________________
MAY, 1925)
REMARKS ON THE ANDAMAN ISLANDERS AND THEIR COUNTRY
85
which relate, with some differences of detail, how in the beginning the ancestors had no fire, how fire was introduced by one of them, and how many of them, being burnt and frightened, were turned into animals of different kinds."
And then remarks (p. 342): "the story serves as an explanation of the markings on birds and fishes, there being where the ancestor who became the species was burnt by the
fire."
Mr. Brown then lays down (p. 342) that "the clue to the true interpretation of the three stories [above mentioned) must be sought in the social value of Fire :" a proposition which ho then sets out prove (pp. 342 ff.).
“We may say, in a word, that it is the possession of fire that makes social life (as the Andamanese know it) possible . . . . Amongst all the creatures that inhabit the world, man is the only one that possesses and makes use of fire. Here, then, is the fundamental notion that is expressed in these Legends. At first, so the story runs, animals and human beings were one, and were not distinguished. Then came the discovery of fire .... (p. 343). It is the possession of the fire that makes human beings what they are, that makes life as they live it possible. It is equally (according to the Legend) the lack of fire, or the lack of the ability to make use of fire, that makes the animals what they are, that cuts them off from participation in human life.” Upozi this Mr. Brown argues (p. 343) : “The three stories considered above contain three motives : (i) They express the social value of fire, by making the foundation of human society (through the differentiation of men and animals) depend on the discovery of fire. (ii) They express & peculiar notion as to the relation of the human species to the other animals which is found in the Legends. (iii) They give a legendary explanation of some of the characteristics of animals, such as the bright colours of certain birds and fishes."
And then he argues (p. 343) that " these sa me motives are present in many of the Legends relating to the origin of fire."
The Flood Myth. Further consideration of the Fire Legends leads Mr. Brown to the Andamanese stories about the Flood. He commences with a remarkable statement (p. 344) :
“We have seen that oné explanation in the mythological sense) of how the birds arose is that they were ancestors who fled from the fire. There are other stories that give a different account and relate that the animals came into existence through & great flood or storm that overwhelmed the ancestors. Both of these Legends are to be found in the same tribes. Their incompatibility does not prevent them from being both equally accepted. If it can be shown that the story of the flood is simply an alternative method of expressing the same set of representations that underlie the story of the origin of the animals through the discovery of fire, the interpretation of the latter will be in some degree confirmed." And then Mr. Brown proceeds (p. 344): "I think that it was because some of the ancestors kept their fire alight that they remained human, while those who lost their fire were turned into animals. If many personal impressions are of any value, this is really the idea that does underlie the Legend in the native mind. Thus it would appear that this version of the Flood myth is simply a reversal of the Fire Legend previously considered. They both express the same thing in different ways. They both make the possession of fire the thing on which social (i.e., human) life depend, the fundamental difference between man and animals."
Mr. Brown next (pp. 344-345) disagrees with Mr. Man's account, who "seems to have come to the conclusion that there were two floods,"-an idea which interferes with Mr. Brown's argument. But passing this by, it must be noted that Mr. Brown then says; p. 345 :
“On the interpretation here suggested the major motives of the Flood Myth are (1) the social value of fire as expressed by making the differenoe between man and animals depend on its possession by the former and not by the latter ;
