In the following brief account of totemism I borrow largely from a
small but peculiarly valuable book by Dr. Frazer.[149] “A totem is a
class of material objects which a savage regards with superstitious
respect, believing that there exists between him and every member
of the class an intimate and altogether special relation.... As
distinguished from a fetich, a totem is never an isolated individual,
but always a class of objects, generally a species of animals or plants.
[149] J. G. Frazer, _Totemism_, 1887. (An expansion of the
article on “Totemism” in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_, ninth
edition.)
“Considered in relation to men, totems are of at least three kinds:—(1)
The clan totem, common to a whole clan, and passing by inheritance from
generation to generation; (2) the sex totem, common either to all the
males or to all the females of a tribe, to the exclusion in either
case of the other sex; (3) the individual totem, belonging to a single
individual and not passing to his descendants.” The first is by far the
most important, and we will confine ourselves to it alone.
“The clan totem is reverenced by a body of men and women who call
themselves by the name of the totem, believe themselves to be of one
blood, descendants of a common ancestor, and are bound together by
common obligations to each other and by a common faith in the totem.
Totemism is thus both a religious and a social system. In its religious
aspect it consists of the relations of mutual respect and protection
between a man and his totem; in its social aspect it consists of the
relations of the clansmen to each other and to men of other clans. In
the later history of totemism these two sides tend to part company;”
the social system sometimes survives the religious, or the reverse may
obtain.
The members of a totem clan call themselves by the name of their totem,
and commonly believe themselves to be actually descended from it. For
example, I found that the following animals were totems in Torres
Straits: dog, dugong, cassowary, crocodile, snake, turtle, king-fish,
shark, sting-ray, giant-clam, etc. “No cassowary-man would kill a
cassowary; if one was seen doing so his clansmen would ‘fight him, they
feel sorry. Cassowary he all same as relation, he belong same family.’
The members of the cassowary clan were supposed to be especially good
runners. If there was going to be a fight a cassowary man would say
to himself, ‘My leg is long and thin, I can run and not feel tired;
my legs will go quickly, and the grass will not entangle them.’... If
a dog-man killed a dog his clansmen would ‘fight’ him, but they would
not do anything if an outsider killed one. A member of this clan was
supposed to have great sympathy with dogs, and to understand them
better than other men.... No member of any clan might kill or eat the
totem of that clan. This prohibition did not apply to the totem of any
clan other than that to which the person belonged.”[150]
[150] A. C. Haddon, “The Ethnography of the Western Tribe of
Torres Straits,” _Journ. Anth. Inst._, xix., 1890, p. 393.
The reader is referred to Mr. Frazer’s book for analogous beliefs and
practices among various peoples. The relation between a man and his
totem is one of mutual help and protection. If a man respects and cares
for the totem, he expects that the totem will do the same by him.
“In order, apparently, to put himself more fully under the protection
of the totem the clansman is in the habit of assimilating himself to
the totem by dressing in the skin or other part of the totem animal,
arranging his hair and mutilating his body so as to resemble the totem,
and representing the totem on his body by cicatrices, tattooing, or
paint” (Frazer, p. 26). As a matter of fact, there are comparatively
few definite statements that markings on the person represent the
totem of that person, but there can be little doubt that this is of
wide occurrence and probably has been universal. Some of the best
authenticated examples come from North America. Hints have come from
Australia. I have in Torres Straits seen four old women who had their
totems cut into the small of their backs; these were the dugong (2),
snake, and sting-ray (?), and I was informed that the men used to
scarify the shoulder or the calf of the leg with the totem device, or
they carried about with them pieces of their totems or effigies of them.
The latest information on this subject is that collected by H. Vaughan
Stevens.[151]
[151] “Die Zaubermuster der Orang hutan,” Hrolf Vaughan
Stevens, edited by Albert Grünwedel, _Zeitschr. f. Ethnol._,
xxvi., 1894, p. 141.
The Orang Sinnoi, Orang Bersisi, Orang Kenaboi, Orang Tumior declare
that they are descended from one and the same folk, but that each
tribe inhabited a separate island before the general immigration
into Malacca took place under Bertjanggei Besi. The Orang Tumior were
an exception to this collective migration, as they had long before,
independently, gone to Malacca.
The tradition of this tribe is very vague, but it is certain that they
lived a long time separated from the other members of the group. It
appears that they learnt at that time tattooing from another people,
and confounded painting the face with tattooing.
For each of the three tribes, Orang Sinnoi, Orang Bersisi, and Orang
Kenaboi, there was a distinct pattern, which was identical as regards
the way it was laid on and the materials employed, but which varied in
form. In each of the three tribes the chief and the ordinary man and
woman have the same race-marks. Only among the Orang Sinnoi the women
and ordinary men had a particular pattern for the breast. The sorcerer,
or medicine-man, in each of the three tribes wore during an act of
magic a painting suitable to the occasion; when not performing, he wore
his usual painting.
The following is given as the origin of the pattern of the totem and
its further development into the patterns of the different families:—In
the olden time, when the people of the Orang Bĕlendas still lived under
their chiefs and under-chiefs, paintings were made on the face for all
assemblies, which were the old indigenous patterns for the peninsula.
But as the group became broken up owing to the influx of the Malays,
and intermarried with foreign and weakened folk, the patterns fell
through and sub-divisions arose.
Among all the three tribes (Sinnoi, Kenaboi, and Bersisi) there was
once a powerful clan, which bore the snake totem. Owing to the many
changes they had to undergo, the members of this totem separated
from one another and founded new families in different parts of the
peninsula. The totem varied according to the practice of the folk, each
newly-developed clan modified the ground pattern, one took a python,
one a cobra, another a hamadryas, etc.; they all retained the snake
and varied their pattern according to the species. Similarly arose the
sub-divisions of the fish (sting-fish) and leaf clans.
These totem figures of the separated families then became used only
to mark out objects appertaining to them; they were scratched on the
blow-pipes and used as a face-painting when the whole family assembled
together on festivals or on important debates. As the great assemblies
of all the groups fell into disuse, the old stem-marks gradually became
worthless, so that, to-day, but few know the appearance of the old
stem-marks.
As regards the materials used, all the Orang Bĕlendas agree in
saying that a red earth was employed, which is not to be found on
the peninsula. The so-called “anatto” (_Bixa orellana_) is used as
a substitute for this earth, but it is not worth much, as it fades
away in about an hour. The black colour is made with charcoal, the
white with lime. The red colour is always laid on with the finger,
consequently the stripe is narrower with the women than with the men.
These observations of Mr. Stevens, together with hints, rather than
definite statements, which have been made from various parts of
the world, suggest the conclusion that the painting, tattooing, or
scarifying of designs on the body is mainly due to totemism.
A good deal of body-painting has other significances, as when it is
done for religious ceremonies or for inspiring terror among the enemy
when on the war-path; but it would probably be fair to assume that
the origin of what may be termed domestic tattooing or scarification
belongs to totemism. Here, again, is a fascinating and unworked field
for research.
There is a very practical reason for the custom of marking the body
with the totem. The religious aspect of totemism has been briefly
described, this is the relation between a man and his totem; but there
is also the relation of the men of a totem to each other and to men
of other totems, or the social aspect of totemism, which deserves a
passing notice.
“All the members of a totem clan regard each other as kinsmen or
brothers and sisters, and are bound to help and protect each other. The
totem bond is stronger than the bond of blood or family in the modern
sense.... To kill a fellow-clansmen is a heinous offence. In Mangaia
[Hervey Islands] ‘such a blow was regarded as falling upon the god
[totem] himself; the literal sense of “_ta atua_” [to kill a member of
the same totem clan] being god-striking or god-killing.’”[152]
[152] W. W. Gill, _Myths and Songs of the South Pacific_,
p. 38. Quoted by Frazer, _loc. cit._, p. 58.
Persons of the same totem may not marry or have sexual intercourse
with each other. Amongst some peoples this rule is rigidly adhered
to; the penalty for infringing this rule may be the vengeance of
supernatural powers, but most frequently the clan steps in and punishes
the offenders. Amongst the more primitive totemistic peoples the death
penalty is usually enforced, but in any case the punishment is always
severe. When other social conditions modify totemism these sexual
restrictions are weakened and the punishment for offences is diminished.
There are some Australian tribes in which the members of any clan are
free to marry members of any clan but their own; but more frequently
an Australian tribe is divided into groups of clans, and a person can
marry only into certain of these groups; an exogamous clan-group is
known as a phratry. Thus a man is a possible husband to all the women
of one or more phratries of his tribe, but he is brother to all the
women of the remaining phratries.
“A remarkable feature of the Australian social organisation is that
divisions of one tribe have their recognised equivalent in other
tribes, whose languages, including the names for the tribal divisions,
are quite different. A native who travelled far and wide through
Australia stated that ‘he was furnished with temporary wives by the
various tribes with whom he sojourned in his travels; that his right
to these women was recognised as a matter of course; and that he could
always ascertain whether they belonged to the division into which he
could legally marry, though the places were one thousand miles apart,
and the languages quite different.’”[153]
[153] Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 53; cf.
Brough Smyth, _The Aborigines of Victoria_, i. p. 91, quoted by
Frazer, p. 67.
I am not aware that any one has attempted to study the totem and
divisional body-marks of the Australian tribes. This can only be done
through careful and laborious investigations conducted among the
natives; it cannot be accomplished in the study or in museums. If
Australian anthropologists do not bestir themselves without delay this
information will be irrevocably lost. Every year passed makes it more
difficult to do, and soon it will be too late.
The origin of tattooing or scarifying of the person receives a fresh
significance from these Australian customs. The marks appear to be, not
so much tribal distinctions for political purposes, but clan badges of
social significance with the object of preventing persons from falling
into the sin of unwitting clan incest; they are, in fact, religious
symbols which make for social purity.
It is obvious that the knowledge of these symbols has to be learnt
by the young people, and hence this forms an important part of the
information of lads imparted during the initiation ceremonies. The main
religious object of these initiation ceremonies is the assimilation of
the youth with his totem, and the consequent formal adoption into the
clan of that totem. Thence follows the social aspect of that adoption,
and the newly-made man is instructed in his social duties; he is taught
the code of sexual permissions and prohibitions, and the knowledge of
personal marks and gestures by means of which he can communicate his
totem to, or to ascertain the totems of, strangers whose language he
does not understand.
It is a common, possibly a universal custom, for totemistic peoples
to decorate their belongings with their totems. This is well known to
occur in North America. The Thlinkets paint or carve their totem on
shields, helmets, canoes, blankets, household furniture, and houses.
In single combats between chosen champions of different Thlinket
clans, each wears a helmet representing his totem. In front of the
houses of the chiefs and leading men of the Haidas are erected posts
carved with the totems of the inmates. As the houses sometimes contain
several families of different totems, the post often exhibits a number
of totems, carved one above the other. Or these carvings one above
the other represent the paternal totems in the female line, which,
descent being in the female line, necessarily change from generation to
generation. The totem is painted or carved on the clansman’s tomb or
grave-post, the figure being sometimes reversed to denote death. It is
always the Indian’s totem name, not his personal name, which is thus
recorded. Other examples will be found in Mr. Frazer’s valuable little
book.
I have already (p. 17) referred to the delineation of totem animals on
drums, pipes, and other objects from Torres Straits and the adjoining
coast of New Guinea. Two representations of a totem are usually placed
symmetrically on the object; I rather suspect that this is the rule.
The cassowary is the most frequent animal on the drums, and I have
reason to believe that only a certain clan, or clans, can beat the
drums, in which case it is evident that the cassowary men are the chief
if not the sole musicians.
When the totem representations are realistic in character there is no
difficulty in recognising them; but this is by no means the usual case.
Abundant evidence has been given in this book of the degeneration of
animal forms into simple decorative devices.
Many savages, however, lay no stress upon realism. A certain simple or
complex mark represents a given object, it may not in the very least
resemble that object any more than the written or printed name of an
animal bears any relation to that animal. The mark is a sign for that
object, and if it can be recognised, it answers its purpose. In many
cases it can be shown that the mark is in reality a degraded picture of
the object, in a vast number of examples we have no evidence.
On looking through collections of Australian weapons in museums, or in
glancing over the illustrations to works on Australia, one is struck
by the fact that a large number of objects are decorated with simple
devices, and further that there is a very great deal of uniformity in
the designs. Considering the size of that continent and the numerous
tribes of its sparse native population, the paucity of artistic motives
is very remarkable. The conclusion is pretty obvious, these designs
must be representations of totems. At present we have no proof of this,
nor are there sufficient data for the collation and assignation of the
designs.
Dr. E. Grosse[154] is the sole anthropologist who has studied
Australian art, but he has not been able to do more than enunciate
general principles, owing to the absence of authoritative information
from the natives. It is to be hoped that residents in Australia
will learn all they can from the natives about their art before the
knowledge is lost.
[154] E. Grosse, _Die Anfänge der Kunst_, 1894, p. 112.
A slight acquaintance with decorated objects from Australia will reveal
the very common occurrence of angular designs—zigzags, chevrons,
diamonds, and so forth. As Dr. Grosse truly says:[154] “One is
accustomed to describe these primitive ornaments as geometrical; and
then it is not difficult to confound the name with the thing, so one
quotes the geometric pattern occasionally as evidence for the natural
predilection of the simplest people for the simplest æsthetic motive,
but no proof is advanced for this peculiar predilection, because in the
bulk of the philosophy of art the _a priori_ method remains unshaken.
All primitive ornaments are not what they seem to be. We shall see
that they have at bottom nothing whatever in common with geometric
figures.... It is certainly not always easy to recognise the original
form of a primitive ornament. When one considers the zigzag or the
diamond pattern of an Australian shield, it appears that our assertion
is without doubt that this is destitute of animal forms, and it will
appear doubly certain when we acknowledge that in most cases we cannot
directly know it. It was certainly a wonder to us when we knew it.
The ornament of the Australians has been by no means systematically
investigated. Even in the comprehensive work of Brough Smyth it is
dismissed in some very general and very superficial remarks. In fact,
no one has so much as taken the pains to ask the natives the meaning of
the different patterns.”
Dr. Grosse then goes on to point out that “most of the ornament of the
lower folk, as far as it has been investigated and as the Australian
should be studied, is known to be imitations of animal or human forms.
Nowhere has ornament so markedly a geometrical character as among the
Brazilian tribes. Their rectilinear patterns suggest to a European, who
contemplates them in a museum, anything else rather than natural forms.
But Ehrenreich, who has studied them on the spot, has irrefutably
demonstrated that they represent neither more nor less than animals or
parts of animals.” In the section which deals with zoomorphs I describe
some of these remarkable patterns, and to avoid repetition I would
refer the reader to that description.
We must now review all the evidence which is before us, and slender
though it is, there is sufficient to justify Dr. Grosse in arriving at
his general conclusions.
P. Chauncy, in Appendix A. to Brough Smyth’s work (ii. p. 251),
writes: “Some of the ancients took much delight in ornamenting their
shields with all sorts of figures—birds, beasts, and the inanimate
works of Nature. In like manner, the natives of Western Australia—at
least some tribes north from Perth—adorn their narrow shields.” Brough
Smyth (i. p. 294) says: “In ornamenting their rugs they copied from
nature. One man told Mr. Bulmer[155] that he got his ideas from the
observation of natural objects. He had copied the markings on a piece
of wood made by the grub known as _Krang_; and from the scales of
snakes and the markings of lizards he derived new forms. The natives
never, in adorning their rugs or weapons, as far as Mr. Bulmer knows,
imitate the forms of plants or trees.” On p. 284 he says: “On a few
of the weapons appear rude figures of men and four-footed animals.
One figure of a man shown by lines on a club is in the dress and
attitude of a native dancing in a corroborree. The carvings are
confined to their weapons of wood. Not one of the bone implements in my
possession has a single line engraven on it. There are peculiarities
in the arrangement of the lines on the ornamented shields of the
West Australian natives which suggest that some meaning—understood
only by the warriors themselves—is conveyed by such representations.
The natives of Victoria often used forms the meaning of which is
discoverable now.... In like manner, the natives of the Upper Darling
represented on their shields figures in imitation of the totems of
their tribes. One in my possession has engraven on it the figure of
an iguana. Collins[156] states that in ornamenting their weapons and
instruments, each tribe used some peculiar form by which it was known
to what part of the country they belonged.” In the Introduction (p.
liv.) we read, “There are, amongst some tribes, conventionalised forms,
evidently; and it is of the utmost importance to ascertain to what
extent these are used, and by what tribes they are understood.” These
remarks are as applicable to the designs on weapons and other objects
as to the message-sticks to which our author was then more particularly
referring. After contrasting the drawings of the native human figure
by the Australians with the rude drawings of men made by European
children, he continues (i. p. 285): “In like manner the natives have
conventional forms for trees, lakes, and streams; and in transmitting
information to friends in remote tribes they use the conventional
forms, but in many cases modified, and in some cases so simplified as
to be in reality rather symbols than diagrams or pictures.” “They often
record events deemed worthy of note on their throwing-sticks” (ii.
p. 259).
[155] The Rev. Mr. Bulmer, of Lake Tyers in Gippsland.
[156] _An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales_,
1804, p. 377.
Brough Smyth describes the various kinds of angular patterns delineated
by the natives of Australia, and concerning the figures cut on certain
boomerangs and other missiles from Queensland, he says (i. p. 285),
“All these forms have a meaning intelligible to the blacks of that part
of the continent.”
“The information which Bulmer has preserved,” writes Dr. Grosse,
“solves the problem of Australian ornament. It does not tell us
how we can interpret it, but it does tell us why we can know next
to nothing about it. If the whole form of an animal is represented
as an ornamental motive, it is possible to recognise it even in a
diagrammatic distorted representation, for this at least, as a rule,
approaches the original form; but in most Australian patterns only
portions of animals occur, and the natives most frequently delineate
their signs for skins; in this case it is next to impossible for
a European to elucidate their signification, especially as the
implicated natural forms are almost always conventionally rendered. Our
explanation is, as we previously stated, not strictly proved; but the
old doctrine, which takes primitive ornament for freely constructed
geometrical figures, is just as little so.”
Dr. Grosse maintains that his interpretation is in harmony with what is
known of the nature of primitive folk, and reminds us that Ehrenreich
has shown us that appearances may be deceptive. He then goes on to
suggest that the decoration on a certain shield that he figures is an
imitation of a snake’s skin, that on another shield the representation
of a bird, and the diamonds and zigzags scored on other shields as
conventional representations of feathers, hairs, or scales. Those
interpretations may or may not be correct, and the reader should be on
his guard not to take suppositions for facts. Dr. Grosse may have more
evidence than he has been able to present to his readers; but, while
adopting his main thesis, I do not think that, without such evidence,
we can identify the originals of the designs.
“Besides such skin-patterns,” continues Dr. Grosse, “Australian
ornament makes use of representations of entire men and animals. On
clubs and throwing-sticks one frequently finds the engraved outlines
of kangaroos, lizards, snakes, and fish, and especially frequently
the figure of a corroborree-dancer in a characteristic attitude. The
delineation of these figures is mainly crude and conventional; but in
spite of this their meaning is nearly always quite intelligible.”
“The Australian warrior stands in the same relation to his _kobong_
[totem] animal as the European knight did towards his heraldic animal
... and as the European warrior paints a bear or an eagle on his
shield, so the Australian ornaments his with a representation of
a kangaroo or a snake’s skin. The knowledge that the ornaments on
Australian weapons are to a large extent heraldic designs, clears up
at the same time two points which we have already mentioned, but have
not yet elucidated—the frequent employment of animal skin-patterns,
and their peculiar conventional rendering. The native whose _kobong_
[totem] is perhaps a very large animal—and in this position most find
themselves—manifestly can decorate his shield with no more suitable
clan-mark and no more efficacious fetich than the skin of his heraldic
animal. The actual skin may or may not have been employed, and in this
latter case an engraved or painted representation was substituted.
These representations are scarcely ever true to nature, most of them
remind one in their angular and stiff regularity more of a plait-work
than of a pelt or plumage.” Dr. Grosse goes on to point out that this
conventional treatment is intentional on the part of the Australian
native, and is not due to lack of skill either in the delineation
of animals or in wood-carving. “The fact is these skin-markings are
heraldic designs; but heraldic drawing aims at truth to nature as
little in Australia as in Europe. It therefore by no means happens that
the actual pattern of a kangaroo or of a snake should be drawn true to
nature, but it comes about that a kangaroo or snake-pattern represents
a definite clan.”
Although the greater part of Australian decorative art is probably
totemistic in origin, there is a residue, the elucidation of which must
be sought in other directions, but these do not at present concern us.
Mr. Andrew Lang has turned his attention to many anthropological
subjects, and that of “the art of savages”[157] has not been
passed over by him; but he has perhaps plunged into it without due
consideration. Doubtless he himself would now modify the statement
that “the absence of the rude imitative art of heraldry among a race
which possesses all the social conditions that produce this art is a
fact worth noticing, and itself proves that the native art of one of
the most backward races we know is not essentially imitative.” Instead
of “the patterns on Australian shields and clubs, the scars which they
raise on their own flesh,” being “very rarely imitations of any objects
in nature,” we may now regard most of them as probably indicating such
objects.
[157] A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1884, p. 276.
It is, perhaps, scarcely going too far to assert that a very
considerable part of the decorative and glyptic art of many primitive
peoples has been inspired by totemism; but it must be remembered that
we have no positive evidence of totemism among a very considerable
number of peoples. As animals are the most frequent totems, so
zoomorphs and their derivatives are as constantly in evidence in the
art of these people.
The artistic representations become modified as totemism itself becomes
modified. I can only very briefly allude to some of the probable stages
in the later evolution of totemism. The attribution of human qualities
to the totem is the essence of totemism, and the tribal totem tends to
pass into an anthropomorphic god. Mr. Frazer points out that there are
often numerous sub-totems associated with each of the main totems, and
suggests that there is a sort of life-history of totems, “as sub-totems
they are growing; as clan totems they are grown; as sub-phratric and
phratric totems they are in successive stages of decay.” He also
puts forward the view that these subordinate totems are regarded as
incarnations of the gods or god in process of evolution, and as the
latter rise more and more into human form, so the former “sink from the
dignity of incarnations into the humbler character of favourites and
clients; until, at a later age, the links which bound them to the god
having wholly faded from memory, a generation of mythologists arises
who seek to patch up the broken chain by the cheap method of symbolism.
But symbolism is only the decorous though transparent veil which a
refined age loves to throw over its own ignorance of the past.”
So far I have mainly referred to the employment of the representation
of totem animals as badges, but they are also made use of to indicate
descent. Ancestor worship is an important element in the religion of
many peoples, and the art which illustrates this naturally varies
according to the plane of culture at which a given people have arrived.
When a people are in a totemistic plane of culture their ancestors
will usually be represented as animals, the same holds good for those
that have but recently emerged from this phase. This we know is the
explanation of some of the well-known totem-posts and animal carvings
of the natives of British Columbia, and it probably holds good for many
of the intricate grotesque carvings from New Ireland.
When the totem has been evolved into an anthropomorphic god, human
(_i.e._ god) forms are represented in the genealogy, as occurs on the
decorated adzes of the Hervey Islands (pp. 270-274).
It is incorrect to term all worship of or attention paid to animals as
“Totemism.” In a great number of cases this may have been the origin
of a cult, but it is a mistake to apply the lower term when the cult
is sublimated into a higher form of religion. That a considerable
part of the religion of ancient Greece had its origin in Totemism is
generally admitted; but the animal attributes of most of their deities
would not characterise the religion of the most cultured Greeks as
totemistic.[158] The ox, the bear, the mouse, wild beasts and birds,
and similar associates of the Olympian hierarchy, whatever they were to
the ancients, are to us milestones which marked the road traversed by
Hellenic religion; the Egyptian had been petrified at an earlier phase.
[158] Cf. A. B. Cook, “Animal Worship in the Mycenæan Age,”
_Journ. Hellenic Studies_, xiv., 1894, p. 81. Mr. Cook says:
“On the whole, I gather that the Mycenæan worshippers were not
totemists pure and simple, but that the mode of the worship
points to its having been developed out of still earlier
totemism” (p. 158).
In the sacred bird of Western Oceania, we can probably trace the
commencement of totemistic sublimation.
The cult of the frigate-bird is characteristic of Melanesia, and
apparently also extends to the Pelew Islands. Dr. Codrington (_The
Melanesians_, 1891, p. 145) informs us that at Florida in the Solomon
Group they pray as follows to “Daula, a _tindalo_ generally known and
connected with the frigate-bird [a _tindalo_ is the ghost or spirit
of a man endowed with _mana_, that is superhuman power or influence]:
‘Do thou draw the canoe, that it may reach the land; speed my canoe,
grandfather, that I may quickly reach the shore whither I am bound,’
etc. Daula is invoked to aid in fishing ... after a good catch he is
praised.” On p. 180 we read, “The sacred character of the frigate-bird
is certain; the figure of it, however conventional, is the most common
ornament employed in the Solomon Islands, and is even cut upon the
hands of the Bugotu people; the oath by its name of _daula_ is solemn
and binding in Florida; where Daula is a _tindalo_, many and powerful
to aid at sea are the ghosts which abide in these birds.” Who Daula
was, when he was a living man, has “passed far away from any historical
remembrance” (p. 126).
In his interesting little book on _The Evolution of Decorative Art_,
Mr. H. Balfour gives illustrations of conventional representations
of the frigate-bird in the Solomon Islands (Figs. 11, 26). In Figs.
26, 27, 25, he shows a gradation between a “bird-like canoe charm,”
through a “human-headed bird canoe-charm,” to a “canoe fetich,” the
latter having a very prognathous human head.[159] The mergence of a
frigate-bird’s into a human head may be due, as Mr. Balfour suggests,
to one design acting upon the other, or it may be the artistic
expression of the cult described by Dr. Codrington.
[159] In a letter Dr. Codrington writes: “I do not think that
the very prognathous human head has anything to do with a
bird. If you look at the very excellent coloured frontispiece
to Brenchley’s _Voyage of the Curaçoa_, representing a canoe
on a voyage, you will see that all the men are excessively
prognathous. The original is in the Maidstone Museum. I have
looked at my few Solomon Island things—a common bowl supported
by two human figures, which are just the same. A carved bit of
soft stone and the head of a betel lime stick, things just cut
for amusement, have the same prognathism. In fact I believe
that the ordinary representation of the human head is such, the
more prognathous the better it is liked.”
The canoes of the Solomon Islands often have as a figure-head the
carved representation of the upper part of a man who holds in his hands
another human head.[160] The human figure is possibly an image of the
_tindalo_ in Daula. (Dr. Codrington states that a _tindalo_ is always
the spirit of a real deceased man.[160]) The carvings of birds on the
bow of a canoe are practically invocations to the sacred and powerful
frigate-bird.
[160] “It is certain that, according to the Florida people (and
their neighbours who use the word), a _tindalo_ was once a man;
but there are some whose names they know and of whom they know
nothing as men. I am by no means of opinion that there was once
a man named Daula. The name of the frigate-bird being _kaula_
in Ulawa is against that (k=t=d). Rather daula is the name
of the bird, and the birds are vehicles of _tindalos_. So as
every _tindalo_ who takes up his abode in a shark is Bagea in
Florida (a common shark being _bagea_), so every _tindalo_ in
a frigate-bird is Daula.”—DR. CODRINGTON _in a letter to the
author_.
The face or head carried in the hands of the human figure-heads
(“canoe god,” “charm,” or “fetich”) “represents that taken when the
canoe was first used.” A canoe of importance “required a life for its
inauguration.” Dr. Codrington (_loc. cit._, p. 296) alludes to other
adjuncts to the bow of canoes which give protection and success.