32 



NATURE 



[July 14, 1910 



Hence, as secondary results, the practice of abstaining 

 from killing and eating the totem, and conversely of 

 occasionally eating a little; the belief that men have 

 a magical power over their totems, particularly that 

 of multiplying them; the belief that people are 

 descended from their totems, and that women some- 

 times give birth to these animals or plants; the fact 

 that people often confuse their ancestors with their 

 totems; and, lastly, the fact that totems comprise 

 an immense range of organic, physical, and artificial 

 objects, the reason being 



" that there is nothing from the light of the sun or 

 the moon or the stars down to the humblest imple- 

 ment of domestic utility which may not have impressed 

 a woman's fancy at the critical season and have been 

 by her identified with the child in her womb." 



One great merit of the theory, it will be seen, lies 

 in this — that it rests upon a psychical phenomenon 

 of universal occurrence. In a very interesting section, 

 the author connects the facts of totemism with the 

 " longings," the envie, of pregnant women. The per- 

 sistence of the belief and the difficulty of explaining 

 away the physical results of "maternal impressions" 

 on the offspring are most significant. As the author 

 observes, if totemism existed to-day in England, the 

 child of the lady who had a "longing" for rasp- 

 berries, would, being marked with a raspberry, clearly 

 outlined on the back of the neck, have had a rasp- 

 berry for its totem. The possibilities latent in such 

 world-wide ideas may explain, suggests the author, 

 the remarkable preservation of clan type in clan 

 exogamy. 



" The children of each clan take after their mothers 

 or their fathers, as the case (that is, of residence) 

 may be, according as the mental impressions made 

 on pregnant women are derived mainly from their 

 own clan or from the clan of their husband." 



We are glad to see that the author recognises, and 

 continually emphasises, the primary independence of 

 totemism and exogamy ; they " are fundamentallv 

 distinct in origin and nature, though they have acci- 

 dentally crossed and blended in many tribes." 

 Throughout the book exogamy is treated as an acci- 

 dental adjunct of totemism. Yet a complete explana- 

 tion of its origin and evolution is attempted. In our 

 opinion, this explanation is unconvincing. By a 

 curious irony, J. F. Mclennan, the discoverer of both 

 institutions, never essayed an explanation of totem- 

 ism, but concentrated his mind on an explanation of 

 exogamy, now shown conclusively to be erroneous. 

 Prof. Frazer, on the other hand, found in totemism 

 his first interest, and his explanation of it consti- 

 tutes his greatest triumph, while in dealing with 

 exogamy he seems to be engaged on a secondary 

 problem. An excellent discussion of theories is fol- 

 lowed by a comparison of the action of exogamy to 

 that of scientific breeding. His account of the de- 

 velopment of exogamy from an original prohibition 

 of the "marriage" of brothers and sisters is masterly 

 enough, and we are grateful for it. That the later 

 prohibitions were deliberate we cannot doubt ; it is 

 when he follows Messrs. Howitt, Spencer, and Gillen 

 in asserting that the first dichotomy of the primitive 

 group, for the prevention of brother-sister unions, into 

 NO. 2124, VOL. 84] 



two halves was also deliberate, that we feel unsatis- 

 fied. He rests on an assumed and unexplained super- 

 stition (as to the evil effects of incest) in the primi- 

 tive mind. Nor does he explain how a group, how- 

 ever small, could be divided into two. On what prin- 

 ciple could it be done? Here he ignores Mr. J. J. 

 Atkinson's theory of primal law. 



Nearly two thousand pages are occupied with an 

 ethnographical survey of totemism, an invaluable 

 compilation. The maps, including that of the dis- 

 tribution of totemic peoples, are a new and useful 

 feature. The notes and corrections bring the reprints 

 up to date. A. E. Crawley. 



A THEORY OF PREHISTORIC RHODESIA. 

 Prehistoric Rhodesia. By Richard N. Hall. Pp. 

 xxviii + 88. (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1909.) 

 Price I2S. 6d. net. 



MR. R. N. Hall, the South African excavator, is 

 not very tolerant of criticism. He is up 

 again, and running full tilt against Dr. Randall 

 Maciver, who, in "Mediaeval Rhodesia," dared to try 

 to demolish his prehistoric Semitic Zimbabwe theory. 

 Whether Dr. Maciver was right in all his con- 

 tentions as to the stratification of Zimbabwe, the 

 Nankin china found in it, and so forth, cannot be 

 decided until after he has replied to Mr. Hall's objec- 

 tions as stated in this book. We have little doubt 

 that his reply will finally dispose of these objections, 

 which, of course, Mr. Hall was perfectly justified in 

 advancing if he felt that Dr. Maciver had not handled 

 the evidence rightly. It is, however, a pity that in 

 doing this Mr. Hall allows a certain tone of bitter- 

 ness to appear in his references to his antagonist. 



Mr. Hall is still dominated by the idea that he can 

 find Semitic traces in South Africa. But, again, he 

 brings forward no satisfying proofs of any tangible 

 Semitic influence there. Round towers with conical 

 tops are no proof of Semitic connection. It is not 

 only the Semites who have built such. "Cones" are 

 no speciality of the Semites. In support of the idea 

 that Cones mean Semites, Mr. R. N. Hall brings 

 forward references to Messrs. L. W. King and H. R. 

 Hall's book, "Egypt and Western ."Xsia." Mr. R. N. 

 Hall's note referring to this supposed support for his 

 theory reads as follows : — 



"In King and Hall's ' Egypt and Western Asia' 

 reference is made to ' the great cone ' at Sinai in the 

 Elamite kingdom (p. 159); to the remains of a 

 ' temple-tower ' at Ninib at Babylon (p. 166) ; to the 

 ' temple-towers ' erected by Gudea at Shirpurla in 

 southern Babylonia (p. 217); to 'massive temple- 

 towers ' at Samarra on the Tigris (p. 284) ; to 

 ' cones ' in Assyria (p. 392) ; and to the ' temple-tower ' 

 of Ashur (p. 410)." 



Now, apart from the extraordinary solecisms "at 

 Sinai in the Elamite kingdom," and "at Ninib at 

 Babylon " (does Mr. R. N. Hall not know where Elam 

 was, where or what Sinai is, or that Ninib was a 

 god?), on referring, incredulous, to the work of Mr. 

 L. W. King and his coadjutor, Mr. R. N. Hall's 

 namesake, we find that this note of the South African 

 Mr. Hall's is one of the oddest farragos of mis- 



