The Pagan Tribes of Borneo / A Description of Their Physical Moral and Intellectual Condition, with Some Discussion of Their Ethnic Relations

by Charles Hose; William McDougall

But in spite of all this, and although we do not think it is possible completely to disprove the truth of the hypothesis that some or all of these animal cults are vestiges of a once fully developed totemic system, we are inclined to reject it. We are led to do so by four considerations. In the first place, if by totemism we mean a social organisation consisting in the division of a people into groups or clans, each of which worships or holds in superstitious regard one or more kinds of animal or plant, or other natural objects to which the members of the group claim to be related by blood or by descent, then it seems to us sufficiently wonderful that this system should have existed among peoples so remote from one another in all things, save certain of the external conditions of life, as the Indians of North America and the natives of Australia. And it seems to us that to invoke the aid of the hypothesis of totemism in the past to explain the existence of a set of animal or plant superstitions in any particular case is but to increase the mystery that shrouds their origin; for unless it can be shown that the adoption or development of totemism by any people brings with it immense advantages for them in the struggle for existence, every fresh case in which the evidence compels us to admit its occurrence, whether in the past or as a still flourishing institution, can but increase the wonder with which we have to regard its wide distribution.

Secondly, we have in the total absence of totemism among the Punans very strong ground for rejecting the suggestion of its previous existence among the Kenyahs. For in physical characters, in language, and, as far as the difference in the mode of life permits, in customs and beliefs, the Punans resemble the Kenyahs so closely that we must assume them to be closely allied by blood; and it seems probable that the Punans have merely persisted in the cultural condition from which the Kenyahs and other tribes have been raised by the adoption of agriculture and the practice of building substantial houses. Yet, as we have said, the Punans, although in that condition of nomadic hunters which is probably the most favourable to the development and persistence of totemism, observe hardly any restrictions in their hunting, and in fact seem to kill and eat with equal freedom almost every bird and beast of the jungle, shooting them with the blow-pipe and poisoned darts with consummate skill. The only exceptions to this rule are, so far as we know, the omen-birds, a carnivore, and a lizard, and, as we have said, it seems doubtful whether even these are excepted in the case of Punans who have not had much intercourse with other peoples.

Thirdly, although it may be said that even at the present time many of the features of the religious side of totemism are present, we have not been able to discover any traces of a social organisation based upon totemism. There is no trace of any general division of the people of any tribe into groups which claim specially intimate relations with different animals, except in the case of the Klemantans; and in their case such special relations seem to be the result merely of the different conditions under which the various scattered groups now live. There are no restrictions in the choice of a wife that might indicate a rule of endogamy or exogamy. There are no ceremonies to initiate youths into tribal mysteries; certain ceremonies in which the youths take a leading part are directed exclusively to training them for war and the taking of heads in battle. We know of no instance of any group of people being named after an animal or plant which is claimed as a relative; and in the case of the more homogeneous tribes, such as the Kenyahs and Kayans, all prohibitions with regard to animals and all benefits conferred by them are shared equally by all the members of any one community, and, with but very few exceptions, are the same for all the communities of the tribe.

Lastly, we think it unnecessary to regard the various animal superstitions of these tribes as survivals of totemism, because it seems possible to find a more direct and natural explanation of almost every case. The numerous cases seem to fall into two groups: the superstitious practices concerned with the sacrificial animals, the pig and fowl on the one hand, and all those concerned with the various other animals on the other hand. These latter may, we think, be regarded as the expression of the direct and logical reaction of the mind of the savage to the impression made upon it by the behaviour of the animals.

It has been admirably shown by Professor Lloyd Morgan[145] how we ourselves, and even professed psychologists among us, tend to overestimate the complexity of the mental processes of animals; and there can be no doubt that savages generally are subject to this error in a very much greater degree, that, in fact, they make, without questioning and in most cases without explicit statement even to themselves, the practical assumption that the mental processes of animals — their passions, desires, motives, and powers of reasoning — are of the same order as, and in fact extremely similar to, their own. That the Kenyahs entertain this belief in a very practical manner is shown by their conduct when preparing for a hunting or fishing excursion. If, for example, they are preparing to poison the fish of a section of the river with the "tuba" root, they always speak of the matter as little as possible, and use the most indirect and fanciful modes of expression. Thus they will say, "There are many leaves floating here," meaning, "There are plenty of fish in this part of the river." And these elaborate precautions are taken lest the birds should overhear their remarks and inform the fish of their intentions — when, of course, the fish would not stay to be caught, but would swim away to some other part of the river.

Since this belief seems to be common to all or almost all savages and primitive peoples, it would be a strange thing if prohibitions against killing and eating certain animals and various superstitious practices in regard to animals were not practically universal among them. Bearing in mind the reality of this belief in the minds of these peoples, it is easy to understand why they should shrink from killing any creature so malignant-looking and powerful for harm as a snake, and why they should feel uneasy in the presence of, and to some extent dread, the MAIAS and the longnosed monkey, creatures whose resemblance to man seems even to us somewhat uncanny. Their objection to killing their troublesome and superfluous dogs seems to be due to a somewhat similar feeling — a recognition of intelligence and emotions not unlike their own, but mysteriously hidden from them by the dumbness of the animals. In the same way it is clear that it is but a very simple and logical inference that the crocodiles are a friendly race, and but the clearest dictate of prudence to avoid offending creatures so powerful and agile; for if the crocodiles were possessed of the mental powers attributed to them by the imagination of the people, they might easily make it impossible for men to travel upon the rivers or dwell on their banks. A similar process would lead to the prohibition against the eating of the tiger-cat, the only large and dangerous carnivore.

The origin of the prohibitions against killing and eating deer and horned cattle is perhaps not so clear. But it must be remembered that until very recently the only horned cattle known to the tribes of the interior were the wild cattle (the Seladang of the Malay peninsula), very fierce and powerful creatures. These wild cattle hide themselves in the remotest recesses of the forests, and, as they are but very rarely seen, they may well be regarded as somewhat mysterious and awful. Deer, on the other hand, abound in the forests, and, like most deer, are very timid; and it is perhaps their timidity that has led in some cases to the prohibition against their flesh, for we have seen how a Kenyah chief feared lest his little son, safe at home, should be infected with the deer's timidity if he himself a hundred miles away should come in contact with the skin of one. In another case we have seen that by the people of one community deer are regarded as relatives, or as containing the souls of their ancestors, and that this belief probably had its origin in the fact that deer are in "the habit of frequenting the grassy clearings made about the tombs by the people. And we saw that a similar belief in respect of certain carnivores probably had a similar origin.

We think that even the elaborate cult of the hawk and of the other omen-birds is to be explained on these lines. If we think of the hawk's erratic behaviour, how he will come suddenly rushing down out of the remotest blue of the sky to hover overhead, and then perhaps to circle hither and thither in an apparently aimless manner, or will keep flying on before a boat on the river, or come swiftly to meet it, screaming as he comes, — if we think of this, it is easy to understand how a people whose whole world consists of dense forests and dangerous rivers, a people extremely ignorant of natural causation, yet intelligent and speculative, and always looking out for signs that shall guide them among the mystery and dangers that surround them, may have come to see in the hawk a messenger sent to them by the beneficent Supreme Being. For this Being is vaguely conceived by them as dwelling in the skies whence the hawk comes, and whither he so often returns. And then we may suppose that the messenger himself has come to be an object of worship in various degrees with the different tribes, as seems to be the rule in all religious systems in which servants of a deity mediate between him and man.

The origin of the various rites in which the fowl and pig are sacrificed, and their blood smeared or sprinkled on men or on the altar-posts of gods, or on the image of the hawk, and their souls charged with messages to the Supreme Being — the origin of this group of customs must be sought in a different direction. To any one acquainted with Robertson Smith's RELIGION OF THE SEMITES, and with Mr. Jevon's INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF RELIGION, the idea naturally suggests itself that these animals are or were true totems, of which the cult has passed into a late stage of decay. It might be supposed that, being originally totem animals, they thereby became domesticated by their worshippers; that they were occasionally slain as a rite for the renewal of the bond between them and their worshippers, their blood being smeared or sprinkled on the latter, and their flesh ceremonially eaten by them; and that the eating of them has become more and more frequent, until now every religious rite, of however small importance, is made the occasion for the killing and eating of them. It might also be supposed that, with the development or the adoption of the conception of a Supreme Being, the original purpose and character of the rites had become obscure, so that the slaughtered animals are now regarded in some cases as sacrifices offered to the deity.

But we do not think that this tempting hypothesis as to the origin of the rites can be upheld in this case. In the first place, the wild pig of the jungle is hunted in sport and killed and eaten freely by all the various tribes, and is, in fact, treated on the whole with less respect and ceremony than perhaps any other animal. Secondly, the domestic pig differs so much from the wild pig that Mr. Oldfield Thomas has pronounced it to be of a different species, and it seems possible that it has been introduced to Borneo by the Chinese at a comparatively recent date. Further, there is reason to suppose that the custom of sacrificing pigs and fowls arose through the substitution of them for human beings in certain rites. For there is a number of rites of which it is admitted by the people that the slaughter of human beings was formerly a central feature; of these, the most important and the most widely spread are the funeral rites of a great chief, the rites at the building of a new house, and those on returning from a successful war expedition. In all these fowls or pigs are now substituted as a rule, but we know of instances in which in recent years human beings were the victims. Thus some years ago, on the death of the chief of a community of Klemantans (the Orang Bukit), a slave was bought by his son, and a feast was made, and the slave was killed through each man of the community giving him a slight wound. This was said to be the revival of an old and almost obsolete custom. In another recent case, when a mixed party of Kayans and Kenyahs returned from a successful war expedition, only the Kenyahs had secured heads. The Kayans therefore took an old woman, one of the captives, and killed her by driving a long pole against her abdomen, as many of them as possible taking part by holding and helping to thrust the pole. The head was then divided among the parties of Kayans, and pieces of the flesh were hung on poles beside the river, just as is done with the flesh of slain enemies and with the flesh of the pigs that are always slaughtered on such occasions. It was said that this killing of a human being was equivalent to killing a pig, only much finer.