[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.
[6] For if any sense whatever is to be attached to this phrase it implies that man is endowed with instincts of a much more complex and highly specialised kind than any insect or bird—instincts moreover which impel a group of men to perform at the same epoch a very large series of peculiarly complex, meaningless and fantastic acts that have no possible relationship to the “struggle for existence,” which is supposed to be responsible for the fashioning of instincts.
But William McDougall tells us that the distinctive feature of human instincts is that they are of “the most highly general type.” “They merely provide a basis for vaguely directed activities in response to vaguely discriminated impressions from large classes of objects.” (“Psychology, the Study of Behaviour,” p. 171.) There is nothing vague about the extraordinary repertoire of the “heliolithic” cult!
[7] It is a curious reflection that the idea of stone living which made such a fantastic belief possible may itself have arisen from the Egyptian practices about to be described.
[8] How insistent the desire was to make a statue of the mummy itself is shown by the repeated attempts made in later times; see the account of the mummies of Amenophis III. ([86]) and of the rulers and priests of the XXIst and XXIInd Dynasties ([78] and [87]).
[9] For an account of the geographical distribution of serpent-worship and a remarkable demonstration of the intimacy of its association with distinctive “heliolithic” ideas, see Wake ([103]).
[10] Sir William Thiselton Dyer informs me that in all probability it was not cedar but juniper that was obtained by the Ancient Egyptians from Syria [and used for embalming]. The material to which reference is made here would probably be identical with the modern ‘huile de cade,’ and be obtained from juniperus excelsa.