The only way (outside of direct evidence) to prove borrowing would be to show that ideas and customs peculiarly Indian (for example) occur in the _märchen_ of people destitute of these ideas. But it would be hard to ask believers in the Indian theory to exhibit such survivals. In the first place, if _contes_ have been borrowed, it seems that a new "local colour" was given to them almost at the moment of transference. The Zulu and Kaffir _märchen_ are steeped in Zulu and Kaffir colour, and the life they describe is rich in examples of rather peculiar native rites and ceremonies, seldom if ever essential to the conduct of the tale. Thus, if stories are "adapted" (like French plays) in the moment of borrowing, it will be cruel to ask supporters of the Indian theory for traces of Indian traits and ideas in European _märchen_. Again, apart from special yet non-essential matters of etiquette (such as the ceremonies with which certain kinsfolk are treated, or the initiation of girls at the marriageable age), the ideas and customs found in marchen are practically universal As has been shown, the super-natural stuff--metamorphosis, equality of man, beasts and things, magic and the like--_is_ universal. Thus little remains that could be fixed on as especially the custom or idea of any one given people. For instance, in certain variants of _Puss in Boots_, Swahili, Avar, Neapolitan, the beast-hero makes it a great point that, when he dies, he is to be _honourably buried_. Now what peoples give beasts honourable burial? We know the cases of ancient Egyptians, Samoans, Arabs and Athenians (in the case, at least, of the wolf), and probably there are many more. Thus even so peculiar an idea or incident as this cannot be proved to belong to a definite region, or to come from any one original centre.* * See Deulin, Gontes de ma Mire l'Oye, and Reinhold Kohler in Gonzenbach's Siclianische Marchen, No. 65.