Primitive Religion

CO 00 m<OU 166273 >m Q&MANIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Call No:7^<9^ 53 P Accession No, %$ Tfcis book should be returned on or before the date last marked PRIMITIVE RELIGION PRIMITIVE RELIGION BY ROBERT H. LOWIE, PH. D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ; ' ' AUTHOR OF Primitive Society LONDON GEORGE ROUTLEDGE AND SONS, LTD. BROADWAY HOUSE : 68-74, CARTER LANE, E.G. 1936 Printed in Great Britain by MACKAYB LTD., Chatham > PREFACE THIS work does not purport to be a handbook of either the theories broached on the subject of primitive religion or of the ethnographic data described in hundreds of accessible mono- graphs. My purpose is to provide an introduction to further study in which other than the traditional topics shall assume a place of honor. On the other hand I have taken pains to re- duce to a minimum the discussion of theories that have been more than amply treated by previous writers. The mode of approach will be found to differ fundamentally from that of my book on Primitive Society. The reason lies in the quite different status of the two subjects at the present time. In the field of primitive sociology it seemed desirable to marshal the evidence against the indefensible neglect of historical considerations that persists in some quarters. In the study of comparative religion it is the psychological point of view that and however be for requires emphasis ; important history may an elucidation of psychology, its part is ancillary. By con- sistently stressing the psychological aspects of primitive religion I hope to have contributed something to a closer alliance of two sister sciences that too frequently have pursued their paths in mutual neglect. Several friends have been good enough to read or listen to portions of the book above all, Dr. Leslie Spier and Mrs. of the of Pro- Erna Gunther Spier University Washington ; fessors A. L. Kroeber and Erasmo Buceta of the University of California Mr. E. W. Gifford of the same institution ; ; and my friends Mr. Donald B. Clark and Dr. Jaime de An- gulo y Mayo. I take this opportunity to thank them for their en- couragement and their comments. To Mr. Gifford I am also in- VI PREFACE debted for the orthography of proper names in Manner's ac- count, which is brought into accord with approved Tongan usage and thus comes closer to phonetic spelling. My manuscript was completed when I received a copy of Father Wilhelm Koppers's book on the Fuegians. It was no longer possible to utilize it as I should otherwise have done, but I took pains to incorporate some of the interesting data presented there and to include the work in my bibliography. On the other hand, a paper on some basic religious concepts by Dr. John R. Swanton, which is to appear in a forthcoming issue of the American Anthropologist, reached me too late to be used in any way, so that I must content myself with this meager reference. ROBERT H. LOWIE, BERKELEY, CAL., May, 1924. CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE v INTRODUCTION ix PART I: SYNTHETIC SKETCHES CHAPTER I CROW RELIGION 3 II EKOI RELIGION 33 III BUKAUA RELIGION ... t ... 54 IV POLYNESIAN RELIGION 75 PART II : CRITIQUE OF THEORIES V ANIMISM 99* VI MAGIC 136 VII COLLECTIVISM 153 PART III: HISTORICAL AND PSYCHO- LOGICAL ASPECTS VIII HISTORICAL SCHEMES AND REGIONAL CHARAC- TERIZATION 167 IX HISTORY AND PSYCHOLOGY 185 X WOMAN AND RELIGION 205 XI INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY 221 XII RELIGION AND ART 259 XIII ASSOCIATION 277 XIV CONCLUSION 321 BIBLIOGRAPHY 331 INDEX 343 PRIMITIVE RELIGION INTRODUCTION A WORK on "Primitive Religion" may well begin with a definition of the terms in its title, for neither unfortunately is unambiguous. The word "primitive" by its etymology suggests "primeval," but when the anthropologist speaks de- scriptively of "primitive peoples" he means no more at least, he has no right to mean more than peoples of a relatively simple culture; or, to be more specific, the illiterate peoples of the world. To be sure, it is impossible to sup- press the inference that what is shared by the illiterate peoples of rudest culture in contrast to those possessing a more complex civilization dates back to a relatively great but this is an not an immediate antiquity ; inference, datum of experience. Moreover, it is certain that, no matter how simple a particular culture may be, it has had a long history. Human civilization may lie roughly said to be 100,000 years old. It is inconceivable that any distinct subdivision of man- kind, even if separated from others for only one-tenth of that immense span of time, should have remained in an abso- lutely static condition. There are two cogent reasons to the contrary. First, isolation has never been more than relative when very great periods are considered. In other words, in- fluences from without have everywhere produced some changes in custom, belief, and the material arts of life. Sec- ondly, such alterations occur, though more slowly, even in the absence of extraneous stimulation because of the social x INTRODUCTION results of individual variation, that is, of innovations suc- cessfully impressed on each generation by some able individ- uals of sufficiently powerful personality. Both determinants of change can be detected in so isolated and so simple a peo- ple as the Andaman Islanders of the Bay of Bengal. Their remoteness did not prevent them from borrowing the device of the outrigger canoe, presumably from some Malaysian tribe; arid the local variations found within their islands, both in language and social heritage, prove the occurrence of novel ideas even in a population ignorant of metals and every form of husbandry, nay, lacking even the dog and the art of fire-making. In other words, the Andamanese culture of fifty years ago* is not the culture of their ancestors five hun- dred or in still earlier so far as di- years ago, periods ; and, rect observation goes, we cannot select any one feature of their social life as of hoary antiquity. "Primitive/* then, for our purposes shall be devoid of chronological import. It is far more difficult to explain what shall be designated by the word "religion." Of course, a formal definition of religion would be as futile at the outset as a corresponding definition of consciousness in a textbook of psychology, or of electricity in a treatise on physics. The rich content of these comprehensive^concepts can be appreciated only after a survey of the relevant data is completed. Yet some circum- scription of what is to be included is not only possible but necessary, and it will be convenient to begin by illustrating the wrong approach to a definition by two extreme instances gleaned from Fielding's novels. Says Parson Thwackum in Tom Jones, When I mention religion, I mean the Qiristian religion; and not only the Christian religion but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England. INTRODUCTION xi And Parson Adams, in Joseph Andrews, is equally ex- plicit : The first care I take is of a I always boy's morals ; had rather he should be a blockhead than an atheist or a Presbyterian. Why do utterances such as these strike us as ineffably parochial ? From one angle it might seem that a man has the right to define his terms as he will, provided only he ad- here to the usage once established; and if to embrace the Anglican Church means salvation, while Calvinism spells perdition, then from that particular point of view there is nothing to choose between being a Presbyterian and being an atheist. This position is indeed inexpugnable so long as it is avowedly no more than a personal evaluation; it is shattered as soon as it pretends to give an objective classification of the pertinent data. In this second role it recalls that comical classification of some aboriginal language by which male adult members of the trite are of one gender, while all other persons are lumped in a vast complementary category together with animals, plants, and objects. We re- quire no proof that a boy or a woman or a foreigner is nearer to a tribesman than to a tree or a rock; and so we see at once that it is arbitrary to dichotomize the religious universe after the manner of Fielding's parsons, that such division wrests the phenomena out of their true context and does violence to their true inwardness. But when once committed to this moderately tolerant at- titude, we are still without guidance as to where the line shall be drawn. Working our way backwards from a particular branch of Christianity, we are still able to recognize some kinship between our faith and that of other monothe- istic creeds. When we come to Buddhism, with its theoreti- cal atheism, many of us will be inclined to deny that any xii INTRODUCTION doctrine dispensing with the notion of a personal deity can fairly be brought under the same heading with familiar re- ligions. Yet William James, our greatest psychologist, has espoused the view that Buddhism, like Emersonian transcen- dentalism, makes to the individual votary an appeal and evokes a response "in fact indistinguishable from, and in many respects identical with, the best Christian appeal and l response/' James may conceivably err in this particular judgment, but anthropologically speaking there can be no doubt of the correctness of his test: if Buddhism satisfies that part of the Buddhist's nature which corresponds to the devout Christian's longing for acceptance by the deity, then it is a veritable religion, just as polygyny is anthropologically no less a form of marriage than monogamy, and an oral tradition must l>e reckoned, despite etymology, a speci- men of literature.

Load more