22. There are numerous other customs which seem to be based on the same form of symbolism. Thus, the members of the bridegroom’s party are mounted on horses and armed: they, on arriving at the bride’s village, do not enter her house, but halt outside; the bridegroom on reaching her door makes a feint of cutting at the arch (toran) with a sword: there is the invariable fiction, no matter how near the houses of the bride and bridegroom are, that she must be carried in some sort of equipage. This the Mânjhis and some other Dravidian tribes call “a boat,” or jahâz; possibly a survival of the time when the bride was taken away by water. 23. We have then the etiquette by which the bride screams and wails as she is being carried away. When she reaches her new home she is lifted across the threshold by her husband, or carried inside in a basket. This was an old custom on the Scotch border, [84] and may be as much a survival of the respect paid to the threshold as a reminiscence of marriage by capture. As she enters the door is barred by her husband’s sister, who will not allow her to enter until she is propitiated with a gift. 24. We have just noticed the fiction by which a bride is supposed to be brought from a distance. This is a standing rule among the Orâons and Kurmis of Bengal, [85] and more than one example of it may be found in the present survey, as among the Nâis and Pankas. This repugnance to marriage among people residing in close communities has been taken by Dr. Westermarck to be one of the causes which have led to exogamy. [86] In this connection, the system of gang exogamy, prevalent among the gypsy Kanjars and Sânsiyas, with whom it is a rule that the bride must be selected from an encampment different from that of the bridegroom, is most significant. It is possible that here we are very close to exogamy in its most primitive form. [87] 25. In the same category are the numerous taboos of intercourse between a man and his wife and her relations. We have already noticed the legend of Urvasî. The wife must not mention her husband by name, and if he addresses her, it is in the indirect form of mother of his children. Mr. Frazer has directed attention to the rule by which silence is imposed on women for some time after marriage as a relic of the custom of marrying women of a different tongue. Hence the familiar incident of the Silent Bride which runs through the whole range of folklore. [88] On the same lines is the taboo of intercourse between a man and his mother-in-law, of which Dr. Tylor, though he gives numerous instances, is unable to suggest an explanation. [89] This, also, perhaps accounts for the use of the terms “brother-in-law” (sâla), “father-in-law” (sasur), as abusive epithets.