It cannot of course be contended that man at the lowest stages of culture could have intentionally created a fixed system of signs for denoting rank and merit. Anything of that kind presupposes a social differentiation which has not yet been arrived at by all savage tribes. In thus substituting distinction-marks for the means of attraction one might therefore apparently be exposed to the reproof of preferring the complex to the simple. Such a criticism must, however, lose its force when applied to the theories which try to trace the development of distinctive marks back to their most simple and primitive sources. Von den Steinen, in whose work these questions are subjected to a detailed study, has, with special reference to the Xingu tribes in the interior of Brazil, succeeded in amply corroborating the theory of Spencer that the simplest ornaments have been trophies of war and chase. In the feather crowns of the chiefs, for example, we may thus see only a later development of proudly arranged spoils of chase, by which a successful hunter proclaims his achievements.[330] And the incised scars so common among savage tribes can, in accordance with the same ingenious explanation, be considered as imitations of the glorious wounds with which eminent warriors have been adorned when returning from battle.[331] In the cases where this interpretation holds true the chief aim of the decoration is, of course, not to make the man more beautiful and charming, but only to show off his skill and courage, and thus to inspire respect and fear. It is needless to point out that in times of war such decorations must be of eminent advantage by inspiring their wearer with pride at the same time that they strike his enemies with terror. But boasting adornments are by no means restricted to military purposes. Many apparently ornamental scars and tattooings are probably worn as proud traces of heroic feats performed at initiations or funeral ceremonies.[332] And, to quote instances of less lofty pride, there is no end to the cases in which gems are worn chiefly for producing an impression of wealth.[333] It would be absurd to suppose that this show of valour or wealth must always be addressed to women. The impulse to ostentation has thus undeniably, independent of sexual selection, aided in the origin of self-decoration.