I have deliberately refrained from referring to the vexed question of totemism in this communication, although it is obvious that it is closely connected with the “heliolithic” culture. I have used the expression “serpent worship” in several places where perhaps it would have been more correct to refer to the serpent-totem; but so far from weakening, the consideration of totemism will add to the strength and cogency of my argument.
When I assigned (p. 65) a comparatively late date for the extension of the “heliolithic” culture to the western Mediterranean and beyond I was not aware that Siret (_L’Anthropologie_, T. 20 and 21, 1909-10) had arrived at the same conclusion.]
[1] These figures refer to the bibliography at the end.
[2] Tylor (“On the Game of Patolli,” _Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, Vol. VIII., 1879, p. 128) cites another certain case of borrowing on the part of pre-Columbian America from Asia. “Lot-backgammon as represented by tab, _pachisi_, etc., ranges in the Old World from Egypt across Southern Asia to Birma. As the _patolli_ of the Mexicans is a variety of lot-backgammon most nearly approaching the Hindu _pachisi_, and perhaps like it passing into the stage of dice-backgammon, its presence seems to prove that it had made its way across from Asia. At any rate, it may be reckoned among elements of Asiatic culture traceable in the old Mexican civilization, the high development of which ... seems to be in large measure due to Asiatic influence.”
[3] See also =2=; =3=; =7=; =8=; =9=; =10=; =16=; =20=; =21=; =24=; =29=; =30=; =38=; =48=; =49=; =50=; =51=; =61=; =73=; =103=; and =105=.
[4] For proof that it was reached see =3=; =8=; =9=; =10=; =20=; =21=; =38=; =49=; =50=; =51=; =73=; =102=; =103=; and =105=.
[5] Dr. Fewkes’ discourse is essentially a farrago of meaningless verbiage. Later on in this communication I shall give a characteristic sample of the late Professor Keane’s dialectic; but the whole of the passages referred to should be read by anyone who is inclined to cavil at my strictures upon such expositions of modern ethnological doctrine. The obvious course for any serious investigator to pursue is to ignore such superficial and illogical pretensions: but the ethnological literature of this country and America is so permeated with ideas such as Fewkes and Keane express, that it has become necessary bluntly to expose the utter hollowness of their case.
