It is true that all these tribes are dark-skinned people, and it is claimed by some writers that a dark skin lessens the realization of nakedness. Adolph Bastian said that his "skin appeared abnormal and by no means beautiful by contrast" with that of the dark peoples he met. Jagor said of a King from Coromandel who wore only a turban and a waistcoat, "He did not look indecent, for his dark color almost removed the impression of nudity." At Yuma, Arizona, the Yuma Apaches flock to the passenger trains and are looked at with great interest by the tourists. We have been profoundly impressed with the absolute insensibility of these ladies and gentlemen to the fact that the Indians are really almost naked. That a dark skin does lessen the feeling that a man looked at by a white observer is naked is certain. That it lessens in any degree the dark man's own perception of the fact is doubtful.
In developing the subject still further, Peschel states that there is no fixed standard for shame on account of bodily exposure. Of what one is ashamed varies with race, with style of dress, and with fashion. "The Mussulman of Ferghana would be shocked by bare shoulders at a ball; an Arab woman does not expose the hair on the back of her head, nor the Chinese woman her bandaged foot." An early traveler describes an Australian woman who wore bands of shells about her head and arms and a cord of human hair about her waist. Without this cord she felt shame; yet it was not in the least a protection or covering. Humboldt, in speaking of skin-painting among some South Americans, says, "Shame was felt by the Indian if he were seen unpainted." In these two interesting cases we strike the key-note of the whole subject—"it is the absence of the customary that causes shame." To use a homely and not original illustration among ourselves, a man who forgets his necktie and goes to business without it, on discovering its absence feels a chagrin and uneasiness quite out of proportion to the importance of the matter. We see that shame for nudity is not universal, that the standard of decency in covering the body varies, and that the feeling of shame seems to arise from the absence of what is customary. It seems to us, from these facts, that the idea of clothing as a modest covering is relatively recent, and that it is subsequent to dress development.
Nor does it seem that protection has been the chief factor in dress development. The Fuegians went almost naked even in bad weather; "a small square of skin hung over one shoulder and was simply shifted to windward." On the other hand, clothing has been developed to a very elaborate extent in many regions where the climate does not at all compel its use.
The third of the three motives mentioned remains. Dress has generally developed out of ornament. That it has, after being developed, often been turned into a modest covering and a protec-
