Chapter IX: Introduction

The custom of refraining from labour on certain occasions is by no means unknown to peoples in the lower stages of culture. Associated practices include the discontinuance of public gatherings, the closing of the house or of the village against all strangers, the extinguishing of lights, and fasting, either partial or complete. Bright and gay dresses may be laid aside, bathing and anointing given up, and songs, dances, and loud noises forbidden. Under these conditions the cessation of labour merges into a cessation of all the usual activities. The day of rest becomes a day of abstinence and quiescence.

It might be thought that such observances, especially those which impose a period of rest, have a rationalistic basis and arise from man’s need of relaxation and idleness as a relief from daily toil and the harsh conditions of existence. Yet for the vast proportion of the rest days observed by primitive peoples it would be rash to assume an origin in considerations of practical utility. A survey of the evidence to be submitted indicates that the sabbatarian regulations have arisen chiefly, if not wholly, as pure superstitions, the product of an all-too-logical intellect or of a disordered fancy. In the last analysis they are based primarily on fear, that “fear of things invisible,” which Hobbes, foreshadowing modern anthropological theories, regarded as “the natural seed of religion.”[1] They find their clearest expression in the “taboos,” or prohibitions, first noticed among the natives of the South Seas, but now known to exist in many other regions of the aboriginal world.[2]

“Taboo,” from the Polynesian _tabu_, is one of the few words which the languages of the Pacific have contributed to our English speech. _Tabu_ appears to be, properly, the Tonga term, _tapu_, the word as found in Samoa, the Marquesas Islands, the Society Islands, and New Zealand, and _kapu_, the Hawaiian expression.[3] The etymology of _tapu_ is uncertain, though an attempt has been made to derive it from _ta_, to mark, and _pu_, an adverb of intensity. The compound _tapu_ would then mean “marked thoroughly,” and would come to signify “sacred” in a secondary sense, since sacred things and places were commonly indicated in a particular manner.[4] The word _tapua’i_ means “to abstain from all work, games, etc.”[5]—a translation which indicates how intimately the idea of abstinence was associated with the notion of _tapu_.

In all the Polynesian languages _tapu_ or _tabu_ appears to have been employed with an adjectival meaning, referring to something holy, sacred, and inviolable, or to something polluted and accursed. The word, we learn, did not imply any moral quality, but expressed “a connection with the gods, or a separation from ordinary purposes, and exclusive appropriation to persons or things considered sacred; sometimes it means devoted as by a vow.”[6] In a derivative sense _tabu_ came naturally to signify “forbidden” or “prohibited”;[7] and this is the most general meaning of the word in its anglicized form. But in anthropological usage the term “taboo” refers, not to all negative regulations or prohibitions, but to those only which are supported by a supernatural sanction and the violation of which is visited with a supernatural punishment.

The progress of comparative research has shown that conceptions very similar to the Polynesian _tabu_ have a wide prevalence in the lower culture and even among peoples of archaic civilization. The Melanesian _tambu_, though never signifying any inherent holiness or awfulness, does refer to the sacred and unapproachable character which things may possess when solemnly cursed in the name of a powerful ghost or spirit.[8] Among the natives of the Gabun colony of French Equatorial Africa _orunda_ meant, originally, “prohibited from human use.” Under missionary hands the word developed into its related sense of “sacred to spiritual use,” and in the Mpongwe Scriptures _orunda_ serves as the translation of our word “holy.”[9] The Malagasy equivalent of _tabu_ is _fady_, which means, primarily, “dangerous,” but which has the derivative meanings _sacré_, “prohibited,” “ill-omened,” “unlucky.”[10] Anthropologically, it is no far cry from such expressions to the Greek ἅγιος or to the Latin _sacer_, since each of these terms conveys the twin ideas of sanctity and pollution.[11]

It is convenient to distinguish between taboos which are artificially imposed and those which follow inevitably as the consequence of particular acts or as the outcome of certain situations. Thus, a chief may set a taboo over the common crops until harvest time, or a private individual may protect his own property through the use of the same supernatural machinery: these are prohibitions analogous to the laws of an advanced society, though supported by sanctions both human and divine. On the other hand, new-born children with their mothers, strangers, manslayers, and mourners are frequently subjected to taboos which exist in the social consciousness rather as well-defined customs of anonymous origin than as specific ordinances laid down by some superior authority. In both cases, however, it is legitimate to suppose that a reason has always existed for the ascription of the _tabu_ character to persons and things—although an explanation may not now be forthcoming and although the ideas on which the practice was once based may have become obscure or meaningless with the lapse of time.

A comparative study of the taboos observed by primitive peoples indicates that originally things or persons are tabooed because they are considered dangerous, mysterious, abnormal, uncanny, “awful”—because they are felt to be potent for weal or woe in the life of man. Primitive psychology, refining these ideas and applying them to different classes of phenomena, produces the cognate notions of pollution and sanctity. The corpse is unclean; the shedder of human blood is likewise unclean; but the chief or king, who belongs to a superior order of beings, is sacrosanct or holy. These characteristics are easily regarded as infectious, as capable of transmission, not alone by physical contact, but also by sight and mere proximity. It is probably true that, in using such expressions as “contagion” and “infection,” we are resorting to a refined terminology to express what must be really simpler in the thought of the savage. Living in a mental stage where distinctions of cause and effect are not clearly drawn, where a rigid distinction of the natural and the supernatural can scarcely be said to exist at all, he finds no difficulty in imagining an universe in which all things have power, after their kind, a power for good or a power for ill—in other words, have _mana_. This now-familiar Melanesian term, like the Algonkin _manitou_, the Iroquoian _orenda_, and the Siouan _wakanda_, may be said to express early man’s sense of those ever-present, though vague and impersonal, forces immanent in nature.[12]

At the same time the fact must be recognized that the majority of taboos are now supported by animistic beliefs of a much more precise character. The penalty for the infraction of a taboo is generally death or some physical ailment supposed to be inflicted by the offended spirits or demons.[13] The Polynesian _atua_, by entering the body of any impious person, caused disease or “intestinal embarrassment”: the culprit forthwith swelled up and died. The same demonic beings, if angered, might visit entire tribes with an epidemic, or send down lightning and fire from heaven, or bring about the unsuccessful issue of a war.[14] Among the Kayan and other pagan tribes of Borneo the minor spirits, or _toh_, play a considerable part in the regulation of conduct. They are the powers that bring misfortunes upon an entire house or village when any member of it ignores taboos or otherwise violates tribal customs, without performing the propitiatory rites demanded by the occasion. “Thus on them, rather than on the gods, are founded the effective sanctions of prohibitive rules of conduct.”[15] Among the Akikuyu of British East Africa, who possess a most elaborate system of taboos, it is a general belief that any one in the condition of _thahu_ becomes emaciated and ill or breaks out in eruptions and boils. If the _thahu_ is not removed, the patient will die. “In many cases this undoubtedly happens by the process of auto-suggestion, as it never occurs to the Kikuyu mind to be skeptical in a matter of this kind. It is said that the _thahu_ condition is caused by the _ngoma_, or spirits of departed ancestors, but the process does not seem to have been analyzed any further.”[16] The Babylonians, again, appear to have entertained very definite conceptions of taboo, and conceptions, equally definite, of the evil spirits which vexed the soul and body of one who had infringed a _mamit_, or prohibition with a supernatural penalty.[17] With the progress of religious conceptions the punishment of the taboo-breaker may come to be regarded as an important function of the tribal or national god, whose chief concern is the maintenance of the customary moral rules.

Since persons, objects, and even actions are all liable to infection, prudence dictates a variety of precautions: the dangerous individual or thing is removed to a safe distance; or is carefully isolated; or is subjected to a series of insulating regulations. The entire community is interested in such proceedings, and on certain occasions may itself be placed under a rigid quarantine. When this happens, a period of abstinence and quiescence is regarded as the surest means of avoiding dangers felt to threaten each and every member of the social group. Nor will the procedure greatly differ where distinctly animistic ideas prevail, and when the impending danger is specifically attributed to the action of spiritual beings or of gods. In the latter case, it is true, the idea of propitiation becomes increasingly prominent, since it is often felt to be necessary to appease by various rites and ceremonies the supernatural powers responsible for the visitation. The two conceptions of abstinence and propitiation are not, indeed, always sharply distinguishable in concrete cases, and with advancing culture they tend to become more and more closely conjoined.

It is highly probable that the origin of some of the communal regulations is to be sought in the taboos observed by persons at such great and critical seasons as birth, puberty, marriage, and death.[18] Comparative studies have indicated how numerous are the prohibitions which attach to these times of high solemnity and significance; and it is reasonable to suppose that, with the deepening sense of social solidarity, observances once confined to the individual alone, or to his immediate connections, would often pass over into rites performed by the community at large. Some evidence tending to substantiate this opinion will be presented incidentally as the investigation proceeds.