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.

12. Ornaments worn as amulets

The above account of the ornaments of a Hindu woman is sufficient to
show that her profuse display of them is not to be attributed, as
is often supposed, to the mere desire for adornment. Each ornament
originally played its part in protecting some limb or feature from
various dangers of the seen or unseen world. And though the reasons
which led to their adoption have now been to a large extent forgotten
and the ornaments are valued for themselves, the shape and character
remain to show their real significance. Women as being weaker and
less accustomed to mix in society are naturally more superstitious and
fearful of the machinations of spirits. And the same argument applies
in greater degree to children. The Hindus have probably recognised
that children are very delicate and succumb easily to disease, and
they could scarcely fail to have done so when statistics show that
about a quarter of all the babies born in India die in the first year
of age. But they do not attribute the mortality to its real causes
of congenital weakness arising from the immat