and that Freud failed to explain why the totem was represented as an animal. He also considered Freud wrong to consider exogamy one of the most important features of totemism. Though believing that Freud showed "sharp wit", he accused him of engaging in "the free play of fantasy" where "logical argumentation" was needed and of misunderstanding the work of Darwin. He wrote that Freud explained morality as the "product of a social contract" and compared the Oedipus complex to the "original sin of the human race". Views of anthropologists Totem and Taboo became widely known in the United States by the end of World War I. According to Annemarie De Waal Malefijt, the book produced "angry reactions" from anthropologists even on the basis of its subtitle alone. Anthropologist critics of Totem and Taboo included Kroeber, who described Freud as a "gallant and stimulating adventurer into ethnology" but rejected the idea that Freud's theories could explain social origins and evolutionary phases, Franz Boas, who considered Freud's method in Totem and Taboo one-sided and useless for advancing understanding of cultural development, and Robert Ranulph Marett, who referred to the work as a "just-so story". Claude Lévi-Strauss criticized Totem and Taboo in his The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1948). Kroeber published a reassessment of Totem and Taboo in 1952. Marvin Harris described Totem and Taboo as representative of what Boas's followers regarded as "the worst form of evolutionary speculation", criticizing "the grandiosity of its compass, the flimsiness of its evidence ... the generality of its conclusions" and its "anachronistic framework". In his view, nothing about the work prepared "orthodox Freudians" to deal with the variety of culturally determined personality structures revealed by the work of Bronisław Malinowski, Margaret Mead, and Ruth Benedict. Peter Farb wrote that Totem and Taboo "demonstrates the lengths to which a theorist will go to find an explanation" for totemism, adding that despite their disagreements on other issues, anthropologists by 1968 concurred that the work is "totally discredited". Views of psychoanalysts Géza Róheim, an anthropologist as well as a psychoanalyst, considered Totem and Taboo one of the great landmarks in the history of anthropology, comparable only to Edward Burnett Tylor's Primitive Culture (1871) and Sir James George Frazer's The Golden Bough (1890). Róheim described Totem and Taboo as an "epoch-making work" in both anthropology and the social sciences generally. Róheim eventually abandoned the assumptions of Totem and Taboo, but