ontain the
essence of the people's conception--a conception which leads us back
to totemism for its explanation.

I do not think we could get closer to totemic beliefs and ideas than
this, nor could we have a better example of the necessity of examining
early historical data by anthropological tests and by folklore
parallels. Caesar's words are unimportant by themselves. They convey
nothing of any significance to the modern reader--a mere dietetic
peculiarity which means nothing and counts for nothing. And yet it
might be considered certain that Caesar knew that the details he
recorded were of importance in the historical sense. He did not
indicate what the importance was, probably because he was not aware of
it; but because he was conscious that among the influences which
counted with these people were the food taboos, he rightly recorded
the facts. They have remained unconsidered trifles until now, when
anthropology has brought them within the range of scientific
observation, and they are now to be reckoned with as part of the
material which tells of the culture conditions of a section of the
early British peoples.

I must here interpose a remark with reference to this grouping of the
evidence. Apart from the significance of the superstitions as they are
recorded in their bare condition among the peasantry, there is the
additional fact to note that the superstition against eating or
killing certain animals or birds, or against looking at them or naming
them, etc., is not universal. It obtains in one place and not in
another. If the injunction not to kill, injure, or eat a certain
animal were simply the reflection of a universal practice, such a
practice might originate in some attribute of the animal itself which
characteristically would produce or tend to produce superstition. But
the spread of this class of superstition in certain districts, and not
in others, is indicative of an ancient origin, and it is exactly what
might be expected to have been produced from totem-peoples.
Unfortunately, neither the negative evidence of superstitious beliefs
nor the local distribution of superstitious beliefs has ever been
considered worthy of attention. But some little evidence is
incidentally forthcoming, and I would submit that this may be taken as
indicative of what might be obtained more fully by further research
into this neglected aspect of folklore. I drew Miss Burne's attention
to this subject, and she has noted some