[42-*] “In ethnology however one troubles oneself little with the detail of linguistic structure. It is held quite sufficient to gather from different peoples and collate a couple of hundred vocables, into whose actual nature all insight is lacking, and then upon dubious, often purely superficial and apparent similarities, to deduce linguistic affinities. Or else, as is now most in fashion, the claims of linguistic research towards the solution of ethnological questions are reduced to a ‘most modest share’ in comparison with other fields ‘somewhat more in line with natural sciences’--meanwhile pointing for justification to the absurdities set forth as the results of too far-fetched linguistic deductions.... The errors and sophistries charged against ethnological linguistics are rather an accidental result of the individuality of single investigators, than essential to the subject. They are at least scarcely greater than those to the credit of recent Anthropometry. A brief glance at the strange changes of opinion in the latter field during the last three decades, in spite of all its boasted figures, shows how little ground it has to throw stones. Serious students, such as Wallace and Dall, whose critical ability in Zoomorphology no one can deny, and who do not rest content with a few skulls of doubtful _provenance_, gathered à la Hagenbeck, have come to a wholly negative view of the value of Craniometry.”--Dr. Otto Stoll, _Maya-Sprachen der Pokom-Gruppe_, I, vii, ix. [43-*] Our present day speculators never seem to think for a moment that these things may conceal, _and thereby preserve_, some real meaning, or be more than nonsense. The theory of mythological interpretation pushed to such extremes as in the “animistic” _explanations_ of Weber, Keightley, and others, and not absent from the writings of some Americanists (namely, that it was all nothing but ridiculous or concocted fancy, taken soberly) is bad enough, and argues little breadth or insight, when applied to the myths of a single people, considered alone. Applied to comparative mythology, in the state of things today, it is simply impossible. The plain fact is, that such identities as these must indicate one of two things: a common tradition, locally modified by circumstances; or a _fact in nature_ or _history_, symbolically expressed in different ways according to the times and modes. And it most probably indicates both of these. It is indeed hard to account for the extent, and the weight given to some of these “myths,” now that we are coming to a better appreciation of the scope and greatness of ancient civilizations--everywhere--except they do correspond to actual _facts_ in nature and history. And it might be worth our while to get at some of these.