denied to him. This genna seems to be more severe in those villages where the husband acts as the midwife. Among the Tangkhuls, too, the father gives the child its first food. He chews a few grains of rice, and then puts them in the child's mouth. Is this a sort of acknowledgment of paternity? Is it the assertion of a claim? Is it,—intentionally,—designed to create a bond between father and child? I myself regard it as in part explained by the fact that "C'est le premier pas qui coûte."[1] Just as the Gennabura sets free the new crop of rice by tasting it himself, so the father, who is the sacrificing authority inside the house, sets the child free to eat the staple of his adult life. It is a rite of aggregation and une levée de tabou. In cases where the marriage rites have not been duly completed before a child is born, provided the couple might otherwise marry, the father is often required to acknowledge formally the paternity of the child, which is then allowed to live. Were he to deny paternity, or if the couple might not marry, the child would not be reared. Marriage has therefore the effect of "legitimising" the children. Is pater quem nuptiae demonstrant.
At Maolong, a Quoireng Nāga village, where the birth genna for a calf lasts for a month, the same period as for a child, I was told that the fowl killed by the father when the child was born was eaten by the mother, and that the father was not allowed to taste it. In the same village I learnt that no one was allowed to eat the flesh of a dog or goat that has been sacrificed for them. In other villages the diet of the proud parents during the birth genna is fish and salt. Yet again in others fish and fowls only are allowed. The Kukis are not so strict about the rule enjoining the parents to have no contact with the rest of the village, for they allow drinks to be given by them to all, except the unmarried. Nearly all sacrifices are in part used as occasions for taking omens, and the fowl killed at
- ↑ Cf. Van Gennep, Rites de Passage, pp. 249-50.
