The character of the special significance which apparently attaches
to the custom of ear-piercing is obscure. Dr. Jevons considers
that it is merely a relic of the practice of shedding the blood
of different parts of the body as an offering to the deity, and
analogous to the various methods of self-mutilation, flagellation
and gashing of the flesh, whose common origin is ascribed to the
same custom. "To commend themselves and their prayers the Quiches
pierced their ears and gashed their arms and offered the sacrifice
of their blood to their gods. The practice of drawing blood from
the ears is said by Bastian to be common in the Orient; and Lippert
conjectures that the marks left in the ears were valued as visible and
permanent indications that the person possessing them was under the
protection of the god with whom the worshipper had united himself by
his blood offering. In that case earrings were originally designed,
not for ornament, but to keep open and therefore permanently visible
the marks of former worship. The marks or scars left on legs or arms
from which blood had been drawn were probably the origin of tattooing,
as has occurred to various anthropologists." [654] This explanation,
while it may account for the general custom of ear-piercing, does
not explain the special guilt imputed by the Hindus to getting the
lobe of the ear torn. Apparently the penalty is not imposed for the
tearing of the upper part of the ear, and it is not known whether men
are held liable as well as women; but as large holes are not made in
the upper ear at all, nor by men in the lobe, such cases would very
seldom occur. The suggestion may be made as a speculation that the
continuous distension of the lobe of the ear by women and the large
hole produced is supposed to have some sympathetic effect in opening
the womb and making child-birth more easy. The tearing of the ear might
then be considered to render, the women incapable of bearing a child,
and the penalties attached to it would be sufficiently explained.