Buch über Jagdgegner und ihre Argumente
Volker Wollny
Heimtierhalter sowie andere Tier- und Naturfreunde, ein rotes Tuch für die
Tierrechtler: Die Jagd.
Seit Jahren gibt es eine zwar kleine, aber rührige Minderheit, die Sturm
gegen den, von ihnen so genannten ?Lustmord? an Wildtieren läuft. Zu ihnen
gehören neben religiösen Fanatiker auch atheistische
Grundrechts-Fundamentalisten, welche die Grenze zwischen Tier und Mensch
negieren und für Tiere die gleichen Rechte einfordern, die auch Menschen
zustehen.
Es gibt mittlerweile eine recht große Anzahl von Publikationen, die sich
gegen die Jagd richten; dazu gehören neben Netzseiten, EBooks, Flyern und
Broschüren auch auf herkömmlichem Wege publizierte Bücher. Bisher hat sich
jedoch noch niemand in Buchform speziell mit der Jagdgegnerszene und ihren
Argumenten auseinander gesetzt.
Volker Wollny, in der einschlägigen Online-Szene bereits bekannt für manchen
harten Schlagabtausch mit Tierrechtlern und Jagdgegnern sowie für seinen
legendären Offenen Brief an den Heilbronner ?Biologen? und Studiendirektor
Kurt Eicher, Initiator der ?Initiative zur Abschaffung der Jagd?, hat diese
Lücke jetzt geschlossen und zwar mit seinem neuen Buch:
?Jagdgegnerbehauptungen ? eine Richtigstellung?.
Das Buch untersucht die gängigen Argumente der Jagdabschaffenwoller auf
Plausibilität und Wahrheitsgehalt, es räumt mit Mythen und Legenden auf und
beleuchtet das Spannungsfeld zwischen Waldbau und Wildhege. Das Werk
versteht sich nicht nur als Argumentationsleitfaden für Fachleute, sondern
auch als Lektüre für den interessierten Laien, der mehr über die
Problematik ?Jagd? und ihre Hintergründe wissen will.
Damit das Werk eine möglichst große Verbreitung findet, hat der Autor sich
entschlossen, es als EBook unentgeltlich zur Verfügung zu stellen und zwar
über das Netz; man kann es von der folgenen Adresse herunterladen oder
online schmökern:
http://www.ibwollny.de/jagdgegner
Volker Wollny
Jagdgegnerbehauptungen
- eine Richtigstellung -
Aalen/Württ. 2006
Das Buch darf jederzeit kostenlos in jeglicher Form weitergegeben werden,
unter der einzigen Bedingung, dass dies vollständig, unverändert und unter
der Nennung des Namens des Autors geschieht.
Frohe Ostern
Volker aka Haegar
XPost2 d.a.s.t, d.r.g, d.r.t.h, d.r.t.k, d.r.t.p. d.s.b
f'up2 d.s.b
--
Des Jägers Ursprung liegt entfernt, dem Paradiese nah;
Da war kein Kaufmann, kein Soldat,
Kein Arzt, kein Pfaff, kein Advokat;
Doch Jäger waren da... http://www.ostalb-jagd.de
Maria Einhaus
Jäger und Jagdriten
von Josef Haekel
Mit dem Jäger- (und Sammler-)tum, der ältesten Wirtschafts- und
Lebensform der Menschheit, ist in der Regel eine spezifische
emotionale Einstellung zu den Wildtieren (und anderen Naturwesen)
gegeben, die sich in mystischen, religiösen und magischen Bindungen
äußert. Zur jägerkulturlichen Ideologie gehören u. a. folgende
Vorstellungen: a) Die Tiere als menschenähnliche, beseelte oder mit
übernatürlichen Kräften und Fähigkeiten begabte Wesen; b) tierische
Helfer, Gefährten und Schutzgeister der Menschen; c) Verwandlungen
von Menschen in Tiere und umgekehrt; d) geheimnisvolle
Simultanexistenz zwischen einer Person und einem individuellen Tier
im Sinne einer intimen, schicksalhaften Lebensgemeinschaft
(Nagualismus, Tonalismus); e) Eingehen von Totenseelen in Tiere;
f) das Höchste Wesen in seiner Funktion als Lebens- und Nahrungsspender
auch Eigentümer des Wildes; g) Gottheit der Jagd
und der Tiere, Wildgeist; h) Buschgeister und Speziesgeister der
Tierarten ("Meister", "Eigentümer").
Aus solchen Glaubenselementen resultieren eine Reihe von
Vorschriften, Praktiken und Riten, deren Beobachtung bzw. Durch-
führung für das Gelingen der Jagd als unerläßlich angesehen wird.
[ ... ]
Eine eigentümliche Ambivalenz der Gefühle ergibt sich aus den
Vorstellungen vom Beseeltsein der Tiere und den Kontrollgeistern der
Tierspezies. Charakteristisch hierfür ist die Auffassung der
Iglulik-Eskimo: "Die größte Gefahr des Lebens liegt darin, daß die
Nahrung der Menschen gänzlich aus Seelen besteht. Alle Tiere, die
wir töten und essen, haben Seelen wie wir sie haben, Seelen, die nicht
mit dem Körper vergehen und versöhnt werden müssen, damit sie
sich nicht rächen, weil wir ihnen den Körper genommen haben"
(n. K. Rasmussen).
[ ... ]
Gefürchtet wird der brechende Blick oder der letzte Atemzug des
getroffenen Wildes. Er kann für den Jäger schädliche Folgen haben.
Bei afrikanischen Völkern findet sich die Vorstellung, daß eine Art
-> Seele, die im -> Blut, in Eingeweiden oder Körperenden bestimmter
Tiere enthalten ist, an dem Jäger Rache übt. Sie ruft -> Krankheiten
hervor oder ergreift von Menschen Besitz. Um dem zu entgehen,
verzichtet der Jäger auf den Genuß des zuerst erlegten Wildes oder
unterzieht sich -> Reinigungs-Riten (-> Waschungen, Beräucherungen
u. a.).
[ ... ].
Eine besondere Rolle spielen in den Jägerriten die Knochen des
erlegten Wildes. Man darf sie nicht zerbrechen oder den Hunden
vorwerfen, sondern muß sie sorgfältig deponieren oder versenken.
Nichtbeachten dieser Vorschrift beleidigt die Tiere und veranlaßt
sie, sich zurückzuziehen. Dem Schädel wird hierbei eine bevorzugte
Behandlung zuteil. Der ideologische Hintergrund für diese Praktiken
ist z. T. die Vorstellung von einer Knochenseele bzw. der Glaube an
die Reinkarnation der Tiere aus ihren Gebeinen. Jägerische
Wiederbelebungsriten erscheinen auch in Verbindung mit Fell, Harn-
blase (Versenken derselben durch ein Eisloch ins Meer bei Alaska-
Eskimo) und Nachbildungen von Tieren. Der Gedanke des Zurücksendens
der Jagdtiere zu ihrem Gebietergeist zeigt eine besondere Ausprägung
in dem sehr komplexen -> Bärenfest ostasiatischer Stämme (-> Ainu,
Giljaken u. a.).
Eine charakteristische Opferform verschiedener Jägervölker
(Pygmäen, philippinische Negrito u. a.) ist das sog. Primitialopfer
(-> Erstlinge, 1; -> Opfer: I). Von der Jagdbeute wird, bevor man sie
zum Genuß freigibt, ein kleiner Teil (vor allem lebentragende Organe)
weggelegt oder verbrannt, um damit dem Höchsten Wesen huldigende
Anerkennung seiner Eigentümerschaft über Leben und Nahrung zu zollen
und weiteren Jagderfolg zu sichern. Von ähnlichen Gedanken wird bei
einigen sibirischen Stämmen (Samojeden u. a.; -> Altaische Religion)
die Darbringung von Schädeln und Langknochen der Rentiere geleitet.
Vermehrungsriten für Wildtiere (und wildwachsende Nahrungspflanzen)
sind für viele Stämme Australiens typisch. Solche Zeremonien werden
an den heiligen Plätzen der mythischen Vorfahren (bzw. Totems), die
die Naturdinge hervorgebracht haben, abgehalten.
[ ... ]
RGG3 - Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3. Auflage 1956-1965,
Digitale Bibliothek Bd.12
Jäger und Jagdriten
von Manfred Hutter
[ ... ]
Die Wirtschaftsbedingungen in Jägergesellschaften bewirken einige
vergleichbare Phänomene auf soziologischer und religiöser Ebene. Die
Jagd ist eine Grenzüberschreitung von der realen Erfahrungswelt zu
einer nichtmenschlichen Welt, die zwar nicht als völlig abgetrennt,
aber doch als andere Wirklichkeit empfunden wird. Als Grenzgänger
muß der Jäger daher Regeln befolgen, die nicht die weltliche
Gefahr der Jagd verringern, sondern v.a. das "richtige" Verhalten
bzgl. der "anderen" Wirklichkeit sicherstellen sollen, d.h.
Jagdriten (Jr.) vergesellschaften den Jäger sowohl mit der Welt der
Menschen als auch der Tiere.
Zu auf den menschlichen Bereich bezogenen Jagdriten gehören
Initiationsriten (-> Rites de passage); z.B. wird bei den Khoisan
jungen Männern die Haut auf der Nasenwurzel zwischen den Augen durch-
schnitten, damit sie das Jagdwild besser sehen können. Auch Tänze mit
Tiermasken (-> Maske) sind im Kontext der Initiation in
Jägergesellschaften bekannt (z.B. im Amazonasgebiet, Gran Chaco),
womit die Tier-Mensch-Symbiose symbolisiert wird. Eine Reihe von
Jagdriten betreffen seuelle Tabus in unterschiedlicher Ausprägung -
von der sexuellen Enthaltung zur Vorbereitung auf die Jagd bis hin
zur Vermeidung jeder Art von Sozialkontakt mit Frauen. Weit
verbreitet ist die Vorstellung, daß Frauen die JAgdwaffen nicht
berühren dürfen, damit diese ihre Wirksamkeit nicht verlieren.
Sprachtabus betreffen das Unterlassen der Nennung des Zeitpunktes
der Jagd oder der Namen der Tiere (z.B. bei den -> Mongolen).
Zwischen erfolgreicher Jagd, dem Wohlwollen übermenschlicher Wesen
und gemeinschaftsinterner Harmonie wird ein Zusammenhang gesehen,
so daß rituelle Sündenbekenntnisse oder Vergebungen ebenfalls als
Jagdriten vor Beginn einer Jagd vorkommen bzw. bei mißglückter Jagd
nochmals wiederholt werden (z.B. bei den Kwiri in Westafrika).
Riten nach Beendigung der Jagd haben die Aufgabe, die Jäger wieder
in die alltägliche und diesseitige Gesellschaft einzuordnen.
Die Vergesellschaftung der Jäger mit der Tierwelt geschieht in
Jagdriten auf unterschiedliche Art: Jäger verwandeln sich mit Masken
oder Fellen in die Gestalt des zu jagenden Tieres oder ahmen dessen
Laute oder Bewegungen nach - weniger um das Tier zu täuschen, als
sich mit ihm auf dieselbe Ebene zu stellen. Solchen Jagdriten liegt
die Vorstellung zugrunde, daß sich die Tiere dann freiwillig töten
lassen, wenn diese Symbiose gelingt.
[ ... ]
Der Wesenszusammenhang zw. Tier und Mensch im Weltbild der Jäger
drückt sich manchmal in fehlenden Oberbegriffen für "Tier" in
Opposition zu "Mensch" aus; die Navaho kennen z.B. lediglich
Bezeichnungen wie "die Fliegenden", "die auf allen Vieren
Kriechenden" oder "die Fünffingrigen", wodurch Vögel, Landtiere
und Menschen in sprachlich vergleichbarer Weise umschrieben werden,
was semantisch die grundsätzliche Gleichwertigkeit der bezeichneten
Spezies impliziert. Auch anthropogonische Mythen lassen solche
Zusammenhänge erkennen, wenn Menschen durch Verwandlung aus Tieren
entstehen.
[...]
Verschiedene Praktiken kreisen in Jagdriten um das Thema der
Regeneration des getöteten Tieres. Südamerikanische Jäger kennen den
Brauch, daß der J. nach Erlegung das Tier rituell zerlegt und zum
Dank für den Jagderfolg die Haut, die Klauen und die Innereien
zurückläßt, in dem Glauben, daß die Seele des erlegten Tieres sich
daraus wiederum einen Körper bilden oder der Schutzgeist das Tier
neu erschaffen wird. Analog dazu ist die bei den eurasischen
Jägergruppen dominierende Überzeugung, daß aus den unversehrten
Knochen des Tieres neues Leben entsteht; ist ein Knochen verloren,
so muß er durch Holz oder Horn ersetzt werden.
Bei den Umsetzungen der Deckung des Nahrungsbedarfs liegt derselbe
Gedanke zugrunde, indem erklärt wird, daß man nur das Fleisch des
Tieres als Lebensnotwendiges nimmt, ohne die Lebenssubstanz des
Tieres zu zerstören.
[ ... ]
Eine andere Gruppe von Jagdriten thematisiert die Abwälzung der
Schuld bzw. der Verantwortung am Tod des erlegten Tieres. Bei den
Bororo (Brasilien) führen beispielsweise Frauen Entsühnungsriten für
die getöteten Tiere durch, um deren Rache zu besänftigen
[ ... ]
Solche Versöhnungsriten zeigen erneut die enge Symbiose
zwischen Jäger und Tier.
Bei den Inuit gibt es ein fünftägiges Fest zu Ehren des getöteten
Wals [ ... ]. Die fünftägige Dauer dieses Walfestes entspricht der
rituellen Klagedauer für einen toten Menschen. Aber auch Bärenfeste
inmitten der Gemeinschaft oder Versöhnungsfeste für einen getöteten
Jaguar bei südamerikanischen Jägern betonen die Wesensgemeinschaft
zwischen dem "tierischen" und einem "menschlichen" Toten.
[ ... ].
RGG4 - Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4.Aufl.1998-2006,
Bd.4 Sp. 348-350, Mohr-Siebeck
Maria Einhaus
Fortsetzung des Threads aus drtk
Volker Wollny schrieb:
> Maria Einhaus schrieb
>> (Jagd-)Kritik aus konservativer Richtung, die sich zwar teilweise
>> mit der der von Dir genannten Gruppen überschneidet, jedoch
>> andere Gesichtspunkte und insbesondere auch andere Kenntnisse
>> einbringt.
...blieb unberücksichtigt
> Das einzige, auf was ich gekommen bin, ist das orthodoxe Judentum.
W.R.Smith behandelt allgemein die Vorstellungen der semitischen Völker
zum Umgang mit den (Nutz- und Opfer-) Tieren.
noch einmal: http://kuerzer.de/vRVEjayHf
Diese Vorstellungswelt wurde in Grundzügen, wenngleich auch mit
anderen Ritualen, vom Christentum angenommen.
> Aber in der Lutherbibel ist an der genannten Stelle [3Mos17.13] von
> "auf der Jagd" die Rede.
M.E. schrieb vorher:
>> Man kann die Bibel nicht zeilenweise auslegen.
>> Zudem ist in Lv 17,13 von *Lebendfang* die Rede, der
>> selbstverständlich gestattet ist.
Zum Tierschutz im Judentum allgemein:
http://www.jewfaq.org/animals.htm
und
http://www.liberaljudaism.org/lj_wherewestand_animal.htm
Die Jagd ist den Juden nicht gestattet, selbst dann nicht, wenn sie
erforderlich ist, das Überleben der Gemeinschaft zu sichern. Im
letzteren Fall besteht jedoch die Möglichkeit einer Schuldübernahme
durch das Kollektiv und der Umwidmung des getöteten Tieres zur
Opfergabe, die den einzelnen von der Verantwortung für die Tat
entlastet.
Der Talmud stellt in Mas.Chullin 60b im Hinblick auf Lv 17,13
die Frage, ob Moses etwa Jäger oder Bogenschütze war und schließt
dieses mit der Begründung aus, daß er "die Thora vom Himmel" erhielt
und daß das zweite mit dem ersten unvereinbar ist.
Diese Bewertung der Jagd wird von der Christlichen Kunst übernommen,
hier jedoch im Wesentlichen nur als Merkmal dekadenter Lebensweise
ausgeführt.
So gibt es bspw. mehrere Darstellungen von "Szenen" aus dem
"Vorleben" der Maria Magdalena, in denen sie auf einem "Ausritt zur
Jagd" abgebildet wird.
[Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, Bd.7, S. 532].
Der Jäger bleibt in der Ostkirche vom Erhalt höherer Weihen
ausgeschlossen.
>> Noch heute ist bei älteren Menschen auf dem Lande individueller
>> Privatkonsum von Fleisch, insbesondere in Verbindung mit Alkohol,
>> behaftet mit dem Stigma der gesellschaftlichen Ächtung.
> Das wusste ich bisher noch nicht. Du meinst diese Menschen scheuen
> sich, alleine Fleisch zu essen? Wo zum Beispiel ist das noch
> üblich?
> Du meinst, der Metzger sagt sich: "Ja, ja, der Soundso, der alte :
> hat sich wieder Lebekäse gekauft, verspert ihn daheim allein und
> trinkt Bier dazu. Naja, ich verdiene ja ganz gut daran..."
Nein, das ist die Sichtweise der bäuerlichen Landbevölkerung.
Der Metzger hat diese Wertvorstellungen (berufsbedingt) nicht
gepflegt.
> obwohl ich
> mich dabei auf die Traditionen von Naturvölkern stütze und nicht
> auf das Judentum.
So?
Der Jäger hat zu den Traditionen der Naturvölker nicht nur keinen
Bezug im Allgemeinen, es gehört zu den Grundsätzen seiner
Auffassung, sich von den Vorstellungswelten dieser Ethnien
verachtend abzugrenzen.
Verachtung und Spott gegenüber vermeintlich "Primitiven" sind
identitätsstiftende Merkmale jägerlicher Grundgesinnung.
Zugehörigkeit zur Gemeinschaft setzt voraus, daß diese
Haltung mindestens als Lippenbekenntnis geführt wird.
Der moderne Jäger konsumiert die lebenssichernden und -gefährdenden
(sakralen) Inhalte anderer Kulturen als Teil seiner
Freizeitgestaltung und Zerstreuung. Er steht damit außerhalb jeder
Kultur und Tradition und sein Handeln, sofern es nicht der
Abwendung unvorhersehbar Gefahr dient, entbehrt jeder Rechtfertigung.
-> Jäger und Jagdriten im Parallelbeitrag
Gruß, Maria
Maria Einhaus
Jäger und Jagdriten - Literatur
Die vorstehende Zusammenfassung soll nun mit einigen Auszügen aus
der Literatur ergänzt werden. Zur Sprache kommen sowohl "klassische"
Monumentalwerke, wie etwa "The Golden Bough" [erschienen 1890] von
James George Frazer, als auch zeitgenössische und eher folkloristisch
aufgearbeitete Beiträge, wie z.B. "Mundo Ankari" von Ina Rösing -
neben wissenschaftlichen Abhandlungen von Analytikern, Religions-
wissenschaftlern und Anthropologen wie C.G.Jung, Mircea Eliade,
Claude Lévy-Strauss und anderen.
Zu James George Frazer:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frazer
und "The Golden Bough - A Study in Comparative Religion":
"Die Schrift ist eine jener monumentalen, strenggenommen
vorwissenschaftlichen Kompilationen, die auf die zeitgenössische
Meinungsbildung und die Ausprägung einer ganz neuen Forschungs-
richtung einen kaum abzuschätzenden stimulierenden Einfluß ausgeübt
haben. Mit dem für das 19. Jh. so charakteristischen positivistischen
Elan, der sich auch in der Fragestellung von Darwins "On the Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection" [1859] ... findet, ging
der schottische Anthropologe Frazer an die Sammlung und Auswertung
eines breitgestreuten empirischen Materials, das er dann mit der
schriftstellerischen Gewandtheit des umfassend Gebildeten - er war
ursprünglich klassischer Philologe - systematisierte und zu einer
selbständigen Analyse des rituellen und tabuverhafteten menschlichen
Verhaltens in der antiken Welt und den "primitiven Kulturen" der
Vergangenheit und Gegenwart verarbeitete. Dabei wird unausgesprochen
die Absicht des Verfassers spürbar, durch eine "Entmythologisierung"
mythologischer wie auch aus der anthropologischen Literatur beleg-
barer Verhaltensformen die magischen und die religiösen Praktiken auf
den gleichen Ursprung zurückzuführen, um derart die Behauptung vieler
seiner Zeitgenossen zu erhärten, der Glaube an transzendente
Phänomene sei überholt, die Welt immanent erklärbar.
[ ... ]
Nach und nach schwoll diese Untersuchung zum vielbändigen Kompendium
an, in dem die vielen Kulturen gemeinsamen Züge von Tötungsriten,
Opferfeuern, Karnevalssitten, Fruchbarkeitszaubern oder "Sündenbock-
orientiertem" Verhalten zusammen mit den Zwangshandlungen oder Tabus,
die ihnen - zwischen Eismehr und Polynesien - zugeordnet wurden,
ihren Platz fanden.
Zu der Überzeugung, daß Magie und Religion ursprünglich
Ersatzkonzepte für fehlendes Tatsachenwissen gewesen sind, waren
bereits viele Denker und Wissenschaftler gerade des 19.Jh. gelangt.
[ ...].
Frazers Verdienst liegt in erster Linie in der mühevollen
Kleinarbeit, die er auf die Auswertung aller erreichbaren klassischen
Quellen, sämtlicher Sagenbücher und einer Unzahl von Reiseberichten
aus abgelegenen Teilen der Erde verwendete. Auch frühere
Kompilationen wie die von Richard Andree, Adolf Bastian und Wilhelm
Mannhardt nahm er zu Hilfe; die Werke von Historikern von Rang wie
PLUTARCH oder George Bancroft galten ihm ebensoviel wie die
Aufzeichnungen von Provinzarchivaren.
[...]
Frazers Hauptverdienst ist der Nachweis, daß zwischen den von ihm
untersuchten, zeitlich und räumlich geschiedenen ethnischen Gruppen
hinsichtlich magisch-religiöser Vorstellungen überraschende
Parallelen und entwicklungsgeschichtliche Beziehungen bestehen.
Es ist gesagt worden (Gaster), Frazer habe für das Verständnis
gesellschaftlicher und kultureller Kollektivphänomene das geleistet,
was Freud für das Verständnis des durch sein Unterbewußtsein
geprägten Individuums tat, weil Frazer im "Golden Bough" die
Analogien zwischen den Vorstellungen und Handlungen der "Primitiven"
und den im "kollektiven Unbewußten" wurzelnden, noch heute gültigen
Sitten und Institutionen aufzeigt (C.G.Jung).
So blieb nicht aus, daß sein Werk für Religionssoziologen und
Anthropologen [...] zur Fundgrube und zum unentbehrlichen, wenn auch
kritisch benutzten Handwerkszeug wurde; in gleichem Maße galt dies
für vergleichende Literaturhistoriker, die auf die Ähnlichkeit
bestimmter Fabeln in Werken und Überlieferungen aus unterschiedlichen
Kulturbereichen und -stufen aufmerksam wurden, und vor allem auch für
Schriftsteller des 20. Jh., die - wie etwa T.S.Eliot in
'The WAste Land' (1922) - unmittelbar Bezug auf den 'Golden Bough'
nahmen oder - wie O'Neill, Waugh, Bellow und nicht zuletzt die
Trivialliteratur - ihre Stoffe durch die Einbeziehung
religiös-magischer Rituale bereicherten."
[Kindlers Neues Literaturlexikon 1988-1992]
Maria Einhaus
James George Frazer - The Golden Bough
Chapter 20.6. Hunters and Fishers tabooed
In Savage society the hunter and the fisherman have often to observe
rules of abstinence and to submit to ceremonies of purification of
the same sort as those which are obligatory on the warrior and the
manslayer; and though we cannot in all cases perceive the exact
purpose which these rules and ceremonies are supposed to serve, we
may with some probability assume that, just as the dread of the
spirits of his enemies is the main motive for the seclusion and
purification of the warrior who hopes to take or has already taken
their lives, so the huntsman or fisherman who complies with similar
customs is principally actuated by a fear of the spirits of the
beasts, birds, or fish which he has killed or intends to kill. For
the savage commonly conceives animals to be endowed with souls and
intelligences like his own, and hence he naturally treats them with
similar respect. Just as he attempts to appease the ghosts of the
men he has slain, so he essays to propitiate the spirits of the
animals he has killed. These ceremonies of propitiation will be
described later on in this work; here we have to deal, first, with
the taboos observed by the hunter and the fisherman before or during
the hunting and fishing seasons, and, second, with the ceremonies of
purification which have to be practised by these men on returning
with their booty from a successful chase.
While the savage respects, more or less, the souls of all animals,
he treats with particular deference the spirits of such as are
either especially useful to him or formidable on account of their
size, strength, or ferocity. Accordingly the hunting and killing of
these valuable or dangerous beasts are subject to more elaborate
rules and ceremonies than the slaughter of comparatively useless and
insignificant creatures. Thus the Indians of Nootka Sound prepared
themselves for catching whales by observing a fast for a week,
during which they ate very little, bathed in the water several times
a day, sang, and rubbed their bodies, limbs, and faces with shells
and bushes till they looked as if they had been severely torn with
briars. They were likewise required to abstain from any commerce
with their women for the like period, this last condition being
considered indispensable to their success. A chief who failed to
catch a whale has been known to attribute his failure to a breach of
chastity on the part of his men. It should be remarked that the
conduct thus prescribed as a preparation for whaling is precisely
that which in the same tribe of Indians was required of men about to
go on the war-path. Rules of the same sort are, or were formerly,
observed by Malagasy whalers. For eight days before they went to sea
the crew of a whaler used to fast, abstaining from women and liquor,
and confessing their most secret faults to each other; and if any
man was found to have sinned deeply, he was forbidden to share in
the expedition. In the island of Mabuiag continence was imposed on
the people both before they went to hunt the dugong and while the
turtles were pairing. The turtle-season lasts during parts of
October and November; and if at that time unmarried persons had
sexual intercourse with each other, it was believed that when the
canoe approached the floating turtle, the male would separate from
the female and both would dive down in different directions. So at
Mowat in New Guinea men have no relation with women when the turtles
are coupling, though there is considerable laxity of morals at other
times. In the island of Uap, one of the Caroline group, every
fisherman plying his craft lies under a most strict taboo during the
whole of the fishing season, which lasts for six or eight weeks.
Whenever he is on shore he must spend all his time in
the men’s clubhouse, and under no pretext whatever may he visit his
own house or so much as look upon the faces of his wife and
womenkind. Were he but to steal a glance at them, they think that
flying fish must inevitably bore out his eyes at night. If his wife,
mother, or daughter brings any gift for him or wishes to talk with
him, she must stand down towards the shore with her back turned to
the men’s clubhouse. Then the fisherman may go out and speak to her,
or with his back turned to her he may receive what she has brought
him; after which he must return at once to his rigorous confinement.
Indeed the fishermen may not even join in dance and song with the
other men of the clubhouse in the evening; they must keep to
themselves and be silent. In Mirzapur, when the seed of the silkworm
is brought into the house, the Kol or Bhuiyar puts it in a place
which has been carefully plastered with holy cowdung to bring good
luck. From that time the owner must be careful to avoid ceremonial
impurity. He must give up cohabitation with his wife; he may not
sleep on a bed, nor shave himself, nor cut his nails, nor anoint
himself with oil, nor eat food cooked with butter, nor tell lies,
nor do anything else that he deems wrong. He vows to Singarmati Devi
that, if the worms are duly born, he will make her an offering. When
the cocoons open and the worms appear, he assembles the women of the
house and they sing the same song as at the birth of a baby, and red
lead is smeared on the parting of the hair of all the married women
of the neighbourhood. When the worms pair, rejoicings are made as at
a marriage. Thus the silkworms are treated as far as possible like
human beings. Hence the custom which prohibits the commerce of the
sexes while the worms are hatching may be only an extension, by
analogy, of the rule which is observed by many races, that the
husband may not cohabit with his wife during pregnancy and
lactation.
In the island of Nias the hunters sometimes dig pits, cover them
lightly over with twigs, grass, and leaves, and then drive the game
into them. While they are engaged in digging the pits, they have to
observe a number of taboos. They may not spit, or the game would
turn back in disgust from the pits. They may not laugh, or the sides
of the pit would fall in. They may eat no salt, prepare no fodder
for swine, and in the pit they may not scratch themselves, for if
they did, the earth would be loosened and would collapse. And the
night after digging the pit they may have no intercourse with a
woman, or all their labour would be in vain.
This practice of observing strict chastity as a condition of success
in hunting and fishing is very common among rude races; and the
instances of it which have been cited render it probable that the
rule is always based on a superstition rather than on a
consideration of the temporary weakness which a breach of the custom
may entail on the hunter or fisherman. In general it appears to be
supposed that the evil effect of incontinence is not so much that it
weakens him, as that, for some reason or other, it offends the
animals, who in consequence will not suffer themselves to be caught.
A Carrier Indian of British Columbia used to separate from his wife
for a full month before he set traps for bears, and during this time
he might not drink from the same vessel as his wife, but had to use
a special cup made of birch bark. The neglect of these precautions
would cause the game to escape after it had been snared. But when he
was about to snare martens, the period of continence was cut down to
ten days.
An examination of all the many cases in which the savage bridles
his passions and remains chaste from motives of superstition, would
be instructive, but I cannot attempt it now. I will only add a few
miscellaneous examples of the custom before passing to the
ceremonies of purification which are observed by the hunter and
fisherman after the chase and the fishing are over. The workers in
the salt-pans near Siphoum, in Laos, must abstain from all sexual
relations at the place where they are at work; and they may not
cover their heads nor shelter themselves under an umbrella from the
burning rays of the sun. Among the Kachins of Burma the ferment used
in making beer is prepared by two women, chosen by lot, who during
the three days that the process lasts may eat nothing acid and may
have no conjugal relations with their husbands; otherwise it is
supposed that the beer would be sour. Among the Masai honey-wine is
brewed by a man and a woman who live in a hut set apart for them
till the wine is ready for drinking. But they are strictly forbidden
to have sexual intercourse with each other during this time; it is
deemed essential that they should be chaste for two days before they
begin to brew and for the whole of the six days that the brewing
lasts. The Masai believe that were the couple to
commit a breach of chastity, not only would the wine be undrinkable
but the bees which made the honey would fly away. Similarly they
require that a man who is making poison should sleep alone and
observe other taboos which render him almost an outcast. The
Wandorobbo, a tribe of the same region as the Masai, believe that
the mere presence of a woman in the neighbourhood of a man who is
brewing poison would deprive the poison of its venom, and that the
same thing would happen if the wife of the poison-maker were to
commit adultery while her husband was brewing the poison. In this
last case it is obvious that a rationalistic explanation of the
taboo is impossible. How could the loss of virtue in the poison be a
physical consequence of the loss of virtue in the poison-maker's
wife? Clearly the effect which the wife’s adultery is supposed to
have on the poison is a case of sympathetic magic; her misconduct
sympathetically affects her husband and his work at a distance. We
may, accordingly, infer with some confidence that the rule of
continence imposed on the poison-maker himself is also a simple case
of sympathetic magic, and not, as a civilised reader might be disposed
to conjecture, a wise precaution designed to prevent him
from accidentally poisoning his wife.
Among the Ba-Pedi and Ba-Thonga tribes of South Africa, when the
site of a new village has been chosen and the houses are building,
all the married people are forbidden to have conjugal relations with
each other. If it were discovered that any couple had broken this
rule, the work of building would immediately be stopped, and another
site chosen for the village. For they think that a breach of
chastity would spoil the village which was growing up, that the
chief would grow lean and perhaps die, and that the guilty woman
would never bear another child. Among the Chams of Cochin-China,
when a dam is made or repaired on a river for the sake of
irrigation, the chief who offers the traditional sacrifices and
implores the protection of the deities on the work has to stay all
the time in a wretched hovel of straw, taking no part in the labour,
and observing the strictest continence; for the people believe that
a breach of his chastity would entail a breach of the dam. Here, it
is plain, there can be no idea of maintaining the mere bodily vigour of
the chief for the accomplishment of a task in which he does not
even bear a hand.
If the taboos or abstinences observed by hunters and fishermen
before and during the chase are dictated, as we have seen reason to
believe, by superstitious motives, and chiefly by a dread of
offending or frightening the spirits of the creatures whom it is
proposed to kill, we may expect that the restraints imposed after
the slaughter has been perpetrated will be at least as stringent,
the slayer and his friends having now the added fear of the angry
ghosts of his victims before their eyes. Whereas on the hypothesis
that the abstinences in question, including those from food, drink,
and sleep, are merely salutary precautions for maintaining the men
in health and strength to do their work, it is obvious that the
observance of these abstinences or taboos after the work is done,
that is, when the game is killed and the fish caught, must be wholly
superfluous, absurd, and inexplicable. But as I shall now show,
these taboos often continue to be enforced or even increased in
stringency after the death of the animals, in other words, after the
hunter or fisher has accomplished his object by making his bag or
landing his fish. The rationalistic theory of them therefore breaks
down entirely; the hypothesis of superstition is clearly the only
one open to us.
Among the Inuit or Esquimaux of Bering Strait "the dead bodies of
various animals must be treated very carefully by the hunter who
obtains them, so that their shades may not be offended and bring bad
luck or even death upon him or his people." Hence the Unalit hunter
who has had a hand in the killing of a white whale, or even has
helped to take one from the net, is not allowed to do any work for
the next four days, that being the time during which the shade or
ghost of the whale is supposed to stay with its body. At the same
time no one in the village may use any sharp or pointed instrument
for fear of
wounding the whale's shade, which is believed to be hovering
invisible in the neighbourhood; and no loud noise may be made lest
it should frighten or offend the ghost. Whoever cuts a whale's
body with an iron axe will die. Indeed the use of all iron
instruments is forbidden in the village during these four days.
These same Esquimaux celebrate a great annual festival in December
when the bladders of all the seals, whales, walrus, and white bears
that have been killed in the year are taken into the assembly-house
of the village. They remain there for several days, and so long as
they do so the hunters avoid all intercourse with women, saying that
if they failed in that respect the shades of the dead animals would
be offended. Similarly among the Aleuts of Alaska the hunter who had
struck a whale with a charmed spear would not throw again, but
returned at once to his home and separated himself from his people
in a hut specially constructed for the purpose, where he stayed for
three days without food or drink, and without touching or looking
upon a woman. During this time of seclusion he snorted occasionally
in imitation of the wounded and dying whale, in order to prevent the
whale which he had struck from leaving the coast. On the fourth day
he emerged from his seclusion and bathed in the sea, shrieking in a
hoarse voice and beating the water with his hands. Then, taking with
him a companion, he repaired to that part of the shore where he
expected to find the whale stranded. If the beast was dead, he at
once cut out the place where the death-wound had been inflicted. If
the whale was not dead, he again returned to his home and continued
washing himself until the whale died. Here the hunter's imitation of
the wounded whale is probably intended by means of homoeopathic
magic to make the beast die in earnest. Once more the soul of the
grim polar bear is offended if the taboos which concern him are not
observed. His soul tarries for three days near the spot where it
left his body, and during these days the Esquimaux are particularly
careful to conform rigidly to the laws of taboo, because they
believe that punishment overtakes the transgressor who sins against
the soul of a bear far more speedily than him who sins against the
souls of the sea-beasts.
When the Kayans have shot one of the dreaded Bornean panthers, they
are very anxious about the safety of their souls, for they think
that the soul of a panther is almost more powerful than their own.
Hence they step eight times over the carcase of the dead beast
reciting the spell, "Panther, thy soul under my soul." On returning
home they smear themselves, their dogs, and their weapons with the
blood of fowls in order to calm their souls and hinder them from
fleeing away; for, being themselves fond of the flesh of fowls, they
ascribe the same taste to their souls. For eight days afterwards
they must bathe by day and by night before going out again to the
chase. Among the Hottentots, when a man has killed a lion, leopard,
elephant, or rhinoceros, he is esteemed a great hero, but he has to
remain at home quite idle for three days, during which his wife may
not come near him; she is also enjoined to restrict herself to a
poor diet and to eat no more than is barely necessary to keep her in
health. Similarly the Lapps deem it the height of glory to kill a
bear, which they consider the king of beasts. Nevertheless, all the
men who take part in the slaughter are regarded as unclean, and must
live by themselves for three days in a hut or tent made specially
for them, where they cut up and cook the bear’s carcase. The
reindeer which brought in the carcase on a sledge may not be driven
by a woman for a whole year; indeed, according to one account, it
may not be used by anybody for that period. Before the men go into
the tent where they are to be secluded, they strip themselves of the
garments they had worn in killing the bear, and their wives spit the
red juice of alder bark in their faces. They enter the tent not by
the ordinary door but by an opening at the back. When the bear’s
flesh has been cooked, a portion of it is sent by the hands of two
men to the women, who may not approach the men's tent while the
cooking is going on. The men who convey the flesh to the women
pretend to be strangers bringing presents from a foreign land; the
women keep up the pretence and promise to tie red
threads round the legs of the strangers. The bear's flesh may not be
passed in to the women through the door of their tent, but must be
thrust in at a special opening made by lifting up the hem of the
tent-cover. When the three days’ seclusion is over and the men are
at liberty to return to their wives, they run, one after the other,
round the fire, holding the chain by which pots are suspended over
it. This is regarded as a form of purification; they may now leave
the tent by the ordinary door and rejoin the women. But the leader
of the party must still abstain from cohabitation with his wife for
two days more.
Again, the Caffres are said to dread greatly the boa-constrictor or
an enormous serpent resembling it; "and being influenced by certain
superstitious notions they even fear to kill it. The man who
happened to put it to death, whether in self-defence or otherwise,
was formerly required to lie in a running stream of water during the
day for several weeks together; and no beast whatever was allowed to
be slaughtered at the hamlet to which he belonged, until this duty
had been fully performed. The body of the snake was then taken and
carefully buried in a trench, dug close to the cattle-fold, where
its remains, like those of a chief, were henceforward kept perfectly
undisturbed. The period of penance, as in the case of mourning for
the dead, is now happily reduced to a few days." In Madras it is
considered a great sin to kill a cobra. When this has happened, the
people generally burn the body of the serpent, just as they burn the
bodies of human beings. The murderer deems himself polluted for
three days. On the second day milk is poured on the remains of the
cobra. On the third day the guilty wretch is free from pollution.
In these last cases the animal whose slaughter has to be atoned
for is sacred, that is, it is one whose life is commonly spared from
motives of superstition. Yet the treatment of the sacrilegious
slayer seems to resemble so closely the treatment of hunters and
fishermen who have killed animals for food in the ordinary course of
business, that the ideas on which both sets of customs are based may
be assumed to be substantially the same. Those ideas, if I am right,
are the respect which the savage feels for the souls of beasts,
especially valuable or formidable beasts, and the dread which he
entertains of their vengeful ghosts. Some confirmation of this view
may be drawn from the ceremonies observed by fishermen of Annam when
the carcase of a whale is washed ashore. These fisherfolk, we are
told, worship the whale on account of the benefits they derive from
it. There is hardly a village on the sea-shore which has not its
small pagoda, containing the bones, more or less authentic, of a
whale. When a dead whale is washed ashore, the people accord it a
solemn burial. The man who first caught sight of it acts as chief
mourner, performing the rites which as chief mourner and heir he
would perform for a human kinsman. He puts on all the garb of woe,
the straw hat, the white robe with long sleeves turned inside out,
and the other paraphernalia of full mourning. As next of kin to the
deceased he presides over the funeral rites. Perfumes are burned,
sticks of incense kindled, leaves of gold and silver scattered,
crackers let off. When the flesh has been cut off and the oil
extracted, the remains of the carcase are buried in the sand. After
wards a shed is set up and offerings are made in it. Usually some
time after the burial the spirit of the dead whale takes possession
of some person in the village and declares by his mouth whether he
is a male or a female.
Maria Einhaus
James George Frazer - The Golden Bough
Chapter 67.3. The External Soul in Animals
But in practice, as in folk-tales, it is not merely with inanimate
objects and plants that a person is occasionally believed to be
united by a bond of physical sympathy. The same bond, it is
supposed, may exist between a man and an animal, so that the welfare
of the one depends on the welfare of the other, and when the animal
dies the man dies also. The analogy between the custom and the tales
is all the closer because in both of them the power of thus removing
the soul from the body and stowing it away in an animal is often a
special privilege of wizards and witches. Thus the Yakuts of Siberia
believe that every shaman or wizard keeps his soul, or one of his
souls, incarnate in an animal which is carefully concealed from all
the world. "Nobody can find my external soul," said one famous
wizard, "it lies hidden far away in the stony mountains of
Edzhigansk." Only once a year, when the last snows melt and the
earth turns black, do these external souls of wizards appear in the
shape of animals among the dwellings of men. They wander everywhere,
yet none but wizards can see them. The strong ones sweep roaring and
noisily along, the weak steal about quietly and furtively. Often
they fight, and then the wizard whose external soul is beaten, falls
ill or dies. The weakest and most cowardly wizards are they whose
souls are incarnate in the shape of dogs, for the dog gives his
human double no peace, but gnaws his heart and tears his body. The
most powerful wizards are they whose external souls have the shape
of stallions, elks, black bears, eagles, or boars. Again, the
Samoyeds of the Turukhinsk region hold that every shaman has a
familiar spirit in the shape of a boar, which he leads about by a
magic belt. On the death of the boar the shaman himself dies; and
stories are told of battles between wizards, who send their spirits
to fight before they encounter each other in person. The Malays
believe that "the soul of a person may pass into another person or
into an animal, or rather that such a mysterious relation can arise
between the two that the fate of the one is wholly dependent on that
of the other." Among the Melanesians of Mota, one of the New
Hebrides islands, the conception of an external soul is carried out
in the practice of daily life. In the Mota language the word tamaniu
signifies "something animate or inanimate which a man has come to
believe to have an existence intimately connected with his own . It
was not every one in Mota who had his tamaniu; only some men fancied
that they had this relation to a lizard, a snake, or it might be a
stone; sometimes the thing was sought for and found by drinking the
infusion of certain leaves and heaping together the dregs; then
whatever living thing was first seen in or upon the heap was the
tamaniu. It was watched but not fed or worshipped; the natives
believed that it came at call, and that the life of the man was
bound up with the life of his tamaniu, if a living thing, or with
its safety; should it die, or if not living get broken or be lost,
the man would die. Hence in case of sickness they would send to see
if the tamaniu was safe and well." The theory of an external
soul deposited in an animal appears to be very prevalent in West
Africa, particularly in Nigeria, the Cameroons, and the Gaboon.
Among the Fans of the Gaboon every wizard is believed at initiation
to unite his life with that of some particular wild animal by a rite
of blood-brotherhood; he draws blood from the ear of the animal and
from his own arm, and inoculates the animal with his own blood, and
himself with the blood of the beast. Henceforth such an intimate
union is established between the two that the death of the one
entails the death of the other. The alliance is thought to bring to
the wizard or sorcerer a great accession of power, which he can turn
to his advantage in various ways. In the first place, like the
warlock in the fairy tales who has deposited his life outside of
himself in some safe place, the Fan wizard now deems himself
invulnerable. Moreover, the animal with which he has exchanged blood
has become his familiar, and will obey any orders he may choose to
give it; so he makes use of it to injure and kill his enemies. For
that reason the creature with whom he establishes the relation of
blood-brotherhood is never a tame or domestic animal, but always a
ferocious and dangerous wild beast, such as a leopard, a black
serpent, a crocodile, a hippopotamus, a wild boar, or a vulture. Of
all these creatures the leopard is by far the commonest familiar of
Fan wizards, and next to it comes the black serpent; the vulture is
the rarest. Witches as well as wizards have their familiars; but the
animals with which the lives of women are thus bound up generally
differ from those to which men commit their external souls. A witch
never has a panther for her familiar, but often a venomous species
of serpent, sometimes a horned viper, sometimes a black serpent,
sometimes a green one that lives in banana-trees; or it may be a
vulture, an owl, or other bird of night. In every case the beast or
bird with which the witch or wizard has contracted this mystic
alliance is an individual, never a species; and when the individual
animal dies the alliance is naturally at an end, since the death of
the animal is supposed to entail the death of the man. Similar
beliefs are held by the natives of the Cross River valley within the
provinces of the Cameroons. Groups of people, generally the
inhabitants of a village, have chosen various animals, with which
they believe themselves to stand on a footing of intimate friendship
or relationship. Amongst such animals are hippopotamuses, elephants,
leopards, crocodiles, gorillas, fish, and serpents, all of them
creatures which are either very strong or can easily hide themselves
in the water or a thicket. This power of concealing themselves is
said to be an indispensable condition of the choice of animal
familiars, since the animal friend or helper is expected to injure
his owner's enemy by stealth; for example, if he is a hippopotamus,
he will bob up suddenly out of the water and capsize the enemy's
canoe. Between the animals and their human friends or kinsfolk such
a sympathetic relation is supposed to exist that the moment the
animal dies the man dies also, and similarly the instant the man
perishes so does the beast. From this it follows that the animal
kinsfolk may never be shot at or molested for fear of injuring or
killing the persons whose lives are knit up with the lives of the
brutes. This does not, however, prevent the people of a village, who
have elephants for their animal friends, from hunting elephants. For
they do not respect the whole species but merely certain individuals
of it, which stand in an intimate relation to certain individual men
and women; and they imagine that they can always distinguish these
brother elephants from the common herd of elephants which are mere
elephants and nothing more. The recognition indeed is said to be
mutual. When a hunter, who has an elephant for his friend, meets a
human elephant, as we may call it, the noble animal lifts up a paw
and holds it before his face, as much as to say, "Don't shoot." Were
the hunter so inhuman as to fire on and wound such an elephant, the
person whose life was bound up with the elephant would fall ill.
The Balong of the Cameroons think that every man has
several souls, of which one is in his body and another in an animal,
such as an elephant, a wild pig, a leopard, and so forth. When a man
comes home, feeling ill, and says, "I shall soon die," and dies
accordingly, the people aver that one of his souls has been killed
in a wild pig or a leopard and that the death of the external soul
has caused the death of the soul in his body. A similar belief in
the external souls of living people is entertained by the Ibos, an
important tribe of the Niger delta. They think that a man’s spirit
can quit his body for a time during life and take up its abode in an
animal. A man who wishes to acquire this power procures a certain
drug from a wise man and mixes it with his food. After that his soul
goes out and enters into an animal. If it should happen that the
animal is killed while the man’s soul is lodged in it, the man dies;
and if the animal be wounded, the man’s body will presently be
covered with boils. This belief instigates to many deeds of
darkness; for a sly rogue will sometimes surreptitiously administer
the magical drug to his enemy in his food, and having thus smuggled
the other's soul into an animal will destroy the creature, and with
it the man whose soul is lodged in it. The negroes of Calabar,
at the mouth of the Niger, believe that every person has four souls,
one of which always lives outside of his or her body in the form of
a wild beast in the forest. This external soul, or bush soul, as
Miss Kingsley calls it, may be almost any animal, for example, a
leopard, a fish, or a tortoise; but it is never a domestic animal
and never a plant. Unless he is gifted with second sight, a man
cannot see his own bush soul, but a diviner will often tell him what
sort of creature his bush soul is, and after that the man will be
careful not to kill any animal of that species, and will strongly
object to any one else doing so. A man and his sons have usually the
same sort of animals for their bush souls, and so with a mother and
her daughters. But sometimes all the children of a family take after
the bush soul of their father; for example, if his external soul is
a leopard, all his sons and daughters will have leopards for their
external souls. And on the other hand, sometimes they all take after
their mother; for instance, if her external soul is a tortoise, all
the external souls of her sons and daughters will be tortoises too.
So intimately bound up is the life of the man with that of the
animal which he regards as his external or bush soul, that the death
or injury of the animal necessarily entails the death or injury of
the man. And, conversely, when the man dies, his bush soul can no
longer find a place of rest, but goes mad and rushes into the fire
or charges people and is knocked on the head, and that is an end of
it. Near Eket in North Calabar there is a sacred lake, the fish
of which are carefully preserved because the people believe that
their own souls are lodged in the fish, and that with every fish
killed a human life would be simultaneously extinguished. In the
Calabar River not very many years ago there used to be a huge old
crocodile, popularly supposed to contain the external soul of a
chief who resided in the flesh at Duke Town. Sporting vice-consuls
used from time to time to hunt the animal, and once an officer
contrived to hit it. Forthwith the chief was laid up with a wound in
his leg. He gave out that a dog had bitten him, but no doubt the
wise shook their heads and refused to be put off with so flimsy a
pretext. Again, among several tribes on the banks of the Niger
between Lokoja and the delta there prevails "a belief in the
possibility of a man possessing an alter ego in the form of some
animal such as a crocodile or a hippopotamus. It is believed that
such a person's life is bound up with that of the animal to such an
extent that, whatever affects the one produces a corresponding
impression upon the other, and that if one dies the other must
speedily do so too. It happened not very long ago that an Englishman
shot a hippopotamus close to a native village; the friends of a
woman who died the same night in the village demanded and eventually
obtained five pounds as compensation for the murder of the
woman." Amongst the Zapotecs of Central America, when a woman
was about to be confined, her relations assembled in the hut, and
began to draw on the floor figures of different animals, rubbing
each one out as soon as it was completed. This went on till the
moment of birth, and the figure that then remained sketched upon the
ground was called the child’s tona or second self. "When the child
grew old enough, he procured the animal that represented him and
took care of it, as it was believed that health and existence were
bound up with that of the animal's, in fact that the death of both
would occur simultaneously," or rather that when the animal died the
man would die too. Among the Indians of Guatemala and Honduras the
nagual or naual is "that animate or inanimate object, generally an
animal, which stands in a parallel relation to a particular man, so
that the weal and woe of the man depend on the fate of the nagual."
According to an old writer, many Indians of Guatemala "are deluded
by the devil to believe that their life dependeth upon the life of
such and such a beast (which they take unto them as their familiar
spirit), and think that when that beast dieth they must die; when he
is chased, their hearts pant; when he is faint, they are faint; nay,
it happeneth that by the devil's delusion they appear in the shape
of that beast (which commonly by their choice is a buck, or doe, a
lion, or tigre, or dog, or eagle) and in that shape have been shot
at and wounded." The Indians were persuaded that the death of their
nagual would entail their own. Legend affirms that in the first
battles with the Spaniards on the plateau of Quetzaltenango the
naguals of the Indian chiefs fought in the form of serpents. The
nagual of the highest chief was especially conspicuous, because it
had the form of a great bird, resplendent in green plumage. The
Spanish general Pedro de Alvarado killed the bird with his lance,
and at the same moment the Indian chief fell dead to the
ground. In many tribes of South-Eastern Australia each sex used
to regard a particular species of animals in the same way that a
Central American Indian regarded his nagual, but with this
difference, that whereas the Indian apparently knew the individual
animal with which his life was bound up, the Australians only knew
that each of their lives was bound up with some one animal of the
species, but they could not say with which. The result naturally was
that every man spared and protected all the animals of the species
with which the lives of the men were bound up; and every woman
spared and protected all the animals of the species with which the
lives of the women were bound up; because no one knew but that the
death of any animal of the respective species might entail his or
her own; just as the killing of the green bird was immediately
followed by the death of the Indian chief, and the killing of the
parrot by the death of Punchkin in the fairy tale. Thus, for
example, the Wotjobaluk tribe of South-Eastern Australia "held that
'the life of Ngu&caron (the Bat) is
the life of a man, and the life of Yártatgu&caron (the Nightjar)
is the life of a woman,' and that when either of these creatures is
killed the life of some man or of some woman is shortened. In such a
case every man or every woman in the camp feared that he or she
might be the victim, and from this cause great fights arose in this
tribe. I learn that in these fights, men on one side and women on
the other, it was not at all certain which would be victorious, for
at times the women gave the men a severe drubbing with their
yamsticks, while often women were injured or killed by spears." The
Wotjobaluk said that the bat was the man's "brother" and that the
nightjar was his "wife." The particular species of animals with
which the lives of the sexes were believed to be respectively bound
up varied somewhat from tribe to tribe. Thus whereas among the
Wotjobaluk the bat was the animal of the men, at Gunbower Creek on
the Lower Murray the bat seems to have been the animal of the women,
for the natives would not kill it for the reason that "if it was
killed, one of their lubras [women] would be sure to die in
consequence." But whatever the particular sorts of creature with
which the lives of men and women were believed to be bound up, the
belief itself and the fights to which it gave rise are known to have
prevailed over a large part of South-Eastern Australia, and probably
they extended much farther. The belief was a very serious one, and
so consequently were the fights which sprang from it. Thus among
some tribes of Victoria "the common bat belongs to the men, who
protect it against injury, even to the half-killing of their wives
for its sake. The fern owl, or large goatsucker, belongs to the
women, and, although a bird of evil omen, creating terror at night
by its cry, it is jealously protected by them. If a man kills one,
they are as much enraged as if it was one of their children, and
will strike him with their long poles." The jealous protection
thus afforded by Australian men and women to bats and owls
respectively (for bats and owls seem to be the creatures usually
allotted to the two sexes) is not based upon purely selfish
considerations. For each man believes that not only his own life but
the lives of his father, brothers, sons, and so on are bound up with
the lives of particular bats, and that therefore in protecting the
bat species he is protecting the lives of all his male relations as
well as his own. Similarly, each woman believes that the lives of
her mother, sisters, daughters, and so forth, equally with her own,
are bound up with the lives of particular owls, and that in guarding
the owl species she is guarding the lives of all her female
relations besides her own. Now, when men’s lives are thus supposed
to be contained in certain animals, it is obvious that the animals
can hardly be distinguished from the men, or the men from the
animals. If my brother John’s life is in a bat, then, on the one
hand, the bat is my brother as well as John; and, on the other hand,
John is in a sense a bat, since his life is in a bat. Similarly, if
my sister Mary's life is in an owl, then the owl is my sister and
Mary is an owl. This is a natural enough conclusion, and the
Australians have not failed to draw it. When the bat is the man’s
animal, it is called his brother; and when the owl is the woman’s
animal, it is called her sister. And conversely a man addresses a
woman as an owl, and she addresses him as a bat. So with the other
animals allotted to the sexes respectively in other tribes. For
example, among the Kurnai all emu-wrens were "brothers" of the men,
and all the men were emu-wrens; all superb warblers were "sisters"
of the women, and all the women were superb warblers. But when
a savage names himself after an animal, calls it his brother, and
refuses to kill it, the animal is said to be his totem. Accordingly
in the tribes of South-Eastern Australia which we have been
considering the bat and the owl, the emu-wren and the superb
warbler, may properly be described as totems of the sexes. But the
assignation of a totem to a sex is comparatively rare, and has
hitherto been discovered nowhere but in Australia. Far more commonly
the totem is appropriated not to a sex, but to a clan, and is
hereditary either in the male or female line. The relation of an
individual to the clan totem does not differ in kind from his
relation to the sex totem; he will not kill it, he speaks of it as his
brother, and he calls himself by its name. Now if the relations
are similar, the explanation which holds good of the one ought
equally to hold good of the other. Therefore, the reason why a clan
revere a particular species of animals or plants (for the clan totem
may be a plant) and call themselves after it, would seem to be a
belief that the life of each individual of the clan is bound up with
some one animal or plant of the species, and that his or her death
would be the consequence of killing that particular animal, or
destroying that particular plant. This explanation of totemism
squares very well with Sir George Grey’s definition of a totem or
kobong in Western Australia. He says: "A certain mysterious
connexion exists between a family and its kobong, so that a member
of the family will never kill an animal of the species to which his
kobong belongs, should he find it asleep; indeed he always kills it
reluctantly, and never without affording it a chance to escape. This
arises from the family belief that some one individual of the
species is their nearest friend, to kill whom would be a great
crime, and to be carefully avoided. Similarly, a native who has a
vegetable for his kobong may not gather it under certain
circumstances, and at a particular period of the year." Here it will
be observed that though each man spares all the animals or plants of
the species, they are not all equally precious to him; far from it,
out of the whole species there is only one which is specially dear
to him; but as he does not know which the dear one is, he is obliged
to spare them all from fear of injuring the one. Again, this
explanation of the clan totem harmonises with the supposed effect of
killing one of the totem species. "One day one of the blacks killed
a crow. Three or four days afterwards a Boortwa (crow) [i.e. a man
of the Crow clan] named Larry died. He had been ailing for some
days, but the killing of his wingong [totem] hastened his death.”
Here the killing of the crow caused the death of a man of the Crow
clan, exactly as, in the case of the sex-totems, the killing of a
bat causes the death of a Bat-man or the killing of an owl causes
the death of an Owl-woman. Similarly, the killing of his nagual
causes the death of a Central American Indian, the killing of his
bush soul causes the death of a Calabar negro, the killing of his
tamaniu causes the death of a Banks Islander, and the killing of the
animal in which his life is stowed away causes the death of the
giant or warlock in the fairy tale. . Thus it appears that the
story of "The giant who had no heart in his body" may perhaps
furnish the key to the relation which is supposed to subsist between
a man and his totem. The totem, on this theory, is simply the
receptacle in which a man keeps his life, as Punchkin kept his life
in a parrot, and Bidasari kept her soul in a golden fish. It is no
valid objection to this view that when a savage has both a sex totem
and a clan totem his life must be bound up with two different
animals, the death of either of which would entail his own. If a man
has more vital places than one in his body, why, the savage may
think, should he not have more vital places than one outside it?
Why, since he can put his life outside himself, should he not
transfer one portion of it to one animal and another to another? The
divisibility of life, or, to put it otherwise, the plurality of
souls, is an idea suggested by many familiar facts, and has
commended itself to philosophers like Plato, as well as to savages.
It is only when the notion of a soul, from being a quasi-scientific
hypothesis, becomes a theological dogma that its unity and
indivisibility are insisted upon as essential. The savage,
unshackled by dogma, is free to explain the facts of life by the
assumption of as many souls as he thinks necessary. Hence, for
example, the Caribs supposed that there was one soul in the head,
another in the heart, and other souls at all the places where an
artery is felt pulsating. Some of the Hidatsa Indians explain the
phenomena of gradual death, when the extremities appear dead first,
by supposing that man has four souls, and that they quit the body,
not simultaneously, but one after the other, dissolution being only
complete when all four have departed. Some of the Dyaks of Borneo
and the Malays of the Peninsula believe that every man has seven
souls. The Alfoors of Poso in Celebes are of opinion that he has
three. The natives of Laos suppose that the body is the seat of
thirty spirits, which reside in the hands, the feet, the mouth, the
eyes, and so on. Hence, from the primitive point of view, it is
perfectly possible that a savage should have one soul in his sex
totem and another in his clan totem. However, as I have observed,
sex totems have been found nowhere but in Australia; so that as a
rule the savage who practises totemism need not have more than one
soul out of his body at a time. If this explanation of the
totem as a receptacle in which a man keeps his soul or one of his
souls is correct, we should expect to find some totemic people of
whom it is expressly said that every man amongst them is believed to
keep at least one soul permanently out of his body, and that the
destruction of this external soul is supposed to entail the death of
its owner. Such a people are the Bataks of Sumatra. The Bataks are
divided into exogamous clans (margas) with descent in the male line;
and each clan is forbidden to eat the flesh of a particular animal.
One clan may not eat the tiger, another the ape, another the
crocodile, another the dog, another the cat, another the dove,
another the white buffalo, and another the locust. The reason given
by members of a clan for abstaining from the flesh of the particular
animal is either that they are descended from animals of that
species, and that their souls after death may transmigrate into the
animals, or that they or their forefathers have been under certain
obligations to the creatures. Sometimes, but not always, the clan bears
the name of the animal. Thus the Bataks have totemism in full.
But, further, each Batak believes that he has seven or, on a more
moderate computation, three souls. One of these souls is always
outside the body, but nevertheless whenever it dies, however far
away it may be at the time, that same moment the man dies also. The
writer who mentions this belief says nothing about the Batak totems;
but on the analogy of the Australian, Central American, and African
evidence we may conjecture that the external soul, whose death
entails the death of the man, is housed in the totemic animal or
plant. Against this view it can hardly be thought to militate
that the Batak does not in set terms affirm his external soul to be
in his totem, but alleges other grounds for respecting the sacred
animal or plant of his clan. For if a savage seriously believes that
his life is bound up with an external object, it is in the last
degree unlikely that he will let any stranger into the secret. In
all that touches his inmost life and beliefs the savage is
exceedingly suspicious and reserved; Europeans have resided among
savages for years without discovering some of their capital articles
of faith, and in the end the discovery has often been the result of
accident. Above all, the savage lives in an intense and perpetual
dread of assassination by sorcery; the most trifling relics of his
person—the clippings of his hair and nails, his spittle, the
remnants of his food, his very name—all these may, he fancies, be
turned by the sorcerer to his destruction, and he is therefore
anxiously careful to conceal or destroy them. But if in matters such
as these, which are but the outposts and outworks of his life, he is
so shy and secretive, how close must be the concealment, how
impenetrable the reserve in which he enshrouds the inner keep and
citadel of his being! When the princess in the fairy tale asks the
giant where he keeps his soul, he often gives false or evasive
answers, and it is only after much coaxing and wheedling that the
secret is at last wrung from him. In his jealous reticence the giant
resembles the timid and furtive savage; but whereas the exigencies
of the story demand that the giant should at last reveal his secret,
no such obligation is laid on the savage; and no inducement that can
be offered is likely to tempt him to imperil his soul by revealing
its hiding-place to a stranger. It is therefore no matter for
surprise that the central mystery of the savage’s life should so
long have remained a secret, and that we should be left to piece it
together from scattered hints and fragments and from the
recollections of it which linger in fairy tales.