It is safest, therefore, merely to state generally and approximately that among the lower savages the commemorative element is lost sight of amid the prevailing _impromptu_ productions. With higher culture the commemorative inclination appears to become intensified. But its growth cannot be considered as closely accompanying the general mental evolution. Whatever great treasures of epical poetry and literature may some day be found amongst the Melanesians, their relative inferiority in this respect can never be contested. When a group like this, notwithstanding its unsurpassed ability in formative art,—which, however, seems to suggest a commemorative purpose,[224]—can be outdone in matters of oral history and tradition, not only by the Polynesians but even, it would seem, by the Australians,[225] there is of course no possibility of applying the general scheme of evolution to fix the definite beginnings of commemorative art. _A priori_ assertions do not count in a question in which the reality defeats the assumptions of probability in such a surprising manner. Before the ethnological knowledge becomes more complete no statement as to traditional art can be accepted as definite. The scantiness of reliable information does not, however, constitute the greatest difficulty. The facts themselves, even if their authenticity is granted, are often liable to the most inconsistent interpretations. For an exact appreciation of the influence which the commemorative impulse has exercised on the history of art it is insufficient to enumerate examples, however many might be found, of traditionally preserved works of art. The really important thing is to distinguish works which can be considered as genuine specimens of historical art, _i.e._ as the outcome of a commemorative intention, from the mere survivals which resemble these in so confusing a manner. In almost every artistic manifestation we can read a story of the past. The tenacity with which the old forms and the old technical procedures are retained lends a documentary value to every ornament, picture, or poem. By authors with a predilection for historic interpretations this record element is apt to be considered as intentionally aimed at. The euhemeristic view will in this way be applied to the history of art, with results that are often as extravagant as the mythological theories themselves. For every detail in a dance or dramatic performance a reason has been looked for in some event of real occurrence. This method has its strong and sensible side—and a very sensible one indeed—in that it does away with the idea of a rich and creative imagination in primitive man. It can also be applied to with great advantage for the explanation of artistic manifestation, which would otherwise be quite incomprehensible.[226] But its use is not, any more than that of any other general theory, to be recommended as a master-key to all the mysteries of ceremonialism and ritual art.