tendency in this direction has been observed by Messrs. Fison and Hewitt even in Australia. The Mahilis, Koras, and Kurmis, who profess to be members of the Hindu community, still retain the totemistic organisation, with names derived from birds, beasts, and plants. Even the Jagânnathi Kumhars of Orissa, taking rank immediately below the writer—caste, have the totems tiger, snake, weasel, cow, frog, sparrow, and tortoise. The sub—castes of the Khatlya Kumhars explain away their totem-names "as names of certain saints, who, being present at Daksha's Horse-sacrifice, transformed themselves into animals to escape the wrath of Siva," like the gods of Egypt when they fled in bestial form from the wrath of Set.
Among the non-Aryan tribes the marriage-law has the totemistic sanction. No man may marry a woman of his totem kin. When the totem-name is changed for an eponym, the non-Aryan, rising in the social scale, is practically in the same position as the Brahmans, "divided into exogamous sections (gotras), the members of which profess to be descended from the mythical rishi or inspired saint whose name the gotra bears." There is thus nothing to bar the conjecture that the exogamous gotras of the whole Brahmans were once a form of totem-kindred, which (like aspiring non-Aryan stocks at the present day) dropped the totem-name and renamed the septs from some eponymous hero, medicine-man, or Rishi.
Constant repetition of the same set of facts becomes irksome, and yet is made necessary by the legitimate demand for trustworthy and abundant evidence. As
