[Footnote 15: From a brief account of the Fire Ceremony, or _Engwurra_ of certain tribes in Central Australia, it seems that religious ceremonies connected with Totems are the most notable performances. Also 'certain mythical ancestors,' of the '_alcheringa_, or dream-times,' were celebrated; these real or ideal human beings appear to 'sink their identity in that of the object with which they are associated, and from which they are supposed to have originated.' There appear also to be places haunted by 'spirit individuals,' in some way mixed up with Totems, but nothing is said of sacrifice to these Manes. The brief account is by Professor Baldwin Spencer and Mr. F.J. Gillen, _Proc. Royal Soc. Victoria_, July 1897. This Fire Ceremony is not for lads--not a kind of confirmation in the savage church--but is intended for adults.] [Footnote 16: _J. Anthrop. Inst_. 1886, p. 310.] [Footnote 17: _J. Anthrop. Inst_. 1885, p. 313.] [Footnote 18: _J. Anthrop. Inst_. xiii. p. 459.] [Footnote 19: _Ecclesiastical Institutions_, p. 674.] [Footnote 20: _Prim. Cult_. ii. 450.] [Footnote 21: Cranz, pp. 198, 199.] [Footnote 22: _Journal Anthrop. Inst_. xiii. 348-356.] [Footnote 23: Rom. i. 19. Cranz, i. 199.] [Footnote 24: In Mr. Carr's work, _The Australian Race_, reports of 'godless' natives are given, for instance, in the Mary River country and in Gippsland. These reports are usually the result of the ignorance or contempt of white observers, cf. Tylor, i. 419. The reader is referred to the Introduction for additional information about Australian beliefs, and for replies to objections.] XI SUPREME GODS NOT NECESSARILY DEVELOPED OUT OF 'SPIRITS' Before going on to examine the high gods of other low savages, I must here again insist on and develop the theory, not easily conceived by us, that the Supreme Being of savages belongs to another branch of faith than ghosts, or ghost-gods, or fetishes, or Totems, and need not be--probably is not--essentially derived from these. We must try to get rid of our theory that a powerful, moral, eternal Being was, from the first, _ex officio_, conceived as 'spirit;' and so was necessarily derived from a ghost. First, what was the process of development? We have examined Mr. Tylor's theory. But, to take a practical case: Here are the Australians, roaming in small bands, without more formal rulers than 'headmen' at most; not ancestor worshippers; not polytheists; with no departmental deities to select and aggrandise; not apt to speculate on the _Anima Mundi_. How, then, did they bridge the gulf between the ghost of a soon-forgotten fighting man, and that conception of a Father above, 'all-seeing,' moral, which, under various names, is found all over a huge continent? I cannot see that this problem has been solved or frankly faced.