Egyptian Totemism
Durkheim: Totemism in Egypt and its Modern Influences
Alexander Conroy
Ancient Egypt was a world full of gods, goddesses, mythological creatures, and legends we still hear of today. When the subject of Ancient Egypt is mentioned, the first thoughts that come to mind are the gods, pharaohs, pyramids and sphinx. These are the commonly discussed topics, which normally leave out an entire period of Ancient Egypt’s culture, the Pre-dynastic era. The Pre-dynastic era has its roots in the lore of individual geographical localities. The rivers and mountains were considered sacred, embodying the spirits of ancestors or animals. This paper is a short journey through the Pre-dynastic era. The purpose of the study is to show how the Pre-dynastic religions stem from or are equivalent to totemism and fetishism. These original Egyptian beliefs will be compared to totemic societies such as the southeastern Pacific Islanders, and Australian aboriginal tribes as observed and studied by Emile Durkheim, one of the greatest promulgators of totemism as origin of religion. The conclusion of this study should strengthen Durkheim’s arguments by showing that totemism has its roots in a non-secluded culture, as well as paralleling certain concepts between the tribes he studied and the tribes of ancient Egypt. It is hopeful that this will shed some light on, and hopefully advance Durkheim’s original purpose for his studies. It will also attempt to show the lasting effects and influence totemism has had throughout the dynastic belief systems and beliefs of the modern day.
Emile Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of Religious Life was an attempt at creating a new way of knowing and dealing with the origins of religion. Durkheim proposes two major claims: The first being that totemism is the most fundamental form of religion, and the second that society is the origin of all religious belief. Until society establishes and performs its enacted practices, a religion does not exist as it is not adopted by the majority. Durkheim is highly criticized for his epistemological viewpoints. A French anthropologist of the late 19th and early 20th century, Durkheim was brought up in a time of great social upheaval and moral degeneration. The purpose for his studies on the origins of religious life was to discover the source of morality within human beings. By basing his research on socially enacted practices he was attempting to establish a foundation, with the purpose of finding morality as an objective evolutionary ideal which does not stem from individual consciousness. With this discovery Durkheim would be able to show that it is possible to recreate morality and ethical values in an institution without the necessity of a specific religion, thus bringing morals to the secular world.
Durkheim’s primary focus of his studies was with the aboriginal tribes of Australia, while referencing and studying Native Americans and Pacific islanders of which he had little to no experience with personally. Durkheim chose the aboriginal tribes because of their relatively remote existence for thousands of years. They are perfectly homogonous and their social organizations are all based on similar or same names through out different tribes. These tribes followed what Durkheim labels as the most primitive form of religion: Totemism. He believed that these religions were perfect for the study of his topic because they represent what human beings had evolved from at its earliest. Durkheim believed that the aboriginals would eventually evolve more complex religious belief systems as we have today (Durkheim, p. 115).
Although the aboriginals in Australia show us what seems to be a clear view on primitive society, I would argue that their remoteness from, and current decimation by, European nations would actually make them a poor choice of study. Aboriginal history stems far back into the tens of thousands of years, and genetic matching has shown very few links in relation to other cultures away from the island continent. This remoteness, I believe, would not show the origins and development of man as a species because the development could not parallel anything else in the world. An assumption is made, that these primitive religions will advance and evolve in a similar fashion to foreign religions. Due to the decimation of aboriginal culture during the discovery of these lands by foreigners, the possibility of natural evolution has been thwarted. The Australians have been left with two choices: For the primitives in these lands to preserve their culture or vastly accelerate it. Both these choices are extreme actions which bars the evolutionary principles of nature of which it seems Durkheim’s epistemology is rooted in. Notice that the European and Middle Eastern nations developed at a different pace than these tribes when technically, they had the same amount of time, if not less, to do so.
I would promote Ancient Egypt as a culture of study. It has a rich culture and history in which we can see the progression and amalgamation of concepts, fetishes, totems, ideals, gods, and cultures. According to Wallis Budge in his book entitled From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt, the importance of the Egyptian religious beliefs is “in the fact that it embraced a qualified Totemism and Fetishism and prepared the way for the higher classes of sprits to become ‘gods’” (Budge, p. 56). Although Budge focuses more on fetishism, I believe that it is possible to show the totemic roots with the knowledge we have of Ancient Egyptian culture and applying Emile Durkheim’s epistemology. It is also possible to determine from the migration of local gods, concepts and cultures, the influence left behind which stem from totemic origins. Due to the scale of such a project, I will limit my scope to certain specific topics, most notably ruminations on the monotheistic-like god Amen worshiped and promoted by Akhunaten. There will also be individual sections on Art and Heka before concluding with commentaries on Durkheim’s goals and what assumptions can be made from the study of this once great culture.
“The predynastic Egyptians believed that the sea, earth, air, and sky overflowed with spirits, some of whom were engaged in carrying on the works of nature, and others in helping or hindering man in the course of his existence on earth. All the events of nature were attributed to these spirits. …each tribe had its own protective deities, who were incarnated as animals, birds, reptiles, or simple fetishes such as rams, bulls, hippopotamuses, cats, baboons, hawks, crocodiles, and snakes. The animal deities gradually gained human characteristics, while usually retaining some of the animal’s features in their new form. The animal then became sacred to the god” (Mercatante, xviii).
The above quote represents the general beliefs of Egyptian tribes from the advent of the dynastic age and beyond. There is described, a steady evolution from spirit to animal, then deity. The Egyptians were nomadic during this period, staying as close to the river Nile and its offshoots as possible. Each locale had its own deities or animal totems to which the tribe held allegiance or reverence to. As people traveled the lands and encountered one another, so too did they encounter other’s beliefs. A common trend occurs in most religious concepts when one encounters another. An amalgamation of sorts may occur between one tribe’s deities or totems, and another’s. Hence, we find many different animals and types of fetishes used by certain tribes which have adopted another’s protective spirit. What is interesting about Australian tribes is that their animal totems stay specific. They do not seem susceptible to the mixing of sacred concepts and worship. This resistance to syncretism could be the reason their society still remains in its primitive state. It is possible that this quality could stem from its thousands of years of isolation to which it was exposed to no other system of belief other than itself. It would be beneficial to perform an in-depth study on the influences throughout Ancient Egypt which originate from foreign lands. As a somewhat successful conquering nation, it would seem that the entrance into, and capture of foreign lands would change the ideologies of the common people through their daily interactions. Even if a king or conqueror had not heard of a specific set of beliefs, because the masses begin to speak and assimilate new and different concepts the institutions and thus the king’s beliefs are then required to change in parallel.
Counties in pre-dynastic Egypt were known as “nomes”. Each nome had its own specific sacred animal or fetish which it worshiped and revered (Budge, p. 105). Many fabulous animals, which are generally animals which were mixed part by part between various different species, are found in the tombs of various nomes. These fabulous animals included: Sag, which had the foreparts of a lion and hind parts of a horse, The Sefer-T, a lion with the head and wings of an eagle, and the Am-Mitu, a lion with the head and hindquarters of a crocodile (ibid., 103). This fusion of animals, I would assume, came from the various traveling nomads who had brought their sacred animals into newly discovered societies, or possibly the absorption of a smaller tribe by a larger tribe. This blend of beast and beast could only lead to the next step in the process, human and beast. When human and beasts came together as totemic protectors, the possibility of a person merging with a beast would give the person divine-like status because they would be one with a sacred animal. Hence, to deify oneself and remain a corporeal entity of which a tribe could follow one must claim to be part god, and essentially, part animal. Animalistic qualities could have been attributed to people in leadership positions or those who showed qualities of that specific animal. A strong person could be attributed qualities of a bull, or a political leader with keen vision physical and political, paired with an eagle or hawk. The correlations between person and beast could have been vastly secular in the guise of sacred, and those qualities in that person could have held them in those positions of leadership for so long that the person alone became deified apart from the beast.
Durkheim insinuated that art forms would follow a progression from simple to complex. Abstract art forms are more commonly seen in the present than far in the past. Aboriginal art forms, unfortunately for Durkheim, detriment his argument that their form of totemism was the beginnings of religion. Their very culture itself was ingrained with abstract images of theirs and other clan’s totems. They etched this symbol on their churingas, stones, sacred locations, and used them during ceremonies. The totemic symbol had great power in its abstract form. Ancient Egyptian art forms were very realistic. They depicted people, beasts, and Gods as accurately as possible. A picture portrays an image or event that took place, a symbolic picture is full of imagery that alludes to other meaning, and at times, gives no clue as to the meaning whatsoever. The personalization of an abstract symbol, by a primitive, which represents a figure or god, should have originated from an evolved social form of this idea. Furthermore, the social idea of personalized abstract symbols should have come from the realistic forms of the symbol.
For example, an Egyptian would draw a hawk to represent a hawk, but an Aboriginal would draw two lines to represent a hawk. The differences are uncanny because the Aboriginal has essentially added on an extra meaning with the concept of hawk, that of two lines. Hieroglyphs were developed out of this representative art, to which symbolic meaning was then given to the realistic images and used as a written language system.
“A little known but fascinating inscription made at the command of the pharaoh Thutmose IV (1401 – 1391 BC) records the discovery by the king of a stone. The significance of this celebrated stone lay not in its being of rare material or appearance, the inscription tells us, but because ‘his majesty found this stone in the shape of a divine hawk.’ That an Egyptian king should place so much importance on a mere rock simply because of its shape is instructive, for it shows how alert the ancient Egyptian was to the shape of objects, and to the symbolic importance which the dimension of form could hold” (Wilkinson, p. 16).
This specific example can be paralleled with the aboriginal churinga, a focus of Durkheim’s texts as part of a totemic belief system. A churinga, according to Durkheim is:
“an object of wood and stone like all others; they are distinguished from profane things of the same sort by only one particularity: this is that the totemic mark is drawn or engraved upon them. So it is this mark and this alone which gives them their sacred character…the churinga serve as the residence of an ancestor’s soul and that it is the presence of this soul which confers these properties” (Durkheim, p. 144).
The churinga in itself is in accordance with E.B Tylor’s definition of a fetish, found in Budge’s work on Egyptian pre-dynastic cults:
“To class an object as a fetish demands explicit statement that a spirit is considered as embodied in it or acting through it or communicating by it, or at least that the people it belongs to do habitually think this of such objects; or it must be shown that the object is treated as having personal consciousness and power, is talked with, worshipped, prayed to, sacrificed to, petted, or ill treated with reference to its past or present behavior to its votaries” (Budge, p. 57)
Although the churinga are deemed sacred more often than attributing it as an ancestral spirit’s domicile, the similarity with fetishes cannot be denied. There is still a sort of “Mana” imbued about the object because of its shape and totemic mark. The example of the king discovering the stone, I would argue, is a natural churinga. The king must have not only been alert to the shape of objects and their symbols, but understood the inherent sacredness of stones and objects that represent an animal. Thus, because the stone was in the shape of a specific animal, it needed not an actual totemic mark created by the imaginations of the society as a whole, as Durkheim would say. The shape of the object itself already has a social value because of the realistic representation of its form. I would argue that this is an example of a simpler form of totemism, because the abstract symbol for an animal has not yet been created, and the sacredness of the object comes from its natural shape. The fetish, or churinga still exists, but through simpler and more naturalistic representation. Nevertheless, the existence of such actions and beliefs strengthen Durkheim’s argument for totemism as origin of religion beyond the borders of Australia.
The Egyptian gods resemble the Melanesian totems in that they are both a source of divine power, are worshiped, and considered sacred. The attribution of such power is a primitive concept established through societal evolution as described by Durkheim. The slow permutation of the pre-dynastic animal gods into men with animal features shows that totemism can indeed be deemed the origin of religion. Through the concepts of mana and heka, we can draw interesting conclusions about the secular nature of these gods and totems when comparing them to key cultures studied by Durkheim.
In his studies Durkheim came across the concept of mana of the Melanasians which closely resembled the magical beliefs in waken of the Sioux, and the orenda of the Iroquois. In The Elementary forms of Religious life,
“The definition given by Codrington is as follows: ‘There is a belief in a force altogether distinct from physical power, which acts in all ways for good and evil; and which it is of the greatest advantage to possess or control. This is Mana…It is a power or influence, not physical and in a way supernatural; but it shows itself in physical force, or in any kind of power or excellence which a man possesses. This mana is not fixed in anything, and can be conveyed in almost anything” (Durkheim, p.223)
Budge describes a similar concept in pre-dynastic Egyptian belief known as Heka:
“In my opinion Heka was a something which formed the very essential part of a divine being or god. It made a god or its possessor superior in power to every being who did not posses it. By it alone a god was able to exist, and to do the work which he did. It was not his life, but it was the source of his life, and it may be compared to the mana of the peoples of the South Seas. Its possession was absolutely necessary for a god if he wished to continue his existence, and in times of danger he relied on it for effective help, and he made use of it also whenever he wished to do any special piece of work.” (Budge, p.116)
It is startling the similarity between the Melanesian, mana and Egyptian heka. Heka existed within the god which was what distinguished him from common people. Mana can be conveyed in anything, yet is not fixed. The conclusion could be drawn that the God gathers this heka for himself with the same purpose as a melanisian would “gather this mana for oneself, or get it used for one’s benefit” (Durkheim, p 223). The idea that mana needs to be gathered implies that the person with the mana must be alert and is in danger of losing that mana. A god then can lose his mana and become threatened or endangered in which he is forced to use that mana to create a display or act that would preserve or strengthen him.
Another culture, the Polynesian chiefdoms of traditional Hawaiian religion, mentions mana as a sacred divine force. Mana was inherited and based upon status, but could also be gained or lost through a person moral actions, as is described by Raymond Scupin in Religion and Culture: An Anthropological Focus:
“The success or failure of a chief was attributed to the amount of mana he controlled. This was also reflected in the economic and political spheres, in that a chief who was a good redistributor and maintained order was believed to possess a great amount of mana. Conversely if things went badly, this reflected a loss of spiritual power”(Scupin, p. 173).
The status of chief mentioned in this passage is, as admitted by Budge, essentially the same as the status of God. The Egyptian gods had to maintain there power, it can be assumed, through good works and favors to its people. Mana, then, is equivalent to influence or favor in the eyes of, a chief or Gods, people. This removes the mystique from the concept, and in reality makes it profane phenomena. Durkheim would be amazed by this correlation, for it shows that mana and heka serve primarily social functions. It is possible then, that this social function was established at the basic level of totemic practice where the first divisions between sacred and profane were created. Mana can be seen as a set of attributes an individual has over others which distinguishes them from the rest of society, raising them to positions of leadership and counsel. Mana cannot exist without a social group to compare the quality, or abundance of, individual abilities. Heka cannot exist without a social group to worship the God whom claims it. It can be proposed then, that the local Gods of pre-dynastic Egyptian religion were nothing more than chieftains, or possibly animal figures to which good works considered sacred, seemed to have stemmed from.
Durkheim mentions “One characteristic fact clearly shows the fundamental reason which has kept the idea of the mana so specialized in Australia. The real religious forces, those thought of in the form of totems, are not the only ones with which the Australian feels himself obliged to reckon. There are also some over which magicians have particular control. …their special function [is] to cause sickness and death” (Durkheim, p. 226). The attribution of mana as “specialized” is a detriment to Durkheim’s argument, because if mana did not exist in foreign religions, then how could this form of totemism be viewed as the origin of religion in any other region of the world? Interestingly, it is implicated that a negative divine force was used in Ancient Egyptian culture. “It was thought that the continued friendship of the good spirits could be secured and the hostility of the evil spirits averted by gifts, or more accurately, bribes”(Mercatante, p. xviii). The statement made by Mercatante is ambiguous, because it has not drawn the conclusion which we have on the secular essence of those beings which are full of mana. If hostile evil spirits exist, and can be appeased by gifts and bribes, we can only make the assumption that the Egyptians had their own sorcerers and magicians, full of Heka, and willing to wreak havoc on the world. Since the gods have been interpreted as secular chieftains or tribal leaders, so too would the negative “demonic” spirits be considered men which demanded appeasement. This is found to be true in Budge’s studies, the Kheri Heb, or “possessor of the book of the ritual” performed feats of magic and was self-proclaimed as being learned in the ways of Heka, being able to grant people their wishes. This figure acted similarly to that of a shaman, whose positive or negative acts needed appeasement from those who wished good favor, or others ill favor. The appearance of such a figure further proves the correlations made between profane being in the guise of the sacred. From these footstools of wondrous and terrible feats and prophecy could have risen the greatest of gods and goddesses. It is just a matter of time before a single God would encompass and demonstrate signs both “great and terrible” such as it is written in Deuteronomy 6:22: “Before our eyes the LORD sent miraculous signs and wonders—great and terrible—upon Egypt and Pharaoh and his whole household.”
“Heka, or magic was believed by the Egyptians to be older than religion” (Budge 112). Durkheim also argues that magic exists in it of itself, separate from mana, as mana requires a social belief system to sustain itself. This brings Magic and mana into an interesting relationship in which one is different than the other but yet of the same source. Durkheim would probably have to agree that Heka has the combined property of both mana and magic to the Egyptians, and that it exists as both a social and non social force. The Egyptians claim that before anything was created, the creator god made Heka. This gives an ancient origin to this supernatural force (Budge 113). Magic, supersedes mana, and can influence anyone whether they are part of one tribe or another. Mana matters not to the practitioner of magic, even though the presence of mana is at times attributed to the magician in the same way it would a totem or chief (Durkheim 236).
This subject of mana and heka enhance Durkheims studies for it brings the bonds closer between Australian totemic beliefs and Egyptian. What Durkheim stated as an “originality” of the Australian culture can now be found in another society who has no close geographical or genetic connections whatsoever.
The following discussion will base itself on one of the first primeval Egyptian gods and its temporary forced exile. The purpose for this is to show the development of the God’s attributes from more local totemic sources, as well as to show the ineffectiveness of forced aberrations in the religious evolutionary process.
Amen was a bisexual god whose domicile was the watery abyss of Nunu. Amen was worshipped in the Hare-city which was later to be known as the city of Thoth. Amen’s name means “to-hide” or “to be hidden”, or possibly, “unseen or unknowable”. At times Amen is considered to be the wind-god of the north, or he can be considered to be the local god of Thebes. Amen may have been the “hidden” creative power and identified with Min or Menu, god of generation. “The Theban Amen may have been Hermopolis, and it is probable that the princes of Thebes adopted him as their god after their conquest of the princes of Herakleopolis, and they were able to call themselves ‘Kings of the Two Lands, the North and the South’ of all Egypt” (Budge, p.164). This shows the transformation from local to regional deity. The capital of the nome of Thebes was Ani. “The God of the City was a sacred bull called Mentu” (ibid, p.164) where Mentu was the god of fertility and procreation. Amen was also described as a man with the head of a hawk when he was merged with the sun god Ra, becoming Amen-Ra after the princes conquered Thebes (Mercantante, p.95). The power of Amen alone grew nonetheless over the figure of Mentu, and eventually the name became prevalent over it and afterwards Amen was declared a war-god. Amen adopted the “Bull-headed figure” of Mentu. The countless victories of the kings under the god Amen’s name lead to him be lifted up to the status of “King of the gods” and suggested that Amen even existed before Egypt (Budge, 164). This was the cause for the correlation between Amen and Ra, which brought Amen-Ra to the level of creator, being identified with both the bull and the sun disk. It is interesting how the success of mortals under the “dominion” of Amen caused them to correlate Amen’s image with their fortune. It went so far as to merge the attributes of this god with that of a greater creator god. I would make a distinction between this and Australian totems. Totems were often chosen from the local pool of animals or plants rather than large powerful objects such as the sun or moon. Amen’s essential properties originated from a bull, Mentu, the god of procreation and fertility. The adoption of such a god as ones supreme or creator being is of no difference to an Australian totemic tribe choosing a rabbit as their totem. The eventual transformation of Mentu as a local totemic spirit to War god is an example of society evolving as a whole and its religious beliefs adapting to the types of lifestyle that had been birthed, that of the metropolis.
The bull in Ancient Egypt was quite revered over all other animals. According to Adolf Erman, “of all the domestic animals, the ox was dearest to Egyptians” (Erman, p. 436). The strong bull can be said to be Egypt’s power animal, to which all strength and heroic deeds were attributed. The knowledge and reverence of this animal was much developed. They were fed, petted, talked too, and coaxed into performing tasks and eating certain foods. Cattle-breeding was quite advanced to the Egyptian as well, and some special breeds of ox were reserved for decorative purposes and pampered. Their oxen were treated as well as we would treat any household animal today. The different species bred by the Egyptians varied in taste of flesh, horn size, size, and various other differentiated attributes all from breeding the common zebu (ibid, p. 436).All of this time and effort went into this animal, which was a primary source for food, shelter, clothing, etc. It’s not a wonder they would see it as a sacred animal. The key difference however between Australian totemism and this ideal of sacredness of the Bull, is that the Australians had prohibitions on eating or killing the animal which was their totem. However, it is notable that although the bull was the most revered, other nomes held different animals as their sacred creatures and did not choose completely based on power or reverential value. The Egyptians had many uses for their sacred animals, and it could possibly be said that as an evolving culture with minimal resources, the most abundant resource could not be ignored and prohibited from use. Because the bull was plenty in number it could be revered as a sacred animal and still used for profane purposes. During the time of the conquering kings, abundance came with each victory, hence, generation and fertility was rife throughout the lands. The bull, representing this on a local level, was pushed into a new category of abundance and growth, the spoils of war. In this view it is simple to see how an animal fetish of fertility and procreation could have transformed into a God of war by those willing to make the associations. It is further logical to attribute the essences of these “gods” to the kings whom were physically making the victory. Obviously they had the power of generation!
Later, “The animal sacred to Amen was the ram because of its virility, pugnacity and handsome appearance” (Budge, p. 165). The spirit of Amen dwelt in the Rhni, or ram sphinx. Many statues of this ram sphinx can be found at Thebes, which could allude to them being the remnants of a totemic representation of the animal-god. The Egyptians were known for their religious and cultural preservation even in the face of change. Amen’s sacred bird became the goose which connects him in some way with Gebb the earth god (ibid, p. 166). Eventually, with Thebes becoming the central metropolis of Egypt and the World, Amen became paired with the sun. This shows the eventual adoption of the different animals and attributes of different local nomes into the same God as it became a metropolis. The enacted practices of society were becoming less separate and more whole, and as each tribe joined or interacted with Thebes so did their theology.
The king’s treasuries were full, the priests had a grasp upon the political situation throughout the city and the necessity of supreme divinity was at hand. This however did not go as it should have. King Amenhetep IV, also known as Akhunaten, decided to force the cult of the sun disk god Aten upon Thebes. The results were disastrous. The city was completely opposed causing Akhunaten to flee and create a new capital in Middle Egypt known as Akhut Aten. This was the result of imposing monotheism upon a religion that was not yet ready for the concept. When Akhunaten began the shift to monotheism, his people were most likely shocked and abhorred at the concept as the statues and images of their deities were destroyed and effigies of Aten erected. Even the separate establishment of a separate capital could not keep the Akhunaten aberration alive. Upon the death of Akhunaten his son Tutankhaten was convinced to come back to the city of Thebes, renaming himself Tutankhamen (Mercatante, p. 4). This left the cult of Aten desolate, and the cult of Amen renewed.
This example could be a powerful ally to Durkheim’s view. Society stopped a single man from changing the lands belief systems. This goes to show that unless society as a whole accepts an ideal or belief, it does not get integrated fully into the system. It denies the influence of the individual as origin of religion. It shows that institutionalized monotheistic religion is barred from existence until the appropriate evolutionary period comes about so that society may begin to practice the adopted changes at a slow rate of absorption and acceptance. This event is similar to the European influences on Australian tribes. The Egyptians however, moved past the decision making process of keeping their existing beliefs or accelerating forward and chose the latter.
Different clans had different totems. Different tribes had different gods. The distinction between Australian totem and Egyptian god in the predynastic era are very thin. The Egyptians believed in the manifestation of their gods through specific natural phenomena. They also believed spirits resided throughout all of nature, including those spirits of their ancestors. These animistic beliefs still culminated in the concept of a specific object or natural process being the embodiment of their creator God. The correlations are stunning, especially from such vastly estranged cultures.
Religion has a definite function among society. In reflection of this study, religion is in fact a construct of society which is open to change or stagnation depending upon the environmental and foreign social influences encountered throughout a peoples history. Isolation seems to lead to extremely slow forms of evolution. Frequent encounters with other developed cultures tend to speed up the absorption of newer beliefs and ideals. Each culture seems to develop to the point where a small push toward new or foreign ideals will culminate in a landslide of cultural and religious syncretism.
It also seems that religion as a whole is dependent upon one factor for its continued progression and growth, and that is the factor of canonization and fealty towards an ideal as supreme or ultimate. The Australian totemic religions show this fealty toward their animal totems, which are representations of their tribes. The tribe normally maintains itself, and although it comes together with other tribes, its totems remain intact. This has preserved for thousands of years with very small variation and change in those locations that have been left relatively unharmed by European settlement. Modern monotheistic religions are much the same. Although the religion may interact with others, they identify with their religion as wholly true and connect this religiosity with their country and culture in some way to establish solidity in as many realms of their life as possible. Both religious forms, although at different stages in an evolutionary progression model, share the same need to keep things the same, to prevent change at some point along the line. It would be interesting to explore the question: Why does religion inevitably reject change?
The tendency toward linearity and ultimate “goodness” or “truth” I believe stems from the early beginnings of totemic practices, during the first delineation between sacred and profane. The earliest Australian saw divinity throughout life, but at some point the marvel with the “mundane” world was lost. There was an inherent separation between those things one could not explain and control, and those that made up for most of one’s day. Society at times could have picked up specific objects as sacred, and because of this nature would not want to spoil it with the mundane actions and uses of every day life. For instance, a tribe who viewed wild boar as a sacred animal because of his quickness and power could technically use that animal for food. However, since the animal is sacred, and eating is a profane act, the two cannot be mixed lest something negative happen to the person who breached the prohibition. This separation however, was a shift in thinking for the primitive. Prohibition of the use of something inherently valuable to sustain profane life became seen as a negative thing. This, I believe, is the primal duality which leads our thinking even today. I believe that the essence of morality comes from the social act of designating objects, creatures, and concepts as sacred and profane.
In modern Judaism, it is still prohibited to eat pork. The reasons given were that at the time pork could have been poisonous or dangerous to eat because of specific bacteria. Through logical observation the prohibition was placed for the benefit of its people, but what if we traced this concept back to its shamanic roots? Did natives before the advent of the Torah also prohibit the consumption of pork? If so what was their reason? Could it have been that the pork was seen as coming from a sacred animal and thus inaccessible? What happens to sacred things when they are used for profane “heretical” purposes? These questions all arise from the study between Egypt and Aboriginal Australia. It cannot be said that no essential nomadic or shamanic practices has made its way into the common every day religions. The focus on the primal directions, the celestial bodies, and animals, in it of itself, is proof that the concept of the divine oneness of a creator god did not just “pop out” of a burning bush. I believe it is safe to say that these ideas and revelations are merely traditions of visions and theologies passed down from one tribe to another, from one culture to another, and then from one religion to another until a myriad of religious beliefs merged producing the religions of the world that we see today.
In response to Durkheim’s purpose in his studies, I believe that in order to establish a sense of morality within a non religious institution, clear distinctions between “right” and “wrong” must be upheld without any rational dissemination of the reasons for each label. Society, as a whole, cannot submit to reason because of their inherent dependence on solidarity. Rationalism challenges every viewpoint and thus creates almost a permanent state of insecurity and uncertainness. Thus we see morality dissolve in the face of reason which holds no values but argument and “truth”, often times a truth that cannot be reached. It is one of the principles of Buddhism, that the illusion of solidarity is what creates stress in life. This state however is highly valuable to every culture and is often seen as producing a tranquil state as opposed to stress. The ideal of permanence in an ever changing world keeps humanity gripping toward its roots and traditions in a desperate attempt to establish some sort of form and order within the world. Through Egypt’s gradual adoption of new ideals and simultaneous preservation of the past this paradigm can clearly be demonstrated. The study of this nation along with Durkheims previous research could have led him to much more “solid” conclusions about the nature and origin of religion and morality.
References
Budge, E.A. Wallis. (1988). From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc.
Deuteronomy. Holy Bible. New International Version.
http://www.biblegateway.com
Durkheim, Emile. (1965). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: The Free
Press.
Erman, Adolf. (1971) Life in Ancient Egypt. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Mercatante, Anthony S. (1998). Who’s Who in Egyptian Mythology. New York: Barnes &
Nobles Books.
Scupin, Raymond. (2000). Religion and Culture: An Anthropological Focus. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Wilkinson, Richard H. (1994). Symbols & Magic in Egyptian Art. London: Thames and Hudson.
