1 1 8 Hntton Webster 



purpose is " to protect the man who acts on behalf of the whole 

 subdivision or village on the occasions of general gennas, from 

 any accident which might impair his power." He is subject to 

 various food restrictions, must content himself with only one wife, 

 and must even separate himself from her on the eve of a general 

 genua. In one group the headman may not eat in a strange 

 village, nor, whatever the provocation, may he utter a word of 

 abuse. The violation of any one of these taboos is thought to 

 bring misfortune on the entire village. ^'^ It is not wholly specu- 

 lative to suggest that were the natives of Assam, with advancing 

 culture, to discard their communal taboos as burdensome, the 

 special regulations afifecting the gcinia-biira might survive, in 

 deference to old tradition, and might even be increased in severity 

 if that individual should likewise grow in authority and holiness. 

 The situation would then furnish a very close analogy to what 

 existed in ancient Babylonia. The regulations concerning the 

 " evil da3's/' it may be noted, do not concern the king alone. We 

 may reasonably assume that " the shepherd of the great peoples " 

 and the king mentioned further on in the hemerology are one and 

 the same; but the record also describes certain rules imposed on 

 the priest (or priestess) and on the physician, both important 

 functionaries among the Babylonians. It seems also evident that 

 the day was generally regarded as unsuitable for any one to lay 

 a curse or ban ; according to other but possibly less accurate ren- 

 derings, unsuitable for all business. These considerations in- 

 crease the probability that at one time some taboos on the seventh 

 day were observed by the entire community. 



It is, however, questionable whether in late historic times there 

 was any general abstention from work and other activities on the 

 " evil days." The Babylonians were a highly organized commer- 

 cial and manufacturing people who would have found such regu- 

 lations burdensome to the highest degree. Possibly taboos once 

 communally observed were gradually relaxed and at last aban- 

 doned, just as modern Jews are now neglecting the observance of 



'" Hodson, in Journal of the Anthropological Institute. 1906. xxxvi. 98. 

 Cf. idem, in Folk-Lore, 1910, xxi. 298. 



118 



