In the light of all these facts, the conclusion appears highly probable that at some time totemic culture everywhere paved the way for a more advanced civilization, and, thus, that it represents a transitional stage between the age of primitive man and the era of heroes and gods.
[3. TOTEMIC TRIBAL ORGANIZATION.][1]
As has already been stated, the beginning of the totemic age is not marked by any essential change in external culture. As regards dress, decoration, and the acquisition of food, the conditions that we meet, particularly among the natives of Central Australia, differ scarcely at all from those of the primitive races of the pretotemic age. It is only in the weapons, which are already clearly indicative of tribal warfare, that we find an unmistakable external indication of deeper-going differences in social culture. At the same time, however, the totemic age includes peoples whose general manner of life we are accustomed to call semi-cultural. The greatest contrast occurs between the natives of Australia and of some of the portions of Melanesia, on the one hand, and those of North America, particularly of the eastern part, on the other. While the former still live the primitive life of the gatherer and the hunter, the latter possess the rudiments of agriculture, as well as the associated cult festivals, the beginnings of a celestial mythology, and richer forms of legend and poetry. Nevertheless, as regards the most universal characteristic of totemic culture, namely, the form of tribal organization, the two groups of peoples differ but slightly, although conditions in Australia have on the whole remained more primitive. This is most clearly shown by the fact that, among the Australian natives, the totem animal possesses the significance of a cult object, whereas in America, and particularly among the Atlantic tribes, whose totemic practices have received the most careful study, the totem animal has obviously come to be a mere coat of arms. The difference might, perhaps, be briefly stated thus: In Australia, the totem names signify groups of cult members within a clan; in America, they are the designations of clans themselves, but these as such possess no cult significance. In both regions, however, tribal organization follows the principle of dual division. The tribe first divides into two tribal halves (I and II); then each of these separates into two clans (A and B, C and D); finally, the latter again break up into subclans, so that eventually we may have eight tribal divisions. In certain cases, the division has not advanced beyond the dual form; the upper limit, on the other hand, seems to be eight distinct groups. The schemata representing tribal organization in Australia and in America are so similar that it is easy to
understand how most authors have come to regard conditions in the two countries as essentially identical. Yet the divergence in the nomenclature of the tribal divisions points to significant differences. The fact is that the clan names of the Australians are entirely different from the totem names. The former have, as a rule, become unintelligible to the present-day native, and, since many of them recur among distinct tribes who now speak different dialects, they probably derive from an older age. Words such as Ipai, Kumbo, Murri, Kubbi, etc., may originally, perhaps, have possessed a local significance. At any rate, clan names but rarely consist of the names of animals. On the other hand, such words as emu, kangaroo, opossum, eagle-hawk, and others, are the regular designations of the clans composing the totem groups. The case is otherwise among the North American Indians. Here the clans all have animal names. Nor can we anywhere find alongside of the clans any particular totem groups which might be regarded as cult alliances. The schema shown on p. 141 exhibits these relations. The tribal halves are designated by I and II, the clans by A, B, C, etc, and the independent totem groups existing within the individual clans by m, n, o, p, etc.
Owing to the external similarity of the tribal organizations, it has generally been thought that the totem groups of the Australians are merely clans or subclans, such as are, doubtless, the social groups of the American Indians, designated by similar totem names. This interpretation, however, has unquestionably led to serious confusion, particularly in the description of the tribal organization of the Australians. A study of the detailed and very valuable contributions of Howitt and of other early investigators of the sociological conditions of Australia, inevitably leaves the impression that, particularly as regards the interpretation of the various group names, the scholars were labouring under misconceptions which caused the relations to appear more complex than they really are. Such misconceptions were all the more possible because the investigators in question were entirely ignorant of the languages of the natives, and were therefore practically dependent upon the statements of their interpreters. Under these circumstances we may doubtless be allowed a certain degree of scepticism as to the acceptance of these reports, especially when they also involve an interpretation of phenomena; and we may be permitted an attempt to discover whether a different conception of the significance of the various group names may not give us a clearer picture of the phenomena, and one that is also more adequate when the general condition of the inhabitants is taken into account. The conditions prevalent among the American Indians are in general much easier to understand than are those of the Australians, particularly where the old tribal organization has been preserved with relative purity, as among the Iroquois. In this case, however, the totem names have obviously become pure clan designations without any cult significance. Now this has not occurred among the Australians; for them, the totem animal has rather the status of a cult object common to the members of a group. The fact that the Australians have separate names for the clans, as was remarked above, whereas the American Indians have come to designate clans by totem names, provides all the more justification for attributing essentially different meanings to the two groups that bear totem names. In attempting to reach a more satisfactory interpretation of totemic tribal organization, therefore, we shall consider those totem groups which are obviously in a relatively early stage of development—namely, the Australian groups—simply as cult associations which have found a place within the tribal divisions or clans, but whose original significance is of an absolutely different nature. In the above schema, therefore, A, B, C, D, etc., represent tribal divisions or clans, m, n, o, p, etc., cult groups. The latter are lacking in the part of the diagram which refers to the American Indians, since these have no cult associations that are independent of the tribal divisions; indeed, the old totem names have lost their former cult significance and have become mere clan names. Thus, the conception here advanced differs from the usual one in that it gives a different significance to the totem names on the two levels of development. In the case of the Australians, we regard them as the names of cult groups; in America, where the totem cult proper has receded or has disappeared, we regard them as mere clan names. But the extension of totem names to the entire clan organization in the latter case is not, as it were, indicative of a more developed totemism, but rather of a totemism in the state of decline. The totem animal, though here also at one time an object of cult, is such no longer, but has become a mere coat of arms. In support of this view of American totem names, we might doubtless also refer to the so-called totem poles. Such a pole consists of a number of human heads representing the ancestors of the clan, and is crowned by the head of the totem animal. This is obviously symbolic of the idea that this succession of generations has as its symbol the totem animal that surmounts it—that is, the totem pole is an enlarged coat of arms.
Because of the great regularity of its occurrence, the dual form of tribal division must be regarded as everywhere due to the same cause. Concerning its origin there can scarcely be any doubt. Obviously it has no real connection with totemism itself. This explains why the tribal divisions originally derived their names, not from the totem, but from localities or from other external sources, as the conditions among the Australians would seem to indicate. A phenomenon which recurs in widely distant regions with such regularity as does dual division, is scarcely intelligible except by reference to the general conditions attendant upon the spread of peoples. A tribe leading the unsettled life of gatherers and hunters must of inner necessity separate as its numbers increase or as the food-supply begins to fail. It is but natural that the tribe should first separate into two divisions on the basis of the hunting-grounds which the members occupy; the same process may then repeat itself in the case of each division. The fact that when deviations from the principle of dual division are found, they are most likely to occur in the subordinate groups, is also in harmony with the view that the divisions are due to the natural conditions of dispersion. For, in the case of the subordinate groups, one of the smaller units might, of course, easily disintegrate or wander to a distance and lose its connection with the tribe.
[1] The survey presented in this and in the following section aims to give only a general outline of the relations between totemism and tribal organization, as based particularly on several tribes of Central Australia. For a more detailed account of the conditions and of their probable interpretation, I would refer to a paper on "Totemism and Tribal Organization in Australia," published, in 1914, in Anthropos, an international journal.