THE ORIGINS OF SELF-DECORATION
It is evident, as might be proved by more numerous and detailed
references than it has been possible to adduce above, that precisely
such bodily deformations, such systems of distinguishing ornament,
and such conspicuous articles of clothing and decoration as are
most generally found among both the primitive and the cultivated
tribes of mankind have been of especial importance as means of
sexual attraction. Nothing could be more natural, therefore, than
to explain the various forms of cosmetics as so many endeavours to
work upon the preferences—whether arising from the æsthetic sense or
from associated ideas of sexual excitement—of the opposite sex. Such
an explanation, moreover, derives support from the assertion of the
primitives themselves, who often positively state that they dress and
array themselves for the purpose of winning the love of their women.
And it has on its side the merits of simplicity and unity. By bringing
together under one head all the different forms of self-decorative art
it disentangles the different questions of primitive æsthetics in a
most plausible manner.
However alluring this uniform explanation may be for lovers of
clearness and theoretical consistency, it must nevertheless be
abandoned upon an impartial examination of the ethnological facts.
It is no doubt conceivable that a more or less conscious desire of
acquiring the favour of the opposite sex should have called forth
all the various means of attraction. As was shown above, they could
in such a case have scarcely developed a more effectual conformation
than they really have done. But from the effect we are not entitled
to draw any conclusion as to the intention. When considering all the
various motives, often almost incomprehensible to the civilised mind,
which govern the activities of primitive man, one loses the confidence
that is necessary in order to accept any general explanation, however
probable it may seem. A careful and impartial examination can only lead
to the result that scarcely any form of dress or ornament can be quoted
which could be considered with certainty as an outcome of the impulse
to attract and charm the opposite sex.
To begin with the class which stands in the closest connection with
sexual life, we have already shown that all the various coverings by
which primitive man conceals his nakedness, by attracting the attention
are likely to produce a sort of sexual stimulation in the primitive
spectator.[310] In some cases,—for instance that of the dancing
girdles, which are especially put on for the occasion of erotic dances
and festivals,—this stimulation is evidently intentional.[311] But it
seems impossible to assume that a knowledge of this effect can have
been the motive for the use of those phallocrypts which are worn by
the Amaxosas in South Africa, by the natives of Central Brazil, by
the Melanesians in the Admiralty Islands and on the north-western
and south-western coasts of New Guinea, by the Australians of
north-western Central Queensland, and by the Polynesians of the
Marquesas Islands.[312] As far as we know, it is only in Australia
that these things are especially employed at corroborees and public
rejoicings.[313] Nor is there anything that could attract the eye
in all the simple bamboo sheets that can be seen at the Museum für
Völkerkunde in Berlin. In some cases they have perhaps been worn for
the purely practical purpose of protecting a sensitive part against
insect bites.[314] But it seems more probable, on an examination of
their shape, that they really are intended as means of concealment in
the proper meaning of the word. There is of course no reason why they
should not be considered as fulfilling the requirements of modesty.
But even if such be their purpose now, it is difficult to assume that
they were originally called into existence by a feeling which, from the
evolutionist point of view, one rather would consider as a product of
clothes than as their cause.[315]
This difficulty, however, is easily avoided by reference to another
feeling which in psychical evolution has probably preceded the
appearance of modesty. It is perhaps impossible to decide at what
stage sexual life began to be surrounded with feelings of shame,—in
other words, in what instances one is entitled to speak of modesty
and conscious chastity. But there is no doubt that even among the
lowest savages the facts of generation are regarded with a wonder
which sometimes approaches awe, and sometimes rises to religious
respect.[316] Since at a somewhat higher degree of development phallic
symbols occupy so dominant a place in religious systems, it is only
natural to suppose that the realities represented by these symbols
have been regarded by the primitive with superstitious feelings. It is
probable, therefore, that there are many primitive tribes which, in the
same way as the aborigines of the New Hebrides, cover themselves in the
most scrupulous manner, “not at all from a sense of decency, but to
avoid Narak, _i.e._ magic influence,” the sight even of another man’s
nakedness being considered as most dangerous.[317] The large prevalence
of phallic motives in amulets and magically protecting paintings,[318]
the supposed effective sorcery of indecent gestures, so widely used
even now by the modern Italians,[319] indicate that the organs of
generation have been universally considered as the seat of a powerful
and dangerous magic. Perhaps this superstitious idea has even been
the original source of the notion that exposure involves the gravest
offence against the honour of the beholder.[320] Sometimes, on the
other hand, dread of this supposed mysterious power may have prompted
the evolution of moral institutions, and thus indirectly furthered
the moral feelings. But it is evident that even before any such
transformation took place regard for public safety may have induced the
males to conceal the seat of so dangerous an influence.
The reproductive organs, however, are not only, in virtue of
their connection with the mysterious miracle of life, objects of
superstitious awe: they themselves, owing to the same consideration,
need more than anything else to be protected against dangerous
influences. Fear of the evil eye has thus, as Ratzel suggests, had
something to do with the origin of male and female dress.[321] And the
notion of malignant looks is only one of the superstitions that keep
the savage man in a state of constant fear. All the innumerable spirits
that populate his atmosphere constitute so many dangers, against which
he has to protect himself by every possible means. This necessity is
probably even greater for the female sex than for the men.
In Messrs. Spencer and Gillen’s work on Australia there is one passage
which suggests another possible cause for the origin of female dress.
When speaking about the souls of ancestors, which, for the purpose of
reincarnation, try to find a way to the bodies of young women, the
authors say that “spirit children are also supposed to be especially
fond of travelling in whirlwinds, and on seeing one of these, which
are very frequent at certain times of the year, approaching her a
woman will at once run away.”[322] Now, this notion that the wind
is capable of bringing about impregnation is by no means confined
to the Australian aborigines. Mr. Hartland has been able to adduce
testimonies of its occurrence not only in savage tribes, but also among
the Romans of Virgil’s time.[323] And the Hottentots have an almost
similar superstition, viz. that a pouring rain, when falling on the
naked body, promotes conception.[324] The belief in the fertilising
powers of sunshine, well known from European folklore and frequently
illustrated in literature, from the Danaë legends upwards to the
mysterious warnings of Hamlet to Ophelia, can of course be quoted as
indications of the same universal “folk-belief.”[325] It would only be
natural if the women, who so anxiously try to escape from the dangers
of fecundation that surround them on all sides in the atmosphere, had
found out the simple expedient of protecting themselves by clothing.
We cannot, of course, positively assert that the wearing of clothes was
originally due to superstitious reasons. We have only wished to point
out that such an hypothesis can be proposed and consistently defended.
It accounts not only for the especial character of the simplest
dresses, but also, which is more important, for the fact of their being
adopted only when sexual maturity is reached.
There are other reasons, moreover, why this last-mentioned
circumstance, which apparently affords so strong support to the
theory of Darwin and his followers, cannot be adduced as decisively
solving the problem of purely decorative garments. In laying so great a
stress upon the time of life when the body is decorated for the first
time,[326] the advocates of the theory of erotic propitiation seem
to have overlooked that almost everywhere sexual maturity coincides
with civic majority. There is thus something to be said for the view
that tattooing, feather-dresses, and so on, are conferred upon young
men and women as outward signs of their changed status. And similarly
all ulterior decorations can be explained as indications of later
acquired rank. In ethnological literature, especially in German works,
a great body of facts has been produced which speak in favour of such
an analogy between primitive ornaments and modern signs of rank and
merit.[327] By relying on this interpretation too we may often explain,
without any reference to the advantages of courtship, the fact that
in primitive races men are generally more decorated than women. An
extreme Darwinist may perhaps object that the proportion between the
ornaments of the sexes has been inverted since the male sex began
to practise selection. But it is to be remembered that even now in
the classes for which rank distinctions are most important, viz. in
military and diplomatic circles, men generally are more gorgeously
arrayed than women.[328] And it may further be adduced as an exception
which proves the rule that on Pelew and Ponape Islands, where mothers
give children their rank, women are richly tattooed.[329]
It cannot of course be contended that man at the lowest stages of
culture could have intentionally created a fixed system of signs for
denoting rank and merit. Anything of that kind presupposes a social
differentiation which has not yet been arrived at by all savage tribes.
In thus substituting distinction-marks for the means of attraction one
might therefore apparently be exposed to the reproof of preferring the
complex to the simple. Such a criticism must, however, lose its force
when applied to the theories which try to trace the development of
distinctive marks back to their most simple and primitive sources. Von
den Steinen, in whose work these questions are subjected to a detailed
study, has, with special reference to the Xingu tribes in the interior
of Brazil, succeeded in amply corroborating the theory of Spencer
that the simplest ornaments have been trophies of war and chase. In
the feather crowns of the chiefs, for example, we may thus see only
a later development of proudly arranged spoils of chase, by which a
successful hunter proclaims his achievements.[330] And the incised
scars so common among savage tribes can, in accordance with the same
ingenious explanation, be considered as imitations of the glorious
wounds with which eminent warriors have been adorned when returning
from battle.[331]
In the cases where this interpretation holds true the chief aim of
the decoration is, of course, not to make the man more beautiful and
charming, but only to show off his skill and courage, and thus to
inspire respect and fear. It is needless to point out that in times
of war such decorations must be of eminent advantage by inspiring
their wearer with pride at the same time that they strike his enemies
with terror. But boasting adornments are by no means restricted to
military purposes. Many apparently ornamental scars and tattooings are
probably worn as proud traces of heroic feats performed at initiations
or funeral ceremonies.[332] And, to quote instances of less lofty
pride, there is no end to the cases in which gems are worn chiefly for
producing an impression of wealth.[333] It would be absurd to suppose
that this show of valour or wealth must always be addressed to women.
The impulse to ostentation has thus undeniably, independent of sexual
selection, aided in the origin of self-decoration.
It is not necessary for the present purpose to submit to a close
analysis all the other theories of bodily embellishment which oppose an
unrestricted application of the Darwinian interpretation. Suffice it
to say that facts exist which support almost every one of these views.
Thus it seems quite unquestionable that tattooings often serve as a
means of conveying intellectual information.[334] Not only are exploits
of valour which provide an occasion for boasting ornament registered by
incisions on the body, but this primitive record may also be used in
order to commemorate other events that have made a great impression on
the individual in question.
The most instructive example of such essentially commemorative
self-decoration that is known in ethnological literature is no doubt
the tattooing of Tepane, the native of the Eastern Island whom Dr.
Stolpe met in Tahiti. On his right fore-arm this highly interesting
individual wore a pattern which, although insignificant at first
sight, on closer examination showed itself to be nothing less than
a pictorial description of the memorable event when the great stone
idols, now outside the British Museum, were hauled down from their
original place to the British ship which was going to take them over
sea. Among the figures on this little historical picture Tepane himself
was able to point out the first and second officer of the _Topaz_,
who, standing somewhat apart, watched the work of the sailors.[335] It
is indeed exceptional to meet with such complete realistic drawings
among the “motives” of tattoo. But there is no doubt that by symbolical
representation sights and events have often been recorded on the body,
this most primitive of all commonplace-books.
There is no default of instances showing that decoration, fixed as well
as detached, has been largely used as a magical protection against
illness, bewitching, or evil eye.[336] This superstitious intention
appears with unmistakable evidence in the decorations of the Xingu
tribes of the interior Brazil, where children and pregnant women,
_i.e._ persons who particularly need to be guarded against malignant
influences, are richly decorated with collars of beads, teeth, bones,
and so on.[337] Among these Indians Professor von den Steinen was also
able to find some typical examples of the process, which has been
observed in several other tribes, by which a cosmetic painting of
the body is developed from a purely practical greasing with earth or
fat, executed in order to preserve the skin against weather or insect
bites.[338]
Perhaps more important still than any of the above-mentioned motives
is the one to which Herr Lippert has called attention.[339] In a
nation where, owing to the undeveloped division of labour, all people
necessarily become more or less like each other, the individual must,
he thinks, feel a strong desire to develop a fixed ego, a personality
apart, which can be distinguished from all his fellows. This craving
may perhaps, as Lippert thinks, have something to do with the growth
of a philosophical consciousness. But it may also be considered from
a purely practical point of view. In the same way as ornaments on
weapons and implements often serve as owners’ marks,[340] so the
ornaments on the body may serve as means of identifying, for social
and political purposes, the man who is decorated with them. The
Moko patterns of the Maoris, for instance, have in fact been used
as legally recognised marks, and copies of them applied, instead of
signatures, to documents.[341] Whether the utilitarian or the more
philosophic explanation be preferred, it is evident that, even if there
had been no necessity to attract the attention of the opposite sex,
the impulse to create an appearance which is at least to some degree
personal would have led to the different systems of embellishment.
Thus among people who wear clothes any details in dresses and gems
would be made distinctive; where the naked body is lightly coloured,
so as to make tattooing conspicuous, distinguishing patterns would
be incised; among darker nations, on the other hand, simple scars
would be cut; and finally, in the blackest tribes, on whose skin not
even scars stand out, modes of hair-dressing would afford a last
expedient for differentiation. And it is evident that tribes in their
intercourse with each other would be led by the same considerations as
individuals.[342] Even in a fictitious unisexual mankind there might
thus have appeared precisely the same kind of common and fixed signs
by which tribes are differentiated from each other, and of individual
signs by which members of the same tribe are distinguished by
variations from the common type. These signs must necessarily, as was
shown in the foregoing, exercise a powerful influence on the opposite
sex, and their development may therefore have been to some extent
furthered by sexual selection. But it seems impossible to contend that
they have been invented only for the purposes of courtship.[343]
We have deemed it superfluous to report in this connection all
the instances which show that among sundry tribes of mankind
self-decoration is executed especially with a view of pleasing. For
copious collections of such facts it is sufficient to refer to the
works of Westermarck and Joest. Other interesting instances have later
been communicated by Finsch, Stirling, Stoke, and others.[344] While
necessarily sceptical with regard to theories on sexual preference as
a universal, art-creating influence, we have of course no reason to
doubt the accuracy of individual statements. From the point of view of
the present research we have only to emphasise the fact that there is
no possibility of deciding with any certainty in how great a degree
considerations for the favour of the opposite sex have influenced the
development of self-decoration.