Our author’s evidence for sign-boards is from an Ottawa Indian, and is published from his MS. by Mr. Hoskyns Abrahall. {73} The testimony is of the greatest merit, for it appears to have first seen the light in a Canadian paper of 1858.  Now in 1858 totems were only spoken of in Lafitau, Long, and such old writers, and in Cooper’s novels.  They had not become subjects of scientific dispute, so the evidence is uncontaminated by theory.  The Indians were, we learn, divided into [local?] tribes, and these ’into sections or families according to their ododams’—­devices, signs, in modern usage ‘coats of arms.’ [Perhaps ‘crests’ would be a better word.] All people of one ododam (apparently under male kinship) lived together in a special section of each village.  At the entrance to the enclosure was the figure of an animal, or some other sign, set up on the top of one of the posts.  Thus everybody knew what family dwelt in what section of the village.  Some of the families were called after their ododam.  But the family with the bear ododam were called Big Feet, not Bears.  Sometimes parts of different animals were ‘quartered’ [my suggestion], and one ododam was a small hawk and the fins of a sturgeon.

We cannot tell, of course, on the evidence here, whether ‘Big Feet’ suggested ‘Bear,’ or vice versa, or neither.  But Mr. Frazer has remarked that periphrases for sacred beasts, like ‘Big Feet’ for Bear, are not uncommon.  Nor can we tell ‘what couple of ancestors’ a small hawk and a sturgeon’s fins represent, unless, perhaps, a hawk and a sturgeon. {74a}

For all this, Mr. Max Muller suggests the explanation that people who marked their abode with crow or wolf might come to be called Wolves or Crows. {74b} Again, people might borrow beast names from the prevalent beast of their district, as Arkades, [Greek], Bears, and so evolve the myth of descent from Callisto as a she-bear.  ’All this, however, is only guesswork.’  The Snake Indians worship no snake. [The Snake Indians are not a totem group, but a local tribe named from the Snake River, as we say, ‘An Ettrick man.’] Once more, the name-giving beast, say, ’Great Hare,’ is explained by Dr. Brinton as ‘the inevitable Dawn.’ {74c} ’Hasty writers,’ remarks Dr. Brinton, ’say that the Indians claim descent from different wild beasts.’  For evidence I refer to that hasty writer, Mr. Frazer, and his book, Totemism.  For a newly sprung up modern totem our author alludes to a boat, among the Mandans, ’their totem, or tutelary object of worship.’  An object of worship, of course, is not necessarily a totem!  Nor is a totem by the definition (as a rule one of a class of objects) anything but a natural object.  Mr. Max Muller wishes that ’those who write about totems and totemism would tell us exactly what they mean by these words.’  I have told him, and indicated better sources.  I apply the word totemism to the widely diffused savage institution which I have defined.