TOTEMISM AND EXOGAMY 239 



of the statement that the name-theory is one 

 based on no slender foundation of fact. 



If it were quite clear that the Aruntas were in 

 an absolutely primitive state of totemism it might 

 be legitimate to pay great respect to their isolated 

 form of belief in connexion with the custom. But, 

 as we have seen, this is at least a moot point. Under 

 these circumstances we do not think that Professor 

 Frazer has in any way shown sufficient cause for 

 abandoning the name-theory, or indeed his own 

 first theory, which seems to us to possess much 

 more justification than that which he now holds. 



And then as to exogamy : how are we to account 

 for this ? Here at least we know where we are as 

 to facts. There seems to be no kind of doubt pos- 

 sible that the object of the custom or system is 

 deliberately and of set purpose to prevent the 

 marriage of near kin, and the more complicated 

 the custom the greater the number and range of 

 the prohibitions. But why did this arise ? Judging 

 from the nescience of the ordinary facts of gener- 

 ation which seems to prevail amongst some totem- 

 istic peoples we may conclude that it was no essay 

 in eugenics which prompted this institution. What 

 then was it ? The answer is not to be found in the 

 books of the anthropologists. Even the theory- 

 abounding Professor throws up the sponge here, 

 and, in words which will bear full quotation, con- 

 fesses his complete ignorance on the matter. " It 

 is impossible," he says, " to suppose that in planning 

 it " (i.e., the system of exogamy) " these ignorant 

 and improvident savages could have been animated 

 by exact knowledge of its consequences or by a 



