— |(5 REPORT ON THE CENSUS OF BURMA. adopted in a somewhat modified form. Subsequent facts have amply demonstrated the wisdom <strong>of</strong> Mr, Risley's suggestion. When discussing the value <strong>of</strong> the table comparatively early in the operation I had not had an opportunity <strong>of</strong> studying the question <strong>of</strong> the extent to which endogamy and exogamy prevailed in <strong>Burma</strong>i Since' then, however, I have gone into this interesting subject as fully as thij limited time at my disposal has allowed, and have summarized the few facts on the subject that I have collected from various sources at the end <strong>of</strong> Chapter VIII <strong>of</strong> this volume. Briefly put; it appears to be the case that while in the plains endogamy and exogamy may be said to be non-existent, among the hill tribes, both to the east and to the west <strong>of</strong> <strong>Burma</strong> proper, custom has placed considerable restrictions on marriage. For an outline <strong>of</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> these restrictions I would refer tO the paragraph in question. It will be interesting to consider whether any <strong>of</strong> these matrimonial limitations have left any impress on the figures in Table XIV. In the case <strong>of</strong> the Kachins and the Karens they would certainly seem to have done so. It is true that the Karens selected for exhibition in the table were for the most part hot <strong>of</strong> the classes among whom the Upper <strong>Burma</strong> Gazetteer teaches us endogamy is more than ordinarily rampant. For them, unfortunately, we have no figures relating to civil conditions, as in the main they inhabit the " estimated " areas <strong>of</strong> Karenni. Still I believe that a certain proportion <strong>of</strong> endogamists have been included in the 100,000 Karen males and females whose age and civil condition have been shown in Table XIV. Both in the case <strong>of</strong> males and females the total <strong>of</strong> married Karens and Kachins in every 50,000 <strong>of</strong> each sex is very much below the corresponding figures returned for the Burmese and Shans respectively, as the following figures will show : Males. Females. Burmese ... ... ... ... •• 21,074 20,900 Shans ... ... ... ... ... 20,382 20,169 Karens ... ... ... ... ... 16,868 18,179 Kachins ... ... ... ... ... 18,310 16,498 I believe that we have here an actual demonstration <strong>of</strong> the effect produced by their marriage customs on the two first named indigenous races. After a perusal <strong>of</strong> the above figures, and knowing what we do know <strong>of</strong> our Western Hill tribes, it comes more or less as a surprise to learn that the Chin totals (21,764 males and 23,352 females in 50,000 <strong>of</strong> each sex) are higher than the Burmese and Shan- Taken on a proportion only <strong>of</strong> the total population, the data cannot <strong>of</strong> course have the same weight as if they had been calculated on the population as a whole. I believe, however, that the numbers are large enough to warrant a belief that, as a rule, the Chin, unlike the Karen and the Kachin, is not deterred from matrimony by any limitation <strong>of</strong> the area from which he is allowed to select a consort. It is somewhat strange that in polygamous races like the <strong>Burma</strong>ns, the Shans and the Kachins, the proportion <strong>of</strong> married females in a lakh <strong>of</strong> persons selected at random should be lower than that <strong>of</strong> married males. Mr. Eales has, however, in his 1 891 Report, already commented on the fact that polygamy can hardly be Said to have left any appreciable mark on the census returns, and in communities where the marriage tie is so loose and connubial relations are so haphazard as among the hill tribes <strong>of</strong> <strong>Burma</strong>, it is almost impossible to predicate with any certainty the outcome <strong>of</strong> an enumeration <strong>of</strong> the married by sexes. One thing that Imperial Table No. XIV seems to make clear is that marriages are not as a rule contracted at. so early an age among the less civilized hill folk as among the <strong>Burma</strong>n population proper, and that in respect <strong>of</strong> immature unions, the Shan figures apqroximate those for the Chins, Karens and Kachins more closely than they do those for the Burmese.
REPORT ON THE CENSUS OF BURMA. Subsidiary Table No. IVA. 57 Unadjusted Age return <strong>of</strong> 1 00,000 <strong>of</strong> each sex. Age. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24' 25 26 27 28 29 3° 3i 32 33 34 Male. 2.357 2,155 2.9°3 3.329 2.755 13.499 3.198 2,540 2,645 2,442 i,974 12,799 3,575 1,605 2,473 2,212 i,756 11,621 2,320- i,454 i,734 1,725 1,163 8,396 3,210 i,034 1,149 1,360 1,156. 7,909 2,879 i,358 1.432 1,368 996 8,033 3,578 930 1,192 1,206 941 7.847 Female. 2,625 2,280 2,839 3,257 2,698 13,699 3,i45 2,365 2,354 2,339 1,857 12,060 3,315 1,639 i,93i 1,43° 1,901 10,216 2,357 1,640 1,988 1,597 1,242 8,824 3,426 1,056 1,214 1,439 984 8,119 3,086 1,238 1,194 1,295 1,078 7.891 3443 805 1,129 1,232 881 7.490 Age. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45