Totemic Beliefs, Continued: Individual and Sexual Totems

Up to the present, we have studied totemism only as a public institution: the only totems of which we have spoken are common to a clan, a phratry or, in a sense, to a tribe;⁴⁸⁸ an individual has a part in them only as a member of a group. But we know that there is no religion which does not have an individual aspect. This general observation is applicable to totemism. In addition to the impersonal and collective totems which hold the first place, there are others which are peculiar to each individual, which express his personality, and whose cult he celebrates in private.

So far, we have studied totemism only as a public institution. The only totems we have discussed are shared by a clan, a phratry or, in a sense, a tribe.⁴⁸⁸ Individuals share in these totems only as members of a group. But we know that every religion also has an individual aspect. This is true of totemism as well. The impersonal, collective totems come first, but there are also totems unique to each individual. These express the individual’s personality and are worshipped in private.

In certain Australian tribes, and in the majority of the Indian tribes of North America,⁴⁸⁹ each individual personally sustains relations with some determined object, which are comparable to those which each clan sustains with its totem. This is sometimes an inanimate being or an artificial object; but it is generally an animal. In certain cases, a special part of the organism, such as the head, the feet or the liver, fulfils this office.⁴⁹⁰

In certain Australian tribes and most Indian tribes of North America,⁴⁸⁹ each individual has a personal relationship with a particular object. This relationship is comparable to the one each clan has with its totem. The object is sometimes an inanimate thing or a manufactured object, but it is usually an animal. In some cases, a particular part of an organism, such as the head, feet, or liver, serves this purpose.⁴⁹⁰

The name of the thing also serves as the name of the individual. It is his personal name, his forename, which is added to that of the collective totem, as the praenomen of the Romans was to the nomen gentilicium. It is true that this fact is not reported except in a certain number of societies,⁴⁹¹ but it is probably general. In fact, we shall presently show that there is an identity of nature between the individual and the thing; now an identity of nature implies one of name. Being given in the course of especially important religious ceremonies, this forename has a sacred character. It is not pronounced in the ordinary circumstances of profane life. It even happens that the word designating this object in the ordinary language must be modified to a greater or less extent if it is to serve in this particular case.⁴⁹² This is because the terms of the usual language are excluded from the religious life.

The name of the thing also serves as the individual’s name. It is his personal name, or forename, and is added to the name of the collective totem. This is like the Roman praenomen, which was added to the nomen gentilicium. This practice has been reported only in a certain number of societies,⁴⁹¹ but it is probably general. We shall soon show that the individual and the thing are identical in nature. And an identity of nature implies an identity of name. The forename is given during especially important religious ceremonies, so it has a sacred character. It is not spoken in the ordinary circumstances of profane life. Sometimes the ordinary word for the object must even be changed to some degree to serve as the forename.⁴⁹² This is because the terms of ordinary language are excluded from religious life.

In certain American tribes, at least, this name is reinforced by an emblem belonging to each individual and representing, under various forms, the thing designated by the name. For example, each Mandan wears the skin of the animal of which he is the namesake.⁴⁹³ If it is a bird, he decorates himself with its feathers.⁴⁹⁴ The Hurons and Algonquins tattoo their bodies with its image.⁴⁹⁵ It is represented on their arms.⁴⁹⁶ Among the north-western tribes, the individual emblem, just like the collective emblem of the clan, is carved or engraved on the utensils, houses,⁴⁹⁷ etc.; it serves as a mark of ownership.⁴⁹⁸ Frequently the two coats-of-arms are combined together, which partially explains the great diversity of aspects presented by the totemic escutcheons among these peoples.⁴⁹⁹

In certain American tribes, at least, each person also has an emblem that represents, in various forms, the thing named. For example, each Mandan wears the skin of the animal he is named after.⁴⁹³ If the animal is a bird, he decorates himself with its feathers.⁴⁹⁴ The Hurons and Algonquins tattoo its image on their bodies.⁴⁹⁵ The image also appears on their weapons.⁴⁹⁶ Among the northwestern tribes, the individual emblem is carved or engraved on utensils, houses,⁴⁹⁷ and other objects, just like the clan’s collective emblem. The individual emblem serves as a mark of ownership.⁴⁹⁸ The two coats of arms are often combined. This partly explains the great variety of forms taken by the totemic shields of these peoples.⁴⁹⁹

Between the individual and his animal namesake there exist the very closest bonds. The man participates in the nature of the animal; he has its good qualities as well as its faults. For example, a man having the eagle as his coat-of-arms is believed to possess the gift of seeing into the future; if he is named after a bear, they say that he is apt to be wounded in combat, for the bear is heavy and slow and easily caught;⁵⁰⁰ if the animal is despised, the man is the object of the same sentiment.⁵⁰¹ The relationship of the two is even so close that it is believed that in certain circumstances, especially in case of danger, the man can take the form of the animal.⁵⁰² Inversely, the animal is regarded as a double of the man, as his alter ego.⁵⁰³ The association of the two is so close that their destinies are frequently thought to be bound up together: nothing can happen to one without the other's feeling a reaction.⁵⁰⁴ If the animal dies, the life of the man is menaced. Thus it comes to be a very general rule that one should not kill the animal, nor eat its flesh. This interdiction, which, when concerning the totem of the clan, allows of all sorts of attenuations and modifications, is now much more formal and absolute.⁵⁰⁵

The bond between a person and the animal after which he is named is extremely close. He shares the animal’s nature, including its good qualities and its faults. For example, a man with an eagle as his coat of arms is believed to see the future. If he is named after a bear, people say he is likely to be wounded in battle. This is because the bear is heavy, slow, and easily caught.⁵⁰⁰ If the animal is despised, the man is despised too.⁵⁰¹ The bond is so close that people believe the man can take the animal’s form in certain circumstances, especially when he is in danger.⁵⁰² Conversely, the animal is seen as the man’s double, his alter ego.⁵⁰³ The association is so close that their fates are often thought to be linked. Nothing can happen to one without affecting the other.⁵⁰⁴ If the animal dies, the man’s life is threatened. As a result, a very general rule forbids a person to kill the animal or eat its flesh. When the ban concerns the clan’s totem, it allows all kinds of exceptions and modifications. But in this case, the ban is much more strict and absolute.⁵⁰⁵

On its side, the animal protects the man and serves him as a sort of patron. It informs him of possible dangers and of the way of escaping them;⁵⁰⁶ they say that it is his friend.⁵⁰⁷ Since it frequently happens to possess marvellous powers, it communicates them to its human associate, who believes in them, even under the proof of bullets, arrows, and blows of every sort.⁵⁰⁸ This confidence of an individual in the efficacy of his protector is so great that he braves the greatest dangers and accomplishes the most disconcerting feats with an intrepid serenity: faith gives him the necessary courage and strength.⁵⁰⁹ However, the relations of a man with his patron are not purely and simply those of dependence. He, on his side, is able to act upon the animal. He gives it orders; he has influence over it. A Kurnai having the shark as ally and friend believes that he can disperse the sharks who menace a boat, by means of a charm.⁵¹⁰ In other cases, the relations thus contracted are believed to confer upon the man a special aptitude for hunting the animal with success.⁵¹¹

The animal, for its part, protects the man and serves as a kind of patron. It warns him of possible dangers and tells him how to escape them.⁵⁰⁶ People say the animal is his friend.⁵⁰⁷ The animal often has extraordinary powers, which it passes on to its human companion. The man believes in these powers even when they are tested by bullets, arrows, and blows of every kind.⁵⁰⁸ His confidence in the power of his protector is so great that he faces the greatest dangers with fearless calm. He also performs astonishing feats with the same calm. Faith gives him the courage and strength he needs.⁵⁰⁹ However, a man’s relationship with his patron is not simply one of dependence. He, in turn, can act on the animal. He gives it orders and has influence over it. A Kurnai who has the shark as an ally and friend believes he can use a charm to drive away sharks threatening a boat.⁵¹⁰ In other cases, such relationships are believed to give the man a special ability to hunt the animal successfully.⁵¹¹

The very nature of these relations seems clearly to imply that the being to which each individual is thus associated is only an individual itself, and not a species. A man does not have a species as his alter ego. In fact, there are cases where it is certainly a certain determined tree, rock or stone that fulfils this function.⁵¹² It must be thus every time that it is an animal, and that the existences of the animal and the man are believed to be connected. A man could not be united so closely to a whole species, for there is not a day nor, so to speak, an instant when the species does not lose some one of its members. Yet the primitive has a certain incapacity for thinking of the individual apart from the species; the bonds uniting him to the one readily extend to the other; he confounds the two in the same sentiment. Thus the entire species becomes sacred for him.⁵¹³

The nature of these relationships seems clearly to imply that the being associated with each individual is itself an individual, not a species. A man does not have a species as his alter ego. In fact, in some cases, a particular tree, rock, or stone certainly fulfills this role.⁵¹² The same must be true when the being is an animal and its life is believed to be connected to the man’s. A man could not be so closely linked to an entire species. There is not a day, or practically even a moment, when the species does not lose one of its members. Yet the primitive has a certain difficulty thinking of an individual apart from its species. His bond with the individual readily extends to the species. He feels the same way about both. Thus the entire species becomes sacred to him.⁵¹³

This protector is naturally given different names in different societies: nagual among the Indians of Mexico,⁵¹⁴ manitou among the Algonquins and okki among the Hurons,⁵¹⁵ snam among certain Salish,⁵¹⁶ sulia among others,⁵¹⁷ budjan among the Yuin,⁵¹⁸ yunbeai among the Euahlayi,⁵¹⁹ etc. Owing to the importance of these beliefs and practices among the Indians of North America, some have proposed creating a word nagualism or manitouism to designate them.⁵²⁰ But in giving them a special and distinctive name, we run the risk of misunderstanding their relations with the rest of totemism. In fact, the same principle is applied in the one case to the clan and in the other to the individual. In both cases we find the same belief that there are vital connections between the things and the men, and that the former are endowed with special powers, of which their human allies may also enjoy the advantage. We also find the same custom of giving the man the name of the thing with which he is associated and of adding an emblem to this name. The totem is the patron of the clan, just as the patron of the individual is his personal totem. So it is important that our terminology should make the relationship of the two systems apparent; that is why we, with Frazer, shall give the name individual totemism to the cult rendered by each individual to his patron. A further justification of this expression is found in the fact that in certain cases the primitive himself uses the same word to designate the totem of the clan and the animal protector of the individual.⁵²¹ If Tylor and Powell have rejected this term and demanded different ones for these two sorts of religious institutions, it is because the collective totem is, in their opinion, only a name or label, having no religious character.⁵²² But we, on the contrary, know that it is a sacred thing, and even more so than the protecting animal. Moreover, the continuation of our study will show how these two varieties of totemism are inseparable from each other.⁵²³

Naturally, this protector has different names in different societies: nagual among the Indians of Mexico,⁵¹⁴ manitou among the Algonquins and okki among the Hurons,⁵¹⁵ snam among certain Salish,⁵¹⁶ sulia among others,⁵¹⁷ budjan among the Yuin,⁵¹⁸ yunbeai among the Euahlayi,⁵¹⁹ and so on. Because these beliefs and practices are important among North American Indians, some have proposed calling them nagualism or manitouism.⁵²⁰ But a special, distinct name risks obscuring their connection to the rest of totemism. In fact, the same principle is applied to the clan in one case and to the individual in the other. In both cases, we find the same belief in vital connections between things and people. The things are believed to have special powers, which their human allies may also benefit from. We also find the same custom of naming a person after the thing associated with him and adding an emblem to the name. The totem is the patron of the clan, just as the individual’s patron is his personal totem. So our terminology should make the relationship between the two systems clear. That is why, following Frazer, we shall call the worship each individual gives his patron individual totemism. This term is further justified by the fact that, in some cases, the people themselves use the same word for the clan’s totem and the individual’s animal protector.⁵²¹ Tylor and Powell have rejected this term and called for different names for the two kinds of religious institutions. They do so because, in their view, the collective totem is only a name or label, with no religious character.⁵²² But we know, on the contrary, that the collective totem is sacred, even more so than the protecting animal. Moreover, the rest of our study will show that these two forms of totemism are inseparable.⁵²³

Yet, howsoever close the kinship between these two institutions may be, there are important differences between them. While the clan believes that it is the offspring of the animal or plant serving it as totem, the individual does not believe that he has any relationship of descent with his personal totem. It is a friend, an associate, a protector; but it is not a relative. He takes advantage of the virtues it is believed to possess; but he is not of the same blood. In the second place, the members of a clan allow neighbouring clans to eat of the animal whose name they bear collectively, under the simple condition that the necessary formalities shall be observed. But, on the contrary, the individual respects the species to which his personal totem belongs and also protects it against strangers, at least in those parts where the destiny of the man is held to be bound up with that of the animal.

Yet, however closely related these two institutions may be, there are important differences between them. A clan believes it is descended from the animal or plant that serves as its totem. But an individual does not believe he is descended from his personal totem. It is a friend, a companion, and a protector, but not a relative. He benefits from the powers his totem is believed to possess, but he is not of the same blood. Second, clan members allow neighboring clans to eat the animal whose name they share, provided the required formalities are observed. But an individual respects the species to which his personal totem belongs. He also protects the species from strangers, at least in places where a man's fate is believed to be tied to the animal's.

But the chief difference between these two sorts of totems is in the manner in which they are acquired.

But the main difference between these two kinds of totems is how they are acquired.

The collective totem is a part of the civil status of each individual: it is generally hereditary; in any case, it is birth which designates it, and the wish of men counts for nothing. Sometimes the child has the totem of his mother (Kamilaroi, Dieri, Urabunna, etc.); sometimes that of his father (Narrinyeri, Warramunga, etc.); sometimes the one predominating in the locality where his mother conceived (Arunta, Loritja). But, on the contrary, the individual totem is acquired by a deliberate act:⁵²⁴ a whole series of ritual operations are necessary to determine it. The method generally employed by the Indians of North America is as follows. About the time of puberty, as the time for initiation approaches, the young man withdraws into a distant place, for example, into a forest. There, during a period varying from a few days to several years, he submits himself to all sorts of exhausting and unnatural exercises. He fasts, mortifies himself and inflicts various mutilations upon himself. Now he wanders about, uttering violent cries and veritable howls; now he lies extended, motionless and lamenting, upon the ground. Sometimes he dances, prays and invokes his ordinary divinities. At last, he thus gets himself into an extreme state of super-excitation, verging on delirium. When he has reached this paroxysm, his representations readily take on the character of hallucinations. "When," says Heckewelder, "a boy is on the eve of being initiated, he is submitted to an alternating régime of fasts and medical treatment; he abstains from all food and takes the most powerful and repugnant drugs: at times, he drinks intoxicating concoctions until his mind really wanders. Then he has, or thinks he has, visions and extraordinary dreams to which he was of course predisposed by all this training. He imagines himself flying through the air, advancing under the ground, jumping from one mountain-top to another across the valleys, and fighting and conquering giants and monsters."⁵²⁵ If in these circumstances he sees, or, as amounts to the same thing, he thinks he sees, while dreaming or while awake, an animal appearing to him in an attitude seeming to show friendly intentions, then he imagines that he has discovered the patron he awaited.⁵²⁶

The collective totem is part of each individual’s civil status. It is generally inherited. In any case, birth determines a person’s collective totem, and no one’s wishes count for anything. Sometimes a child has the mother’s totem (Kamilaroi, Dieri, Urabunna, etc.). Sometimes the child has the father’s totem (Narrinyeri, Warramunga, etc.). Sometimes the child has the totem that predominates in the place where the mother conceived (Arunta, Loritja). By contrast, an individual totem is acquired through a deliberate act.⁵²⁴ A whole series of rituals is needed to determine it. The method generally used by the Indians of North America is as follows. Around puberty, as initiation approaches, the young man goes away to a distant place, such as a forest. There, for anywhere from a few days to several years, he subjects himself to all kinds of exhausting and unnatural exercises. He fasts, mortifies himself and mutilates himself in various ways. At times he wanders about, shouting violently and actually howling. At other times he lies stretched out on the ground, motionless and lamenting. Sometimes he dances, prays and calls on his usual divinities. Finally, he brings himself into a state of extreme excitement, bordering on delirium. At this peak, his mental images easily become hallucinations. As Heckewelder says, “When a boy is about to be initiated, he undergoes alternating periods of fasting and medical treatment. He eats no food and takes the most powerful and repulsive drugs. At times, he drinks intoxicating mixtures until his mind truly wanders. Then he has, or thinks he has, visions and extraordinary dreams. All this preparation has of course made him prone to them. He imagines himself flying through the air, moving underground, jumping from one mountain top to another across the valleys, and fighting and conquering giants and monsters.”⁵²⁵ In these circumstances, he may see an animal, or think he sees one, whether in a dream or while awake. For this purpose, seeing an animal and thinking he sees one amount to the same thing. If the animal appears to show friendly intentions, he imagines he has found the patron he was waiting for.⁵²⁶

Yet this procedure is rarely employed in Australia.⁵²⁷ On this continent, the personal totem seems to be imposed by a third party, either at birth⁵²⁸ or at the moment of initiation.⁵²⁹ Generally it is a relative who takes this part, or else a personage invested with special powers, such as an old man or a magician. Sometimes divination is used for this purpose. For example, on Charlotte Bay, Cape Bedford or the Proserpine River, the grandmother or some other old woman takes a little piece of umbilical cord to which the placenta is still attached and whirls it about quite violently. Meanwhile the other old women propose different names. That one is adopted which happens to be pronounced just at the moment when the cord breaks.⁵³⁰ Among the Yarrai-kanna of Cape York, after a tooth has been knocked out of the young initiate, they give him a little water to rinse his mouth and ask him to spit in a bucket full of water. The old men carefully examine the clot formed by the blood and saliva thus spit out, and the natural object whose shape it resembles becomes the personal totem of the young man.⁵³¹ In other cases, the totem is transmitted from one individual to another, for example from father to son, or uncle to nephew.⁵³² This method is also used in America. In a case reported by Hill Tout, the operator was a shaman,⁵³³ who wished to transmit his totem to his nephew. "The uncle took the symbol of his snam (his personal totem), which in this case was a dried bird's skin, and bade his nephew breathe upon it. He then blew upon it also himself, uttered some mystic words and the dried skin seemed to Paul (the nephew) to become a living bird, which flew about them a moment or two and then finally disappeared. Paul was then instructed by his uncle to procure that day a bird's skin of the same kind as his uncle's and wear it on his person. This he did, and that night he had a dream, in which the snam appeared to him in the shape of a human being, disclosed to him its mystic name by which it might be summoned, and promised him protection."⁵³⁴

Yet this procedure is rarely used in Australia.⁵²⁷ There, a personal totem seems to be assigned by someone else, either at birth⁵²⁸ or at initiation.⁵²⁹ Usually, this person is a relative or someone with special powers, such as an old man or a magician. Sometimes divination is used to choose the totem. For example, on Charlotte Bay, Cape Bedford or the Proserpine River, the grandmother or another old woman takes a small piece of umbilical cord with the placenta still attached. She swings it around quite violently. Meanwhile, the other old women suggest different names. The name spoken at the moment the cord breaks is the one adopted.⁵³⁰ Among the Yarrai-kanna of Cape York, a young initiate has a tooth knocked out. He is then given a little water to rinse his mouth and asked to spit into a bucket full of water. The old men carefully examine the clot formed by the blood and saliva he spits out. The natural object whose shape the clot resembles becomes the young man’s personal totem.⁵³¹ In other cases, the totem is passed from one person to another, for example from father to son or uncle to nephew.⁵³² This method is also used in America. In a case reported by Hill Tout, a shaman⁵³³ wanted to pass his totem to his nephew. “The uncle took the symbol of his snam (his personal totem), which in this case was a dried bird’s skin, and told his nephew to breathe on it. He then blew on it himself and spoke some mystic words. To Paul (the nephew), the dried skin seemed to become a living bird. It flew around them for a moment or two and then disappeared. Paul’s uncle then told him to obtain a bird’s skin of the same kind that day and wear it on his person. Paul did so, and that night he had a dream. In the dream, the snam appeared to him in human form. It revealed its mystic name, by which he could summon it, and promised to protect him.”⁵³⁴

Not only is the individual totem acquired and not given, but ordinarily the acquisition of one is not obligatory. In the first place, there are a multitude of tribes in Australia where the custom seems to be absolutely unknown.⁵³⁵ Also, even where it does exist, it is frequently optional. Thus among the Euahlayi, while all the magicians have individual totems from which they get their powers, there are a great number of laymen who have none at all. It is a favour given by the magician, but which he reserves for his friends, his favourites and those who aspire to becoming his colleagues.⁵³⁶ Likewise, among certain Salish, persons desiring to excel especially either in fighting or in hunting, or aspirants to the position of shaman, are the only ones who provide themselves with protectors of this sort.⁵³⁷ So among certain peoples, at least, the individual totem seems to be considered an advantage and convenient thing rather than a necessity. It is a good thing to have, but a man can do without one. Inversely, a man need not limit himself to a single totem; if he wishes to be more fully protected, nothing hinders his seeking and acquiring several,⁵³⁸ and if the one he has fulfils its part badly, he can change it.⁵³⁹

An individual totem is acquired, not given, and ordinarily a person is not required to acquire one. First, many Australian tribes seem to know nothing of the custom.⁵³⁵ Even where the custom does exist, acquiring a totem is often optional. Among the Euahlayi, for example, all magicians have individual totems from which they get their powers. But many laypeople have no individual totem at all. A magician may grant an individual totem as a favor, but reserves it for friends, favorites, and aspiring magicians.⁵³⁶ Likewise, among certain Salish, only some people acquire protectors of this kind. They are those who want to excel in fighting or hunting, or who aspire to become shamans.⁵³⁷ So, among some peoples at least, an individual totem seems to be an advantage and a convenience, not a necessity. It is good to have one, but a person can do without one. Conversely, a person need not limit themselves to a single totem. If they want fuller protection, nothing prevents them from seeking and acquiring several.⁵³⁸ And if a totem fails to perform its role well, its owner can change it.⁵³⁹

But while it is more optional and free, individual totemism contains within it a force of resistance never attained by the totemism of the clan. One of the chief informers of Hill Tout was a baptized Salish; however, though he had sincerely abandoned the faith of his fathers, and though he had become a model catechist, still his faith in the efficacy of the personal totems remained unshaken.⁵⁴⁰ Similarly, though no visible traces of collective totemism remain in civilized countries, the idea that there is a connection between each individual and some animal, plant or other object, is at the bottom of many customs still observable in many European countries.⁵⁴¹

But although individual totemism is more optional and allows more freedom, it is more resistant to change than clan totemism. One of Hill Tout's chief informants was a baptized Salish. He had sincerely abandoned the faith of his ancestors and had become a model catechist. Yet his belief in the power of personal totems remained unshaken.⁵⁴⁰ Similarly, no visible traces of collective totemism remain in civilized countries. Yet many customs still observed in European countries rest on the idea that each individual is connected to an animal, plant, or other object.⁵⁴¹

Between collective totemism and individual totemism there is an intermediate form partaking of the characteristics of each: this is sexual totemism. It is found only in Australia and in a small number of tribes. It is mentioned especially in Victoria and New South Wales.⁵⁴² Mathews, it is true, claims to have observed it in all the parts of Australia that he has visited, but he gives no precise facts to support this affirmation.⁵⁴³

Between collective and individual totemism is an intermediate form called sexual totemism. It shares characteristics with both forms. It is found only in Australia, and only among a small number of tribes. It is mentioned especially in Victoria and New South Wales.⁵⁴² Mathews does claim to have observed it in every part of Australia he visited. But he gives no precise facts to support this claim.⁵⁴³

Among these different peoples, all the men of the tribe on the one hand, and all the women on the other, to whatever special clan they may belong, form, as it were, two distinct and even antagonistic societies. Now each of these two sexual corporations believes that it is united by mystical bonds to a determined animal. Among the Kurnai, all the men think they are brothers, as it were, of the emu-wren (Yeerŭng), all the women, that they are as sisters of the linnet (Djeetgŭn); all the men are Yeerŭng and all the women are Djeetgŭn. Among the Wotjobaluk and the Wurunjerri, it is the bat and the nightjar (a species of screech-owl) respectively who take this rôle. In other tribes, the woodpecker is substituted for the nightjar. Each sex regards the animal to which it is thus related as a sort of protector which must be treated with the greatest regard; it is also forbidden to kill and eat it.⁵⁴⁴

Among these peoples, all the men of the tribe form one society, and all the women form another. They do so regardless of which particular clan they belong to. These two societies are distinct and even opposed to each other. Each of these two groups, one male and one female, believes it is united by mystical bonds to a particular animal. Among the Kurnai, all the men believe they are, in a sense, brothers of the emu-wren (Yeerŭng). All the women believe they are, in the same sense, sisters of the linnet (Djeetgŭn). All the men are Yeerŭng, and all the women are Djeetgŭn. Among the Wotjobaluk and the Wurunjerri, the bat and the nightjar play these roles, respectively. The nightjar is a species of screech-owl. In other tribes, the woodpecker takes the place of the nightjar. Each sex regards the animal it is related to as a kind of protector. The animal must be treated with the greatest respect, and killing and eating it are forbidden.⁵⁴⁴

Thus this protecting animal plays the same part in relation to the sexual society that the totem of the clan plays to this latter group. So the expression sexual totemism, which we borrow from Frazer,⁵⁴⁵ is justified. This new sort of totem resembles that of the clan particularly in that it, too, is collective; it belongs to all the people of one sex indiscriminately. It also resembles this form in that it implies a relationship of descent and consanguinity between the animal patron and the corresponding sex: among the Kurnai, all the men are believed to be descended from Yeerŭng and all the women from Djeetgŭn.⁵⁴⁶ The first observer to point out this curious institution described it, in 1834, in the following terms: "Tilmun, a little bird the size of a thrush (it is a sort of woodpecker), is supposed by the women to be the first maker of women. These birds are held in veneration by the women only."⁵⁴⁷ So it was a great ancestor. But in other ways, this same totem resembles the individual totem. In fact, it is believed that each member of a sexual group is personally united to a determined individual of the corresponding animal species. The two lives are so closely associated that the death of the animal brings about that of the man. "The life of a bat," say the Wotjobaluk, "is the life of a man."⁵⁴⁸ That is why each sex not only respects its own totem, but forces the members of the other to do so as well. Every violation of this interdiction gives rise to actual bloody battles between the men and the women.⁵⁴⁹

Thus, this protecting animal plays the same role for the group of one sex as the clan totem does for the clan. So the term sexual totemism, which we borrow from Frazer,⁵⁴⁵ is justified. This kind of totem particularly resembles the clan totem because it, too, is collective. It belongs to all people of one sex without distinction. It also resembles the clan totem because it implies descent and blood kinship between the patron animal and the corresponding sex. Among the Kurnai, all men are believed to be descended from Yeerŭng and all women from Djeetgŭn.⁵⁴⁶ The first observer to note this curious institution described it in 1834: "Tilmun is a small bird, about the size of a thrush. It is a kind of woodpecker. The women believe it was the first maker of women. Only the women hold these birds in reverence."⁵⁴⁷ So Tilmun was a great ancestor. But in other ways, this same totem resembles the individual totem. Each member of a group of one sex is believed to be personally linked to a particular individual animal of the corresponding species. Their lives are so closely linked that the animal's death causes the person's death. "The life of a bat," say the Wotjobaluk, "is the life of a man."⁵⁴⁸ That is why each sex not only respects its own totem but also forces members of the other sex to respect it. Every violation of this ban leads to actual bloody battles between men and women.⁵⁴⁹

Finally, the really original feature of these totems is that they are, in a sense, a sort of tribal totems. In fact, they result from men's representing the tribe as descended as a whole from one couple of mythical beings. Such a belief seems to demonstrate clearly that the tribal sentiment has acquired sufficient force to resist, at least to a considerable extent, the particularism of the clans. In regard to the distinct origins assigned to men and to women, it must be said that its cause is to be sought in the separate conditions in which the men and the women live.⁵⁵⁰

Finally, the truly distinctive feature of these totems is that they are, in a sense, tribal totems. They arise from the belief that the whole tribe descends from a pair of mythical beings. This belief seems to show clearly that a sense of tribal unity has become strong enough to resist clan loyalties, at least to a considerable extent. The different origins assigned to men and women must be explained by the separate conditions in which they live.⁵⁵⁰

It would be interesting to know how the sexual totems are related to the totems of the clans, according to the theory of the Australians, what relations there were between the two ancestors thus placed at the commencement of the tribe, and from which one each special clan is believed to be descended. But the ethnographical data at our present disposal do not allow us to resolve these questions. Moreover, however natural and even necessary it may appear to us, it is very possible that the natives never raised it. They do not feel the need of co-ordinating and systematizing their beliefs as strongly as we do.⁵⁵¹

It would be interesting to know how Australians understand the relationship between sexual totems and clan totems. It would also be interesting to know how the two ancestors placed at the beginning of the tribe were related. And which ancestor is each clan believed to have descended from? But the ethnographic data now available do not allow us to answer these questions. Moreover, however natural and even necessary these questions may seem to us, it is very possible that the Indigenous people never asked them. They do not feel the need to organize and systematize their beliefs as strongly as we do.⁵⁵¹