[101] H. Ward, 136.

[102] Roth, II, 83.

[103] Martius, I., 321.

[104] Boas, Bur.  Ethnol., 1884-88, 561.

[105] Mann, Journ.  Anthr.  Soc., XII, 333.

[106] Galton, 148.

[107] Dalton, 251.

[108] Waitz-Gerland, VI., 30.

[109] Mallery, 1888-89, 414.

[110] To take three cases in place of many Carl Bock relates (67) that among some Borneans tattooing is one of the privileges of matrimony and is not allowed to unmarried girls.  D’Urville describes the tattooing of the wife of chief Tuao, who seemed to glory in the “new honor his wife was securing by these decorations.” (Robley, 41.) Among the Papuans of New Guinea tattooing the chest of females denotes that they are married. (Mallery, 411.)

[111] It is significant that Westermarck (179) though he refers to page 90 of Turner, ignores the passage I have just cited, though it occurs on the same page.

[112] Australia is by no means the only country where the women are less decorated than the men.  Various explanations have been offered, but none of them covers all the facts.  The real reason becomes obvious if my view is accepted that the alleged ornaments of savages are not esthetic, but practical or utilitarian.  The women are usually allowed to share such things as badges of mourning, amulets, and various devices that attract attention to wealth or rank; but the religious rites, and the manifold decorations associated with military life—­the chief occupation of these peoples—­they are not allowed to share, and these, with the tribal marks, furnish, as we have seen, the occasion for the most diverse and persistent “decorative” practices.

[113] The advocates of the sexual selection theory might have avoided many grotesque blunders had they possessed a sense of humor to counterbalance and control their erudition.  The violent opposition of Madagascar women to King Radama’s order that the men should have their hair cut, to which Westermarck refers (174-75), surely finds in the proverbial stupid conservatism of barbarous customs a simpler and more rational explanation than in his assumption that this riot illustrated “the important part played by the hair of the head as a stimulant of sexual passion” (to these coarse, masculine women, who had to be speared before they could be quieted).  An argument which attributes to unwashed, vermin-covered savages a fanatic zeal for what they consider as beautiful, such as no civilized devotee of beauty would ever dream of, involves its own reductio ad absurdum by proving too much.  Westermarck also cites (177) from a book on Brazil the story that if a young maiden of the Tapoyers “be marriageable, and yet not courted by any, the mother paints her with some red color about the eyes,” and in accordance with his theory we are soberly expected to accept this red paint about the eyes as an effective