ts. We cannot cross-examine defunct Tasmanians.

From all this it follows that anthropologists must sift and winnow their
evidence, like men employed in every other branch of science. And who
denies it? What anthropologist of mark accepts as gospel any casual
traveller's tale?

The Test of Recurrences

Even for travellers' tales we have a use, we can apply to them Dr.
Tylor's 'Test of Recurrences.'

'If two independent visitors to different countries, say a mediaeval
Mahommedan in Tartary and a modern Englishman in Dahomey, or a Jesuit
missionary in Brazil and a Wesley an in the Fiji Islands, agree in
describing some analogous art, or rite, or myth among the people they
have visited, it becomes difficult or impossible to set down such
correspondence to accident or wilful fraud. A story by a bushranger
in Australia may perhaps be objected to as a mistake or an invention,
but did a Methodist minister in Guinea conspire with him to cheat the
public by telling the same story there?'

The whole passage should be read: it was anticipated by Professor Millar
in his Origin of Rank, and has been restated by myself. {101a} Thus I
wrote (in 1887) 'it is to be regretted that Mr. Max Muller entirely omits
to mention . . . the corroboration which is derived from the undesigned
coincidence of independent testimony.'

In 1891-1892 he still entirely omits to mention, to his Glasgow audience,
the strength of his opponents' case. He would serve us better if he
would criticise the test of recurrences, and show us its weak points.

Bias of Theory

Yes, our critic may reply, 'but Mr. Curr thinks that there is a strong
tendency in observers abroad, if they have become acquainted with a new
and startling theory that has become popular at home, to see
confirmations of it everywhere.' So I had explicitly stated in
commenting on Dr. Tylor's test of recurrences. {101b} 'Travellers and
missionaries have begun to read anthropological books, and their evidence
is, therefore, much more likely to be biassed now by anthropological
theories than it was of old.' So Mr. McLennan, in the very earliest of
all writings on totemism, said: 'As the totem has not till now got itself
mixed up with speculations the observers have been unbiassed.' Mr.
McLennan finally declined to admit any evidence as to the savage marriage
laws collected after his own theory, and other theories born from it, had
begun to bia