Tooth Evulsion and Circumcision

Among the native tribes in Central Australia, instead of making tooth—evulsion an important rite in initiations, as it is with the tribes of the southeast, they put their emphasis upon circumcision and subincision. This fact has naturally enough led ethnographers to infer that circumcision is an equivalent of tooth—evulsion, in some manner of mentation, but so far, no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming.

Sir James G. Frazer has studied the matter and has attempted a partial explanation.“Superficially regarded,” says he,“the initiatory rite of tooth—extraction so far resembles the initiatory rite of circumcision that the essential part of both consists in the removal of a part of the patient's body; accordingly, it is not without significance that the tribes of Southeastern Australia who practice the rite of tooth—extraction, do not observe the rite of circumcision; while on the contrary the tribes of Central Australia and Northwest Queensland, who practice the rite of circumcision, do not observe the rite of tooth—extraction as an initiatory ceremony. With great diffidence I have conjectured that the two rites of circumcision and tooth—extraction may have had this much in common, that they were both intended to promote the reincarnation of the individual at a future time by severing from his person a vital or especially durable portion, and subjecting it to a treatment which, in the opinion of these savages, was fitted to ensure the desired object of bringing him to life again after death.”1

While I cannot agree with Frazer's partial explanation in its entirety, I believe in fairness to him, that it would be well to state briefly the views of others who have seen the tooth as a symbol of something vital to man, either in this life or the world hoped for. Jewish law, says Philo Judeas,2 recognized the teeth as “instruments of life,” by means of which his food was eaten. One can readily see that if a carnivorous or even herbivorous animal were to lose all its