[hill-tout] TOTEMISM : ITS OKIGIN A.ND IMPORT 93 



moiistrably axe, rather than as difEerent and distinct cults, as Dr. 

 Iladdon would have us regard them. To separate individual totemism 

 from group or '' typical " totemism seems to me to cut ourselves off 

 from the very heart and root of the matter, from the only evidence that 

 can possibly help us to understand the purpose and meaning of totemism. 

 It is like asking the student of diemistry to be satisfied with his com- 

 pounds and not seek to discover the elements that lie at their base. 



As Dr. Jiaddon has informed us in his address that his view of 

 totemism is that '' understood by Tylor, Frazer, Lang, Hartland, Jevous, 

 Durkheim and others," it becomes unnecessary to criticize the views 

 of these gentlemen. We may at once pass on to examine the '" sugges- 

 tion concerning the origin of totemism " put forward by Dr. Haddon in 

 the latter part of his address, and also the " guess " of Mr. Andrew 

 liang concerning " the origin of totem names and beliefs." ^ This 

 '■' suggestion " of Dr. Haddon does not so much deal with the origin 

 of totemism as I and other American students understand that doctrine, 

 as with the origin of totem-group names. Thus, he remarks: "I take 

 this opportunity to hazard a suggestion for a possible origin of one 

 aspect of totemism. Primitive human groups, judging froom analogy 

 could never have been large, and the individuals comprising each group 

 must have been closely related. In favourable areas each group would 

 have a tendency to occupy a restricted range owing to the disagreeable 

 results which arose from encroaching on the territory over which 

 another group wandered. Thus it would inevitably come about that 

 a certain animal or plant, or group of animals or plants would be more 

 abundant in the territory of one group than in that of another. To 

 take a clear example, the shore-folk and the river-folk would live mainly 

 on different food from each other, and both would have other specialties 

 than fell to the lot of the Jungle-folk. The groups that lived on the 

 seashore wonld doubtless have some natural vegetahle product to supple- 

 ment their animal diet, but the supply would probably be limited alike 

 in quantity land variety. Even they would scarcely have unlimited 

 range of a sliore line and there would be one group of shore-folk that 

 had a specialty in crabs, another would have shad-beds, while a third 

 would own sandy shores which were frequented by turtles. A similar 

 natnTal grouping would occur among the jungle-folk: sago flourishes 

 in swampy land, certain animals frequent grassy plains, others inhabit 

 the dense scrub, bamhoos grow in one locality, varions kinds of fruit 

 trees thrive best in different soils; the coastal plains, the foot hills, the 

 mountains, each has its characteristic flora and fauna. There is thus 

 no difficulty in accounting for numerous small human groups, each of 

 which would be largely dependent uip'On a distinctive food supply, the 



' FoUc-Lore, Vol. XIII, No. 4, December 25th, 1902. 



