Lang Andrew
Social Origins and Primal Law
THE RELATIONS OF TOTEMS AND 'PHRATRIES' AMONG THE ARUNTA
The relations of the totem groups to the 'primary divisions,' or 'phratries,' among the Arunta and cognate tribes, are, as we have already stated, entirely peculiar. We have seen that, in North America, and in Australia generally, no phratry ever contains the same totems as its linked phratry, and we have seen that Mr. Frazer calls this the natural arrangement.121 If so, the present Arunta arrangement is not natural; it is a divergence from the natural type. Among the Arunta, 'no totem is confined to either moiety' ('phratry') 'of the tribe.' There is only 'in each local centre a great predominance of one moiety.'122
Dr. Durkheim regards the present state of Arunta affairs (the totems not being peculiar to either phratry) as une dérogation. Originally, he thinks, as among the Urabunna, each phratry contained only totems which were not in the other phratry; and he detects survivals, among the Arunta, of the earlier usage. At present the Arunta totems show 'a slight tendency to skip' (chevaucher) 'from one into the other phratry, doubtless because the Arunta totem system is no longer complete' – and no wonder, as Arunta totems are now not hereditary, but derived from the totem souls haunting each locality. Again, in Arunta legend, the ancestors 'were divided into companies, the members of which bore the same totem name, and belonged as a rule to the same moiety' ('phratry') 'of the tribe,' as now among the Urabunna, 'who are in a less developed state than the Arunta.' So say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, and thus Arunta legend points to a past in which Arunta usage was, in this matter, as a rule the same as that of the less developed Urabunna: which I believe it really was.
But we can hardly accept the legends when they fit, and reject them when they do not fit, our theory! I lay no stress on the legends.
If, however, the Arunta 'phratries' originally, as Dr. Durkheim and I believe, never contained the same totems, then each Arunta totem group was, at that time, necessarily exogamous. No man or woman could then marry within the totem, as, at present, the Arunta can and do. They were barred by the phratry limit: persons of their totem were never in the phratry into which alone they could marry. So no one then could marry a member of his or her own totem kin. 'It is, therefore, untrue that marriage has always been permitted between members of a totem,' says Dr. Durkheim, though Arunta legend declares for the opposite view.
ARUNTA MYTHS
Here I am apt to agree with Dr. Durkheim. The evidence of the Arunta legends as to the customs of the Alcheringa, or 'dreamtime,' is 'such stuff as dreams are made of.' The legends are 'statements, invented mainly by popular fancy,' says Dr. Durkheim, 'to explain existing institutions, by attaching them to some mythical beings in the past. They are myths, in the proper sense of the word.' They are not marked by authenticity.
Against this idea we have the opinion of Mr. Frazer, and of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen.123 The Arunta traditions, they say, and Mr. Frazer agrees with them, do not explain the present system, but deal with a former state of organisation and with customs quite different from the present. They do, but the Arunta invented the customs described in their myths, on purpose to explain, mythically, how the present customs arose out of deliberate modification of the alleged older customs. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen themselves assert this: 'the traditions point to a very definite introduction of an exogamic system, long after the totemic groups were fully developed, and, further, they point very clearly to the fact that the introduction was due to the deliberate action of certain ancestors,' which is the theory of Mr. Lewis Morgan!
The rest is true, but I, like Dr. Durkheim, conceive that all is (except where we have external evidence for deliberate modification of the 'classes') merely part of the Arunta ætiological or explanatory myth. That myth starts from the belief (Mr. Howitt's belief?) in primary totemic, but not exogamous groups, such as are precisely the present groups of the Arunta, though not of their neighbours the Urabunna, or of totemists in general. This exceptional condition of Arunta affairs needed explanation, and got it, in the myth that the groups were originally totemic, but not exogamous, as Arunta totem groups still are. Exogamy (not applying to totem groups, but to 'phratries') was brought in, the myth says, by deliberate action, by our old friend, 'the Legislator,' The Arunta traditions, therefore, do explain 'the origin of the present system,' of the Arunta, as far as exogamy goes; and their explanation is as much a speculative hypothesis as Mr. Morgan's equivalent theory. It is one more example of the coincidence of savage myth and scientific hypothesis.
MR. SPENCER ON ARUNTA LEGENDS
I understand Messrs. Spencer and Gillen to contest this opinion, in one passage, and to assert it, under qualifications, in another. Their exact words must be given. 'If they' (Arunta traditions) 'simply explained the origin of the present system out of, as it were, no system, then we might regard them as simply myths invented to account for the former' (i.e. 'the present system'), 'but when we find that they deal with a gradual development, and with a former state of organisation and customs quite different from, and in important respects at variance with, the organisation and customs of the present day, we are probably right in regarding them as actually indicative of a time when these were different from those now in force.'124
Now to what do the traditions amount, as regards earlier marriage laws and customs at variance with those now in use among the Arunta? They amount to this: (1) Men of one totem had marital relations normally with women of the same totem. It is no longer the case that Arunta men have relations, normally and exclusively, with women of the same totem; a man may marry a woman of his own totem, or not, as he pleases. But so, in the traditions of the primeval trek, a man might, and did, take women of other totems as he pleased, by conquest probably; though these women seem to have lived, hitherto, solely with men of their own totem. The tradition starts from the hypothesis that all members of each mythical wandering totem group were originally of the same totem. That being so, the men naturally lived, when on trek, with women of their totem, taking women of other totems as they came across them. No longer on trek, the Arunta of to-day do the same thing, many women of their own or any other totem. The only shade of difference arises from the nature of the mythical theory, that many totem groups were originally migratory. But the present Arunta system of 'go as you please' in marriage (as far as totems are concerned) differs from the regular custom of the neighbouring Urabunna, for example. That difference, the Arunta probably feel, needs explanation. So their myth explains it, 'we Arunta always acted thus from the beginning.' So far the 'tradition' of Messrs Spencer and Gillen seems to me to be an ordinary explanatory myth.
(2) At the supposed time (a time when many human types were still in the husk!) men and women of what are now 'exogamic groups' ('phratries' or 'classes') had marital relations contrary to present usage.
But did the phratries or classes then, according to tradition, exist at all? The legend says that the men of the Little Hawk totem had these 'phratries' and classes, Kumura and Purula and so on (the names then carrying no known exogamous prohibition, as now, for the legend does not say that these 'classes' were exogamous). The Little Hawk men had arrived at the arts of making flint knives, and using them in circumcision. This they taught to less advanced groups, who tooled with fire sticks. But they only let their pupils have 'very rough' stone knives (Palæolithic, probably), at first. 'It was these Little Hawks,' say our authors, 'who first gave to the Arunta the four "class" names. We may presume that along with them there was instituted some system of marriage regulations, but what exactly this was there is no evidence to show.' Either the Little Hawks introduced exogamy, or they did not, a valuable result of traditional evidence.125 'As yet we have no indication of any restrictions with regard to marriage as far as either totems or classes are concerned,' say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. Then why does the legend aver that the class names existed? Why did they exist? Now the existing restrictions of the 'classes' need explanation, and get it, from the myth; but, as there are no Arunta totem restrictions on marriage, at present the myth naturally says nothing about them. At this mythic period, 'persons of the Purula and Kumura classes, who may not now marry one another, are represented as living together.'126 (3) Next 'the organisation now in vogue was adopted.' But, in its first shape, due to the wisdom of Emu men, it permitted marriages, which are now (4) forbidden by the superior intelligence of men dwelling further north, 'and it was decided to adopt the new system,' that is, the present Arunta 'class' system.
Now the Arunta are still accepting innovations from the North, and this part of the myth need not be mythical.
But the whole traditions, full of stark mythical inventions (including a myth like that of Isis and the mutilation of Osiris), amount merely to this. Society was totemic, but the totems were not exogamous; rather endogamous of the two. Society among the Arunta is still totemic, but not, as far as totems go, exogamous. In this it differs from the usual rule, and the myth explains why, – 'it was always so.' But Arunta society is exogamous as regards the 'phratries' and classes, and that has to be explained by the myth. The myth therefore explains by saying that Emu men introduced a deficient, and northern men an adequate, system of exogamy – that which now prevails. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, however, appear to deny that the 'traditions' 'simply explain the origin of the present system, out of, as it were, no system. It is true that the traditions do give stages in the arrangement of the present system; but they also do 'explain the origin of the present system.' And Messrs. Spencer and Gillen not only admit this, but, as we saw, even think the explanation 'quite possible.' The explanation, I repeat, is that the system 'is due to the deliberate action of certain ancestors,' Emu men and wiser Northern men.
Of course, as we tried to show, that explanation of primeval exogamy is improbable, but it is the explanation given by the Arunta legend. With a grain of fact, as to innovations from the North, the legend is a myth, an ætiological myth, a myth explanatory of the origin of the present organisation. History it is not. The Arunta 'traditions' are not historical evidence in favour of the new hypothesis that the Arunta are 'primitive,' are in 'the chrysalis stage' of humanity; (this they deny): that Totemism, in origin, was a magical co-operative and industrial association; that the original totems were not exogamous; and that exogamy was superimposed by legislation, or grew out of an organisation so imposed on a society of non-exogamous totem groups. Whatever the value of that hypothesis, it has no historical support from the Arunta traditions. History is a very different thing.
The Arunta still marry, at pleasure, in or out of the totem, merely because their totems are now scattered about among their exogamous divisions. This is not the 'natural arrangement' (as Mr. Frazer assures us), is not the inevitable original arrangement, and is not the case with their neighbours, the Urabunna, who are confessedly 'less developed than the Arunta.' The Urabunna system, therefore, is more archaic, ex hypothesi than that of the Arunta, which must be less archaic. It is, I repeat, peculiar, isolated, needs explanation, and the Arunta traditions give the explanation. The ancestors took women in or out of the totem, as at present the Arunta do; exogamy by classes was later imposed, says the myth. Dr. Durkheim appears here to hold the more logical position. There was, I conceive, with Dr. Durkheim, and have stated, though Messrs Spencer and Gillen and others deny it, 'a primary relationship between the totemic system and exogamy.'127
CHAPTER IV
ARUNTA PHRATRIES AND TOTEMS
The essential question is, why, among the more archaic Urabunna, do the large exogamous divisions never include the same totems, whereas, among the more highly developed Arunta, they do? If we can show how the Arunta, if once organised on the Urabunna and North American model, came to slip out of it; while we cannot show how the Urabunna, and most other tribes, if once on the Arunta model, came to desert it (as they must have done), then it will seem probable that the Urabunna organisation, the regular universal Australian organisation, is the older.
The sequence of events, as understood by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, was this, or, at least, may thus be conceived. We take two tribes, say Urabunna and Arunta. They both have many totem groups, totemic, because (on this theory) each group had, for its 'primary function,' the working of magic for the object which was its totem. The totem had primarily, on this theory, no relation to marriage rules. It is 'quite possible' that certain persons then deliberately introduced exogamous divisions… 'so as to regulate marital relations.' The exact purpose, however, is unknown; 'it can only be said that far back in the early history of mankind, there was felt the need of some form of organisation, and that this gradually resulted in the development of exogamic groups.' This position I have already criticised; it is not intelligible to me. However – the exogamous division was made, and then all the totems might be arranged separately in the two divisions, by the Urabunna, 'and perhaps the majority of Australian tribes' (and the American tribes) or, 'this was not done,' as by the Arunta. Consequently, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen think, the rule which prevents an Urabunna man from marrying a woman of his own totem, has nothing, primarily, to do with the totem, but is a mere inevitable consequence of the system which, among all tribes but the Arunta, excluded each totem from one of the two exogamous divisions, and placed it (not among the Arunta) in the other. My own system – I need not reiterate it – is the reverse of all this.
The Arunta, I contend, probably had, originally, the usual organisation, but have lost it for obvious reasons, so that now the same totem may occur in both of the large exogamous divisions, and persons of the same totem may now intermarry.
The traditions of the Arunta represent the exogamous 'phratries' as later than the totemic (but not yet exogamous) division. Dr. Durkheim thinks this improbable or impossible. It is true that the 'phratries' or 'classes' are now much more important, among the Arunta, than the totems, on which Dr. Durkheim insists. They need not, therefore, be earlier.
VIEWS OF DR. DURKHEIM
The theory of Dr. Durkheim is not, perhaps, expressed with his usual lucidity; at least I have found some difficulty in understanding it. The following summary, however, seems to be correct. 'The phratry,' he says, 'began by being a clan' (in my terminology an exogamous local totem group). 'There is no reason why this general idea should not apply to the Arunta. Consequently, since there are actually two exogamous phratries, we have reason to admit that this society was originally formed by two primary clans, or, if any one prefers the phrase, by two elementary totem groups, both exogamous (également exogames), for under this form the two phratries must have begun to exist. Now in that case there was at least a moment when marriage was forbidden between members of the same totem,' though now among the Arunta this rule no longer obtains.128
So far Dr. Durkheim and I hold identical views; we differ on a point of detail. What are, and whence came, the totems within the phratries? Dr. Durkheim conceives the case thus: Originally there was a 'clan' (local totem group) which was exogamous, and married out into one other equally exogamous clan. The members of each such exogamous totem group ('clan') then multiplied and 'swarmed off,' in colonies, and all such colonies took a new totem, while retaining 'the sentiment of their primary solidarity' with the original totem group. These are the 'secondary' totem kins. But why should they take new totem names and new totems?129 I know not, but the original group from which they swarmed off now became their 'phratry.' This phratry, in many cases, still has a totem name, 'which is the proof that it is, or has been a clan,' that is an exogamous totem group.130 Therefore exogamous totem groups were 'primary,' the existing totem kins are 'secondary,' they have split off from the original groups. As far as I am able to follow Dr. Durkheim's reasoning, he and I differ on this one point. We both regard the two 'phratries' as having been originally local exogamous totem groups, which united in connubium. But in each 'phratria' there exist several totem kinships. Dr. Durkheim regards these as 'secondary' branches which split off from the two original local totem groups, and which, in each case, took new totem names, while retaining membership in their original totem groups, now 'phratries.' They are totemic colonies of a totemic metropolis. I, on the other hand, as has been explained, conceive that each of the two local totem groups which became phratries (say Emu and Kangaroo) already, by the action of exogamy in a region where there were many totem groups, and by virtue of female descent, contained within it persons who were of various totem kindreds. Dr. Durkheim, on the contrary, seems to think of the existence of but two primal exogamous clans in a given region. Groups emigrating from these took new totem names, while retaining the phratry name and connection with their mother clans, now phratries.
Why the clans were totemic at all does not appear. I understand that they were exogamous out of respect for the blood of their totems, the totem tabu (p. 57, note I).
Against the hypothesis it may be urged (1) that we do not know that emigrants from a local centre ever select new totem names – unless, indeed, they reach a region where their old totem does not exist. This cannot have occurred constantly. Again (2), Dr. Durkheim's theory involves the same difficulty as my own. How did the colonies from the Kangaroo group happen never to select the same totem as colonies from the Emu group, so that the same totem never occurs in both phratries? This implies deliberate arrangement. If however, totem names were given from without, by neighbours (as I shall argue), the case could not occur at all, and the same totem would appear in both phratries.
If we adopt the hypothesis that two friendly 'families,' or 'fire circles,' of a cousinly character, set the first example of exogamous intermarriage – exclusively with each other – and then got totem names, they might become phratries, but whence arose the totem kins within the phratries? Shall we say that other such 'families,' increasing in size, and receiving totem names, came in, two by two, to Emu and Kangaroo, each of the new linked adherents taking opposite sides, Opossum going to the Kangaroo, Bandicoot to the Emu phratry? This would give the totems within the phratries, by a constant accession of other pairs of phratries, which subordinated themselves, one to Emu, one to Kangaroo. Either this hypothesis, or Dr. Durkheim's, or my own, accounts for the phratry plus totem kins arrangement, without supposing the deliberate bisection of a hitherto undivided commune. That hypothesis, if any one, of the other three, Dr. Durkheim's, my own, or the theory of accessions to the pair of exogamous intermarrying families, be accepted, is therefore not forced upon us in defect of a better.
