Burma: Census of India 1901 Vol. I - Khamkoo

I
3 2 REPORT ON THE CENSUS OF BURMA. -
"The Kathe is of a more mild and docile temper than the Burman, and is obedient and
timid. He is respectful to his elders and supervisors, and is generally industrious and careful.
He gives very little trouble, and is on the whole a good loyal subject.
Ponnas.—There are not many Ponnas in this subdivision. There are a few households
in each of the villages of Yegyibauk, Shwegyetyet, Koko Ngedo and Kyandan.
These are called the Kathe-Ponnas and are practically unconverted Kathes, but they are
decidedly not Brahmins as one understands a Brahmin of India.
" These Ponnas are not purely vegetarians as they eat fish.
" The Ponnas are cultivators, weavers and fortune-tellers. They preside at religious
ceremonies too. In all manners and customs they are practically the same as the natives of
India.
" The Ponnas are also bilinguists, speaking Kathe and Burmese or Wethali (Assamese)
and Burmese; in some cases Hindi, Kathe and Burmese. The Ponnas are good, loyal subjects
on the whole."
" Meiktein " is doubtless the same word as " Meithei," the name of the language
of Manipur.
198. Of European races the English are naturally the most strongly repre-
Europeans
sented.
&c
The returns show 5,053 English males and
1,180 English females, as against 7,198 and 2,074
respectively enumerated in 1891. The withdrawal of British troops accounts for a
portion of this decrease, but the rise in the total of Eurasians from 7,022 to 8,884
seems to point to the fact that the enumerators were somewhat more liberal in
their interpretation of " English " in 1891 than in 1901. In all, 1,090 persons
returned themselves as " Europeans." It is probable that some of these should
properly have been included among the Eurasians. The total of Germans has
fallen from 353 to 194 but in the case of all other European races there is no very
marked variation on the figures of ten years back.
199. In India exogamy and endogamy are matters of prime importance in a
n , , comprehensive survey of caste. In Burma no such
Exogamy and endogamy. r
,. J
'
, ,
extraordinary interest attaches to these practices.
They are not so marked as in India 3
nor are they governed by the same inflexible
rules. It is, however, instructive to note how the exclusiveness or otherwise of
customs in regard to matrimony varies from race to race. Roughly speaking,
among the peoples of the plains, the Burmans and the Takings, there are practically
no restrictions on marriage, save those imposed by near blood relationship.
It is only among the more primitive hill communities that anything approaching
endogamy or exogamy is noticeable. According to Mr. Houghton, the Southern
Chins, when selecting a wife, take one from some other clan than their own. It
does not appear whether further north the Chins are exogamous in relation to
the clan, but the Siyins at any rate are endogamous in relation to the tribe. The
Soktes too appear, so far as the tribe is concerned, to have endogamous leanings.
Among the Hakas it would seem that political motives are as responsible
as any for what exogamous tendencies prevail. Still the exogamy is there,
whatever the motives were that produced it—and Mr. Andrew Lang's Custom and
Myth shows us that as to the motives to exogamy there is considerable divergence
of opinion. Among the Kachins a man may not marry a woman of the same
surname as himself. Of these surnames or family names there appear to be a considerable
number (ninety-seven are specified in the Upper Burma Gazetteer), so
the choice is moderately large. Strange to say, side by side with this restriction
exists a recognized custom which requires a man ordinarily to marry a first cousin
on the female side. It is not mere blood relationship that is a bar ; it is blood relationship
through the father, i.e., the relationship which brings with it the family
name. This fact seems to constitute an additional item of evidence in favour of
Mr. Andrew Lang's view that exogamy is not, as Mr. Morgan has held, the
outcome of the discovery of the evils of close interbreeding, but is possibly one
form of the totem tabu. So farreaching is this prohibited degree that persons
of the same name will not intermarry even if they are members of different tribes.
This is, as Mr. George points out, interesting not only because it suggests
totemism but because it shows' that the family distinctions are older than the
tribal. Here we certainly have something not very far removed from the Hindu
gotra and the Roman gens. Generally speaking the marriage customs of thes