Part 27 (1/2)
The same non-esthetic motives for tattooing prevail in South and Central America. In Aga.s.siz's book on Brazil we read (318) concerning the Mundurucu Indians:
”Major Coutinho tells us that the tattooing _has nothing to do with individual taste_, but that the pattern is appointed for both s.e.xes, and is _invariable throughout the tribe_. It is connected with their caste, the limits of which are very precise, and with their religion.”
The tattooing ”is also an indication of aristocracy; a man who neglected this distinction would not be respected in his tribe.”
Concerning the Indians of Guiana we read in Im Thurn (195-96) that they have small distinctive tribal marks tattooed at the corners of the mouth or on the arms. Nearly all have ”indelibly excised lines”
which are
”scars originally made for _surgical_, not ornamental purposes.” ”Some women specially affect certain little figures, like Chinese characters, which looks as if some meaning were attached to them, but which the Indians are either unable or unwilling to explain.”
In Nicaragua, as Squire informs us (III., 341), the natives tattooed themselves to designate by special marks the tribes to which they belonged; and as regards Yucatan, Landa writes (-- XXI.) that as tattooing was accompanied by much pain, they thought themselves the more gallant and strong the more they indulged in it; and that those who omitted it were sneered at--which gives us still another motive for tattooing--the fear of being despised and ridiculed for not being in fas.h.i.+on.
TATTOOING IN j.a.pAN
Many more similar details might be given regarding the races of various parts of the world, but the limits of s.p.a.ce forbid. But I cannot resist the temptation to add a citation from Professor Chamberlain's article on tattooing in his _Things j.a.panese_, because it admirably ill.u.s.trates the diversity of the motives that led to the practice. A Chinese trader, ”early in the Christian era,” Chamberlain tells us, ”wrote that the men all tattoo their faces and ornament their bodies with designs, differences of rank being indicated by the position and size of the patterns.” ”But from the dawn of regular history,” Chamberlain adds,
”far down into the middle ages, tattooing seems to have been confined to criminals. It was used as branding was formerly in Europe, whence probably the contempt still felt for tattooing by the j.a.panese upper cla.s.ses. From condemned desperadoes to bravoes at large is but a step. The swashbucklers of feudal times took to tattooing, apparently because some blood and thunder scene of adventure, engraven on their chest and limbs, helped to give them a terrific air when stripped for any reason of their clothes. Other cla.s.ses whose avocations led them to baring their bodies in public followed--the carpenters, for instance, and running grooms; and the tradition remained of ornamenting almost the entire body and limbs with a hunting, theatrical, or other showy scene.”
Shortly after 1808 ”the government made tattooing a penal offence.”
It will be noticed that in this account the fantastic notion that the custom was ever indulged in for the purpose of beautifying the body in order to attract the other s.e.x is, as in all the other citations I have made, not even hinted at. The same is true in the summary made by Mallery of the seventeen purposes of tattooing he found. No. 13 is, indeed, ”to charm the other s.e.x;” but it is ”magically,” which is a very different thing from esthetically. I append the summary (418):
”1, to distinguish between free and slave, without reference to the tribe of the latter; 2, to distinguish between a high and low status in the same tribe; 3, as a certificate of bravery exhibited by supporting the ordeal of pain; 4, as marks of personal prowess, particularly; 5, as a record of achievements in war; 6, to show religious symbols; 7, as a therapeutic remedy for disease; 8, as a prophylactic against disease; 9, as a brand of disgrace; 10, as a token of a woman's marriage, or, sometimes, 11, of her marriageable condition; 12, identification of the person, not as a tribesman, but as an individual; 13, to charm the other s.e.x magically; 14, to inspire fear in the enemy; 15, to magically render the skin impenetrable to weakness; 16, to bring good fortune, and, 17, as the device of a secret society.”
SCARIFICATION.
Dark races, like the Africans and Australians, do not practise tattooing, because the marks would not show conspicuously on their black skins. They therefore resort to the process of raising scars by cutting the skin with flint or a sh.e.l.l and then rubbing in earth, or the juice of certain plants, etc. The result is a permanent scar, and these scars are arranged by the different tribes in different patterns, on divers parts of the body. In Queensland the lines, according to Lumholtz (177),
”always denote a certain order of rank, and here it depends upon age. Boys under a certain age are not decorated; but in time they receive a few cross-stripes upon their chests and stomachs. The number of stripes is gradually increased, and when the subjects have grown up, a half-moon-shaped line is cut around each nipple.”
The necessity for such distinctive marks on the body is particularly great among the Australians, because they are subdivided in the most complicated ways and have an elaborate code of s.e.xual permissions and prohibitions. Therefore, as Frazer suggests (38),
”a chief object of these initiation ceremonies was to teach the youths with whom they might or might not have connection, and to put them in possession of a visible language, ... by means of which they might be able to communicate their totems to, and to ascertain the totems of, strangers whose language they did not understand.”
In Africa, too, as we have seen, the scars are used as tribal names, and for other practical purposes. Holub (7) found that the Koranna of Central South Africa has three cuts on the chest. They confessed to him that they indicated a kind of free-masonry, insuring their being well received by Koranna everywhere. On the Congo, scarifications are made on the back for therapeutic reasons, and on the face as tribal marks. (Mallery, 417; H. Ward, 136.) Bechuana priests make long scars on a warrior's thigh to indicate that he has slain an enemy in battle.
(Lichtenstein, II., 331.) According to d'Albertis the people of New Guinea use some scars as a sign that they have travelled (I., 213).
And so on, _ad infinitum_.
ALLEGED TESTIMONY OF NATIVES
In face of this imposing array of facts revealing the non-esthetic character of primitive personal ”decorations,” what have the advocates of the s.e.xual selection theory to say? Taking Westermarck as their most erudite and persuasive spokesman, we find him placing his reliance on four things: (1) the practical ignoring of the vast mult.i.tude of facts contradicting his theory; (2) the alleged testimony of a few savages; (3) the testimony of some of their visitors; (4) the alleged fact that ”the desire for self-decoration is strongest at the beginning of the age of p.u.b.erty,” the customs of ornamenting, mutilating, painting, and tattooing being ”practised most zealously at that period of life.” Concerning (1) nothing more need be said, as the large number of decisive facts I have collected exposes and neutralizes that stratagem. The other three arguments must be briefly considered.
A native of Lukunor being asked by Mertens what was the meaning of tattooing, answered: ”It has the same object as your clothes; that is, to please the women,” In reply to the question why he wore his ornaments, an Australian answered Bulmer: ”In order to look well and make himself agreeable to the women,” (Brough Smyth, I., 275.) To one who has studied savages not only anthropologically but psychologically, these stories have an obvious c.o.c.k-and-bull aspect. A native of the Caroline Islands would have been as incapable of originating that philosophical comparison between the object of our clothes and of his tattooing as he would have been of writing Carlyle's _Sartor Resartus_. Human beings in his stage of evolution never consciously reflect on the reasons of things, and considerations of comparative psychology or esthetics are as much beyond his mental powers as problems in algebra or trigonometry. That such a sailor's yarn could be accepted seriously in an anthropologic treatise shows that anthropology is still in its cradle. The same is true of that Australian's alleged answer. The Australian is unequal to the mental effort of counting up to ten, and, like other savages, is easily fatigued by the simplest questions[99]. It is quite likely that Bulmer asked that native whether he ornamented himself ”in order to look well and make himself agreeable to the women,” and that the native answered ”yes” merely to gratify him or to get rid of the troublesome question.
The books of missionaries are full of such cases, and no end of confusion has been created in science by such false ”facts.” The answer given by that native is, moreover, utterly opposed to all the well-attested details I have given in the preceding pages regarding the real motives of Australians in ”decorating” themselves; and to those facts I may now add this crus.h.i.+ng testimony from Brough Smyth (_I.,_ 270):
”The proper arrangement of their apparel, the ornamentation of their persons by painting, and attention to deportment, were important only when death struck down a warrior, when war was made, and when they a.s.sembled for a corroboree. In ordinary life little attention was given to the ornamenting of the person.”
MISLEADING TESTIMONY OF VISITORS