RADiN] SOCIAL ORGANIZATION GENERAL DISCUSSION 197 



the origin myths. Part of the oral data is merely a reflex of the origin 

 myths, but part is not. The value of this "unwritten" material lies 

 in the fact that it represents the popular, exoteric attitude, the at- 

 titude that, on the whole, is not the result of conscious rationaliza- 

 tion, and that this exoteric view may very likely have been the 

 basis for the priestly esoteric interpretation. 



The prevalent conception of the relationship of the individual to 

 his clan animal is that of descent from an animal transformed at 

 the origin of the present human race into human beings. This 

 view is expressed in some of the origin myths and the general state- 

 ments of individuals. Direct descent from an animal was never 

 postulated. The definition of the term "animal" is, however, very 

 difficult. The Indians themselves seem to make a distinction 

 between the animal of to-day and the animal of the heroic age. 

 The main characteristics of the animal of the latter was his power 

 of transformation into human form and vice versa. Although the 

 animals have lost this to-day, they are nevertheless descended from 

 this animal. The human beings are, however, descended from 

 precisely the same "animals," so that it might be well to bear in 

 mind that descent from the transformed animal does not mean 

 descent from the animal of to-day. This view is more systematically 

 expressed in some places. According to one miscellaneous myth, 

 the existing human beings and animals were descended from the 

 same being, who once possessed infinite powers of transformation 

 now into human and now into animal shape. At one time, presum- 

 ably the beginning of our present creation, these "beings" either 

 consciously or unconsciously exhausted all their "transforming" 

 power, and the form into which they changed themselves, human 

 or animal, remained fixed for all time. The existing animals have 

 never succeeded in regaining their power of transformation. Among 

 human beings this power has only been vouchsafed to those few 

 who have obtained it as a special gift from some spirit. Even 

 then, however, it is ludicrously incomplete as compared with the 

 same powers of primordial "beings." This conception of the 

 animal-human archetype must not be regarded as at all flavoring 

 of a philosophy developed after contact with Europeans. The 

 error that has always been committed in discussions upon the 

 nature of descent from the animal lies in confusing our concept of 

 animal species with the term "animal" as used by primitive people, 

 and Ln the lack of discrimination between the possible connotations 

 of that same term, as applied to animals of to-day and as apphed 

 to those animals that were brought into intimate contact with the 

 clan ancestor. 



There is no reason for regarding the specific descent from the 

 totem as a development of this older Winnebago idea of the origin 



