TOTEMISM AS AN ELEMENTARY RELIGION: History and Method Ndzi

Howsoever opposed their conclusions may seem to be, the two systems which we have just studied agree upon one essential point: they state the problem in identical terms. Both undertake to construct the idea of the divine out of the sensations aroused in us by certain natural phenomena, either physical or biological. For the animists it is dreams, for the naturists, certain cosmic phenomena, which served as the point of departure for religious evolution. But for both, it is in the nature, either of man or of the universe, that we must look for the germ of the grand opposition which separates the profane from the sacred.

Although their conclusions may seem opposed, the two systems we have just studied agree on one essential point. They define the problem in the same way. Both try to build the idea of the divine from sensations aroused by certain natural phenomena, either physical or biological. For the animists, dreams were the starting point of religious evolution. For the naturists, certain cosmic phenomena were the starting point. But both look to nature, either human nature or the nature of the universe, for the origin of the great division between the profane and the sacred.

But such an enterprise is impossible: it supposes a veritable creation ex nihilo. A fact of common experience cannot give us the idea of something whose characteristic is to be outside the world of common experience. A man, as he appears to himself in his dreams, is only a man. Natural forces, as our senses perceive them, are only natural forces, howsoever great their intensity may be. Hence comes the common criticism which we address to both doctrines. In order to explain how these pretended data of religious thought have been able to take a sacred character which has no objective foundation, it would be necessary to admit that a whole world of delusive representations has superimposed itself upon the other, denatured it to the point of making it unrecognizable, and substituted a pure hallucination for reality. Here, it is the illusions of the dream which brought about this transfiguration; there, it is the brilliant and vain company of images evoked by the word. But in one case as in the other, it is necessary to regard religion as the product of a delirious imagination.

But such an undertaking is impossible. It requires a genuine creation ex nihilo, out of nothing. A fact of everyday experience cannot give us the idea of something that lies outside everyday experience. A person, as he sees himself in his dreams, is only a person. Natural forces, as our senses perceive them, are only natural forces, however intense they may be. This leads to our common criticism of both doctrines. These supposed sources of religious thought have taken on a sacred character with no basis in reality. To explain how this happened, we would have to accept that a whole world of false ideas has been laid over the real world. These ideas would have distorted the real world beyond recognition and replaced reality with pure hallucination. In one doctrine, the illusions of dreams brought about this transformation. In the other, it was the dazzling but empty array of images called up by words. But in both cases, we must regard religion as the product of a delirious imagination.

Thus one positive conclusion is arrived at as the result of this critical examination. Since neither man nor nature have of themselves a sacred character, they must get it from another source. Aside from the human individual and the physical world, there should be some other reality, in relation to which this variety of delirium which all religion is in a sense, has a significance and an objective value. In other words, beyond those which we have called animistic and naturistic, there should be another sort of cult, more fundamental and more primitive, of which the first are only derived forms or particular aspects.

This critical examination leads to one positive conclusion. Neither humans nor nature are sacred in themselves, so they must get their sacred character from another source. Beyond individual humans and the physical world, there must be some other reality. In relation to that reality, the kind of delirium that all religion is, in a sense, has meaning and objective value. In other words, beyond what we have called animistic and naturistic forms of worship, there must be another kind. This kind must be more fundamental and more primitive, with animistic and naturistic worship only derived forms or particular aspects of it.

In fact, this cult does exist: it is the one to which ethnologists have given the name of totemism.

In fact, this cult does exist. Ethnologists call it totemism.

It was only at the end of the eighteenth century that the word totem appeared in ethnographical literature. It is found for the first time in the book of an Indian interpreter, J. Long, which was published in London in 1791.¹⁷⁵ For nearly a half a century, totemism was known only as something exclusively American.¹⁷⁶ It was only in 1841 that Grey, in a passage which has remained celebrated,¹⁷⁷ pointed out the existence of wholly similar practices in Australia. From that time on, scholars began to realize that they were in the presence of a system of a certain generality.

The word totem first appeared in ethnographic literature at the end of the eighteenth century. It first appeared in a book by J. Long, an interpreter of Indian languages, published in London in 1791.¹⁷⁵ For nearly half a century, totemism was known only as an exclusively American practice.¹⁷⁶ Then, in 1841, Grey pointed out that entirely similar practices existed in Australia. He did so in a passage that remains famous.¹⁷⁷ From then on, scholars began to realize that totemism was a system found in more than one part of the world.

But they saw there only an essentially archaic institution, an ethnographical curiosity, having no great interest for the historian. MacLennan was the first who undertook to attach totemism to the general history of humanity. In a series of articles in the Fortnightly Review,¹⁷⁸ he set himself to show that totemism was not only a religion, but one from which were derived a multitude of beliefs and practices which are found in much more advanced religious systems. He even went so far as to make it the source of all the animal-worshipping and plant-worshipping cults which are found among ancient peoples. Certainly this extension of totemism was abusive. The cults of animals and plants depend upon numerous causes which cannot be reduced to one, without the error of too great simplicity. But this error, by its very exaggerations, had at least the advantage, that it put into evidence the historical importance of totemism.

But they saw totemism only as an essentially archaic institution, an ethnographic curiosity of little interest to historians. MacLennan was the first to connect totemism to the general history of humanity. In a series of articles in the Fortnightly Review,¹⁷⁸ he set out to show that totemism was a religion. He also argued that many beliefs and practices in much more advanced religious systems came from it. He even went so far as to claim that totemism was the source of all animal and plant worship among ancient peoples. Certainly, this was an excessive extension of totemism. Animal and plant worship have many causes. Reducing them to one would be an error of oversimplification. But the very exaggeration of this error had at least one advantage. It brought out the historical importance of totemism.

Students of American totemism had already known for a long time that this form of religion was most intimately united to a determined social organization, that its basis is the division of the social group into clans.¹⁷⁹ In 1877, in his Ancient Society,¹⁸⁰ Lewis H. Morgan undertook to make a study of it, to determine its distinctive characteristics, and at the same time to point out its generality among the Indian tribes of North and Central America. At nearly the same moment, and even following the direct suggestion of Morgan, Fison and Howitt¹⁸¹ established the existence of the same social system in Australia, as well as its relations with totemism.

Scholars of American totemism had long known that this form of religion was closely tied to a particular social organization. Its basis was the division of the social group into clans.¹⁷⁹ In 1877, in Ancient Society,¹⁸⁰ Lewis H. Morgan undertook to study this social organization and identify its distinctive features. He also sought to show how widespread it was among the Indian tribes of North and Central America. At nearly the same time, and following Morgan’s direct suggestion, Fison and Howitt¹⁸¹ established that the same social system existed in Australia and was connected to totemism there.

Under the influence of these directing ideas, observations could be made with better method. The researches which the American Bureau of Ethnology undertook, played an important part in the advance of these studies.¹⁸² By 1887, the documents were sufficiently numerous and significant to make Frazer consider it time to unite them and present them to us in a systematic form. Such is the object of his little book Totemism,¹⁸³ where the system is studied both as a religion and as a legal institution. But this study was purely descriptive; no effort was made to explain totemism¹⁸⁴ or to understand its fundamental notions.

Guided by these ideas, researchers could make observations more systematically. Research by the American Bureau of Ethnology played an important part in advancing these studies.¹⁸² By 1887, the documents were numerous and significant enough for Frazer to bring them together and present them systematically. That was the purpose of his short book Totemism,¹⁸³ which examines the system as both a religion and a legal institution. But the study was purely descriptive. It made no effort to explain totemism¹⁸⁴ or understand its basic concepts.

Robertson Smith is the first who undertook this work of elaboration. He realized more clearly than any of his predecessors how rich this crude and confused religion is in germs for the future. It is true that MacLennan had already connected it with the great religions of antiquity; but that was merely because he thought he had found here and there the cult of animals or plants. Now if we reduce totemism to a sort of animal or plant worship, we have seen only its most superficial aspect: we have even misunderstood its real nature. Going beyond the mere letter of the totemic beliefs, Smith set himself to find the fundamental principles upon which they depend. In his book upon Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,¹⁸⁵ he had already pointed out that totemism supposes a likeness in nature, either natural or acquired, of men and animals (or plants). In his The Religion of the Semites,¹⁸⁶ he makes this same idea the first origin of the entire sacrificial system: it is to totemism that humanity owes the principle of the communion meal. It is true that the theory of Smith can now be shown one-sided; it is no longer adequate for the facts actually known; but for all that, it contains an ingenious theory and has exercised a most fertile influence upon the science of religions. The Golden Bough¹⁸⁷ of Frazer is inspired by these same ideas, for totemism, which MacLennan had attached to the religions of classical antiquity, and Smith to the religions of the Semitic peoples, is here connected to the European folk-lore. The schools of MacLennan and Morgan are thus united to that of Mannhardt.¹⁸⁸

Robertson Smith was the first to take on this work of elaboration. More clearly than any of his predecessors, he saw how much potential for future development lay in this crude and confused religion. MacLennan had already connected it with the great religions of antiquity. But he had done so only because he thought he had found animal or plant worship here and there. If we reduce totemism to a kind of animal or plant worship, we see only its most superficial aspect. We even misunderstand its true nature. Smith looked beyond the literal content of totemic beliefs to find the fundamental principles behind them. In his book Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,¹⁸⁵ he had already noted that totemism assumes a likeness in nature between people and animals (or plants). This likeness may be natural or acquired. In The Religion of the Semites,¹⁸⁶ he makes the same idea the original basis of the entire sacrificial system. He argues that humanity owes the principle of the communion meal to totemism. Smith’s theory can now be shown to be one-sided, and it no longer accounts adequately for the known facts. But it remains an ingenious theory and has had a highly fruitful influence on the science of religions. Frazer’s Golden Bough¹⁸⁷ draws on the same ideas. MacLennan had linked totemism to the religions of classical antiquity, and Smith had linked it to the religions of the Semitic peoples. Frazer connects it to European folklore. The schools of MacLennan and Morgan are thus united with that of Mannhardt.¹⁸⁸

During this time, the American tradition continued to develop with an independence which it has kept up until very recent times. Three groups of societies were the special object of the researches which were concerned with totemism. These are, first, certain tribes of the North-west, the Tlinkit, the Haida, the Kwakiutl, the Salish and the Tsimshian; then, the great nation of the Sioux; and finally, the Pueblo Indians in the south-western part of the United States. The first were studied principally by Dall, Krause, Boas, Swanton, Hill Tout; the second by Dorsey; the last by Mindeleff, Mrs. Stevenson and Cushing.¹⁸⁹ But however rich the harvest of facts thus gathered in all parts of the country may have been, the documents at our disposal were still fragmentary. Though the American religions contain numerous traces of totemism, they have passed the stage of real totemism. On the other hand, observations in Australia had brought little more than scattered beliefs and isolated rites, initiation rituals and interdictions relative to totemism. It was with facts taken from all these sources that Frazer attempted to draw a picture of totemism in its entirety. Whatever may be the incontestable merit of the reconstruction undertaken in such circumstances, it could not help being incomplete and hypothetical. A totemic religion in complete action had not yet been observed.

During this time, the American tradition continued to develop independently, as it did until very recently. Researchers studying totemism focused on three groups of societies. The first included certain tribes of the North-west: the Tlinkit, the Haida, the Kwakiutl, the Salish and the Tsimshian. The second was the great nation of the Sioux. The third was the Pueblo Indians in the south-western United States. The North-western tribes were studied mainly by Dall, Krause, Boas, Swanton and Hill Tout. The Sioux were studied by Dorsey, and the Pueblo Indians by Mindeleff, Mrs. Stevenson and Cushing.¹⁸⁹ But however rich the collection of facts gathered across the country, the documents available to us were still incomplete. Although American religions contain many traces of totemism, they have passed beyond the stage of true totemism. Observations in Australia, meanwhile, had yielded little more than scattered beliefs, isolated rites, initiation rituals and prohibitions related to totemism. Frazer drew on facts from all these sources in an attempt to give a complete picture of totemism. Whatever the undeniable merit of his reconstruction, the circumstances meant that it could not help being incomplete and hypothetical. No one had yet observed a totemic religion fully in practice.

It is only in very recent years that this serious deficiency has been repaired. Two observers of remarkable ability, Baldwin Spencer and F. J. Gillen, discovered¹⁹⁰ in the interior of the Australian continent a considerable number of tribes whose basis and unity was founded in totemic beliefs. The results of their observations have been published in two works, which have given a new life to the study of totemism. The first of these, The Native Tribes of Central Australia,¹⁹¹ deals with the more central of these tribes, the Arunta, the Luritcha, and a little farther to the south, on the shores of Lake Eyre, the Urabunna. The second, which is entitled The Northern Tribes of Central Australia,¹⁹² deals with the societies north of the Urabunna, occupying the territory between MacDonnell's Range and Carpenter Gulf. Among the principal of these we may mention the Unmatjera, the Kaitish, the Warramunga, the Worgaia, the Tjingilli, the Binbinga, the Walpari, the Gnanji and finally, on the very shores of the gulf, the Mara and the Anula.¹⁹³

Only in recent years has this serious deficiency been remedied. Two remarkably capable observers, Baldwin Spencer and F. J. Gillen, discovered¹⁹⁰ many tribes in the Australian interior whose communities were founded and united by totemic beliefs. They published their observations in two works, which gave new life to the study of totemism. The first, The Native Tribes of Central Australia,¹⁹¹ discusses the more central tribes, the Arunta and the Luritcha. It also discusses the Urabunna, who live a little farther south, on the shores of Lake Eyre. The second, The Northern Tribes of Central Australia,¹⁹² discusses the societies north of the Urabunna. These societies occupy the territory between MacDonnell's Range and Carpenter Gulf. Among the main societies are the Unmatjera, the Kaitish, the Warramunga, the Worgaia, the Tjingilli, the Binbinga, the Walpari and the Gnanji. Finally, the Mara and the Anula live on the shores of the gulf itself.¹⁹³

More recently, a German missionary, Carl Strehlow, who has also passed long years in these same Central Australian societies,¹⁹⁴ has commenced to publish his own observations on two of these tribes, the Aranda and the Loritja (the Arunta and Luritcha of Spencer and Gillen).¹⁹⁵ Having well mastered the language spoken by these peoples,¹⁹⁶ Strehlow has been able to bring us a large number of totemic myths and religious songs, which are given us, for the most part, in the original text. In spite of some differences of detail which are easily explained and whose importance has been greatly exaggerated,¹⁹⁷ we shall see that the observations of Strehlow, though completing, making more precise and sometimes even rectifying those of Spencer and Gillen, confirm them in all that is essential.

More recently, a German missionary, Carl Strehlow, has also spent many years in these same Central Australian societies.¹⁹⁴ He has begun publishing his own observations on two of these tribes, the Aranda and the Loritja (the Arunta and Luritcha of Spencer and Gillen).¹⁹⁵ Strehlow mastered the language spoken by these peoples.¹⁹⁶ This allowed him to bring us many totemic myths and religious songs, mostly in their original language. There are some easily explained differences in detail, whose importance has been greatly exaggerated.¹⁹⁷ But we shall see that Strehlow’s observations confirm those of Spencer and Gillen in all essential respects. They do so even though they add to their observations, make them more precise, and sometimes even correct them.

These discoveries have given rise to an abundant literature to which we shall have occasion to return. The works of Spencer and Gillen especially have exercised a considerable influence, not only because they were the oldest, but also because the facts were there presented in a systematic form, which was of a nature to give a direction to later studies,¹⁹⁸ and to stimulate speculation. Their results were commented upon, discussed and interpreted in all possible manners. At this same time, Howitt, whose fragmentary studies were scattered in a number of different publications,¹⁹⁹ undertook to do for the southern tribes what Spencer and Gillen had done for those of the centre. In his Native Tribes of South-East Australia,²⁰⁰ he gives us a view of the social organization of the peoples who occupy Southern Australia, New South Wales, and a good part of Queensland. The progress thus realized suggested to Frazer the idea of completing his Totemism by a sort of compendium²⁰¹ where would be brought together all the important documents which are concerned either with the totemic religion or the family and matrimonial organization which, rightly or wrongly, is believed to be connected with this religion. The purpose of this book is not to give us a general and systematic view of totemism, but rather to put the materials necessary for a construction of this sort at the disposition of scholars.²⁰² The facts are here arranged in a strictly ethnographical and geographical order: each continent, and within the continent, each tribe or ethnic group is studied separately. Though so extended a study, where so many diverse peoples are successively passed in review, could hardly be equally thorough in all its parts, still it is a useful hand-book to consult, and one which can aid greatly in facilitating researches.

These discoveries produced a wealth of writing that we will return to later. Spencer and Gillen’s works were especially influential. This was not only because they were the earliest, but also because they presented the facts systematically. This presentation helped guide later studies¹⁹⁸ and encouraged speculation. Their findings were commented on, debated, and interpreted in every possible way. At the same time, Howitt set out to do for the southern tribes what Spencer and Gillen had done for those of the centre. His earlier studies had appeared in fragments across several publications.¹⁹⁹ In Native Tribes of South-East Australia,²⁰⁰ he describes the social organization of the peoples of Southern Australia, New South Wales, and much of Queensland. These advances gave Frazer the idea of supplementing his Totemism with a kind of compendium.²⁰¹ It would bring together all important documents concerning totemic religion and the family and marriage systems believed, rightly or wrongly, to be connected with it. The book does not aim to give a general, systematic account of totemism. Instead, it makes the materials needed to construct such an account available to scholars.²⁰² The facts are arranged strictly by ethnic group and geography. Each continent is studied separately, as is each tribe or ethnic group within it. Such a wide-ranging study reviews many different peoples in succession. It could hardly be equally thorough in every part. Even so, it is a useful reference book that can greatly assist research.

From this historical résumé it is clear that Australia is the most favourable field for the study of totemism, and therefore we shall make it the principal area of our observations.

This historical overview makes clear that Australia is the best place to study totemism. So we will focus our observations there.

In his Totemism, Frazer sought especially to collect all the traces of totemism which could be found in history or ethnography. He was thus led to include in his study societies the nature and degree of whose culture differs most widely: ancient Egypt,²⁰³ Arabia and Greece,²⁰⁴ and the southern Slavs²⁰⁵ are found there, side by side with the tribes of Australia and America. This manner of procedure is not at all surprising for a disciple of the anthropological school. For this school does not seek to locate religions in the social environments of which they are a part,²⁰⁶ and to differentiate them according to the different environments to which they are thus connected. But rather, as is indicated by the name which it has taken to itself, its purpose is to go beyond the national and historical differences to the universal and really human bases of the religious life. It is supposed that man has a religious nature of himself, in virtue of his own constitution, and independently of all social conditions, and they propose to study this.²⁰⁷ For researches of this sort, all peoples can be called upon equally well. It is true that they prefer the more primitive peoples, because this fundamental nature is more apt to be unaltered here; but since it is found equally well among the most civilized peoples, it is but natural that they too should be called as witnesses. Consequently, all those who pass as being not too far removed from the origins, and who are confusedly lumped together under the rather imprecise rubric of savages, are put on the same plane and consulted indifferently. Since from this point of view, facts have an interest only in proportion to their generality, they consider themselves obliged to collect as large a number as possible of them; the circle of comparisons could not become too large.

In his Totemism, Frazer set out especially to collect all traces of totemism found in history or ethnography. His study therefore included societies whose cultures differed widely in nature and degree. Ancient Egypt,²⁰³ Arabia and Greece,²⁰⁴ and the southern Slavs²⁰⁵ appeared alongside the tribes of Australia and America. This approach is not surprising for a follower of the anthropological school. The school does not seek to place religions in the social environments of which they are part.²⁰⁶ Nor does it distinguish religions according to those different environments. Instead, as its name suggests, the school aims to look beyond national and historical differences. It seeks the universal and truly human foundations of religious life. Its followers assume that humans have a religious nature by virtue of their own constitution, independent of all social conditions. They propose to study that nature.²⁰⁷ For this kind of research, all peoples can serve equally well as sources. The researchers do prefer more primitive peoples, because this fundamental nature is more likely to be unchanged among them. But they believe it is also found among the most civilized peoples. So it is natural that they should look to those peoples for evidence too. Consequently, they treat all peoples thought to be not too far removed from the origins as equal sources. These peoples are loosely grouped together under the rather imprecise label savages. From this point of view, facts are of interest only to the extent that they are general. So the researchers feel obliged to collect as many facts as possible. The range of comparisons could never be too large.

Our method will not be such a one, for several reasons.

Our method will not be like that, for several reasons.

In the first place, for the sociologist as for the historian, social facts vary with the social system of which they form a part; they cannot be understood when detached from it. This is why two facts which come from two different societies cannot be profitably compared merely because they seem to resemble each other; it is necessary that these societies themselves resemble each other, that is to say, that they be only varieties of the same species. The comparative method would be impossible, if social types did not exist, and it cannot be usefully applied except within a single type. What errors have not been committed for having neglected this precept! It is thus that facts have been unduly connected with each other which, in spite of exterior resemblances, really have neither the same sense nor the same importance: the primitive democracy and that of to-day, the collectivism of inferior societies and actual socialistic tendencies, the monogamy which is frequent in Australian tribes and that sanctioned by our laws, etc. Even in the work of Frazer such confusions are found. It frequently happens that he assimilates simple rites of wild-animal-worship to practices that are really totemic, though the distance, sometimes very great, which separates the two social systems would exclude all idea of assimilation. Then if we do not wish to fall into these same errors, instead of scattering our researches over all the societies possible, we must concentrate them upon one clearly determined type.

First, for sociologists as well as historians, social facts vary according to the social system they belong to. They cannot be understood apart from that system. For this reason, two facts from different societies cannot be usefully compared simply because they seem alike. The societies themselves must also be alike. That is, they must be varieties of the same species. The comparative method would be impossible if social types did not exist. It can be used effectively only within a single type. How many errors have been made by neglecting this rule! As a result, facts have been wrongly linked despite having neither the same meaning nor the same importance. They only resemble each other outwardly. Examples include primitive democracy and democracy today, collectivism in inferior societies and present-day socialist tendencies, and the monogamy common in Australian tribes and the monogamy sanctioned by our laws. Even Frazer makes such mistakes. He often treats simple rites of wild-animal worship as equivalent to genuinely totemic practices. Yet the distance between the two social systems, sometimes very great, would rule out any such equivalence. If we want to avoid these same errors, we must not spread our research across every possible society. Instead, we must concentrate on one clearly defined type.

It is even necessary that this concentration be as close as possible. One cannot usefully compare facts with which he is not perfectly well acquainted. But when he undertakes to include all sorts of societies and civilizations, one cannot know any of them with the necessary thoroughness; when he assembles facts from every country in order to compare them, he is obliged to take them hastily, without having either the means or the time to carefully criticize them. Tumultuous and summary comparisons result, which discredit the comparative method with many intelligent persons. It can give serious results only when it is applied to so limited a number of societies that each of them can be studied with sufficient precision. The essential thing is to choose those where investigations have the greatest chance to be fruitful.

It is even necessary to keep this focus as narrow as possible. You cannot usefully compare facts you do not know thoroughly. But if you try to include all kinds of societies and civilizations, you cannot know any of them thoroughly enough. If you gather facts from every country to compare them, you must collect them hastily. You have neither the means nor the time to examine them carefully. The result is a jumble of superficial comparisons that discredit the comparative method in the eyes of many intelligent people. The method can produce serious results only when applied to a small enough number of societies. Each society can then be studied with sufficient precision. The essential thing is to choose societies where research is most likely to be fruitful.

Also, the value of the facts is much more important than their number. In our eyes, the question whether totemism has been more or less universal or not, is quite secondary.²⁰⁸ If it interests us, it does so before all because in studying it we hope to discover relations of a nature to make us understand better what religion is. Now to establish these relations it is neither necessary nor always useful to heap up numerous experiences upon each other; it is much more important to have a few that are well studied and really significant. One single fact may make a law appear, where a multitude of imprecise and vague observations would only produce confusion. In every science, the scholar would be overwhelmed by the facts which present themselves to him, if he did not make a choice among them. It is necessary that he distinguish those which promise to be the most instructive, that he concentrate his attention upon these, and that he temporarily leave the others to one side.

Also, the value of the facts matters much more than their number. In our view, whether totemism has been more or less universal is a secondary question.²⁰⁸ We are interested in totemism above all because studying it may reveal relationships that help us better understand religion. To establish these relationships, we do not need to pile up numerous observations. Doing so is not always useful. It is much more important to have a few well-studied, truly significant observations. A single fact may reveal a law, while many imprecise and vague observations would only cause confusion. In every science, scholars would be overwhelmed by the facts before them if they did not choose among them. They must identify the facts most likely to be instructive, focus on them, and temporarily set the others aside.

That is why, with one reservation which will be indicated below, we propose to limit our research to Australian societies. They fulfil all the conditions which were just enumerated. They are perfectly homogeneous, for though it is possible to distinguish varieties among them, they all belong to one common type. This homogeneity is even so great that the forms of social organization are not only the same, but that they are even designated by identical or equivalent names in a multitude of tribes, sometimes very distant from each other.²⁰⁹ Also, Australian totemism is the variety for which our documents are the most complete. Finally, that which we propose to study in this work is the most primitive and simple religion which it is possible to find. It is therefore natural that to discover it, we address ourselves to societies as slightly evolved as possible, for it is evidently there that we have the greatest chance of finding it and studying it well. Now there are no societies which present this characteristic to a higher degree than the Australian ones. Not only is their civilization most rudimentary—the house and even the hut are still unknown—but also their organization is the most primitive and simple which is actually known; it is that which we have elsewhere called organization on a basis of clans.²¹⁰ In the next chapter, we shall have occasion to restate its essential traits.

That is why, with one qualification to be noted below, we propose to limit our research to Australian societies. They meet all the conditions just listed. They are completely homogeneous. Although we can distinguish varieties among them, they all belong to one common type. Their homogeneity is so great that their forms of social organization are the same. Moreover, many tribes use identical or equivalent names for these forms, even when they live far apart.²⁰⁹ Australian totemism is also the variety for which our records are most complete. Finally, this work aims to study the most primitive and simplest religion we can find. Naturally, we should look for it in societies that are as little evolved as possible. Evidently, these societies give us the best chance of finding it and studying it well. No societies have this characteristic to a greater degree than Australian societies. Their civilization is the most rudimentary: even houses and huts are still unknown. Their social organization is also the most primitive and simplest known. It is what we have elsewhere called organization on a basis of clans.²¹⁰ In the next chapter, we will have occasion to restate its essential features.

However, though making Australia the principal field of our research, we think it best not to leave completely aside the societies where totemism was first discovered, that is to say, the Indian tribes of North America.

Although Australia is the main focus of our research, we think it best not to entirely exclude other societies. These are the North American Indian tribes where totemism was first discovered.

This extension of the field of comparison has nothing about it which is not legitimate. Undoubtedly these people are more advanced than those of Australia. Their civilization has become much more advanced: men there live in houses or under tents, and there are even fortified villages. The size of the society is much greater, and centralization, which is completely lacking in Australia, is beginning to appear there; we find vast confederations, such as that of the Iroquois, under one central authority. Sometimes a complicated system of differentiated classes arranged in a hierarchy is found. However, the essential lines of the social structure remain the same as those in Australia; it is always the organization on a basis of clans. Thus we are not in the presence of two different types, but of two varieties of a single type, which are still very close to each other. They represent two successive moments of a single evolution, so their homogeneousness is still great enough to permit comparisons.

There is nothing illegitimate about extending the scope of comparison in this way. These peoples are undoubtedly more advanced than those of Australia. Their civilization is much more developed. People live in houses or tents, and there are even fortified villages. Their societies are much larger, and centralization is beginning to appear, though it is completely absent in Australia. There are large confederations, such as that of the Iroquois, under a single central authority. Sometimes there is a complex system of distinct classes arranged in a hierarchy. However, the basic structure of society remains the same as in Australia. It is still organized around clans. So we are not dealing with two different types, but with two varieties of a single type. These varieties are still very close to each other. They represent two successive stages of a single evolution. So they are still similar enough to allow comparison.

Also, these comparisons may have their utility. Just because their civilization is more advanced than that of the Australians, certain phases of the social organization which is common to both can be studied more easily among the first than among the second. As long as men are still making their first steps in the art of expressing their thought, it is not easy for the observer to perceive that which moves them; for there is nothing to translate clearly that which passes in these obscure minds which have only a confused and ephemeral knowledge of themselves. For example, religious symbols then consist only in formless combinations of lines and colours, whose sense it is not easy to divine, as we shall see. There are many gestures and movements by which interior states express themselves; but being essentially ephemeral, they readily elude observation. That is why totemism was discovered earlier in America than in Australia; it was much more visible there, though it held relatively less place in the totality of the religious life. Also, wherever beliefs and institutions do not take a somewhat definite material form, they are more liable to change under the influence of the slightest circumstances, or to become wholly effaced from the memory. Thus the Australian clans frequently have something floating and Protean about them, while the corresponding organization in America has a greater stability and more clearly defined contours. Thus, though American totemism is further removed from its origins than that of Australia, still there are important characteristics of which it has better kept the memory.

These comparisons may also be useful. American civilization is more advanced than that of the Australians. For that reason, certain aspects of the social organization shared by both are easier to study in America than in Australia. As long as people are taking their first steps in expressing their thoughts, observers find it hard to see what moves them. Nothing clearly conveys what passes through these obscure minds, which have only a confused and fleeting knowledge of themselves. For example, religious symbols at this stage consist only of shapeless combinations of lines and colors. As we shall see, their meaning is not easy to guess. Many gestures and movements express inner states, but these gestures and movements are fleeting and easily escape observation. That is why totemism was discovered earlier in America than in Australia. Totemism was much more visible in America, although it played a relatively smaller part in religious life as a whole. Also, when beliefs and institutions do not take a fairly definite material form, they are more likely to change under the influence of the slightest circumstances. They may even fade entirely from memory. Australian clans therefore often have a fluid, ever-changing quality, while the corresponding organization in America is more stable and clearly defined. Thus, although American totemism is further removed from its origins than Australian totemism, it has better preserved certain important characteristics.

In the second place, in order to understand an institution, it is frequently well to follow it into the advanced stages of its evolution;²¹¹ for sometimes it is only when it is fully developed that its real signification appears with the greatest clearness. In this way also, American totemism, since it has a long history behind it, could serve to clarify certain aspects of Australian totemism.²¹² At the same time, it will put us in a better condition to see how totemism is bound up with the forms which follow, and to mark its place in the general historical development of religion.

Second, to understand an institution, it is often helpful to follow it through the later stages of its development.²¹¹ Sometimes its true meaning becomes clearest only when it is fully developed. In the same way, American totemism, because it has a long history, could clarify certain aspects of Australian totemism.²¹² At the same time, it will help us see how totemism is connected to the religious forms that follow it. It will also help us identify its place in the overall historical development of religion.

So in the discussions which follow, we shall not forbid ourselves the use of certain facts borrowed from the Indian societies of North America. But we are not going to study American totemism here;²¹³ such a study must be made directly and by itself, and cannot be mixed with the one which we are undertaking; it raises other problems and implies a wholly different set of special investigations. We shall have recourse to American facts merely in a supplementary way, and only when they seem to be able to make us understand Australian facts to advantage. It is these latter which constitute the real and immediate object of our researches.²¹⁴

So in the discussions that follow, we will use some facts drawn from North American Indian societies. But we will not study American totemism here.²¹³ Such a study must be undertaken directly and on its own. It cannot be combined with the study we are undertaking. It raises other problems and requires a wholly different set of specialized investigations. We will use American facts only to supplement our study. We will do so only when they seem likely to help us understand Australian facts. Australian facts are the real and immediate object of our research.²¹⁴