PRIMITIVE MAN AND WOMAN 233 



stated in passing that men like Westermarck and 

 countless others have simply drifted with the cur 

 rents when there was question of man s origin. 

 The acceptance of a primitive state of savagery 

 was made without further investigation and the 

 writers assumed this basis for their subsequent 

 studies and deductions. 



Evidence without end could be given to disprove 

 Morgan s contention, were there any further need 

 of this. It will suffice to conclude this important 

 matter with the scholarly words of Philo L. Mills 

 in reference to the institution of marriage : 



&quot;The earliest designations for man and woman 

 imply a sex difference, which, in combination with 

 the idea of a matrimonial unity, point to a general 

 persuasion in the past that : *A man shall leave his 

 father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, 

 and they twain shall be one flesh. Whether as 

 Adjam and Hautah, Amei and Djaja, Ajer and 

 Tanah, Hal and Indara, we are brought before a 

 single couple who are known as Lord and Life/ 

 Father and Mother, Water and Earth, 

 Strength and Affection. 



&quot;This means that the earliest state was a mono 

 gamous one, for this we possess abundant evi 

 dence. Nay more, it implies that marriage be 

 longs to the days of man s innocence, that it is 

 especially sacred. Man was to increase and mul 

 tiply/ even in the garden of God, though he was 

 to do so subject to the higher law of reason and 



