Page:American Anthropologist NS vol. 22.djvu/346

 334 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N. s., 22, 1920

to accentuate the fact that, wherever possible, the information imparted by one informant was carefully checked up with the aid of the other individuals, and that the data, thus obtained, present a fairly accurate account of the beliefs held by the Quileute Indians regarding the soul, after-life, and the country of the souls.

THE SOUL

The Quileutes believe that each human being, animal, and inani- mate object possesses a plurality of souls which, upon the termina- tion of the visible existence of their owners, go to the Country of the Souls. These souls or shadows, called te'tipa'd, look exactly like the living being and may be taken off or put on in exactly the same manner as a snake sheds its skin. Generally, the souls complete their journey to the next world without any outside assistance; sometimes, however, the soul of a deceased relative will come up from the underworld to meet and aid the departing soul of a dying mem- ber of the same family.

The human being, according to the best authorities, consists of the body (bones and skin) called libe'k/is, whose ultimate fate is of no concern to the Quileute Indians; of an inner soul, called libite'- tipa'd "main, strong soul"; of an outside soul, termed t!a'xk!is te'tipa'd "outside shadow"; of life, designated suwa'tcaqo'lowa "the being whereby one lives"; and of the ghost for which two distinct terms are used. The ghost of a living person is called tlotsa' ago' Iowa "the thing whereby one grows"; while that of a dead human being is alluded to as yala' "ghost, devil." According to one of my informants, a similar distinction in terminology is made between the outside soul which is still part of a person and between the selfsame soul after its dissociation from the rest of the body, the latter being called ala'lild't.sqal, while to the former was applied the term used above. Inasmuch, however , as the other informants claimed to be totally ignorant of such a distinction and also in view of the fact that the new term is a verbal and not nominal form, I am inclined to look upon this novel differentiation as individualistic and not original.

The combined efforts of my informants failed to bring out

�� �