In conclusion, certain aspects of totemism may be mentioned because they have been more or less utilized in creating doubtful history. Thus totem-poles have been cited as originating all idol-worship, and the practices of decorative mu tilation and tattooing have been referred to totemism though they are found where no totem ism exists. 'More important is the fact that the sacrifice of the totem, whether piacular o• not, appears to be of secondary origin; for this does away with the further claim that ceremonies in relation to the birth and death of vegetation (such as the spring and harvest festivals of In dia, Babylonia, Germany, etc.) are borrowed from totemism, a contention no longer upheld by the best authorities. A further misunderstand ing on the part of some writers is due to a con fusion in regard to the relation between taboo and totemism. These in themselves have noth ing to do with each other. On the contrary, they are often found in inverse proportion. Thus in Polynesia there is no totemism except in Samoa, while taboo (q.v.) is the chief religious factor in all Polynesia. In a word, totemism often en tails taboo, but taboo does not imply totemism.
Totemism is far from universal. It is found among the American Indians, the Australians, certain Africans, the Egyptians, etc., but not only are there tribes even in America which have no totemism, but there are whole races, such as the Eskimo, which show no trace of it, and others, such as the Chinese, which have scarcely any totemism. The races most discussed in this regard are the Semites and Aryans. In proof of the Aryans having been totemists the reverence paid by the Greeks to fishes and storks, the existence of a wolf clan, and the 'murder' of an ox have been cited. The
`wolf' and 'bear,' Greek tribal names, have also been regarded as a proof of totemism. But here, as among the Semites, the connecting links which should prove the existence of the totemic insti tution are always found to be wanting. Rever ence paid to animals is no proof of totemism, and still less proof is furnished by men having animal or vegetable names. The only evidence for the existence of early Vedie totemism is found in such names. The only ancestor man is called Cucumber, and at once the inference is drawn that we have to do with the Cucumber clan of totemists. But in New Zealand, where totemism is unknown, a chief was also called Cucumber, and the reason is expressly "because be crept so rapidly and so stealthily" (around his enemies). The vital point in all such cases is whether families of men are regarded as re lated to families of vegetables or animals. Among the Aryan Hindus, the Teutons, and the Romans, or even among the Greeks, there is not the slight est proof of any such belief. It has been shown, indeed, that the Semites believed in kinship be tween men and gods, and the proof of a belief in kinship between gods and animals has been thought possible; but in respect of the most im portant third proof, kinship between groups of men and groups of beasts, no satisfactory evi dence has been offered.
Consult: Tylor, Early History of Mankind (London, 1870) ; Lubbock, Origin of Civilization (ib., 1884) ; Robertson Smith, Kinship and Mar riage (ib., 1885) ; Frazer, Totemism (Edinburgh, 1887) ; id., The Golden Bough (2d ed., London, 1000).