still in force. By virtue of its requirements every member of a kin, one of whom had suffered at the hands of a member of another kin, was bound to avenge the wrong upon the latter kin. Such is the solidarity between members of a kin that vengeance might be taken upon any member of the offending kin, though he might be personally quite innocent. In the growth of civilisation vengeance has gradually come to be concentrated upon the offender only.”152 Thus the blood-feud appears to have originated from the idea of primary retributive justice between clan and clan. When a member of a clan had been killed, one of the offending clan must be killed in return. Who he might be, and whether the original homicide was justifiable or not, were questions not regarded by primitive man; motives were abstract ideas with which he had no concern; he only knew that a piece of the common life had been lopped off, and the instinct of self-preservation of the clan demanded that a piece of the life of the offending clan should be cut off in return. And the tie which united the kin was eating and drinking together. “According to antique ideas those who eat and drink together are by this very act tied to one another by a bond of friendship and mutual obligation.”153 This was the bond which first united the members of the totem-clan both among themselves and with their totem. And the relationship with the totem could only have arisen from the fact that they ate it. The belief in a common life could not possibly arise in the totem-clan towards any animal or plant which they did not eat or otherwise use. These they would simply disregard. Nor would savages, destitute at first of any moral ideas, and frequently on the brink of starvation, abstain from eating any edible animal from sentimental considerations; and, as already seen, the first totems were generally edible. They could not either have in the first place eaten the totem ceremonially, as there would be no reason for such a custom. But the ceremonial eating of the domestic animal, which was the tie subsequently uniting the members of the tribe,154 cannot be satisfactorily explained except on the hypothesis that it was evolved from the customary eating of the totem-animal. Primitive savages would only feel affection towards the animals which they ate, just as the affection of animals is gained by feeding them. The objection might be made that savages could not feel affection and kinship for an animal which they killed and ate, but no doubt exists that they do.

“In British Columbia, when the fishing season commenced and the fish began coming up the rivers, the Indians used to meet them and speak to them. They paid court to them and would address them thus: ‘You fish, you fish; you are all chiefs, you are; you are all chiefs.’ Among the Northas when a bear is killed, it is dressed in a bonnet, covered with fine down, and solemnly invited to the chiefs presence.”155 And there are many other instances.156 Savages had no clear realisation of death, and they did not think that the life of the animal was extinguished but that it passed to them with the flesh. Moreover they only ate part of the life. In many cases also the totem-animal only appeared at a certain season of the year, in consequence of the habit of hibernation or migration in search of food, while trees only bore fruit in their season. The savage, regarding all animals and plants as possessed of self-conscious life and volition, would think that they came of their own accord to give him subsistence or life. Afterwards, when they had obtained the idea of a soul or spirit, and of the survival of the soul after death, and when, on the introduction of personal names, the personality of individuals could be realised and remembered after death, they frequently thought that the spirits of ancestors went back to the totem-animal, whence they derived their life. The idea of descent from the totem would thus naturally arise. As the means of subsistence increased, and especially in those communities which had domesticated animals or cultivated plants, the conception of the totem as the chief source of life would gradually die away and be replaced by the belief in descent from it; and when they also thought that the spirits of ancestors were in the totem, they would naturally abstain from eating it. Perhaps also the Australians consider that the members of the totem-clan should abstain from eating the totem for fear of injuring the common life, as more advanced communities abstained from eating the flesh of domestic animals. This may be the ground for the rule that they should only eat sparingly of the totem. To the later period may be ascribed the adoption of carnivorous animals as totems; when these animals came to be feared and also venerated for their qualities of strength, ferocity and courage, warriors would naturally wish to claim kinship with and descent from them.

66. Living and eating together

When the members of the totem-clan who lived together recognised that they owed something to each other, and that the gratification of the instincts and passions of the individual must to a certain degree be restrained if they endangered the lives and security of other members of the clan, they had taken the first step on the long path of moral and social progress. The tie by which they supposed themselves to be united was quite different from those which have constituted a bond of union between the communities who have subsequently lived together in the tribe, the city-state and the country. These have been a common religion, common language, race, or loyalty to a common sovereign; but the real bond has throughout been the common good or the public interest. And the desire for this end on the part of the majority of the members of the community, or the majority of those who were able to express their opinions, though its action was until recently not overt nor direct, and was not recognised, has led to the gradual evolution of the whole fabric of law and moral feeling, in order to govern and control the behaviour and conduct of the individual in his relations with his family, neighbours and fellow-citizens for the public advantage. The members of the totem-clan would have been quite unable to understand either the motives by which they were themselves actuated or the abstract ideas which have united more advanced communities; but they devised an even stronger bond than these, in supposing that they were parts or fractions of one common body or life. This was the more necessary as their natural impulses were uncontrolled by moral feeling. They conceived the bond of union in the concrete form of eating together. As language improved and passing events were recorded in speech and in the mind, the faculty of memory was perhaps concurrently developed. Then man began to realise the insecurity of his life, the dangers and misfortunes to which he was subject, the periodical failure or irregularity of the supply of food, and the imminent risks of death. Memory of the past made him apprehensive for the future, and holding that every event was the result of an act of volition, he began to assume an attitude either of veneration, gratitude, or fear towards the strongest of the beings by whom he thought his destinies were controlled—the sun, moon, sky, wind and rain, the ocean and great rivers, high mountains and trees, and the most important animals of his environment, whether they destroyed or assisted to preserve his life. The ideas of propitiation, atonement and purification were then imparted to the sacrifice, and it became an offering to a god.157 But the primary idea of eating or drinking together as a bond of union was preserved, and can be recognised in religious and social custom to an advanced period of civilisation.

67. The origin of exogamy

Again, Dr. Westermarck shows that the practice of exogamy or the avoidance of intermarriage did not at first arise between persons recognised as blood relations, but between those who lived together. “Facts show that the extent to which relatives are not allowed to intermarry is nearly connected with their close living together. Generally speaking the prohibited degrees are extended much further among savage and barbarous peoples than in civilised societies. As a rule the former, if they have not remained in the most primitive social condition of man, live not in separate families but in large households or communities, all the members of which dwell in very close contact with each other.”158 And later, after adducing the evil results of self-fertilisation in plants and close interbreeding in animals, Dr. Westermarck continues: “Taking all these facts into consideration, I cannot but believe that consanguineous marriages, in some way or other, are more or less detrimental to the species. And here I think we may find a quite sufficient explanation of the horror of incest; not because man at an early stage recognised the injurious influence of close intermarriage, but because the law of natural selection must inevitably have operated. Among the ancestors of man, as among other animals, there was no doubt a time when blood relationship was no bar to sexual intercourse. But variations here, as elsewhere, would naturally present themselves; and those of our ancestors who avoided in-and-in breeding would survive, while the others would gradually decay and ultimately perish. Thus an instinct would be developed, which would be powerful enough as a rule to prevent injurious unions. Of course it would display itself simply as an aversion on the part of individuals to union with others with whom they lived; but these as a matter of fact would be blood relations, so that the result would be the survival of the fittest.”

68. Promiscuity and female descent

The instinct of exogamy first developed in the totem-clan when it was migratory and lived by hunting, at least among the Australians and probably the American Indians.

The first condition of the clan was one of sexual promiscuity, and in Totemism and Exogamy Sir J.G. Frazer has adduced many instances of periodical promiscuous debauchery which probably recall this state of things.159 The evil results which would accrue from in-breeding in the condition of promiscuity may have been modified by such incidents as the expulsion of the young males through the spasmodic jealousy of the older ones, the voluntary segregation of the old males, fights and quarrels leading to the rearrangement of groups, and the frequent partial destruction of a group, when the survivors might attach themselves to a new group. Primitive peoples attached the utmost importance to the rule of exogamy, and the punishments for the breach of it were generally more severe than those for the violation of the laws of affinity in civilised countries. The Australians say that the good spirit or the wise men prescribed to them the rule that the members of each totem-clan should not marry with each other.160 Similarly the Gonds say that their divine hero, Lingo, introduced the rule of exogamy and the division into clans before he went to the gods.

At first, however, the exogamous clan was not constituted by descent through males, but through females. The hypothesis that female everywhere preceded male descent is strongly supported by natural probability. In the first instance, the parentage of children was no more observed and remembered than that of animals. When first observed, it was necessarily through the mother, the identity of the father being wholly uncertain. The mother would also be the first parent to remember her children, her affection for them being based on one of the strongest natural instincts, whereas the father neither knew nor cared for his children until long afterwards. Sir J.G. Frazer has further shown that even now some of the Australian aborigines are ignorant of the physical fact of paternity and its relation to sexual intercourse. That such ignorance could have survived so long is the strongest evidence in favour of the universal priority of female to male descent. It is doubtful, however, whether even the mother could remember her children after they had become adult, prior to the introduction of personal names. Mr. M’Lennan states: “The tie between mother and child, which exists as a matter of necessity during infancy, is not infrequently found to be lost sight of among savages on the age of independence being reached.”161 Personal names were probably long subsequent to clan-names, and when they were first introduced the name usually had some reference to the clan. The Red Indians and other races have totem-names which are frequently some variant of the name of the totem.162 When personal names came to be generally introduced, the genesis of the individual family might soon follow, but the family could scarcely have come into existence in the absence of personal names. As a rule, in the exogamous clan with female descent no regard was paid to the chastity of women, and they could select their partners as they pleased. Mr. Hartland has shown in Primitive Paternity that in a large number of primitive communities the chastity of women was neither enforced nor desired by the men, this state of things being probably a relic of the period of female descent. Thus exogamy first arose through the women of the clan resorting to men outside it. When we consider the extreme rigour of life and the frequent danger of starvation to which the small clans in the hunting stage must have been exposed, it does not seem impossible that the evil effects of marriage within the clan may have been noticed. At that time probably only a minority even of healthy children survived, and the slight congenital weakness produced by in-breeding might apparently be fatal to a child’s chance of life. Possibly some dim perception may have been obtained of the different fates of the children of women who restricted their sexual relations to men within the clan and those who resorted to strangers, even though the nature of paternity may not have been understood. The strength of the feeling and custom of exogamy seems to demand some such recognition for its satisfactory explanation, though, on the other hand, the lateness of the recognition of the father’s share in the production of children militates against this view. The suggestion may be made also that the belief that the new life of a child must be produced by a spirit entering the woman, or other extraneous source, does not necessarily involve an ignorance of the physical fact of paternity; the view that the spirits of ancestors are reborn in children is still firmly held by tribes who have long been wholly familiar with the results of the commerce of the sexes. The practice of exogamy was no doubt, as shown by Dr. Westermarck, favoured and supported by the influence of novelty in sexual attraction, since according to common observation and experience sexual love or desire is more easily excited between strangers or slight acquaintances than between those who have long lived together in the same household or in familiar intercourse. In the latter case the attraction is dulled by custom and familiarity.