Chapter VIII: Part 8

In fig. 262 the sculpin has been adapted to a circular slate dish. The centre of the design is occupied by a rosette, which has undoubtedly been copied from European patterns. In the drawing the outlines of the various parts of the body have been strengthened in order to make their relations somewhat clearer. It will be noticed that the head is split in two, cohering only at the nose and the upper jaw. The two spines rise immediately from the nose. The two halves of the body extend from the corners of the face upward along the rim of the dish. There they grow thinner, indicating the thin portion of the fish body near the tail. The tail has not been split, and is turned upward and backward so that it touches the central rosette. A comparison between this design and the design at the centre of the upper margin in fig. 259 will show a great similarity between the two, thus making it probable, that, as stated before, the latter design is intended to represent the tail of the monster. The pectoral fins of the sculpin are shown in a rather abnormal position. They are turned forward from the body so that they adjoin the lower jaw. They will be recognized between the jaws and the rim of the dish. The dorsal fin is indicated by the long pointed ornaments extending from the eye towards the tail.

In the design fig. 263 a fish has been dissected in a somewhat different manner. The head occupies the upper margin of the slab. It has a remarkably triangular shape. The body has been bisected from head to tail, and turned and twisted in such a manner that each half extends in a curve downward from the corners of the face to the middle of the lower margin of the slab. The pectoral fins have been left in contact with the corners of the mouth, and are placed in the same position as in the preceding figure, namely, adjoining the lower jaw. They meet just below the chin of the animal. I believe the ornaments which are stretched along the right and left margins of the slab represent the dorsal fins.

I have described at a previous place (p. 215) the extraordinary distortion and dissection of the killer-whale in its adaptation to a blanket, and I have given the description at that place.

Quite a unique distortion is found in body paintings used by the Kwakiutl Indians in a boy’s dance. Fig. 264 is a copy of a body painting representing the bear. On the chest, the head of the bear is shown turned downward. The white spots over the collarbones are the eyes of the bear; the angular line with semicircles, the mouth and teeth. On the upper arms are shown the forelegs, the claws just under the elbow. The hind legs are shown on the front of the thighs. On the back of the person is shown the nape of the bear placed on the upper part of the back; under it, extending downward, is the back, the lines representing hair. The hip joints are shown by dark designs on the buttocks. The spiral design on the left leg was said to represent the tail.

Still more remarkable is the frog painting shown in fig. 265. On the small of the back is shown the top of the head of the frog; the two eyes with eyebrows above, the mouth below. Corresponding to this place we find in the front of the body the mouth set with teeth (which really do not belong to the frog). The back of the frog is shown on the upper part of the back; the hind legs on the back of the arms. The opposite side of the hind legs is shown on the front of the arms. It seems probable that in the design which was copied for me by an Indian, the painting on the front of the left arm was accidentally omitted. The shoulder joint is shown on the front of the thighs; the forelegs in corresponding position on the back of the thighs; the ankle joints on the knees; and the foot on the calf of the legs. In other words, the frog is shown in such a way as though the body of the person were the frog. No explanation was given for the black design on the left leg.

* * * * *

We will turn now to the purely formal side of the treatment of the decorative field. There is a tendency to cover the entire surface with design elements. Vacant places are avoided. When the surface of the object represented has no features that lend themselves to decorative development, the artist resorts to devices that enable him to fill the surface with patterns. On totem poles the bodies of the animals represented occupy considerable space. The monotony of the surface is broken by placing the forelegs and hindlegs across the front of the body, by turning up the tail in front, and by adding small animal figures.

Far more important is the application of a great variety of decorative elements, all of which consist of curved lines. The Indians have a decided disinclination to apply equidistant curves. In all work of the better class the lines are so arranged that more or less crescent shaped surfaces result, or that narrow, curved areas, wide in the middle, narrower at the ends, are formed.

The most striking decorative form which is used almost everywhere, consists of a round or oval field, the “eye design”. This pattern is commonly so placed that it corresponds to the location of a joint. In the present stage of the art, the oval is used particularly as shoulder, hip, wrist, and ankle joint, and as a joint at the base of the tail and of the dorsal fin of the whale. It is considered as a cross section of the ball and socket joint; the outer circle the socket, the inner the ball. Often the oval is developed in the form of a face: either as a full face or a profile.

The general disposition of this design demonstrates that the explanation is not by any means always tenable. Thus in the blanket, fig. 205 (p. 215), the eye pattern in the two lower corners has no connection with a joint. In this position, in the mouth of an animal, it is sometimes described as food. The two profile faces higher up on the side of the same blanket, are obviously fillers. They might be replaced by “eye designs”. Another instance of similar kind is found on the upper part of the face of the dish fig. 168 (p. 191). The circular designs shown here might perhaps be interpreted as tail joints, but they are probably decorative elements. The design appears clearly as a filler in fig. 283 _f_ (p. 272) at the inner upper corner on the long side of the box, and on the ears of the beaver, fig. 229, (p. 227). On Chilkat blankets it appears always in fixed positions (see p. 258) and in large boxes it is the constant corner design (see p. 263). Its use and interpretation as a joint is presumably related to the frequent ornamental combination shown, for instance, in the feet on fig. 160 (p. 188) and in the tails fig. 193 (p. 205). The oval represents the joint and the elevated part the limb. These are at the same time formal elements that appear regularly on the lateral border designs on carved boxes (fig. 274, p. 263). The eye design appears in a variety of forms ranging from a large double eye to a circular pattern with black center.

Lieutenant Emmons has collected the various design elements as they appear on the blankets and has given the names by which they are designated by the Tlingit (fig. 266). These names do not fit the explanations given for the whole pattern. The “double eye” (_h_) and the “eye” (_f_) are not always eyes but occur also as joints, (fig. 269 _b_). The profile eye is called the “head of the salmon trout” (_c_). It is used quite generally as the eye of any animal. The “black eye” (_g_), the “nostril” (_l_) and the design called “one in another” (_o_) are practically identical. They are also used as joints. The frequent use of the circular design of light or dark color, set off against a dark or light background indicates that the tribes of the north west coast do not tolerate areas of the same color, the monotony of which is relieved by the insertion of circular designs of contrasting colors. These may be seen on many blanket and box designs (fig. 274 et seq.).

The forms called “side holes” (_p_) and “holes”, “ends of gambling sticks” or “rain drops” (_q_) have white circles relieving a black background. It is quite evident that these designs also, as parts of the whole design, have not the significance implied in the names, nor do the names explain the reason for their use. The frequent occurrence of the white circles, both isolated and in lines, (see figs. 269 et seq., pp. 259 et seq.) proves that they must be considered primarily as a formal element designed to break large surfaces.

It seems to me most likely that the black or white circular design has been the basis from which the eye design has developed. In the style of the north west coast art shoulders, hips, hands, and feet form large dark monotonous surfaces. These are broken by a large white circle or oval, which is again varied by a black center. This tendency would also account for the goggle design (fig. 266 _i_). The same desire to relieve the monotony of the cheek surface leads to the insertion of an oval design on the cheek (_k_).

In carved designs these forms are not contrasted by color, but the form alone varies the monotony of the large undecorated surface.

Another characteristic pattern, the narrow crescent, has presumably also originated from the desire to break the monotony of continuous areas. It appears particularly when it is desired to set off two merging patterns against each other. Here also design names obtained by Emmons, “woman’s hair ornament” (_r_) and “slit” (_s_) have nothing to do with its function and significance as part of the whole pattern.

The most characteristic filler, next to the eye, is a double curve, which is used to fill angular and round fields that rise over a strongly or gently curved line. Many fillers of this type have a dark colored band at the upper end, generally rounded in paintings or carvings, square in blankets (see fig. 202, lower lateral design on central panel; the tail patterns, fig. 193). In the blankets the angular form is perhaps due to the technique in weaving, although the frequent eye designs prove that round forms are not impossible. On blankets the heavy upper line is often drawn out into a tip (fig. 270 _a_, over the “goggle” design on the side of the central panel). Examples of these forms have been collected by Lieutenant Emmons who states that the Tlingit call them “the wing feather of red-winged flicker” (fig. 266 _t_). The use of the pointed form of this design for a bird feather agrees with the theoretical claim of the Kwakiutl (see p. 205), but obviously the explanation does not always fit the meaning of the pattern as a whole, as is shown by the killer-whale design fig. 205 (p. 215) or the whale design fig. 270 (p. 260).

The design is used commonly to represent quite diverse objects. Thus, the double flicker-feather (fig. 266 _t_), occurs in fig. 269 _a_ as the beak of a bird, occupying the middle of the mouth design between the two large eyes. It occurs also between the ears along the upper border of the design as the single flicker-feather. Here as well as over the beak of the bird, in the lateral fields, it is used only for filling in parts of the design which otherwise would remain undecorated. In fig. 202 (p. 213) the same design occurs between the eyes, just over the nostril, and here also it obviously has nothing to do with the red-winged flicker. Many other cases of this application of the wing feather design, simply for the purpose of filling in spaces, may be observed in practically all the blankets. A comparison of fig. 202 with the box designs fig. 274 shows that the wing feather design may serve to express the forearm and the upper arm. In fig. 274, we have the two hands placed in a position, similar to the paws in figs. 202 and 269 _b_. On the box fig. 274 _a_ the parts are connected with the body by a narrow red strip, which is divided by characteristic curves into two parts. A comparison of this design with figs. 222 and 223 shows very clearly that they are meant to represent the upper arm. In the blanket design fig. 269 _b_, the two sections connecting the paw with the body may be recognized distinctly as upper arm and forearm. In the blanket designs fig. 202, the space that is available for the upper arm is much condensed; but it is quite obvious that the two wing feather designs which lie on the outer sides of the paws must be interpreted here also as the forearm and upper arm. Judging by this analogy, I think there can be very little doubt that the two wing feathers placed by the sides of the body in fig. 269 _a_ may be considered in the same way as the two parts of the arm of the animal represented. Since the animal here shown is a bird, these feather designs are in this way made to represent the bones of the wing.

Similar considerations have determined the distribution of ornaments in the design fig. 270 _b_. Here the two feet will be recognized at the lower edge of the design. Adjoining it, above the “eye”, are two long white flicker-feather designs, which obviously represent the legs. Each of the two inverted double eyes under the jaws must be interpreted as a shoulder joint to which is attached the lower part of the arm in the form of a flicker-feather design.

The forms here discussed are interpreted as various kinds of animals,—birds, quadrupeds, sea-monsters,—but never as the red-winged flicker, nor can the parts be interpreted as ornaments made of flicker-feathers. It is obvious that we are dealing here with a fixed form, which has a conventional name, and which is used for a variety of purposes.

It will be noticed that this design occurs in three principal forms. In one of these it is cut off square at the upper end. Most of those shown in fig. 266 are of this type. Another characteristic form of this design has the pointed wing feather, (as the second one in the series fig. 266 _t_). A third form, which is not given in the series of named designs, seems to be quite common. It has a rounded tip, and may be observed, for instance, in the beak part in front of the upper eye in the lateral panels of figs. 203 and 269 _a_; also in the central field in fig. 273 _b_.

The wing design is applied wherever a somewhat oval or rectangular field which is situated laterally has to be filled in, particularly when the field adjoins another design which is surrounded by heavy black lines, and which forms part of an animal body. For this reason the design appears very commonly in front of, over, or under the eye design. It is used to fill in the ears; it appears at the sides of the body, as in figs. 203 and 269 _a_; and it is used to fill in small fields which adjoin black lines, as for instance, in the lowest section of the lateral panels in fig. 269 _a_.

On blankets the light circle on a darker background with black tip and small white segment at the base, is almost ever-present. The white segment at the base is limited very often by a pointed double curve,—like a brace,—which divides the adjoining colored field more or less distinctly into two halves. These may be observed, for instance, in one of the ear designs in figs. 202 and 269 _b_, and also in the design over the nose in fig. 202.

This pattern is also used as a filler for long narrow spaces. According to Emmons this is called the “mouth design” (fig. 266 _j_) or the “eyebrow” (_e_), but it is often used on fields that cannot be interpreted as “mouth” or “eyebrow”, as for instance, in the lateral parts of the lower border of fig. 202 and in the lower corner of the box, fig. 274 _b_.

Judging from the general application of this design, it is quite obvious that it is not primarily a feather design, but that it is a decorative element used throughout in certain definite positions for the purpose of filling in.

Flat black curves are used quite often for indicating the teeth. These may be observed in fig. 269 _a_, on the body of fig. 270 _a_, in the lowest face in fig. 204, in the lower faces of fig. 271.

* * * * *

We have discussed before the adjustment of animal form to the decorative field. The adjustment is not by any means free, but definite, stylistic forms may be recognized. These appear with great clarity on the Chilkat blankets.

The measurements of the blankets show that the central height is very nearly one half of the width. The width of the narrow border, consisting of a black and yellow stripe, is about one twelfth of the total width. The angle of the lower border is quite variable, the vertical distance from a line connecting the lower corners of the blanket to its greatest depth is generally a little less than one sixth of the width. The fundamental trait of the blanket pattern is the division of the field into three panels. The central one about double the width of the lateral ones, or more. In most blankets the line of division of these fields is quite clear and is indicated by black and white lines. The designs on the lateral fields are symmetrical and quite distinct from the central field.

The blankets may be divided into two large groups. Their fundamental patterns are indicated schematically in fig. 267. The one design is clearly a representation of an animal with a large head which occupies the whole upper part of the field down to an almost straight cross line (fields 1, 2, 5, fig. 268). Under it are the body (field 3) and in the lower border the tail and hips (field 4) of the animal. It may be noticed that there are always two tail joints, although in other cases the use of a single tail joint for birds and a double tail joint for sea mammals is fairly consistent. Fields 6, 7, and 8 are used in various ways. They are not essential parts of the animal represented, although field 6 may be utilized for the purpose of showing parts of the back, and field 7 may be utilized for a representation of the fore arms. In this style we may distinguish, in the wide center, a central stripe, consisting of the elements numbered 6, 2, 3, 4 and two lateral stripes 5, 1, 7, and 8. Generally these sections interlock. In a few specimens, the outer limits of field 3 are carried down to the lower border so that they form a continuous broad line with the outer limits of field 4.

Examples of this type are shown in figs. 202 and 269. In these the animal figure in the center appears very clearly. It will be noticed that the large eyes of the animal have always a cheek design attached to them. These appear also in fig. 203, a blanket belonging to the same class, the lower part of which is, however, much less distinctively body and tail belonging to the large head. The reduction of field 7 and its extension to the lower margin is rare in other specimens. In fig. 202 field 7 is occupied by the raised hands of the animal, while in fig. 269 _a_ it is occupied by a wing design. The rectangular frame surrounding the body in fig. 269 _b_ is an exceptional feature which I have seen only in one other modern blanket.

A sub-type may be distinguished in which the lower part is treated differently (fig. 270 _a_). The two eyes of field 4 are of the same size as those of field 1. In this way a more symmetrical impression is produced, but at the expense of the unity of the animal form. This treatment lends itself to a sharper separation of the fields 5, 1, 7, 8 against the fields 6, 2, 3, 4 so that the whole central field seems to be divided into three sections (see fig. 204). Fig. 270 _a_ is decidedly influenced by the second type of blanket; the four eyes being approximately of the same size and symmetrically arranged around a central face.

The fundamental feature of the second type of blankets is a central face placed a little higher than in the preceding type, so that it forms exactly the center of the whole field. In place of the large eyes on top, we find two large inverted eyes, often without the adjoining jaw design. In many cases two small circular patterns, or small eye designs, occupy the center of the lower border. These may often be identified with the nostril of the head to which the two large lower eyes belong. This pattern is much more symmetrical than the former type, but its symbolism is much more obscure. I presume that the inverted position of the eye in the upper border is essentially due to the attempt to obtain greater symmetry. For an explanation it is necessary that the upper eyes must be viewed as some part of the body that is turned upside down. Characteristic examples of this type are shown in figs. 103 and 271. In these, the fields to the right and left of the central face are treated, in the former, as a profile face; in the second they are decorated with a feather design filler. A somewhat different treatment is given in fig. 272 which may be compared with fig. 270. In both a large face occupies the center of the whole design, surrounded by the four large eyes and the lateral spaces filled with feather designs.

In fig. 273 the upper eyes have been moved towards the center and the eye design has been expanded into a profile which occupies the whole upper margin of the central field. In fig. 273 _b_ the lateral fields next to the central face are occupied by the two sides of the dorsal fin so that here the form of a whale is brought out fairly clearly.

The general scheme of the narrow lateral panels is also quite definite. We find on practically all the blankets an eye design,—part of the profile of an animal’s head,—in the upper, outer corner, another eye design near the lower border, generally approximately in the middle of the lateral field. The position of the lower eye design is much more irregular than that of the upper one. In general we are given the impression of an animal, the body of which extends along the extreme outer border of the blanket, the head occupying the centre of the panel, while the feet or tail are shown along the lower border. In this way a space is left in the middle, next to the central panel, which does not belong essentially to the form of the animal.

In both fundamental types the intervening spaces which are not filled by the large eye designs, the body, tail, and extremities, are filled with a variety of patterns which depend only in part upon the selection of the animal to be represented, but are very largely determined by esthetic considerations.

The broad sides of rectangular boxes bear the same fundamental design as the first type of blankets; an animal with an enormous head on the upper border, the body occupying the centre below. A fairly consistent difference between the blanket and box types is that the lower border of the large face is curved on the boxes; straight on the blankets. I believe this difference is due to the desire to avoid excessive parallelism. In the blanket the straight lower line of the head is set off against the curves of the upper part of the head and against the angle in the lower border of the blanket, while in the boxes a straight middle line would appear set off against the parallel upper and lower edges of the box. The lateral panels of the blanket correspond, in a way, to the narrow lateral strips in the front of the long boxes (fig. 274 _a_) which are characterized by a fairly large eye design in each corner. These are connected by a variety of decorative elements. At the lower border of the box front there originate, in this manner, five fields. The middle one being occupied by the body of the central animal; the corners being occupied by the eye designs which form the basis of the lateral strips. Between these there remain spaces which are often filled with designs representing the fore or hind feet of the central animal. On account of the shifting of the eyes the five field division does not appear as clearly in fig. 275. The reverse side of fig. 276 is treated differently; in the lower field the body is omitted, the two eyes placed in the middle so that a fourfold division of the whole area under the mouth originates. A similar treatment is given to a front (fig. 277 below), in which the eyes are placed in the corners while the middle is occupied by the two sides of a tail, which, however, is treated like a hawk’s face. The arbitrary character of the details appears very clearly in this arrangement.

The narrow sides of the boxes are generally painted with a design analogous to the central design of the front with this difference, however, that the lateral panels are missing and that the head is more compressed. In a number of cases the short sides are treated differently, as shown in fig. 276. Very rarely the short sides contain a profile figure that does not occupy the whole width of this side (fig. 277).

There are also a number of low boxes which are treated somewhat differently. On account of the lowness of the sides the lower rim of the head is drawn straight so that a narrow rectangular panel originates along the lower border (fig. 278). In this specimen the eyes are retained; the central face in the lower field presumably represents the body, to which are attached the arms and hands. In most specimens of this type, however, the lower section is almost entirely suppressed; the large upper face is retained but under it we find only a few ornaments that may be interpreted only as fillers (fig. 279 above).

There are also a number of low boxes in which the body is entirely suppressed. They contain, essentially, the large head design with a few decorative features along the sides, and the eyes in the upper corners. (Fig. 279 below).

The arrangement of the long boxes is such that the center of the mouth, or a point a little below it, is the center of the decorative field (figs. 274-276). A line drawn from the center of the lower border to the upper corners passes almost always along the corner of the mouth and often also through the sharp curve at the upper, outer outline of the face. The line drawn from the center of the upper border to the lower corner passes, generally, through the corner of the mouth. When the central field along the upper border is wide, so that it reaches down to the upper curve limiting the mouth, the eye is shown in profile (figs. 274 _b_, 276 reverse). When the central field consists only of a sharp short angle, there is a double eye (figs. 274 _a_, 275, 276 front, 277).

The general arrangement of lines on the box is such that the upper curves of the face are strongly curved downward. The curvature decreases downward; and in some boxes, for instance in those shown in figs. 275 and 276 reverse, there is a tendency to an arrangement of lines which are convex, upward.

The eye decorations are always so placed that they are not arranged in straight lines. It will be seen that in the best boxes they fall into curves that intersect the black lines of the design. In fig. 274 _a_, the eyes in the lower corners and those in the mouth are placed so as to form a continuous curve; in fig. 274 _b_, the arrangement of the eyes in the upper corners, the eyes of the large head, and those in the mouth form a fairly regular curve.

In the square boxes on which only one side of the face is shown on each side (fig. 280), the body is very much reduced in size. In most of these the large head is limited below by a straight line, while on the long boxes containing the full face on the front the lower line of the face is curved. In only one of these (fig. 278) do we find the face limited below by a straight line.

In fig. 280 _a_, the two sides shown on the left are occupied by a large head on top, corresponding to the blanket fields 1, 2, and 5. The ear (5) is much reduced in size. The sharp beak in the middle indicates that the hawk is meant. Under it is seen a small field corresponding to field 3 on the blankets and under it a face with its two eyes, corresponding to 4. The field 7 is occupied by the arms, indicated by the curved line running from the shoulder to the wrist of the raised hand. The whole lateral field of the blanket is condensed in the narrow strip to the right and left of the face and body. The designs on the upper corners are clearly ornamental and do not represent any particular part of the head; the eyes in the lower corners are considered as feet and toes; the large eyes over the lower corners as knee joints. The two sides of the box shown on the right hand side correspond in all details to those on the left, excepting the mouth, which is treated quite differently; the nostrils being shown in the center.

In fig. 280 _b_ the lower portion of the decorated side is much reduced in size and the marginal fields are simplified. The head may represent a hawk; the eyes in the lower fields are exceptional in so far as they are not placed in the corners but near the body and they may be considered ankle joints and below them the toes. The eye designs in the upper corners take the place of the ears. The reduction of the body is even more marked in fig. 281; here the eye designs and the adjoining curves on the upper margin are clearly fillers; the body has been completely dissolved. The eyes in the lower corners with the attached lower curve show an attempt to represent a flipper. The common character of these three specimens is the horizontal dividing line under the mouth and (excepting the one face in fig. 281) the general tendency to the symmetrical arrangement of lines in the upper and lower fields. The lines in the upper field point from the middle downward, and those in the lower, from the middle upward.

There are a number of peculiar developments of the head and body designs which are used on small food trays, the sides of which are bent out of a single plank. In one group of these (fig. 282) the two narrow sides represent, in front, the head of the animal; on the opposite, side the tail. This appears most clearly in figs. 282 _b_ and _d_; both representing the beaver. In fig. 282 _d_ the beaver’s head and tail are perfectly plain. In 282 _b_ there is considerable confusion; the beaver’s body below is provided with two human arms and over it is indicated the large characteristic head. The tail is shown on the opposite short side, together with the hind legs and the two disconnected eyes which ordinarily would form the hip joints and would be connected with the upper end of the thighs. On all these specimens, 282 _a_, _b_, and _c_, the other sides show an inverted face. This originates evidently in such a way that the eyes represent, at one end, the shoulder joints, at the opposite end, the hip joints, but instead of developing the sides as fore and hind legs, the inverted eyes have lead to the development of a face design which has no particular relation to the animal represented. In other words, we find here, as well as in many other places that elements which are in part derived from representations of parts of animals, have assumed a purely decorative function so that an explanation of the details is, to a great extend, arbitrary. The geometrical decoration on the long side of fig. 282 _d_ is also derived from the shoulder and hip joints, but instead of parts of a face, slit designs fill in the rest of the side.

The trays shown in fig. 283 are of the same make as those shown before, with the only difference that on the long sides the shoulder joints, knee and foot are shown in the ordinary way. The hind limbs are here represented on the short side, where the hip joints are shown by two large eyes in the upper part of the design. It will be observed, however, that in these cases also there is a considerable amount of arbitrary use of decorative elements that have no particular significance, but which must be considered simply as fillers. This appears most clearly in fig. 283 _e_, which represents a dish with a design of a human being. Here the arms are represented on the long sides, the shoulder joint by an eye which, however, is provided with lids. The space under the eye is filled in with a mouth which has no function in this position. It is evidently introduced in the same way as the profile faces which serve as fillers on the blankets. The most distinctive specimen of this type is shown in fig. 283 _f_. It represents a beaver, the face indicated by disconnected eyes, mouth, and ear; the nose showing the form of one of the conventional copper plates used by the northwest coast Indians, while the face in the middle of the upper border is purely ornamental. The opposite short side shows very clearly a tail, hip, legs, and feet and on the long side also the large shoulder joint in the form of an eye with ear; the arm and the foot are distinctly shown but here also, by the addition of four teeth, the shoulder joint is elaborated in the form of a face; the eyes in the corners of the long field are purely ornamental.

To the same group belong also the carved trays cut out of a single piece of wood, shown in fig. 284. Here we have only the head design which is adjusted to the curvature of the upper border of the decorative field. The lines of the face are drawn so as to conform to the decorative field.

It will be observed that the eyes of the large head in the blankets are always almost horizontal while those on the boxes and trays are strongly inclined. I presume this is due to the tendency to avoid massing of parallel lines.

The large head design found on the blankets and boxes occurs also on the paintings in the center of the front of slat armour. The lateral panels are missing and the design consists simply of the head with attached shoulder, arm, and hand (fig. 285).

A number of square food trays, bent of a single piece of wood, are not decorated according to this plan. The face, consisting of two symmetrical halves, is replaced by a series of profiles (fig. 286); the short and high sides have the large eye in the left hand upper corner; the mouth in the lower right hand corner. The design on the long sides represents the sides of the body. The large eyes stand, presumably, for the shoulder joint and are placed in the center of the side; wrist and fingers are in the lower left hand corner. The significance of the design in the right hand upper corner is not clear. The general distribution of the design elements is evidently determined by the central position of the large eyes.

The boxes shown in fig. 287 illustrate that still another pattern is used on square boxes. Each of the four sides of the two boxes shown in figs. 287 _a_ and _b_, is divided into four rectangles of unequal size. The general plan of the two designs is almost the same, although there are considerable differences in detail. It is quite evident that in 287 _a_ the lower part of the first and third sides represents legs and feet. A distinct wing design appears in the left hand upper rectangle of the fourth side, but otherwise the arrangement of the elements is so arbitrary that a safe interpretation is impossible. It seems plausible that in this case also the attempt at decoration was much more important than the attempt at interpretation. An interpretation was given to me for the box shown in fig. 287 _b_. Although obtained from Charles Edensaw, one of the best artists among the Haida, I consider it entirely fanciful. The first side to the left, corresponds to the third side, which is opposite to it on the box. The second side corresponds to the fourth side. Edensaw explained the design as showing four interpretations of the raven as culture hero. The upper right hand rectangle of the first side he claimed to represent the head of the raven surmounted by the ear; the large eye to the left of it, in the left hand upper corner, the shoulder and under it the wing and tail. The design in the right hand lower corner he interpreted as the foot; the toes are clearly visible in the lowest right hand corner of this field. He claims that the head turned upside down in the left hand upper rectangle of the second side represents the head of the raven and under it the hand; the raven being conceived as a human being. The rectangle in the upper right hand corner contains the shoulder; the right hand lower corner under it, the tail; and the left hand lower corner, leg and foot.

The box shown in fig. 287 _c_ is related to the general design of fig. 287 _b_. The somewhat slanting lines between the upper and lower fields occur in both cases, but the vertical division of each side, which is characteristic of the specimen just described, is lacking in the last named specimen.

A fairly fixed formal arrangement may also be observed on horn spoons moulded of a single piece (fig. 288). On the back of the spoon is a design, the center of which is a large face. In many specimens the space above the eye is filled by two ear designs which are doubled and unusually large on account of the space that they have to fill. In these specimens the space between the ears is taken up by a narrow decorated strip. In a few simpler forms parts of the bowl of the spoon remain undecorated.

A closer examination of the decorated objects shows that even apart from the decorative use of symbolic motives, geometric elements are not by any means absent. The most striking use of geometrical forms is found on wooden trays, which bear at the ends the characteristic faces, but which are decorated on the sides by groups of short parallel lines (fig. 284, p. 273). The line and circle pattern on the dish (fig. 168, p. 191) illustrates also the use of geometrical forms for decorative purposes. On the berry spoon (fig. 215, p. 221) the space left vacant by the symbolic design is filled in with a net of crossing lines. This specimen shows that the cross hatching which occurs in many specimens,—on the beaver tail (fig. 157, p. 186), on berry spoons (fig. 182, p. 197), on spoons (fig. 189, p. 201) and often in red or black as a filler on boxes (fig. 274, p. 263) has a decorative value even when it may be given at the same time a symbolic meaning. The dish of big-horn-sheep horn (fig. 289) shows a bear’s head at each end. At the same time it has a decorative border which seems to imitate the border of a basket and which is purely ornamental. It serves to close off the rim which without it would seem to end abruptly. A similar device is used on a Kwakiutl mask (fig. 290). Although the encircling ornament is explained as a ring made of twisted, shredded cedar bark, it is obviously essentially ornamental. The circular and spiral designs bring out the ornamental character most clearly.

Chilkat Blanket.]

Cedarbark Blanket, British Columbia.]

Blankets of Mountain-goat Wool.

Bella Coola, British Columbia.]

It seems not unlikely that the symbolic style and the desire to cover the whole field with ornaments have developed exuberantly only recently. In early times geometric ornaments were probably more widely used than is the case now. We shall see presently that they are in extensive use in basketry.

A number of ancient blankets show that angular geometrical ornaments played an important part in earlier weaving. Plate X represents a blanket of mountain-goat wool, in the Ethnological Museum at Copenhagen, formerly belonging to the old collections in Leningrad. It is decorated entirely with geometrical designs arranged in horizontal bands. The same zig-zag pattern in short panels that occupies alternating bands in this blanket appears in a second ancient blanket (Pl. XI) which contains also curiously conventionalized faces and triangular designs. This is a cedar bark blanket in the British Museum transferred from the United Service Museum about 1868, collected at Nootka. It has a border in brown and yellow wool (?), consisting of obtuse triangles, assimilated to an eye design. A series of photographs of blankets in the hands of Dr. Newcombe of Victoria, British Columbia, shows that these types were in common use in Bella Coola (Pl. XII, see also p. 292).

Our consideration of the fixed formal elements found in this art prove that the principles of geometric ornamental form may be recognized even in this highly developed symbolic art; and that it is not possible to assign to each and every element that is derived from animal motives a significant function, but that many of them are employed regardless of meaning, and used for purely ornamental purposes.

The symbolic decoration is governed by rigorous formal principles. It appears that what we have called for the sake of convenience dissection and distortion of animal forms, is, in many cases, a fitting of animal motives into fixed ornamental patterns. We infer from a study of form and interpretation that there are certain purely geometric elements that have been utilized in the symbolic representation. Most important among these are the double curve which appears always as a filler in an oval field with flat base, and the slit which serves to separate distinct curves. The typical eye design is presumably related to the circle and dot and may have developed from the double tendency of associating geometrical motives with animal forms and of the other, of standardizing forms derived from animal motives as ornamental elements.

This art style can be fully understood only as an integral part of the structure of Northwest coast culture. The fundamental idea underlying the thoughts, feelings, and activities of these tribes is the value of rank which gives title to the use of privileges, most of which find expression in artistic activities or in the use of art forms. Rank and social position bestow the privilege to use certain animal figures as paintings or carvings on the house-front, on totem poles, on masks and on the utensils of every day life. Rank and social position give the right to tell certain tales referring to ancestral exploits; they determine the songs which may be sung. There are other obligations and privileges related to rank and social position, but the most outstanding feature is the intimate association between social standing and art forms. A similar relation, although not quite so intimate, prevails in the relation of religious activities and manifestations of art. It is as though the heraldic idea had taken hold of the whole life and had permeated it with the feeling that social standing must be expressed at every step by heraldry which, however, is not confined to space forms alone but extends over literary, musical and dramatic expression. Who can tell whether the association between social standing and the use of certain animal forms,—that is the totemic aspect of social life,—has given the prime impetus to the art development or whether the art impetus has developed and enriched totemic life? Our observations make it seem plausible that the particular symbolic development of art would not have occurred, if the totemic ideas had been absent and that we are dealing with the gradual intrusion of ever fuller animal motives into a well established conventionalized art. On the other hand it seems quite certain that the exuberance of totemic form has been stimulated by the value given to the art form. We may observe among all the tribes that high chiefs claim highly specialized art forms that are built up on the general background of totemic representation. In the south, there is clear evidence of the late exuberant development of the totemic, or perhaps better, crest idea, owing to the strong endeavor to raise by the possession of art forms the standing of the social units to which the individual belongs. The multiplicity of forms among the numerous small divisions of the Kwakiutl and the sporadic appearance of animal forms among the adjoining Salish are ample proof of these relations.

The style has undoubtedly its home in northern British Columbia and southern Alaska. The manufactures of the tribes of Vancouver Island show a far more extended use of geometrical ornamentation than those of the northern tribes. I am under the impression that these are survivals of an older style. Trays, boxes, and baskets of the Kwakiutl Indians are still decorated with geometrical patterns. A rattle used in a ceremony performed after the birth of twins (fig. 19, p. 31) bears a pattern consisting of angular fields. Ancient boxes found in caves are ornamented with a geometrical style more elaborate than that of modern times (fig. 291).

The small food trays, the sides of which are bent out of a single board, bear on the upper end a border pattern consisting of equidistant lines following the rim, while the body of the sides is ornamented with vertical lines (fig. 292 _a_). A similar border pattern is found on buckets (fig. 292 _b_). In boxes a border design is cut in, setting off the central field (fig. 293). Combs are decorated with geometrical motives most of which consist of a central rectangular field set off from the background by parallel lines or developed by a subdivision of the field. In one case triangles and crossing lines with hachure are used (fig. 294). On a bone sword the decoration consists of circles with center, a pattern that is widely distributed among the western Eskimo, the plateau tribes of the interior and in California (fig. 295). It will be noticed that the head carved at the end of this specimen does not conform at all to the style of art here discussed but rather agrees with the carving found in the region of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound. Another specimen (fig. 295), differs still more from the style of the Northwest coast art and resembles that of the tribes of the interior.

In the art of the West coast of Vancouver Island, in a few ancient specimens of the Kwakiutl and particularly in the whole area of the Gulf of Georgia, a triangular motive analogous to the “Kerbschnitt” of northern Europe, plays an important role. It is found on the ancient Kwakiutl boxes previously referred to (fig. 291), and is a common decorative motive on clubs made of bone of whale (fig. 298). A related motive is found on spindle whorls (fig. 296). It is also found on representative wood carvings, as on the eagle design on a house post from the Fraser River Delta (Plate XIII p. 288). In the region still farther south, this ornament becomes more and more important, as may be seen on dishes and spoons from the Columbia River area. On these the circular design and central dot also occur (fig. 297).

A number of ancient specimens prove the existence of a fixed art style in this region, representative, but differing in character from the style of the Northwest coast. This is best illustrated by a series of war clubs. The fundamental type is a blade of a lenticular cross section surmounted by a head resembling that of an eagle, which bears on its head a bird headdress not unlike what is used by the Nootka of modern times.[115] In all the specimens represented in figures 298 and 299 this fundamental form will be recognized, although in many cases the outlines are so crude that the elements of the composition are recognized with difficulty only. It is possible that in a number of these carvings it was not the intent to represent the eagle with bird headdress, but that the form is rather due to the compelling influence of a standardized form that determined the outlines of the subject of the representation. Common to these clubs is also the central ornamental line ending near the point in a circular ornament which is often given the form of a human head.

[115] See Harlan I. Smith, Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound, Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Vol II, figs. 165-168.

Representations of animals in wood carving differ also in important features from those of the northern region. The tendency to ornament the whole body, the dislike of a plain background is not found here. If we are right in assuming that the fullest development of a rich ornamentation in the north is late, we might say that in the south the ornamentation has not yet encroached upon the whole background. The eye design, double curve, the slit design are foreign to this area. Instead of house posts carved in the round, we find heavy posts of rectangular cross section which bear on the front figures carved in the round or in high relief. Sometimes the post assumes geometrical forms. A characteristic trait of the human face in this region is the sharp angle setting off the forehead from the face. This is most pronounced in the carvings of the Puget Sound region (fig. 300 and Plate XIV).

On Puget Sound animal representations are used with great frequency in basketry, particularly as ornamental borders. In ancient times they were also applied to hats (fig. 301, see also fig. 72 p. 78). This style seems to be entirely missing in the north.

House Post near Eburne, Fraser River Delta, British Columbia.]

At the present time the Kwakiutl apply the symbolic style in house paintings, house posts, and masks. The skill of the artist is not inferior to that found among the northern tribes, but the subject matter differs somewhat according to the difference in mythological concepts. The distortions in painting are, if anything, more daring than those of the Haida, but I have not observed to the same degree the tendency to interlock various animal forms, as is done on spoon handles and totem poles of the northern tribes. On totem poles so far as these occur, and on house posts the single figures are placed one on top of the other, but they remain separated. The masks are painted as elaborately as those of the northern tribes. Double masks and revolving attachments occur. In short, the decorative art of those objects that are strictly related to use in totemic and similar ceremonies, have the northern type, while objects of every day life tend to have geometric ornamentation. The use of animal forms on large dishes (see fig. 198, p. 208) is a characteristic trait of this region.