Part 8
As another example I select a decorated object from New Ireland described by Stephan. In fig. 101 (_a_) represents a frigate bird, (_b_) fish bones, (_c_) buttons for strings of shell money, (_d_) men’s arms, and (_e_) a fish head. On a paddle (fig. 102) the spirals represent the opercula of a snail; the connected triangles, the wings of the frigate bird. On other specimens the spirals represent young fern fronds.
In the art of the North Pacific coast a definite totemic meaning is given to conventional figures. There is no general agreement as to their significance, but to many forms is assigned a meaning according to the totemic affiliation of the owner for whom it thus attains a value based on its meaning. Explanations of a blanket design (fig. 103) obtained by G. T. Emmons and John R. Swanton, may serve as an example. According to Emmons the design represents a whale diving, in the lateral fields are ravens sitting. The head with nostrils and mouth is shown below. The central face represents the body, the inverted eyes along the upper border, the tail. According to Swanton the design represents a wolf with young. The head is shown below. The hind legs and hip joints are represented by the two large inverted eyes and the adjoining ornament along the upper border. The two dark segments just above the eyes are explained as the feet. The face in the middle of the design represents, as usual, the body of the animal. The small eye designs, with adjoining ear and wing feathers, in the middle on each side of the body, are interpreted as forelegs and feet. The designs in the lateral panels are explained as young wolves sitting.
It seems likely that wherever varied interpretations of the same form, or of closely allied forms occur within the same social unit, conditions of this kind prevail.
We have no information whatever that would enable us to decide whether the ideas expressed are entirely incoherent. It is conceivable that there may be associations that are unknown to us and that create a greater unity than appears on the surface. I am under the impression that connected with the interpretation there exists a certain emotional tone that may be weak, but that is, nevertheless, not negligible in the esthetic effect of the whole object.
It would seem that in a considerable number of cases ornamental patterns have definite names that are always applied, no matter in what combination the design may occur. Many Californian basketry patterns are of this kind. Barrett[59] gives the names of decorative patterns used by the Pomo Indians, from which I select a few as an illustration (fig. 104). The northern and eastern Pomo call fig. 104 _a_, _b_ butterflies; the central Pomo call them arrow-heads; the designation for _c_ is sharp arrow-heads. The northern Pomo call _d_, pointed broad band, deer back, or darts for a game; the central Pomo call them crow-foot or crow-track; the eastern Pomo, zig-zag or marks of the east. The design _e_ is called quail plumes; _f_ and _h_, by the northern Pomo, “sharp points and in the middle striped water snake”; the central Pomo call them “similar to slender arrow-heads”, and the single triangles, turtle-neck. The eastern Pomo call the designs butterfly and “in the middle (gaya) striped water snake”. The design _g_ is called by the northern Pomo, empty spaces and quail tip patterns; by the eastern Pomo, butterfly and quail plumes; _i_ by the central Pomo quail plumes arrowhead.
[59] S. A. Barrett, Pomo Indian Basketry, Univ. of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. Vol. VII, No. 3.
This usage corresponds to our terms when we speak, for instance, of the “egg and dart” design. Among the Shetland Islanders patterns on knit stockings are called “flowers”, flowers serving as a synonym for pattern. The drawn work of Mexico bears also names.[60] Here we find names as for instance, “Little Jesus”, “Beehive” (_a_) (fig. 105), “Partridge’s Eye” (_b_), “Tomato Seed and Peel” (_c_), liana (_d_), “Spider Net” (_e_). The same is true of the embroidery of Paraguay.[61]
[60] Journal American Folk-Lore Vol. 33, 1920, pp. 73 et seq.
[61] E. Roquette-Pinto, On the Ñanduti of Paraguay. Proceedings of the Congress of Americanists, Gotenburg, 1925, pp. 103 et seq.
Named designs among more primitive people are particularly common in Africa, where, according to all investigators, the complex designs are conceived as compounds of single elements which bear names.
Czekanowski[62] says in discussing the ornaments found in Ruanda (fig. 106): “On account of the simplicity of the Ruanda ornament its elements are easily determined. We shall enumerate them here according to their names: quiver (_a_); shield (_b_); millet (_c_); knife (_d_); arrowhead (_e_); kindly person (_f_); ferrule of a spear (_g_); wings of a swallow (_h_); large tail (_i_, _j_); arrows (_k_). The three last patterns may be considered as compound forms. The pentagon occupies an exceptional position. All these elements consist of straight lines. Curves occur as segments, crescents, spirals and circles. Wide-lined circles are called arm rings (_m_); narrow ones, bracelets (_n_).” The general ornamentation consists of horizontal rows of black triangles or diamonds on a plain background or a white triangle on a black background. The arrowhead design (_e_) appears in long rows, the point of one head touching the notch of the other. Zig-zag bands in diagonal or vertical rows of the pattern _i_ and _j_ occur also. The characteristic point seems to be that only the elements of the whole pattern bear names.
[62] Jan Czekanowski, Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Zentral-Afrika Expedition, 1907-1908, Vol. VI, Part 1. pp. 329 et seq.
I infer from Tessmann’s[63] description that among the Pangwe of West Africa also the single pattern elements bear names while the multifarious combinations lack explanations such as we find in America or in Melanesia. In fig. 107 patterns in woodcarving are represented which are named as follows: (_a_) file; (_b_) string of cowrie shells; (_c_, _d_) triangular leaf used for feathering arrows for the cross bow (triangle with wide base); point of iron money, spear point (triangle with narrow base); (_e_) tail of armadillo; (_f_) kerf; (_g_) rainbow; (_h_) fish bone; (_i_) triangular spear; (_k_) spider net.
[63] Günter Tessmann, Die Pangwe, Berlin 1913, Vol. 1, p. 243 et seq.
Of the Bushongo Torday[64] says that the nomenclature is not certain (p. 216). “The Bushongo do not consider the design as a whole, but they divide it into various elementary patterns. They take one of these elements as characteristic of the whole figure and call the whole design by this term. The motives obtained by interrupting woven patterns[65] at regular intervals are built up of small details which are found variously combined in other motives. Therefore, owing to the analytical mind of the natives, the curious phenomenon results that the same name may be given to two designs, apparently quite dissimilar, at least so far as the general impression is concerned, and that the natives of opposite sex will give to the same design different names because either considers a particular element as the principal part.” The closely related patterns fig. 108 _b_ and _d_ are derived from interwoven strands (fig. 108 _a_). The form _b_ is called imbolo (interwoven?); _c_ is called the xylophone and _d_ the foot of Matarma. The Bangayo call the same pattern in carving (_e_, _f_) back and head of the python. The patterns 108 _g_, _h_ are called the knee and _i_ the knot.
[64] E. Torday and T. A. Joyce, Notes ethnographiques sur les peuples communément appelés Bakuba, etc. Les Bushongo, Documents ethnographiques concernant les populations du Congo Belge, Vol. II, number 1, Brussels, 1910, pp. 217, 219.
[65] i. e. the element consisting of a single warp strand showing between two woof strands and the adjoining similar elements, formed in simple up and down weaving.
* * * * *
The significance of primitive ornament has also been studied in another way. In a number of cases it has been shown that series can be arranged in which we may place at one end a realistic representation of an object. By degrees we may pass to more and more conventional forms that show each a distinct similarity to the preceding one, but end in a purely conventional, geometric design in which the initial stage can hardly, if at all, be recognized. I believe the first to discover this phenomenon was Frederic Ward Putnam, who described the development, as he called it, of the hollow, slit feet of Chiriquian (Costa Rican) pottery from a fish form to a purely conventional design (fig. 109). He was followed by others who made studies of similar transitions in other parts of the world. William H. Holmes described the so-called alligator vases of Chiriqui, showing the relations between the alligator design and curious irregular painted forms (see fig. 129, p. 137). Hjalmar Stolpe, and about the same time, Charles H. Read (fig. 110) discussed the relations of human figures and geometrical designs in Polynesian ornaments; Haddon studied the so-called crocodile arrows (fig. 111) and the frigate bird (fig. 112) designs of New Guinea in their gradual transition from fairly realistic forms in which the crocodile and the bird are easily recognized, to geometrical types in which the prototype is entirely obscured. Similar relations are found in the facial urns of prehistoric times, (fig. 113) in some of which we find a perfectly plain and distinct face, while in others there are only a few knobs that, on account of their position, recall the face. George Grant MacCurdy takes us back to Chiriqui where he collected from museum collections series of types beginning with the form of the armadillo and ending with small decorative points (fig. 114). Von den Steinen forms out similar phenomena in the tattooings of the Marquesans.
In a few cases the striking similarity of the patterns which contradicts the diversity of names suggests an historical relation between the forms. This is the case, for instance, with the Bushongo antelope and beetle patterns (fig. 115). The resemblance between the realistic antelope head (_a_) and beetle design (_d_) is evident. It is, however, not necessary to assume a transition from the antelope to the beetle design, but the question has to be answered in how far the stylistic form may have moulded the two representations in the same form or, on the other hand, why an ornamental form may have outlines that, on the one hand, express an antelope’s head and, on the other hand, the body of a beetle.[66]
[66] E. Torday and T. A. Joyce, Notes ethnographiques sur les peuples communément appelés Bakuba, etc. Les Bushongo, Documents ethnographiques concernant les populations du Congo Belge, Vol. II, number 1, Brussels, 1910, p. 212.
Here arises the important problem whether we are to assume that all these forms are developments from realism to conventionalism, as has often been assumed, or whether the converse process may not also have occurred, namely that a geometrical design existed and that a gradual development towards a realistic form took place, that a meaning was read into the geometric pattern and that in this way the significant forms originated. Unfortunately historical evidence is hardly ever available and we are compelled to rely upon indirect evidence. We cannot follow the excellent example set by Riegl in his detailed study of the history of the introduction of curved lines in Mediterranean art.
However, we can apply the geographical method, the only one that has made it possible to unravel part of the historical development of people that do not possess written records, and for cultures the development of which cannot be traced by archaeological evidence. It is possible to establish with a high degree of probability the relationship of cultural forms and their gradual spread by means of a study of the distribution of ethnic phenomena and their variations in the sections of the area in which they are found. This method is strictly analogous to the one applied by biologists in their studies of the gradual distribution of plants and animals.
In our case we must try to trace the distribution of designs together with the interpretations given to them by different tribes. If we should find consistent interpretations of the same form over large areas, perhaps even more realistic forms in a central district, more conventional ones in outlying parts of the country, but in all of them the same interpretation, we should have to consider this as plausible evidence of an origin of the conventional types from a realistic representation. If, on the other hand, it should be found that in the whole area realistic forms and conventional forms were irregularly distributed and that furthermore the meanings of identical or similar forms did not agree, then the origin of conventional forms from realistic ones would seem to be quite unlikely. Then we should have to assume one of two possibilities; either the form must have spread gradually over the whole area and must have been given a meaning independently by each people,—in other words the meaning must have been read into the pattern,—or it may have been that a dominating style has forced a diversity of realistic representations into the same geometric patterns.
In the latter case we should have to consider the processes by which realistic forms should gradually change into unrecognizable conventional ones; in the former the processes by which from a conventional form a representative one develops.
That both ways are possible is easily shown. When the Plains Indians represent a buffalo in a stiff angular form, like a hide spread out provided with legs, head and tail (fig. 116); and if also a rectangle without these attachments is called a buffalo, it may be as well the buffalo hide that has been abbreviated, so to speak, as that the hide has been read into the rectangle. The process of reading in is not at all unfamiliar to us. We see realistic forms in the shapes of mountains and clouds and in marks on rocks, and we enjoy the play of fancy that endows natural forms with new meanings. There is no reason to doubt that the same tendency prevails among primitive peoples. Koch-Grünberg’s[67] observations among the natives of South America prove this point. He tells us that the Indians, when camping at a portage and waiting for the rivers to become navigable, take up accidental marks on the rocks and by pecking develop them into forms suggested by the natural outlines, or that they take up the lines left by a preceding party who amused themselves in the same way and whose play was interrupted when they were able to resume their journey. We have also ample evidence to show that curiously formed rocks are not only compared with animate beings, but that they are actually considered as men or beasts transformed into stone. Thus the Pueblo Indians tell in their migration legend that a person or an animal became tired on account of the fatigue of the long travel, sat down and was transformed into stone. The forms of a hawk, man, bear, and of a woman carrying a basket are still pointed out. On Vancouver Island are shown the tracks of the culture hero, where he stepped on a rock. In the interior of British Columbia a large boulder is said to be Coyote’s basket.[68]
[67] Th. Koch-Grünberg, Südamerikanische Felszeichnungen. Berlin, 1907.
[68] James A. Teit, The Thompson Indians of British Columbia, Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Vol. I, Pl. 19.
I shall illustrate this point by the discussion of a design found widely spread among the Indians of North America. Their decorative art is characterized by the use of straight lines, triangles and rectangles that appear in manifold combinations. One of the most typical forms is that of an isosceles triangle with enclosed rectangle, sometimes provided with spurs at the base (fig. 117). This design is found in an extended area. It occurs most frequently on the great plains but also on part of the western plateaus and among the Pueblo Indians (fig. 118). To the west it is found among the tribes of the woodlands and certain peculiar patterns of New England and the interior of Labrador are strongly reminiscent of it. The stylistic similarity, or better, identity of the pattern on the plains is so great that it cannot possibly have developed from several independent sources. It is part and parcel of the general art style of the area that has developed either in one spot, or what seems more probable, by the conflux of artistic activities of a number of tribes. Thirty or forty years ago, under the strong influence of the evolutionary theory, the psychologising ethnologist might have interpreted this similarity as due to the sameness of the reaction of the human mind to the same or similar environmental causes,—as Daniel G. Brinton explained the similarity of Algonquin and Iroquois mythologies. However, the development of our science since that time has so firmly established the fact that even the most primitive cultures must be considered as having had a historical development no less complex than that of civilization, that the theory of independent origin of almost identical phenomena in contiguous areas can no longer be maintained and has been given up by all serious students.
When we study the significance of the pattern we find the greatest possible divergence of meaning. As pointed out before, different individuals in one tribe, do not all assign to it the same meaning, but more or less decided tendencies to certain interpretations are found in each tribe. The design is sometimes drawn steeply and the sides of the triangle extend slightly beyond the apex. Thus the form of a tent with tent poles, doorway and pegs for pinning down the tent cover is expressed. At other times the triangle is more obtuse and represents a hill. It may be placed on a white background which signifies snow or sand; blue lines extending downward from the base indicate springs of water and small triangles may be placed in the inner triangle. Thus it becomes the mythical mountain in which, at the beginning of time, the buffaloes were kept and which is located on a snowcovered plain. On the slopes of the mountain grow trees. Again, quite different, is the interpretation given by the Pueblo Indians. In their arid country the greatest need is rain without which their crops wither and starvation stares at the people. The communal life centers around the idea of fertility to be attained by an abundance of rain. Accordingly they interpret the symbol as a cloud from which the rain falls. Since their art is far less angular in style than that of the Plains Indians, they often substitute a semicircle for the triangle and attain a greater realistic resemblance to clouds by superimposing three of these semicircles, from which flow down the rain lines. When we turn to the western plateaus, we find among the Shoshone the regular design of the obtuse triangle applied and explained on the basis of geographical features; it suggests to them mountain-passes and a fort protected by palisades. Further to the north we do not find the enclosed rectangle, but the triangle and the spurs at the base persist. These are explained as paws of a bear, the triangle being the sole of the foot, the spurs the claws. In the eastern woodlands new developments occur. The triangle now is exceedingly narrow, so that there is no room for the enclosed rectangle which is reduced to a triangle. The sides of the triangle are produced beyond the apex, even more so than among the Sioux Indians, and a considerable number of almost straight vertical lines are added to the sides. The form bears now a certain resemblance to a fish tail and is so interpreted. Still more curious are the developments in New England. The triangle and the enclosed rectangle are still unmistakably present, although curved lines, characteristic of eastern American art, are added on. The interpretation has changed again. The pattern is a symbol of the town or of the tribe and its chief.
Among none of these tribes do we find any indication of the existence of more realistic forms from which the conventional triangle might have been derived. The realistic forms of the western tribes are almost exclusively crudely pictographic and no transition from the pictograph to ornamental, geometric patterns can be traced. The realistic forms of the eastern tribes are found particularly in mattings and weaving. These also show no relation to the triangular forms that we are discussing. The theory that the pattern has developed under the stress of a compelling style that cast a variety of realistic forms into the same mould does not find support in the facts, because transitional forms are lacking. We conclude, therefore, that the sameness of form and the difference of meaning are not due to a geometrisation of realistic forms but to a reading in of significance into old conventional patterns. This view is corroborated by the prevailing uncertainty in regard to many of the meanings. The Blackfeet, according to Clark Wissler,[69] have practically no feeling whatever for the significance of these designs. The Arapaho behave somewhat differently on different occasions. Ceremonial paraphernalia may have fairly definite meaning, while clothing, bags and other objects are given interpretations that are quite subjective and which show therefore great individual differences.
[69] Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 18, p. 276.
The importance of the social position, or perhaps better, of the social interests of the owner of an object, in determining the meaning of ornaments has been demonstrated most clearly among the Sioux Indians. In former times their ornamentation was made in porcupine quill embroidery, but at present beads have taken place of the quills. Men and women use to a considerable extent the same ornamental designs, but with distinctive meaning. A diamond-shaped pattern with attached double triangular appendages, when found on a cradle, or a woman’s legging, is interpreted as a turtle, the turtle being a symbol closely associated with birth and maturity of the woman. When found on a man’s legging it represents a slain enemy.[70]
[70] Clark Wissler, Decorative Art of the Sioux Indians, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. 18, pp. 253, 273.