82 CEREMONIAL INSTITUTIONS. 



show all gradations from large gashes to diminutive pricks, and say 

 ing nothing of the instances I have given in which a tatoo-mark sig 

 nifies subjection to a ruler, human or divine. And then, after assert 

 ing that of &quot;cogent proof there is simply none, he inadvertently 

 furnishes a proof of considerable cogency the fact that by lines of 

 tatooing joined to it, the U branded on deserters was often changed 

 by them into the handle of a sword : a decorative skin-mark was de 

 rived from a skin mark that was not decorative. 



My inference that the cropping of the hair of felons is a survival, 

 is supported by more evidence than that given in the text. Dr. Tylor, 

 however, prefers to regard it as an entirely modern regulation to in 

 sure cleanliness: ignoring the truth, illustrated by himself, that usages 

 often survive after their original purpose has been forgotten, and are 

 then misinterpreted. 



The remaining three errors alleged (which arc all incidental, and, 

 if substantiated, would leave the main propositions unshaken) con 

 cern chapters that follow. One only of them is, I think, estab 

 lished. Good reason is given for dissenting from my interpretation 

 of the colours used in different countries for mourning (an inter 

 pretation not embodied in the argument of Chapter VI, but merely 

 appended as a note, which, in this edition, I have changed). The 

 other two, concerning the wearing of two swords by upper-class Jap 

 anese, and the origin of shaking hands, I leave standing as they did ; 

 partly because I see further reasons for thinking them true, and part 

 ly because Dr. Tylor s explanations fail to account for the origin of the 

 one as a mark of rank, and of the other as a mark of friendship. 



Dr. Tylor s avowed purpose is to show that my method &quot; vitiates 

 the whole argument: &quot; having previously asserted that my method is 

 to extract &quot;from laws of nature the reasons how and why men do all 

 thing;.&quot; It is amusing to place by the side of this the assertion of 

 The Times reviewer (March llth, 1880), who says that my method is 

 &quot;to state the facts as simply as possible, with just a word or two on 

 their mutual bearings and their place in his |my| system ; &quot; and 

 who hints that I have not sufficiently connected the facts with &quot; prin 

 ciples &quot; ! The one says I proceed exclusively by deduction ; the other 

 says that I proceed almost exclusively by induction ! But the reader 

 needs not depend on authority: the evidence is before him. In it he 

 will, I think, fail to recognize the truth of Dr. Tylor s statement; 

 and, having thus tested one of his statements, will see that others of 

 his statements are not to be taken as valid simply because I do not 

 occupy time and space in contesting them. 



