unrestricted descent through the female line may have spontaneously arisen, although in the first instance it was only a feeling of convenience which induced the race to distinguish the children of polygamous families by their descent through their mothers. We do not claim unconditional assent to these suggestions. We only assert that the conditions which exist among the Australians do not entitle us to regard the female line of descent as the primitive one, nor to explain it by the fact of promiscuous intercourse. Their circumstances do not afford proof of either opinion; they rather indicate that the female line was a later development, to which they were led for other reasons than those which referred to the question of paternity. CHAPTER II. AMERICA. Exogenous totem-groups-General diffusion of female line-As to the primitive existence of the clan-The tamanuus of the peoples of Columbia-Tylor, Lubbock, and Spencer-Medicine and totemSystem of names in clan-The Columbians the primitive tribes— Position of husband with respect to members of wife's family-Effect of this position on line of kinship-Influence of locality and household-Caribs-Non-existence of clans among them, and vague definition of kinship-Labour performed by son-in-law-Paternal authority and household among Brazilians-Tattooing a bond of union-Likewise a distinctive mark-Obligation of blood-feud-Slaves and freemen-Undeveloped clans-Forbidden marriages-Tribes of La Plata-No patria potestas-Hereditary dignity of chief-Araucanians -Coherence of the family-Female line not primitive-Origin of duties and privileges-Germ of development of groups-Nomenclature-Mexico-Paternal line and localized clans-The same in Peru -The couvade-Lubbock's hypothesis-Diffusion and meaning of the couvade. WE find in North America very marked forms of clans which are distinguished by their totems or kobongs, and in that country as well as in Australia the clans are exogamous; that is, marriage between members of the same clan is not permitted. The formation of tribes is also more permanent than in Australia, when persons belonging to different tribes, but possessing the same totem, stand in close relations to each other; in America this is not the case. In some instances the clan organization is absent, and these exceptions will help us to understand its history-a history which reveals the hidden causes of the lines of descent, and confirms the surmises suggested by our observation of the conditions which prevail in Australia. In both countries the social life of men is due to very simple causes, which are therefore universally applicable. To the east of the mountain range, each of the tribes inhabits a territory of which the limits are strictly defined. The land may either be owned by the chief, or be the common property of the tribe. In the latter case, each tiller of a piece of ground has the use of it as long as he keeps it in cultivation, or else the tillage and harvest are undertaken in common; either the harvest and the animals killed in hunting are divided as they are required, or each man takes what he wants from the store in hand.1 The tribal bond is a strong one; but, in spite of this, every tribe is divided into several clans, which, although not living apart, hold themselves to be separate corporations with the right of independent action. Wright tells us that in earlier times these clans showed a strong tendency to local exclusiveness.2 The female line of descent generally prevails in these tribes. The male line is, however, observed by the Punka, Omaha, Towa, Kaw, Winnebago, Ojibwa, Potawattamie, and Abenaki tribes, and by those of the Mississipi and the Rocky Mountains. Among these the Winnebagoes, Ojibwas, Potawattamies, and at least one of the Mississipi tribes, the Menominees, formerly followed the female line of descent, and the change has taken place under the influence of the missionaries. One of these tribes, the Choctas, is now in process of transition. Morgan believes that in the other tribes also, the female line formerly prevailed, but he adduces no proof of this assertion. At the same time he states that the division into clans was a primitive one, and the fact that this division is not found among the tribes of Columbia does 2 Morgan, Anc. Soc., p. 83. 3 Morgan, Anc. Soc., pt. 2, ch. vi. 1 Waitz, vol. iii. p. 128. not disturb this belief; the tribes may have originally possessed the clan-organization and afterwards have lost it, since it is supposed that the American tribes migrated from the Columbian district. I am more disposed to infer that the clan organization had its origin among the dispersed tribes at a later period, and I propose to try to decide the question by a different method. Wilkes writes that the Columbians have a tamanuus, or medicine, which they reverence as their protecting spirit. Each man early in life chooses such a tamanuus, which is usually an animal.2 I find in this custom the origin of totemism. Tylor, in his work, "Primitive Culture," has spoken of totemism, which prevails throughout the world, in connection with the prevalence of animal worship. He holds totemism to be that form of animal worship in which the animal is adored as the ancestor of the man himself, and he asks to what other cause we can ascribe the fancy that a man is descended from a wolf, a bear, or a tortoise. The hypothesis suggested by Lubbock and Spencer seems to him to be too rash. These learned men trace the cause of the so-called cultus to the prevailing custom of giving the name of an animal to an individual, and thence to a whole family. Such an individual at first regarded the animal with interest, then with reverence and superstition. Tylor considers that this hypothesis may explain the obscure facts of totemism, but it is not warranted by experience, and its universal application may mislead us. We should do well not to rely too confidently on an hypothesis which accounts for solar and lunar nature myths by referring them to the heroic men and women who happened to be called after the sun and moon.5 We shall revert to this point, 1 Morgan, Anc. Soc., pp. 109, 177. Appendix VI. 2 Wilkes, Narrative, vol. v. p. 118. Appendix VII. 3 Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. i. p. 213 Lubbock, Orig. of Civ., p. 260. Spencer, Prin. of Soc., ch. xxii. 5 Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. i. p. 215. and are now only considering that part of Tylor's argument in which he lays stress on the distinction between totemism and the ordinary cultus of animals. He warns us against confounding the totem with the protecting animal which becomes the medicine of the individual.1 I think that in this case he goes too far, for even if there is any real distinction between the totem and the medicine, the one might easily be evolved out of the other. We are in possession of facts which entitle us to infer that a totem was a medicine inherited from ancestors, to which a function somewhat different from that of ordinary medicine was ascribed. It does not appear that the Columbian tribes are addicted to totemism, although it is found among the allied tribes on the Fraser River. Among the latter, the totem is carved on the beams of the house, and represented in all possible ways. Marriage is not permitted between persons who have the same totem.2 I believe that the custom of carving the image of the owner's medicine on his house may have transformed its merely personal character into that of an hereditary totem. Schoolcraft tells us that among the Sioux a clan consists of individuals who use the same roots for medicine, and that they are received into the clan by a great medicine-dance. He adds that it is the custom-and this is also the case with other tribes-to make a bag out of the skin of the medicine animal, which acts as a talisman, and is inherited by the son; it is only in this way that descent is reckoned through several generations. This inheritance of the medicine may possibly explain the development of totemism, namely, by the reverence inspired by an inherited medicine. While Morgan is able to infer from a passage in Carver's "Travels" that in earlier times the Sioux were divided into distinct clans, I can only 1 Tylor, Primitive Culture, p. 213. 2 Mayne, Four Years, etc., p. 257. Appendix VIII. |