Chapter VI: Part 6

The Ojibwa and Ioway use another method of building up their boxes. The short sides are made of separate flaps and there is no flap covering the front. The bottom is not decorated and the hide is folded over simply in box form and sewed together (fig. 147). The method used by the Otoe and sometimes by the Ioway, is still different. There is a short flap covering part of the front; the sides are folded in, somewhat in the same manner as done by the Fox and there is also a complete lack of coherence between the design as laid out on the hide and as it appears in the completed box (fig. 148).

Still another example of fixity of type is presented in the woven bags of the Ojibwa and Potawatomi (figs. 149, 150). The two opposite sides have always distinct patterns. The purely geometrical patterns are always laid out symmetrically. There is a broad central figure bordered by a number of narrow stripes. These are followed, above and below by a wide stripe of a pattern different from the central one. Sometimes the colors above and below are inverted. The dividing line runs all around the bag, but the patterns in the broad bands change. On the one side there are often representative figures above, and in this case there is no correspondence between the upper and lower designs. Similar bags are used by other neighboring tribes. The Potawatomi use the same decorative arrangements, except that the central band often remains undecorated.[96]

[96] See Alanson Skinner, The Mascontens or Prairie Potawatomi Indians, Bull. Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee, Vol. 6, No. 2, Plate 21.

For a clear understanding of the character of a local style a comparison with related forms in contiguous areas is indispensable. Historical conditions like those that may be traced in the development of art forms in prehistoric and historic times in Europe and in Asia have been determinants in forming the art of primitive people also. There is probably not a single region in existence in which the art style may be understood entirely as an inner growth and an expression of cultural life of a single tribe. Wherever a sufficient amount of material is available, we can trace the influence of neighboring tribes upon one another, often extending over vast distances. Dissemination of cultural traits that has made the social structures, the ceremonials and the tales of tribes what they are today, has also been a most important element in shaping the forms of their art. The local distribution of technical processes, of form elements, and of systems of arrangement contribute to the character of each art style. In another place we have discussed the distribution of pottery decorated by means of applied pellets and fillets (see p. 138), and it appeared that the technical process covers a wide continuous area and that it is applied in different ways by each cultural group. We have also seen that the characteristic triangular design with enclosed rectangle, often with spur lines along the base, is widely disseminated over the North American continent. We found that this form is common to the Pueblos, the Indians of the northwestern plateaus and of the plains, and that the fundamental pattern may be recognized in New England and Labrador. Patterns composed of lines, triangles and rectangles are characteristic of the art of the North American Indian. Notwithstanding their simplicity, these forms are practically confined to North America. Their strong individuality proves that their present distribution must be due to mutual influence among various North American cultures. We cannot determine where the pattern originated but it is quite certain that its present distribution is due to cultural contact; its occurrence is probably related to the use of stiff rawhide for receptacles, to the method of painting used by the Indians, and to the old method of decorating with porcupine quill weaving and embroidery. I have called attention to the difference in arrangement of these patterns among a number of tribes and A. L. Kroeber, R. H. Lowie, and Leslie Spier[97] have discussed these questions in greater detail (fig. 151). The parallel stripe arrangement is characteristic of the Arapaho; a central field surrounded by a square, of the northern Shoshone. Owing to the close contact in which these two tribes live at the present time, which favors intertribal trade, the distribution is not quite so clear as it has probably been in earlier times.

[97] Leslie Spier, An Analysis of Plains Indian Parfleche Decoration, University of Washington Publications in Anthropology, Vol. I, pp. 89 et seq. where the earlier literature has been quoted.

Certain differences may also be observed in the arrangement of bead embroidery the forms of which are very uniform over an extended area of the western prairies. A characteristic form of this design consists of a central diamond or rectangle, from the corners of which emanate lines that terminate in triangles facing the central field either with the apex or with the base; sometimes a crossbar with prongs is found at the end of these lines. Among the Arapaho (fig. 152) these patterns appear singly on a plain background; among the Sioux (fig. 153) the central square is seldom used. While among the Arapaho the lines are usually attached to only two opposite ends, the Sioux almost always attach them to the four corners of the central diamond. Furthermore, the Sioux like to vary the background by inserting stars or crosses and the design seems to occur more frequently symmetrically doubled than among the Arapaho.

Another good example of differentiation in arrangement and identity of pattern elements is presented by the basketry of the Indians of British Columbia. Among the Thompson Indians the design elements are distributed evenly over the whole side of the basket; among the Lillooet they are confined to the upper part of the side while the lower part remains undecorated; among the Chicotin there are three bands of decoration along the upper part of the basket (see p. 297).

As another case of the wide distribution of a design element, evidently due to diffusion, we may mention the so-called quail tip ornament of California which consists of a right angle with a thin upright stem and a short heavy horizontal arm. This pattern is found commonly throughout California and extends northward as far as the Sahaptin tribes of Columbia River. It is particularly important to note that technically the basket of the Sahaptin tribes belongs to the coiled and imbricated type used by the Thompson Indians farther to the north; while in the southern regions a multiplicity of methods of basket weaving are used. In all of these the same quail tip occurs (see p. 109).

We have spoken so far of local styles as though in every case only a single style occurred in a tribal unit. This might seem plausible on account of the comparative uniformity of tribal life. Still there are many cases in which fundamentally different styles may be observed in the same community. I have referred several times to the realistic carving and drawing of the Eskimos, which is often combined with very characteristic but subordinate geometrical patterns, particularly with the double line with alternating spurs, a series of “Y” shaped figures, arranged on a continuous line; and circles and dots (see fig. 78, p. 86). In certain cases realistic forms are used for the purpose of ornamentation. On some modern specimens from the west coast of Hudson Bay, the representations of human beings or animals are found (see fig. 51 _b_, p. 58). In Greenland wooden vessels are ornamented by attached ivory carvings representing seals, which are nailed on to the surface (fig. 121, p. 127). Pieces of skin in which needles are kept, are ornamented with appliqué figures.[98] On the east coast of Greenland similar decorative motives are in use.

[98] Kaj Birket-Smith, Ethnography of the Egedesminde District, Meddelelser om Grønland, Vol. 66, (1924), pp. 522, 550.

The style of ornamenting cloth is quite different. There is no realism and the formal patterns which are used are broad bands, accompanying the borders of the garments and long lines of fringes. The basis of this ornamentation is a feeling for color contrast and a tendency to emphasize outlines. The representative tendency is entirely absent. In a single specimen in which it appears as a representation of a human hand, it looks strangely out of place.[99] This decorative type is fully developed in Greenland where checker work is applied to garments, buckets, and also to wooden goggles.

[99] Franz Boas, The Eskimo of Baffinland and Hudson Bay, Bulletin American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 15, (1907), Plate 9.

I presume the principal cause for the difference of these styles is found in the difference of the technical processes, but perhaps even more in the circumstance that the realistic work is made by the men, the clothing and sewed leather work by the women.

Two fundamentally distinct styles occur also among the Indians of the North Pacific coast. I have referred a number of times to their symbolic representations of animals with the curious disregard of natural relations between the parts of the body. This style of art is confined primarily to woodwork and to other industries allied to woodwork. It occurs also in appliqué and in embroidery in porcupine quill,—probably copied from painted designs,—so that it is practiced by both men and women. It is, however, entirely absent in modern basketry made for home use, and in matting. The decorative patterns in these types of technique are always geometrical and bear no relation to the art of carving. Only in the woven blankets of the Tlingit which are copied by the women from pattern boards made by the men do we find the typical symbolic style.

I might also refer to the contrast between the pictographic representations of the Indians of the Plains and their ornamental art, if it were not for the fact that their pictography never rises to the dignity of an art.

The cases might be considerably increased in which a difference of style is found in different types of technique, or in different parts of the population. Birchbark baskets of the interior of British Columbia have their own style of border decoration and their sides are often covered with pictographic designs. Coiled baskets from the same district have geometrical surface patterns. Central American painted pottery differs in style from other types in which painting is not used, but in which plastic ornamentation is applied. New Zealand borders of woven mattings have geometric style and lack patterns that might be considered derived from the elaborate spiral decoration that characterizes Maori carving (Plate VIII).

Such differences in style are, however, not by any means the rule. As has been stated before, we find much more commonly (p. 154) that the most highly developed art is liable to impose its style upon other industries and that mat weaving and basketry have been particularly influential in developing new forms and powerful in imposing them upon other fields.

Woven Blanket, New Zealand.]

ART OF THE NORTH PACIFIC COAST OF NORTH AMERICA[100]

[100] The present chapter is a revised edition of my essay, “The Decorative Art of the Indians of the North Pacific Coast of America” (Bulletin American Museum of Natural History, Vol. IX, pp. 123-176, 1897).

The general principles discussed in the preceding chapters, may now be elucidated by a discussion of the style of the decorative art of the Indians of the North Pacific Coast of North America.

Two styles may be distinguished: the man’s style expressed in the art of wood carving and painting and their derivatives; and the woman’s style which finds expression in weaving, basketry, and embroidery.

The two styles are fundamentally distinct. The former is symbolic, the latter formal. The symbolic art has a certain degree of realism and is full of meaning. The formal art has, at most, pattern names and no especially marked significance.

We shall discuss the symbolic art first. Its essential characteristics are an almost absolute disregard of the principles of perspective, emphasis of significant symbols and an arrangement dictated by the form of the decorative field.

While the Eskimo of Arctic America, the Chukchee and Koryak of Siberia, the Negroes and many other people use carvings in the round which serve no practical ends, but are made for the sake of representing a figure,—man, animal, or supernatural being,—almost all the work of the Indian artist of the region that we are considering serves at the same time a useful end. When making simple totemic figures, the artist is free to shape his subjects without adapting them to the forms of utensils, but owing to their large size, he is limited by the cylindrical form of the trunk of the tree from which they are carved. The native artist is almost always restrained by the shape of the object to which the decoration is applied.

The technical perfection of carvings and paintings, the exactness and daring of composition and lines prove that realistic representations are not beyond the powers of the artist. This may also be demonstrated by a few exquisite examples of realistic carvings. The helmet shown in fig. 154 is decorated with the head of an old man affected with partial paralysis. Undoubtedly this specimen must be considered a portrait head. Nose, eyes, mouth and the general expression, are highly characteristic. In a mask (fig. 155) representing a dying warrior, the artist has shown faithfully the wide lower jaw, the pentagonal face, and the strong nose of the Indian. The relaxing muscles of mouth and tongue, the drooping eyelids, and the motionless eyeballs, mark the agonies of death. Plate IX represents a recent carving, a human figure of rare excellence. Posture and drapery are free of all the formal characteristics of North West coast style. Only the treatment of the eye and the facial painting betray its ethnic origin. Here belongs also the realistic head previously referred to, made by the Kwakiutl Indians of Vancouver Island (fig. 156), which is used in a ceremony and intended to deceive the spectators who are made to believe that it is the head of a decapitated dancer.[101]

[101] The selection of North West Coast art given by Herbert Kühn (Die Kunst der Primitiven, pp. 100, 104, Plates 48, 50, 51 are characteristic only of realistic representations. Only Plates 47, 49 and part of 52 are stylistically typical).

Carved Figure, British Columbia.]

When the artist desires realistic truth he is quite able to attain it. This is not often the case; generally the object of artistic work is decorative and the representation follows the principles developed in decorative art.

When the form of the decorative field permits, the outline of the animal form is retained. The size of the head is generally stressed as against that of the body and of the limbs. Eyes and eyebrows, mouth and nose are given great prominence. In almost all cases the eyebrows have a standardized form, analogous to that in which the Indian likes to trim his own eyebrows,—with a sharp edge on the rim of the orbits, and a sharp angle in the upper border, the brows being widest at a point a little outward from the center, tapering to the outer and inner angles and ending quite abruptly at both ends. The eye is also standardized. In many cases it consists of two outer curves which indicate the borders of the upper and lower eyelids. A large inner circle represents the eyeball. The lip lines are always distinct and border a mouth which is given an extraordinary width. Generally the lips are opened wide enough to show the teeth or the tongue. Cheeks and forehead are much restricted in size. The trunk is not elaborated. The ears of animals rise over the forehead (fig. 157). These are almost always applied in reproductions of mammals and birds, while they are generally missing in those of the whale, killer-whale, shark and often also of the sculpin. The human ear is represented in its characteristic form, on a level with the eye (figs. 207 and 209, pp. 217, 218). Whales and fish often have round eyes, but exceptions occur (figs. 233, 234, 235, pp. 229-231).

For clear presentation of the principles of this art it seems advantageous to treat the symbolism and the adjustment of the animal form to the decorative field before taking up the purely formal elements.

Fig. 157 _a_ is a figure from the model of a totem pole, which represents the beaver. Its face is treated somewhat like a human face, particularly the region around eyes and nose. The position of the ears, however, indicates an animal head. The two large incisors serve to identify the rodent par excellence,—the beaver. The tail is turned up in front of the body. It is ornamented by cross-hatchings which represent the scales on the beaver’s tail. In its forepaws it holds a stick. The nose is short and forms a sharp angle with the forehead. The nostrils are large and indicated by spirals. The large incisors, the tail with cross-hatchings, the stick, and the form of the nose are symbols of the beaver and the first two of these are sufficient characteristics of the animal.

Fig. 157 _b_ is another representation of a beaver from the model of a totem pole. It resembles the former one in all details, except that the stick is missing. The beaver is merely holding its three-toed forepaws raised to the chin. In other carvings the beaver is shown with four or five toes, but the symbols described here never vary.

On the handle of a spoon (fig. 158), the head and forepaws of the beaver are shown; and in its mouth are indicated an upper pair of incisors, all the other teeth being omitted. The scaly tail is shown on the back of the spoon. The nose differs from the one previously described only in the absence of the spiral development of the nostril. Its form and size agree with the preceding specimens.

In the centre of the front of a dancing headdress (fig. 159), a beaver is represented in squatting position. The symbols mentioned before will be recognized here. The face is human, but the ears, which rise over the forehead, indicate that an animal is meant. Two large pairs of incisors occupy the center of the open mouth. The tail, with cross-hatchings, is turned up in front of the body, and appears between the two hind legs. The forepaws are raised to the height of the mouth, but they do not hold a stick.[102] The nose is short, with large round nostrils and turns abruptly into the forehead. On the chest of the beaver another head is represented over which a number of small rings stretch upward. This animal represents the dragon-fly, which is symbolized by a large head and a slender segmented body.[103] Its feet extend from the corners of its mouth towards the haunches of the beaver. Its face resembles a human face; but the two ears, which rise over the eyebrows, indicate that an animal is meant. In many representations of the dragon-fly there are two pairs of wings attached to the head. Combinations of two animals similar to the present one are found frequently, as in figs. 165, 170 and 235.

[102] For additional representations of the beaver see figs. 216, 225, 228, 229, 230, 255, 283.

[103] See p. 192.

In a painting from a Kwakiutl house-front (fig. 160), which was made for me by an Indian from Fort Rupert, the large head with the incisors will be recognized. The scaly tail appears under the mouth. The broken lines (1) around the eyes, indicate the hair of the beaver. The design on each cheek (3) the bones of the face, the high point of the nose (2) its sudden turn. The nostrils are large and round as in the specimens described before. Under the corners of the mouth are the feet. The meaning of the two ornaments over the head is doubtful.

Fig. 162. Part of a totem pole with design representing a sculpin, Tsimshian.]

A carved halibut hook (fig. 161) is decorated with the design of the sculpin. The symbols of the fish are fins and tail, those of the sculpin, two spines rising over its mouth, and a joined dorsal fin. The sculpin is represented swallowing a fish, the tail of which protrudes from its mouth. The two spines appear immediately over the lips, their points being between the two eyes which are represented by two circles with small projections. The two pectoral fins are indicated over the eyes. The joined dorsal fin extends from the eyes upward toward the narrowest part of the body. The tail of the animal extends toward the place where point and shank of the hook are bound together by means of a strip of spruce root.

The same animal is represented in a slightly different way on the lower portion of a totem pole (fig. 162). The lowest figure is probably the sun, or perhaps a starfish. Its arms extend upward, and are held in the mouth by a sculpin, standing head downward, back forward, and tail extending upward. Two crescent-shaped ornaments above the corners of the mouth represent the gills of the fish. Above these are the pectoral fins. On the level of the pectoral fins towards the middle appear the symbols of the sculpin, two spines, the lower portions of which are decorated with small human faces. The round eyes are placed just under the spines. The dorsal fin commences at the height of the eyes, and merges into the tail which is clasped by a human figure cut in two by the fish tail. This carving is also characterized by two symbols,——the two spines and the joined dorsal fin.

On a legging made of blue cloth (fig. 163) the sculpin is shown in red cloth appliqué. Its teeth, eyes, and dorsal fin are represented by buttons of abalone shell. Two small triangles cut out to the right and left of the mouth represent the gills. Immediately over the eyes, and extending toward the middle of the back, are the two spines, indicated by two slender triangular pieces of red cloth cut out in their middle parts. The pectoral fins are indicated by two broader pieces of red cloth extending from the eyes outward and upward toward the margin of the body of the fish, the dorsal fin by the long slits along the back of the animal. The species is characterized by the two spines which appear over the eyes.[104]

[104] For additional representations of the sculpin see figs. 206, 219, 224, 262.

In facial paintings the sculpin is generally indicated by the two spines which are painted just over the lips (fig. 164).

Figs. 165-168 represent the hawk which is symbolized by an enormous hooked beak, curved backward so that its slender point touches the chin. In many cases the face of the bird is that of a human being, the nose being given the shape of the symbol of the hawk. It is extended in the form of a beak, and drawn back into the mouth, or merged into the face below the lower lip.

On the headdress, fig. 165, the upper, larger face is that of the hawk. The face in human; but the ears, which rise over the forehead, indicate that an animal is meant. The body is small, and is hidden behind the face of a sea-monster with bear’s head and flippers. The wings of the hawk are grasped by the arms of the sea-monster whose flippers may be seen over the arms.

Fig. 166 is the handle of a spoon on which is represented the head of a hawk, symbolized by its beak. The top of the spoon represents a man who is holding a small animal with a segmented body, which may represent the dragon-fly, although the head seems rather smaller than usual.[105]

[105] See also figs. 207, 243, 257.

In figs. 167 and 168 the same symbols of the hawk will be recognized. It is worth remarking that in most of these specimens the mouth is entirely separated from the beak and has the form of the toothed mouth of a mammal. A characteristic form of the hawk’s beak is shown in the facial painting fig. 169.

Fig. 170, the front of a headdress representing the eagle, is quite similar to the forms of preceding series; but it differs from them in that the beak of the bird is not turned back so as to touch the face, but ends in a sharp point extending downward, and that there is no mammal mouth indicated. The wings of the eagle are shown extending from the border of its body inward. The shoulder joint is indicated by the head of a human figure which is ornamentally carved on the wings. The feet are seen at the sides of the lower border of the carving, under the wings. On the body of the eagle is a rather realistic carving of a toad. An eagle is also shown on top of the Haida house post (fig. 171). The wings are turned in in front of the body and the curves of the lower figures fit into the curved side.[106]

[106] See also fig. 215.

In figs. 172 and 173 I give two representations of the hawk (or fish hawk) made by the Kwakiutl. The treatment is different from that of the Haida, but the sharply curved beak is found here also. On the paddle (fig. 172), (1) represents the eyebrow and ear, (2) the cheek, (3) the wing, (4) the beak. Fig. 173 is taken from a painting on a settee. On the back is shown a man with ears (4) over the head, like those of the Haida animals. (1) is the navel, (2) the wrinkles running down from the nose to the corners of the mouth, (3) is painting on the cheeks. The head of the hawk is placed on each side of the human figure. On the lower border of the settee is the lower jaw (5), over the eyes the feathers on the head (6), the eye next to the head on the side wing of the settee, is the shoulder joint. The bone of the wing is shown in (7), the long wing feather in (8), the feathers of the body in (9).

The dragon-fly is represented with a large head, a long segmented body and two pairs of wings. The representation on the headdress, fig. 159, has been referred to before. The head is human but provided with animal ears. It has also been mentioned that the animal with segmented body in fig. 166 may be a dragon-fly, although it is lacking the wings. According to Edensaw, the spoon handle (fig. 174) also represents the dragon-fly. It has a strongly curved beak; wings are placed under the lower jaw and the segmented body forms the tip of the handle. A particularly good representation of a dragon-fly is found on the Haida berry spoon[107] (fig. 175). Attention should be called to the spiral proboscis on this specimen.

[107] These flat, wooden spoons are used for eating soapberries which are beaten to a foam.

The most important characteristic of the killer-whale as represented by the Haida is the long dorsal fin,—often with white circle or white stripe in the middle, and a face or eye indicating a joint at the base. The head is elongated, the mouth long and square in front. The nostril is large, high, and at the same time elongated. The distance from the mouth to the eyebrow is long and on totem poles and spoon handles the head is always so placed that the long snout points downward. When seen in profile the front of the face is square on account of the forward extension of the nose over the front part of the mouth. The eye is generally round but sometimes surrounded by elongated lid lines with sharp inner and outer corners. Sometimes the blow-hole is shown by a circular spot over the forehead. In fig. 176 are shown a few representations of the killer-whale as found on handles of spoons made of mountain-goat horn. In (_a_) and (_b_) the dorsal fin rises immediately over the head of the animal. The inverted face in (_b_) probably represents the blow-hole. In (_a_) and (_c_) the fins are folded forward; in the latter specimen the tail is turned up in front on the body. On the rattle (fig. 177) the characteristic large head with steep face appears. The mouth is set with large teeth; the eye is round. In front of the dorsal fin is a blow-hole. The Haida float (fig. 178) is abnormal in so far as it has a very small dorsal fin (see also fig. 182 _d_).

A number of Kwakiutl masks and dishes representing the killer-whale are shown in fig. 179. Although there are some differences in the treatment of the animal, the main features are common to both tribes. All these specimens, except _h_, have the dorsal fin; the last named specimen shows the head only. The long, high nose is found in all except in _c_, _d_, _e_. The high, steep face is common to all of them. Fig. _e_, a large house dish,[108] is said to represent the They are emblems of the family of the houseowner.] whale. It will be noticed that _b_, _c_, _d_ have round eyes while in _a_ and _h_ the regular oblong eye is used. In _e_ and _g_ the fundamental form of the eye is also round. Fig. 180 is a Tlingit helmet which is characterized as the killer-whale by the large mouth set with teeth, the sudden turn of the nose towards the forehead, the fin made of hide which rises over the crown of the head, and the fin which is painted on the left cheek. Ordinarily the killer-whale has no ears. In facial painting red under and on the lower jaw up to a line running from the angle of the jaw to a point a little below the lips, represents the throat of the killer-whale.

[108] These dishes are used in great feasts. Some of them are of enormous size.

The bear is symbolized by a large mouth set with many teeth, often in the act of swallowing some animal. Very often the tongue protrudes. The nostrils are high and round, sometimes represented by spirals (see also figs. 157, 175). On totem poles and carved spoon handles they are similar to those of the killer-whale but do not extend quite so far backward. There is a sharp turn in the profile from the nose to the forehead. The paws are large (fig. 181).

In fig. 182 three berry spoons are shown which, according to Charles Edensaw, represent the bear. Fig. 182 _a_ is quite clear. At the end of the spoon is shown the head with an enormous ear (1), the size of which is determined by the form of the spoon. Two teeth are indicated by red curves (2). Under the mouth is a broad black curve, the foreleg (3), and to the right of it (4) the fore-paw. The lowest part represents the hindlegs. Fig. 182 _b_ is not so clear. The face in the middle is the hip joint, under it, to the right, the thigh, to the left the paw with long claws. Edensaw considered the design over the hip joint as the tail, the end as the head, but I doubt the correctness of this interpretation. The end of the spoon looks more like the head of a sea-monster and the design over the hip joint like the fin. Fig. 182 _c_ was also called a bear by the same informant, while 182 _d_ was called a killer-whale. I place these side by side, because the formal agreement of the lower part is striking. The right half of the base of 182 _c_ has the characteristic form of the dorsal fin of the killer-whale and corresponds to an analagous design in fig. 182 _d_. In both cases the inverted eye above the “fin” would be the joint. The rest of the design consists of eye and flipper elements that are not readily recognized. In 182 _d_ the flat curves in the middle may be the body; in front to the left the fin, and over it eye and mouth. In 182 _c_ the elements are still less clear. According to Edensaw there is no head, only a tail at the upper end of the spoon.

There are quite a number of representations of the sea-monster, the form of which is partly that of a bear and partly that of a killer-whale. In a number of cases the monster has a bear’s head (fig. 183) and body, but fins are attached to the elbows. In other cases the head is that of a killer-whale and the body that of a bear. In this form it appears on many horn spoon handles (fig. 184). In still other cases the characteristics of bear and killer-whale are intermingled in other ways.

The frog is characterized by a wide toothless mouth, a flat nose, and lack of a tail.

The following series (figs. 185-188) are representations of the dogfish or shark. When the whole body of this animal is represented, it is characterized by a heterocerc tail, a large mouth, the corners of which are drawn downward, a series of curved lines on each cheek which represent the gills, and a high tapering forehead imitating the inferior position of the mouth. It is often decorated with two circles (the nostrils), and a series of curved lines (wrinkles) similar to the gill lines on the cheeks.

Fig. 185 represents a shark devouring a halibut, from the upper part of a totem pole. The head has the characteristic symbols, to which are added here the numerous sharp teeth that are found often, but not regularly, as symbols of the shark. The greater part of the body has been omitted, since the animal is sufficiently identified by the symbols found on the head; but under the chin will be noticed the two pectoral fins which identify it as a fish.

Fig. 186 is the handle of a copper dagger on which the mouth with depressed corners, the curved lines on the cheeks, and the ornament rising over the forehead, characterize the shark.

A small pipe (fig. 187) has the form of a shark. The square end at the right hand side is the face of the animal (fig. 187). Eyes and mouth are inlaid with abalone shell. On account of the narrowness of the face, the three curved lines generally found on the cheeks are placed under the mouth. The forehead has the characteristic high form described before. The opposite end of the pipe shows the tail turned upward. On the sides are carved the pectoral fins, which extend over the body of the pipe.

Fig. 188 is a copy of a tattooing on the back of a Haida woman. Here we have only the outline of the head of a shark, again characterized by the peculiar, high forehead, the depressed corners of the mouth, and curved lines on each cheek.

The shark[109] (or dogfish) is found frequently on Haida carvings and paintings. It is rare among the southern tribes.

[109] See also figs. 213, 214, 217, 232, 233, 261.

The ts’um’os, the personified snag, is represented in a form similar to the bear. According to Edensaw the form of the head is analogous to that of the bear but the corners of the mouth are drawn down like those of the dog-fish (fig. 189). This is contradicted by the representation of a third snag monster, in which the mouth is square like that of the bear. The region behind the mouth has, however, the characteristic curvature demanded by Edensaw. The fins of this being correspond to the concept of the sea-monster.

In fig. 190 are represented two spoon handles, representing, according to Edensaw, the snail. The characteristic feature seems to be the long snout with its sudden, angular turn. The conventional concept of the animal form with eye and nose is strikingly brought out in this instance.

Let us briefly recapitulate what we have thus far tried to show. Animals are characterized by their symbols, and the following series of symbols has been described in the preceding remarks:

1. Of the _beaver_: large incisors; large, round nose; scaly tail; and a stick held in the fore paws.

2. Of the _sculpin_: two spines rising over the mouth, and a continuous dorsal fin.

3. Of the _hawk_: large, curved beak the point of which is turned backward so that it touches the face.

4. Of the _eagle_: large, curved beak, the point of which is turned downward.

5. Of the _killer-whale_: large, long head; elongated large nostrils; round eye; large mouth set with teeth; blow-hole; and large dorsal fin.

6. Of the _shark_ or _dogfish_: an elongated rounded cone rising over the forehead; mouth with depressed corners; a series of curved lines on the cheeks representing gills; two circles and curved lines on the ornament rising over the forehead representing nostrils and wrinkles; round eyes; numerous sharp teeth; and heterocerc tail.

7. Of the _bear_: large paws; and large mouth set with teeth; protruding tongue; large, round nose; and sudden turn from snout to forehead.

8. Of the _sea-monster_: bear’s head; bear’s paws with flippers attached; and gills and body of the killer-whale, with several dorsal fins; or other mixtures of bear and killer-whale type.

9. Of the _dragon-fly_: large head; segmented, slender body; and wings.

10. Of the _frog_: wide, toothless mouth; flat nose; and lack of tail.

11. Of the personified _snag_: like a bear with mouth depressed at the corners like that of the dogfish.

12. Of the _snail_: long snout with sudden downward turn.[110]

[110] See also characterization of wolf, p. 207.

I have had occasion to examine the Kwakiutl in greater detail in regard to the symbols used in designating certain animals. One artist gave me a series of eye patterns together with the adjoining parts of the face and explained in what way each is characteristic of the animal in question. These are shown in figs. 191 and 192.

The grizzly bear of the sea (_a_) has a large eye, the form of which is not definitely determined, a very large, round nostril, large teeth and a large ear. The grizzly bear (_b_) has a round eye with white rim, smaller than that of the grizzly bear of the sea. The nose is not round, but high, the teeth large but smaller than those of the grizzly bear of the sea. The ear is small and pointed. The beaver (_c_) has, besides the large incisors, a high, round nose and a very small ear. The wolf (_d_) has a slanting, long eye; the ear is laid down backward; he has many teeth. The eye of the eagle (_e_) has a white crescent behind the eyeball, the nostril is slanting and placed high up on the beak. The eye of the raven (_f_) is white in the center. The killer-whale (_g_) has a very large eyebrow, a long eye and face, long nose and a long mouth with many teeth. The whale (fig. 192 _a_) has a round eye and nose. The sea lion (_b_) has a round nose, large teeth, the eye near to the nose and a small ear. The frog (_c_) has an elongated eye, flat mouth and flat nose. The fabulous double-headed serpent (_d_) has a small eye like that of the wolf, a spiral nose and a spiral plume. The eyes of a man, of the woodman, and of the seaspirit who gives wealth, are shown in _e_, _f_, and _g_.

The Kwakiutl also claim as the standard for the bird’s tail, a joint with a single eye, although sometimes there may be two eyeballs enclosed in one eye. The rounded feathers (fig. 193) are also characteristics of the bird’s tail. The tail of the whale, killer-whale, and porpoise, on the other hand, has two joints and the flukes have double curvatures on the inner side.

The Kwakiutl also claim a definite distinction between the designs representing wing feathers and those representing fins, (fig. 194). The wing feathers should be pointed; the fin, on the other hand, has no point and is cut off square.

In figs. 195 and 196 are represented the characteristic elements of the halibut and of the wolf. These elements are supposed to be used by the Kwakiutl in the representation of these animals, selected according to the requirements of the decorative field. In the figures here reproduced they are given without any reference to the decorative field. Fig. 195 represents the halibut; (1) the mouth and over it the nose, (2) the eyes, (3) the bone of the top of the head and (4) the side of the head. In (5) are shown the gills; (6) and (8) represent the intestinal tract, and (7) is the part of the intestinal tract just under the neck; (9) is the collar bone, (10) the lateral fin, the bones of which are shown in (11). (12) is the clotted blood that is found in the dead halibut under the vertebral column; (13) represents the joint of the tail, (14) part of the bone in the tail, and (15) the tip of the tail.

Fig. 196 represents, in the same way, the wolf. The head with the elevated nose is easily recognized. (1) represents the throat. (2) The humerus connected with the forearm is shown in the lower left hand side of the pattern; (3) represents the collarbone, the four circles (4) the backbone, (5) the back with hair. The three thin slanting lines (6) are the ribs, (7) the sternum and the hooks over it the intestinal tract, (9) is the hind leg, corresponding to (2), (10) the toes, (11) the foot, (12) connects the backbone with the tail. The thin lines (13) represent the hair of the tail, (14) is supposed to be a second joint in the tail, (15) the hairy tail, and (16) the ears.

Fig. 197 represents the wolf, a painting from the bow of a canoe. Here again the elevated nose of the wolf will be recognized. The hachure (1) represents the pelvis, (2) and (3) the intestinal tract, (4) the humerus, (5) the cheek, (6) the facial bones, and (7) the ear.

An examination of carved and painted specimens shows clearly that this description of symbols is theoretical rather than rigidly normative, for in many cases considerable freedom in their use may be observed. An example of this kind is presented by the wolf masks used by the Kwakiutl in the dance “Brought-Down-From-Above”[111] (fig. 198). Most of these have the slanting eye and pointed ears. In one specimen, however, the ear is pointed forward. The snout slants backward, the nose is high. The identity of treatment of the specimen shown in figs. _d_ and _f_ is interesting. The former was collected by Captain Adrian Jacobsen, 1884, and the latter by Captain Cook more than a hundred years earlier. The double mask, fig. _a_, resembles them in general shape, but the eye is treated quite differently and the ear, while narrow, is not pointed and the backward slant of the snout is not sufficiently pronounced. The double-headed wolf dish (_e_), has small reclining ears and long eyes. The ears of figs. _c_, _d_, _e_, are small and recline, but the eye of _c_ and _d_ is rounded.

[111] See Social Organization and Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians, Annual Report of the United States National Museum, 1895, p. 477, illustrations p. 493, Plate 37.

The forms of animals used by the northern tribes vary considerably also. It is not safe to base our arguments on models or on objects made for the trade. I shall use, therefore, exclusively, older specimens which have been in use.

Swanton[112] gives two interpretations of the Haida house post fig. 199. He had two informants; both explained the top figure as an eagle but they differed as to the meaning of the rest. The one claimed that the lower part of the pole represented the story of a woman being carried away by a killer-whale. The woman’s face shows just below the eagle’s beak, and the whale’s blow-hole is represented by a small face above the face of the killer-whale. The second informant, however, explained the large face at the bottom as that of a grizzly bear, presumably meaning thereby, the sea grizzly bear; and the small figure over it as the “sea ghost” which usually rides upon its back. The woman’s face he left unexplained. From an objective point of view, the face at the base of the pole appears as a grizzly bear’s face. Attached to it on each side are the ears and above these, the flippers. Just under the talons of the eagle is found the inverted tail of a fish or aquatic mammal, which presumably belongs to the figure at the bottom, although it seems rather small. It seems doubtful whether the upper face, to which belong the two hands just under it and the legs, in squatting position below the tail, is that of a woman because there ought to be a large labret in the lower lip. Furthermore, the face has animal ears so that it does not seem likely that the intention of the artist was to represent a woman.

[112] John R. Swanton, The Haida, Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Vol. V, p. 128.

It is true that in some other cases in which this same story is represented,[113] the person sitting on the back of the killer-whale has no labret, while in other cases it is shown. Obviously in this case the symbolism is not clear enough to enable an Indian who does not know the artist or who does not know the meaning of the carving, to interpret it correctly.

[113] See Swanton, The Haida, pl. 15, fig. 1, where the woman is shown without labret while in the specimen pl. 14, fig. 5, she wears a large labret.

The uncertainty of interpretation becomes the greater the more fragmentary the figure. A set of gambling sticks which in 1897 I submitted to the best carver and painter (Charles Edensaw) among the Haida, could not be satisfactorily interpreted by him (figs. 200, 201). For example: Number 35 he recognized as a series of three dorsal fins without being able to tell to what animal they belonged. Number 36 he explained as a shoulder on the right, and a tail on the left, but he was unable to identify the particular animal. Number 37 he explained, hesitatingly, as a mosquito. For the following group he felt quite unable to give any satisfactory explanation.

The uncertainty of explanation appears particularly clearly in the interpretation of Chilkat blankets. I give here a few examples according to Lieutenant George T. Emmons.[114]

[114] George T. Emmons, The Chilkat Blanket, Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 3. Part 4, N. Y. 1907, pp. 352, 369, 372, 377, and 387.

The blanket shown in fig. 202 represents a bear with young. The large central figure represents the male bear; the two inverted eyes in the middle of the lower border, with the adjoining elongated designs with round tips, the hind quarters of the bear and the legs; the three heads in the middle of the upper margin, the female and the young bears. The central head in the middle of the upper margin was also explained as the forehead of the bear. The lateral panels represent each a young bear. The design along the lower border of the lateral panel is the freshwater stream on which the bear lives. According to John R. Swanton the blanket represents the sea grizzly bear. The explanation of the principal parts is the same as that given by Lieutenant Emmons, except that the three heads in the middle along the upper border were explained, the middle one as the top of the head, the lateral ones as ears. The wing designs which extend sideways from the border, cutting into the middle parts of the lateral panels, were explained as part of the forelegs, representing, probably, the fins which are believed to be attached to the arms of the sea grizzly bear. The two inverted eyes in the lower border, with the ornaments attached to the right and left of the eyes, were said to represent the hind legs.

The blanket shown in figure 203 represents, according to Emmons, a female wolf and young. The body of the wolf is given the form of a hawk; the two eyes and the wing designs between them, near the lower border of the blanket, being the face of the hawk. The double feather design over these eyes represents the hawk’s ears. The face in the center of the lower border of the blanket represents the body, the wing feather designs extending downward under the corners of the jaws of the wolf, the wings of the hawk. In the lateral panels the young wolf is shown sitting up. These designs represent probably at the same time, the sides and back of the wolf’s body. According to Swanton the blanket represents a young raven. The body of the raven is occupied by two profiles of ravens, represented by the two large eyes near the lower border of the blanket. The face in the centre of the lower border is the raven’s tail. The lateral wing designs extending downward from under the corners of the jaws of the large head, are the wings of the raven. The lateral panels represent two young ravens in profile.

The blanket shown in fig. 204 shows, according to Emmons, on top, a brown bear sitting up. On the body of the bear is a raven’s head. The hind-quarters are treated like a whale’s head. The eyes being at the same time the hip joints, the mouth the feet of the bear. He was given another explanation: the principal figure being explained as a whale, the head of which is below. The body, which is turned up, is treated as a raven’s head, and the tail as a bear’s head. The side panels are the sides and the back of these animals, but represent at the same time, an eagle in profile on top, and a raven in profile below. According to Swanton the design represents a halibut. The head is below. The whole large middle face represents the body; and the large face nearer the upper border, the tail. The wing designs in the lateral panels, next to the lowest head, are the small pectoral fins and the rest of the lateral fields, the continuous border fin.

The blanket in Fig. 103 (p. 108) represents, according to Emmons, a diving whale and the lateral fields a raven sitting. The head, with nostrils and mouth, is shown below. The central face represents the body. The eyes near the upper border are the flukes of the tail. The face designs at the sides of the body represent the fins. In the lateral panels is shown a raven sitting. According to Swanton the same blanket represents a wolf with young. The head is shown below. The hind legs and hip joints are represented by two large eyes and the adjoining ornaments along the upper border, the two dark segments just over the eye, being the feet. The face in the middle of the design represents, as usual, the body of the animal. The small eye design, with adjoining ear and wing feather designs, in the middle on each side of the body, are interpreted as foreleg and foot. The lateral panels are explained as representing each a young wolf sitting.