Chapter XII: Sir John Lubbock on Tradition (2)

Superstitions were also connected with cocks and hens in Khasia. Whether these again were connected with the symbolical representation of the egg can only be conjectured. It may possibly be that the representation had a common origin with the cock of Apollo and the cock of Æsculapius, if, indeed, these were not also originally derived from the same primal conception. This would be only to renew the old classical dispute as to whether the hen proceeded from the egg, or the egg from the hen, which I take to be only the form in which the great question of the First Cause was debated by the Gentile world after their ideas of a Creator had become indistinct, and with reference to this ancient symbol. However that may be, I wish to point out that this ceremonial use of the cock may be traced in Europe, Asia, and Africa: _e.g. Asia_--"The Lepchas scatter eggs and pebbles over the graves of their friends.... Among the Limboos, the priests of a higher order than the Lepcha, Bijoras officiate at marriages, when a _cock_ is put into the bride-groom's hands, and a _hen_ into those of the bride. The Phedangbo then cuts off the birds' heads, when the blood is caught in a plantain leaf, and runs into pools, from which omens are drawn" (Dr Hooker, "Himalayan Journal," i. 238). _Africa_--_vide_ Pritchard, "Phys. Hist. of Man," i. 203, 204, 208: "Even the dead are not buried without sacrifices. A white hen is slain by the priest before the corpse comes to the grave, and the bier whereon the body lies is sprinkled with its blood. This custom was introduced by the nation of Kagraut." _Europe_--If any one will turn to the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov. 14, 1868, he will find an account and illustration of a local ceremony peculiar to the village of Gorbio in the Maritime Alps, in which the priest, on a particular day in the year, is solemnly presented with four cocks hung upon a halberd--together with an apple by the bachelors and spinsters of the village--from which it would seem to have had originally some connection, as we have seen above, with a marriage ceremony. Wilson ("Archæologia") remarks that the custom of "Easter, or, in the north, Paste eggs (Pasch), was very prevalent in the north."[257]

[257] Compare the following passage in the Bishop of Chalons' "Le
Monde et l'Homme Primitif" (with reference to Gen. i.--the
Creation). At p. 11 the Bishop says, "That when the Book
of the Law of Manou and the Mahabarata relate that God,
who contains within Himself his own principle in the first
instance, the water, and gave it fecundity, and that the
produce of this fecundity became _an egg_, ... can we see in
this anything else than the fantastic translation of this
phrase of Scripture, 'L'esprit de Dieu _couvait_ la surface
des eaux--Rouha Elohim meharephet hal pene hammaïm.'" _Vide_
also p. 11 (as to universality of tradition) and p. 34 as to
text also. J. G. Vance ("Archæol." xix.) says, upon the
mundane egg "the whole system of ancient religion was based"
(J. B. Waring, "Stone Monuments of Remote Ages," p. 5, 1870).

It strikes me that it would be difficult to assign a Christian origin for the custom. It must then have been a custom which the Church diverted or sanctioned in giving it an innocent or Christian application; in which case, in so far as it is pagan, it may possibly be traced to a common origin with the practices in Khasia among the Lepchas.

It would extend the inquiry too far to follow Sir J. Lubbock through all the cases adduced by him. I will conclude, therefore, with his account of the Andaman islander--who, with the Australians, Esquimaux, and Fuegians, dispute the point of being considered the lowest of mankind. It is said of the Andamans, "that they have no idea of a Supreme Being, no religion, or any belief in a future state of existence" (p. 346). It is, however, casually mentioned that, "after death, the corpse is buried in a sitting posture." Now this mode of burial is common to them with Esquimaux (p. 409), the Australians (p. 353), the Maories (p. 369), and the natives of the Feegee Islands (p. 361), among whom we seem to get a clue to this strange mode of burial; "the fact is, _they_ (the Feegee islanders) not only believe in a future state, but are persuaded that as they leave this life, so will they rise again." Sir J. Lubbock, in his "Introduction to Prof. Nillson" (xxxiii.), says that this was the common mode of burial in the Stone Age; and Prescott ("Hist. of Mexico," ii. 485) says, "Who can doubt the existence of an affinity, or at least an intercourse, between tribes, who had _the same strange habit of burying the dead in a sitting position_, as was practised to some extent by most if _not all_ of the aborigines from Canada to Patagonia?"[258] But not only may it be presumed that they had an affinity and intercourse, but a common religious idea. It may be doubted then whether even the naked Andaman is so entirely destitute of all religious impressions as he is supposed to be.

[258] I find, in _Archæological Journal_, No. 89, 1866, p. 27,
that corpses in a sitting posture were found under the long
cromlechs in South Jutland.

I have already urged that if any vestiges of religion remain they must be considered as evidence of tradition and proof of degeneracy. I think the following reflection will tend to clench this argument.

Although it is obscure and disputed to what extent certain savages do retain glimmerings of religion, it is certain and admitted that some savages have religion and a religious ceremonial. Now, as Sir J. Lubbock says, "How, for instance, can a people who are unable to count upon their fingers possibly raise their minds so far as to admit even the rudiments of religion." It is clear, then, that the lowest grade of mankind did not invent it, how then did the higher grade get it, "assuming always the unity of the human race"?

Finally, if man commenced with the knowledge of the devil, how did they proceed on to the idea of God? "The first idea of a God is almost always as an evil spirit" (Lubbock, p. 468). How then did they advance to the knowledge of the God of purity and love, or even of "the Great Spirit" of the Indians?[259]

[259] _Vide_ Dr Newman's "Grammar of Assent," p. 386, _et seq._

Let us at least know whether it is supposed that this was the order of knowledge ordained by Divine Providence, or whether it is believed that man in this manner developed the idea of God out of his own consciousness, his primitive, or perhaps innate, idea being, the conception of evil and of the evil spirit.[260] Sir John says (p. 487), "There are no just grounds for expecting man to be ever endued with a sixth sense." But why not? If by his own mental vigour he can out of the primitive idea of evil generate the idea of good--what may we not expect?

[260] _Per contra_, I invite Sir J. Lubbock's attention to the
following passage from Mr Gladstone's "Homer" (ii. 44), "As
_the derivative idea_ of sin depended upon that of _goodness_,
and as the shadow ceases to be visible when the object
shadowed has become more dim, we might well expect that the
contraction and obscuration of the true idea of goodness
would bring about a more than proportionate loss of knowledge
concerning the true nature of evil. The impersonation of evil
could only be upheld in a lively or effectual manner as the
opposite of the impersonation of good; and when the moral
standard of Godhead had so greatly degenerated, as we find
to be the case even in the works of Homer, the negation of
that standard could not but cease to be either interesting
or intelligible. Accordingly we find that the _process of
disintegration_, followed by that of arbitrary reassortment
and combination of elements, had proceeded to a more advanced
stage _with respect to the tradition of the evil one_ than in
the other cases."

Yet, if any one will compare the evidence which Sir John has collected, he will come, I think, to the conclusion, that the invention and adaptability of the savage is very slight indeed. He will find (p. 350) that the inhabitants of Botany Bay had fish-hooks, but no nets; those of Western Australia, nets but not hooks; that those who had the throwing-stick and boomerang, were ignorant both of slings and bows and arrows; that those who had retained the knowledge of the bow did not pass on to the use of the bola; that the northern tribes visited by Kane were skilful in the capture of birds with nets, yet were entirely ignorant of fishing (452); that the nearest approach to the South American bola is among the Esquimaux (450); that the throwing-stick is common only to the widely distant Esquimaux, Australians, and some of the Brazilian tribes (_id._); that the "sumpitan" or blowpipe of the Malays occurs only in the valley of the Amazons. Does not this point to a traditional knowledge of these things? Nevertheless, this mass of evidence seems to have produced the very opposite conviction with Sir J. Lubbock.

"On the whole, then, from a review of all these and other similar facts which _might have been_ mentioned, it seems to me most probable that many of the simpler weapons, implements, &c., have been invented independently by various savage tribes, although there are no doubt also cases in which they have been borrowed by one tribe from another" (p. 451). Instances in which they have been borrowed from each other are not infrequent, but then neither are they inconsistent with the theory of tradition; but the instances of invention _are limited to one_. (See for instance p. 394.) At p. 394 we find--"Although they (the Esquimaux) had no knowledge of pottery, Captain Cook saw at Unalashka vessels "of flat stone, with sides of clay, not unlike a standing pye." We here obtain an idea of the manner in which the knowledge of pottery _may have been_ developed. After using clay to raise the sides of their stone vessels, it _would_ naturally occur to them, that the same substance would serve for the bottom also, and thus the use of stone _might be_ replaced by a more convenient material."

Recollecting how roast pig came to be discovered, it cannot be said to be impossible that pottery may thus have been invented; but in this instance it might equally have been the rough substitute for the pottery of their recollection. Besides, the proof is wanting that they ever did pass on to the invention of pottery. It may, for anything we know to the contrary, be in this inchoate state amongst them still.

Now, until further evidence is forthcoming, I shall take the liberty of maintaining that savages seem to show no inventive faculty or power of recovery in themselves.[261] Whatever they possess seems to be limited to what they have retained of primitive civilisation, and what they have retained of civilisation seems exactly in proportion to what they have retained of primitive religion.

[261] Sir J. Lubbock ("Pre-historic Times," p. 337) says, "The
largest erection in Tahiti was constructed by the generation
living at the time of Captain Cook's visit, and the practice
of cannibalism had been recently abandoned." For these
statements he refers to Forster, "Observations made during
a Voyage round the World," p. 327, a work I have not at
hand, and also Ellis, "Polynesian Researches," ii. p. 29. I
have made the reference to the latter, but I do not find a
syllable about cannibalism; and as to the other point Ellis
says, "In the bottom of every valley, even to the recesses
in the mountains ... stone pavements of their dwellings and
courtyards, foundations of houses and ruins of family temples,
_are numerous_.... _All these relics_ are of the _same kind_
as those observed among the nations at the time of _their
discovery_, evidently proving that they belong to the same
race, though to a more populous era of their history." I
draw attention to this inadvertence, as the above instances
(two) are the most important of the four which Sir J. Lubbock
adduces in support of his view. _Vide_ Appendix.

In supporting this proposition I shall hardly have occasion to go beyond the four corners of Sir J. Lubbock's "Pre-historic Times."

It is indeed a moot point with the travellers and ethnologists who have given their attention to the subject, which race of savages is "the lowest in the scale of civilisation." In this competitive examination a concurrence of opinion seems to decide in favour of the Fuegian, who at any rate is miserable enough, living, when better food fails him, on raw and putrid flesh, eked out with cannibalism; and whose clothing (in Central Fuego) consists "in a scrap of otter skin, about as large as a pocket handkerchief, laced across the breast with strings, and shifted according to the wind" (Darwin, _apud_ Lubbock). Their religion, as we have just seen, consists in a vague apprehension of the black man who lives up in the woods--and their prayer is something slightly elevated above the howl of the wolf. Their civilisation, therefore, like their religion, may be considered to be at a "minimum." The Australians have been called "the miserablest people in the world" (p. 445). They are said to have "no religion or any kind of prayer, but most of them believe in evil spirits, and all have a dread of witchcraft" (p. 353). Here again we see their civilisation degraded _pari-passu_ with their religious belief--so, too, with the Andaman (_vide supra_) and the Tasmanian (p. 355).

When, however, we come to the inhabitants of the Feegee Islands, not greatly different from the people surrounding them, their characteristics, manners, and customs being partly Nigrito and partly Polynesian, although in the matter of cannibalism they are simply horrible, and eat their kind, not on any high notion that they are appropriating the spirit and glory of him whom they devour (_vide_ Lubbock, 371), but from a repulsive preference; yet they have a distinct notion of religion, with temples, and ceremonies, and we are told they look down upon the Samoans because they had no religion. Well, we find the Feegeeans in a state of material civilisation exactly corresponding--they live in well built houses, 20 to 30 feet long and 15 feet high, in fortified towns, with earthen ramparts, surmounted by a reed fence, &c. "Their temples were pyramidal in form, and were often erected on terraced mounds like those of Central America" (p. 357). They had efficient weapons, agricultural implements, well-constructed canoes, and (p. 372) pottery.[262]

[262] The Duke of Argyll, balancing the conclusions of Archbishop
Whately and Sir J. Lubbock ("Primeval Man," p. 139), says,
"Whately defies the supporter of Development to produce a
single case of savages having raised themselves. Sir J.
Lubbock replies by defying his opponent to show that it has
not been done and done often. He urges, and urges as it seems
to me with truth, that the great difficulty of teaching many
savages the arts of civilised life, is no proof whatever
that the various degrees of advance towards the knowledge
of those arts which are actually found among semi-barbarous
nations may not have been of strictly indigenous growth. _Thus
it appears that one tribe of red Indians called Mandans_
practised the art of _fortifying_ their towns. _Surrounding
tribes_, although they saw the advantage derived from this
art, yet _never practised_ it, and _never learned it_." So
far as to the fact. The Duke of Argyll continues the argument
on the side of Sir J. Lubbock. But what I wish to indicate is
that this crucial instance of the Mandans may be triumphantly
adduced in support of my proposition. Why, these are the _very
Mandans_ among whom Catlin and the Prince Maxmilian of Neuwied
discovered the curious commemorative ceremony of the Deluge!
_Vide_ ch. xi.

When, however, we come to the Tahitians we find a very high state of civilisation. Of their religion it is said--"That though they worshipped numerous deities," and sometimes sacrificed to them, "yet they were not idolators." "Captain Cook found their religion, like that of most other countries, involved in mystery and perplexed with apparent inconsistencies." They had a priesthood (p. 387). "They believed in the immortality of the soul, and in two situations of different degrees of happiness somewhat analogous to our heaven and hell, though not regarded as places of reward and punishment; but the one intended 'for the chief and superior classes,' 'the other for the people of inferior rank.'" This is substantially Captain Cook's account of the Tahitians, and allowing it to be exact, although I have a suspicion that a missionary would have put it somewhat differently,[263] it shows a comparative state of religion very much elevated above anything we have yet seen. They had besides curious customs, such as that of eating apart. "They ate alone," they said, "because it was right, but why it was right they were unable to explain"--a custom which is common to them with the Bachapins (p. 384), (who, _by the way_, are also among the races classified as "of no religion"). Although the inhabitants of Tahiti present to us a much higher standard of religion and morality than we have yet met with, _also_ "they, on the whole, may be taken as representing _the highest stage_ in civilisation to which man has in any country raised himself, before the discovery or introduction of metallic implements" (Lubbock, p. 372).

[263] Since writing the above, I have referred to Wallis and
Bougainville. Wallis could not discover "that these people
had any kind of religious worship among them." Bougainville
says "that their principal deity is called 'Ein-t-era,'
_i.e._ 'king of _light_' or 'of the sun'; besides whom they
acknowledge a number of inferior divinities, some of whom
produce evil and others good; that the general name for these
_ministering_ spirits is Eatona; and that the natives suppose
_two_ of these divinities attend _each affair of consequence
in human life_, determining its fate either advantageously or
otherwise. To one circumstance our author speaks in decisive
terms. He says, when the moon exhibits a certain aspect which
bears the name of 'Malama Tamai' (the moon is in a state of
war), the natives offer up human sacrifices.... When any one
sneezes, his companions cry out 'Eva-rona-t-eatona,' _i.e._
'May the good genius awaken thee,' or 'May not the evil genius
lull thee asleep.'"

Captain King ("Journal of Transactions on returning to the
Sandwich Islands," &c., Pinkerton, xi. 737) says of the
Sandwich Islanders, "The religion of these people resembles
in most of its principal features _that of the Society and
Friendly Islands_. Their morais, their whattas, their idols,
their sacrifices, and their sacred songs, _all of which_ they
have in common with each other, are _convincing proofs_ that
their religious notions are derived _from the same source_."

It is impossible within these limits to investigate every case. I have taken the more salient cases, as instanced by Sir J. Lubbock, and contrasted them. I now wish to present the contrast in somewhat livelier form, and I do not see that I can do better than to present to the reader two scenes precisely similar, as to substance, yet under different conditions, in different parts of the world. The first shall be a description of "a whale ashore," by Sir J. Lubbock, among the Australians; and the second, a description of the same scene by Catlin ("Last Rambles, &c., among the Indians of Vancouver's Island").

I must preface that Sir J. Lubbock says that the Australians "have no religion nor any idea of prayer, but most of them believe in evil spirits, and all have great dread of witchcraft" (p. 353).

The following is the scene to which I refer:--

"They are not, so far as I am aware, able to kill whales for
themselves, but when one is washed on shore it is a real godsend
to them. Fires are immediately lit to give notice of the joyful
event.... For days they remain by the carcase, rubbed from head to
foot with the stinking blubber, gorged to repletion with putrid
meat, out of temper from indigestion, and therefore engaged in
constant frays, suffering from a continuous disorder from high
feeding, and altogether a disgusting spectacle."--_Capt. Grey, apud
Lubbock_, p. 347.

This is one picture; now for the other. It may be said that it is only the different idiosyncrasies of the writers transferred to their pages--that one is the narrative of _Jean qui pleure_, &c., or of the _médicin tant pis_, &c.; but I do not think so.

Mr Catlin premises by telling us that the scene occurred when on a visit with the chief of the Klah-o-gnats, of whom he says that he knew at first sight by his actions that he was "a chief, and by the expression of his face that he was a good man," and whom his companion described as "a very fine old fellow; that man is a gentleman; I'd trust myself anywhere with that man." Of their religion, the chief himself told Catlin that on that western coast of Vancouver's Island "they all believed in a Great Spirit, who created them and all things, and that they all have times and places when and where they pray to that Spirit, that he may not be angry with them."

One day came the startling announcement that a whale was ashore.

"The sight was imposing when we came near to it, but not until we
came around it on the shore side had I any idea of the scene I was
to witness. Some hundreds, if not thousands of Indians, of all
ages and sexes, and in all colours, were gathered around it, and
others constantly arriving. Some were lying, others standing and
sitting in groups; some were asleep and others eating and drinking,
and others were singing and dancing." The monster was secured by
twenty or thirty harpoons, to which ropes were attached. "These
were watched, and at every lift of a wave moving the monster nearer
the shore, they were tightened on the harpoons, and at low tide the
carcass is left on dry land, a great distance from the water....
The dissection of this monstrous creature, and its distribution
amongst the thousands who would yet be a day or two in getting
together, the interpreter informed us, would not be commenced until
all the claimants arrived."

Several immense baskets had been brought in which to carry away the blubber. The possession of these baskets made all the difference in the scene which followed. To some this will be a sufficient explanation. How, then, did the others come to know nothing of baskets? Truly there are people who cannot be made to see the effect of "character upon clover." I rely, however, upon the broad lines of the contrast. The absence in this latter scene of the disgusting sights above so graphically described--their quick use of the harpoons--and the general order and equity of the distribution. "A whale ashore," Mr Catlin says ("Last Rambles," p. 105), "is surely a gift from heaven for these poor people, and they receive it and use it as such."

Whilst quoting from Catlin, I must be allowed to refer my readers to the very striking proof (p. 248) he incidentally affords of the theory of degeneracy in his comparative illustration of the heads of the alto and bas Peruvian, and of the Crow and modern Flathead:--

"The Crow of the Rocky Mountains and the alto-Peruvian of _the
Andes_, being the two great original fountains of American man,
to whom all the tribes point as their origin, and on whom, of
course, all the tribes have looked as the _beau ideals_ of the
Indian race. The Flathead (letter _c_), aiming at the Crow skull
(like the copyists of most fashions), has carried the copy into a
caricature; and the Bas-Peruvian (_d_), aiming at the _elevated
frontal_ of the mountain regions, has squeezed his up with
circular bandages to equally monstrous proportions." Also _vide_
Prescott's "Mexico," ii. 493, 6th ed., 1850. "Anatomists also have
discerned in crania disinterred from the mounds, and in those
of the inhabitants of the high plains of _the Cordilleras_ an
_obvious difference_ from those of the more barbarous tribes. This
is seen especially in the _ampler forehead_, intimating a decided
intellectual superiority.... Such is the conclusion of Dr Warren,
whose excellent collection has afforded him ample means for study
and comparison."

Before quitting this subject I must revive a question which I think Sir John Lubbock will admit, if he turns to the evidence dispersed in his pages, is at present involved in some obscurity. It is simply this, "How did the savage come by the knowledge of fire?" Sir John Lubbock suggests (p. 473) "that in making flint instruments sparks would be produced; in polishing them it would not fail to be observed that they became hot, and in this way it is easy to see how the two methods of obtaining fire may have originated.... In obtaining fire _two totally different_ methods are followed; _some_ savages, as for instance the Fuegians, using percussion, while others, as the South-Sea Islanders, rub one piece of wood against another.... Opinions are divided whether we have any trustworthy record of a people without the means of obtaining fire" (p. 453). To this point I shall recur. I will now give Sir John's quotation from Mr Dove: "Although fire was well known to them (the Tasmanians), some tribes at least appear to have been ignorant whence it was originally obtained, or how, if extinguished, it could be relighted. In all their wanderings," says Mr Dove, "they were particularly careful to bear in their hands the materials for kindling a fire. Their memory supplies them _with no instances_ of a period in which they were obliged to draw upon their _inventive powers_ for the means of resuscitating an element so essential to their health and comfort as flame. How it came originally into their possession is unknown. _Whether_ it may be viewed as the _gift of nature_ or the product of art and sagacity, they _cannot recollect a period when it was a desideratum_" ("Tasmanian Journal of Natural Science," i. 250, _apud_ Lubbock, p. 355).[264]

[264] The "Popul Vul" (pp. 223-227, Paris, 1861, _vide_ Baring
Gould, "Origin and Development of Religious Belief," p. 383)
gives an instance--or embodies a reminiscence--of a people who
had lost the tradition of fire.

"Then arrived the tribes perishing with cold, ... and all the
tribes were gathered, shivering and quaking with cold, when
they came before the leaders of the Iniches.... Great was
their misery. 'Will you not compassionate us,' they asked;
'we ask only a little fire. Were we not all one, and with one
country, when we were first created? Have pity on us.' 'What
will you give us that we should compassionate you,' was the
answer made to them.... It was answered, 'We will inquire
of Tohil'" (their fire-god); and then follows the horrible
condition of human sacrifices to be offered to their fire-god
Tohil, with reference to which Mr B. Gould quotes it. _Vide
supra_, p. 81, tradition among the Sioux Indians, of fire
having been sent to them from heaven after the Deluge.

In Colden's "Five Indian Nations," p. 167, I find an Indian
chief says: "Now before the Christians arrived, the general
council of the Five Nations was held at Onondaga, where
there has from _the Beginning_ a _continual fire_ been kept
burning; it is made of two great logs, _whose fire never
extinguishes_."

Now, if it is a tenable opinion--and at least these are the statements of Father Gobien, and of Alvaro de Saavedra, and of Commodore Wilkes, to whose testimony I shall revert, that there are some tribes who are unacquainted with fire--that there are some who have and some who have not the art of rekindling fire, then arises the question whether those who have it not have lost the art, or whether those who now possess it invented it. If they did not invent it, they must have held it as a tradition, until, reaching a lower point of degradation still, they lost it. Mr Dove's testimony to this effect is very strong. What an emblem that never-extinguished torch of primitive tradition! We find the same tradition among the American Indians. "The Chippeways and Natchez tribes are said to have an institution for keeping up a perpetual fire, certain persons being set aside and devoted to this occupation" (Lubbock, p. 421). Freycinet certainly declares that Peré Gobien's statement, that the inhabitants of the Ladrone were totally unacquainted with fire until Magellan burnt one of their villages, to be "entirely without foundation." "The language," he says, "of the inhabitants contains words for fire, burning, charcoal, oven, grilling, boiling, &c." Again, as against Commodore Wilkes' assertion as an eye-witness, that he saw no appearance of fire in the island of Fakaafo, and that the natives were very much alarmed when they saw sparks struck from flint and steel, we are told that "Hale gives a list of Faakaafo words in which we find _asi_ for fire" (Lubbock, p. 454). However, Sir John does not attribute to this argument the same force that Mr Tylor does, as _asi_ is evidently the same word as the New Zealand _ahi_, which denotes light and heat as well as fire.[265] If, then, we have positive evidence that they have not the thing (Wilkes), and also evidence that they have the word (_vide_ note), does not this prove that it is a tradition which they have lost? and is there not the presumption that they have lost it through degeneracy?

[265] I find, in Falkner's "Description of Patagonia," &c., 1774
(Falkner resided near 40° 7' in those parts), "that in the
vocabulary of the Moluches, although the word for 'fire' is
'k'tal,' the word for 'hot' is '_asee_,' 'cold' 'chosea.'"

But Sir J. Lubbock admits "asi" is the same word as "ahi," and
if "ahi" denotes light and heat, _it also_ signifies fire.

Should we not expect, at least ought it to cause surprise,
that the word for "fire," where poverty of language may be
presumed, should stand also for light and heat? In the Andaman
vocabulary (Earl's "Papuans") "ahay" is their word for the
sun--in which the two senses seem to combine. In Shortland's
"Comp. Table of Polynesian Dialects" ("Traditions of the New
Zealanders"), I find _ahi_ means fire, and not light.

---------+------------+------------+-------------+-----------------
|New Zealand.| Raratonga. | Navigator's | Sandwich Islands
| | | (Savaii). | (Hawaii).
+------------+------------+-------------+-----------------
_Fire_ = | Ahi.[C] | Ai. | Afi. | Ahi.
---------+------------+------------+-------------+-----------------

[C] And as would appear from Shortland (_id._ pp. 55, 56, "_ao_,"
a seemingly cognate though not identical word with "ahi,"
is the New Zealand word for light. But in Bougainville's
"Vocabulary of Faiti (Otaheite) Island," I find again "eaï,"
_i.e._ their word for _fire_, whereas their word for light,
not darkness, is "Eouramaï" and "Po" = day light), whilst they
have a distinct word for "hot" = "Ivera"--"Era" being the sun.
Compare Sanscrit "aghni" = ignis, fire.--_Vide_ Card. Wiseman,
"Science and Revealed Religion," p. 40, 5th ed.