As to this argument, Mr. Hill-Tout writes to me, "I cannot accept your criticism on the poor evidence of the Tsimshian accounts of the origin of their totem kins. You could not take such a view, I think, if you had personal, first-hand knowledge of the Indian mind. Your objections apply to 'classic myths,' but not to the accounts of tribes who are still in the totemic stage."
I fail to understand the distinction. It is now universally recognised that most myths, "classic" or savage (the classic being survivals of savage myths), are mere fanciful hypotheses framed to account for unexplained facts. Moreover, I am discussing and comparing the myths of various savage races, I am not speaking of "classic myths." Savages have anticipated us in every one of our hypotheses as to the origin of totemism, but, of course, they state their hypotheses in the shape of myths, of stories told to account for the facts. Some Australian myths favour Mr. Howitt's hypothesis, others favour that of Mr. Spencer, one flatters that of Dr. Haddon, one African myth is the fore-runner of my theory, and a myth of the Tsimshians anticipates the idea of Mr. Hill-Tout. But all these myths are equally valueless as historical evidence.
As to heritage under female kin, which I am said not to understand, no man reckoning by female kin has hitherto been said to inherit his totem from his maternal uncle! A man inherits his totem from his mother only, and inherits it if he has no maternal uncles, and never had. If a man has a manitu, a nagual, a yunbeai, a nyarong, or "personal totem," his sister does not take it from him and hand it to her children, or, if this ever occurs, I say once more, we need proof of it. A man may inherit "property and rights" from his maternal uncles under female kin. But I speak of the totem name, which a man undeniably does not inherit from his maternal uncle, while there is no proof offered that a woman ever takes such a name from her brother, and hands it on to her children. So I repeat that, under the system of reckoning in the female line, "male ancestors do not found houses or clan names," or are not proved to do so.
It is apparent, probably, that a theory of totemism derived in great part from the myths and customs of a few advanced tribes, dwelling in village communities, and sometimes in possession of the modern family, with male kin, is based on facts which are not germane to the matter. The origin of totemism must be sought in tribes of much more backward culture, and of the confessedly "more primitive" type of organisation with female descent To disprove Mr. Hill-Tout's theory is of course impossible. There may have been a time when "personal totems" were as common among the Australians as they are now rare. There may have been a time when an Australian man's sisters adopted, and transmitted, his "personal totem," though that is no longer done to our knowledge. It may have chanced that stocks, being provided, on Mr. Hill-Tout's plan, with tutelary spirits of animal names descending in the female line, made marriage treaties, and so became exogamous. Then we should have explained totemism, perhaps, but a considerable number of missing facts must be discovered and reported before this explanation can be accepted.
Mr. Hill-Tout's scheme, I presume, would work out thus: there are sets of human beings, A, B, C, D, E, F. In all of these every man acquires an animal, plant, or other friendly object. Their sisters adopt it as a name, and hand it on to their children. The stocks are now named after the familiar animals, as Grouse, Trout, Deer, Turtle, Buffalo, Salmon, and hundreds more. They have hitherto, I presume, married as they please, anyhow. But stocks Grouse and Deer think, "We shall be stronger if we give our women to each other, and never let a Grouse marry a Grouse, or a Deer a Deer." They make this pact, the other stocks, Salmon, Turtle, Buffalo, &c., come into it, ranging themselves under Deer or Grouse, and now Deer and Grouse are phratries in a tribe with the other animals as heads of totem kins in the phratries. The animals themselves go on being tutelary spirits, and are highly respected.
This scheme (whether Mr. Hill-Tout would arrange it just thus or not) works perfectly well. It explains the origin of exogamy—not by an inexplicable moral reform, and bisection of the horde, but as the result of a political alliance. It explains the origin of totemism by a theory of animal-shaped tutelary spirits taken on by sisters from brothers, and bequeathed by the sisters when they become mothers to their children. It explains the origin of phratries, and of totem kins in the phratries. It works out all along the line—if only one knew that very low savages deliberately made political alliances; and if all low savages had animal-shaped tutelary spirits; and if these were known to be adopted from brothers by sisters, and by sisters bequeathed, for an eternal possession, to their children; and if these transactions, once achieved, were never repeated in each line of female descent—no sister in the next generation taking on her brother's personal tutelary animal, and bequeathing it to her children for ever. Finally, if savages in general did regard their hereditary totems as tutelary spirits, the sketch which I make on Mr. Hill-Tout's lines would leave nothing to be desired. But we do not know any of these desirable facts.
If I have stated Mr. Hill-Tout's ideas correctly, he agrees with me in regarding the tribe as formed by aggregation of many more primitive groups. He does not regard the phratries and totem kins as the result of the segmentation of a primordial indiscriminate mass or horde, split up at the injunction of an inspired medicine man, or by a tribal decree. Against our opinion, Mr. Howitt argues that only one writer who "has or had a personal acquaintance with the Australian blacks" accepts it, the Rev. John Matthew. It is accepted, however, as far as "sub-phratries" go (as an alternative hypothesis), by Mr. Hewitt's friend, Dr. Fison.[24] But I have given my reasons for not accepting Mr. Howitt's doctrine, and I await some reason for his rejection of mine. Even authors who have "a personal acquaintance with the Australian blacks" should, I venture to think, give their reasons for rejecting one and persisting in another theory of "the probabilities of the case."[25] I have shown why I think it improbable that a postulated prehistoric tribe split itself up, for no alleged reason, at the suggestion of a medicine man. Now I am anxious to know why my postulated groups should not make marriage alliance for the reason of securing peace—a very sufficient motive for betrothals.
[1] Compare Mr. N. W. Thomas's criticisms of Mr. Hill-Tout, in Man, May, June, July 1904.