Chapter 8

Fig. 80.—Anthemion and astragal moulding from the Lât (stone column) at Allahabad; from Birdwood, after Fergusson.

The Buddhist missionaries carried this pattern with them to China, where on some of the pottery unmistakable lotus derivatives occur, and those too of the anthemion series.

From the Orient we must retrace our steps westward. Persian art may be left on one side, as it was largely a legacy of Assyrian.

Among the Mediterranean peoples the Phœnicians claim first attention on account of their early assumedrôleof middle-men. But as Perrot and Chipiez remark, “In the true sense of the word we can hardly say that Phœnicia had a national art. She built much and sculptured much, so we cannot say she had no art at all; but if we attempt todefine it, it eludes us. Like an unstable chemical compound it dissolves into its elements, and we recognise one as Egyptian, another as Assyrian, and yet another, in its later years, as purely Greek. The only thing that the Phœnicians can claim as their own is the recipe, so to speak, for the mixture.” Herodotus tells us that the Phœnicians had in their ship “Egyptian and Assyrian goods.”[84]

Not only did the Phœnicians barter in foreign objects, but they manufactured articles for trade, and were expert craftsmen. At the funeral games in honour of Patroklos “the son of Peleus set forth other prizes for fleetness of foot; a mixing-bowl of silver, chased; six measures it held, and in beauty it was far the best in all the earth, for artificers of Sidon wrought it cunningly, and men of the Phœnicians brought it over the misty sea.”[85]As their home-made goods were intended for foreign markets, they probably copied more or less exactly from Egyptian and Assyrian sources. They were artificers rather than original artists, their object was gain.

On the whole it appears that the Egyptian influence was more patent on Phœnician art than that of Assyrian, but on the other hand, the Phœnician religion was Semitic, and by this they were far more closely allied to Chaldea and Assyrian than to Egypt.

Through far wanderings and endless trafficking the “Phœnician, practised in deceit, a greedy knave,” as Homer dubs him, introduced numberless objects into the Mediterranean littoral which were ornamented with lotus designs or with patterns of lotus origin.

The great skill of the Chaldeans and Assyrians in weaving and embroidery enabled them to produce textiles which were highly valued wherever they found their way. The appropriation of “a goodly Babylonish garment” from the loot ofJericho by the unfortunate Achan shows how much these fabrics were prized. We know that the decoration of these beautiful and precious commodities reacted on the designs of Phœnician manufacturers, and directly or indirectly had some effect in guiding the nascent art of Europe.

When the Greeks were a young and growing people they, like most of their neighbours, were forced to trade with the Phœnicians they so despised, and were thus acquainted with trade goods from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The Ionic Greeks were more particularly influenced by Oriental art. The designs from early Greek tombs and the spoils recovered by the spade in recent excavations clearly show the nationality of the foster-mothers of Greek art.

The lessons learnt in childhood are hard to forget, and so, following the traditions of their fathers, the decorators continued to employ the same general patterns and designs that they saw around them and which they had inherited. For centuries we see the anthemion reproduced in architecture (Fig.82and Pl.V., Fig. 7), painting, pottery, varied it may be in detail, but essentially the same pattern. Rarely going direct to nature for inspiration, the Greeks were content with endless repetitions of slight variants of the one eternal and highly unconventional design. The mental unrest of the Greeks, which was always seeking something new, was in marked contrast to their decorative conservatism.

When the trade of Europe was taken up by Greeks they further disseminated this dominant motive. In less chaste form we find it in Roman art. The Renaissance gave it, with other matters classical, a new lease of life.

But Europe was not dependent on Greek and Roman influences alone for the spread of the anthemion. The Crusaders brought away with them many Oriental goods, and that, too, from the meeting-place of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Later the Moors invaded Spain, and left as the jetsam of their retreat a wealth of matchless decorative art, amongst which our old patterns may also be traced.

Fig. 81.—Saracenic Algerian detail; from Goodyear, after Ravoisié.

By this time it is often flamboyant. (Fig.81.) The isolated elements of the design may have been the origin of thefleur de lis, of which the Prince of Wales’ Feathers appear to be a variant.[86]

Throughout the art of the civilised world of to-day we find repeated, again and again, the misnamed honeysuckle pattern, or the anthemion, as it is preferable to call it. Most of our modern examples can be traced to Ancient Greece, but even there it had a hoary antiquity and probably a multiple ancestry. It is not improbable that future research will demonstrate that the history of this pattern is far more complex than that which I have endeavoured to sketch out. Its amazing longevity may bedue to the fact that it arose from various radicles, and when the branches met their differences were not too great to counterbalance their resemblances, and so a fusion or mingling of elements could easily and naturally result.

Fig. 82.—Ionic capital of the eastern portico of the Erechtheium.

Fig. 83.—Early form of Ionic capital from Neandreia; after Clarke.

Mr. Goodyear has an elaborate study of the evolution of the Ionic capital (Fig.82) from the anthemion. A German architect and critic, Semper,[87]appears to have been the first to derive the Ionic capital from the volutes of the Assyrian palmette (Pl.VIII., Figs. 9, 10) by a process of gradual suppression of the leafy portion and increase of the scroll. Dr. J. T. Clarke[88]supported and elaborated this theory. At Neandreia, near Assos, in Asia Minor, he discovered an Ionic capital (Fig.83) which is a valuable “missing link.” But, according to Mr. Goodyear, there is no need to seek an Assyrian origin for this capital when all the intermediate stages can be found in Egypt and in the Greek Islands.

Fig. 84.--Lotus design from a “geometric” vase from Cyprus; after Goodyear.

In Fig.84and Fig.130,F, we have a lotus with curling sepals on pots from Cyprus; no one can dispute that these are really lotuses. The curling sepals become more spiral in Rhodian (Fig.130,G), and especially in Melian pottery (Fig.85). The central rosette has now become more leaf-like, but there are numerous true Egyptian examples of this, as in a compound flower (Fig.86) from a tomb ceiling, or again (Fig.87), on a blue-glazed lotus pendant from a necklace in the British Museum, of the Nineteenth Dynasty. In the Owens College Museum, Manchester, there is a somewhat similar enamel tomb amulet of the Twelfth Dynasty (2778-2565B.C.). The transition from these to the stoneor terra-cotta anthemion of the Parthenon (Fig.88) is very gradual.

Fig. 85.—Lotus derivative on a vase of the seventh centuryB.C., from Melos; from Goodyear, after Conze.Fig. 86.—Compound flower, based on the lotus, Thebes, Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties; from Goodyear, after Prisse d’Avennes.

Fig. 85.—Lotus derivative on a vase of the seventh centuryB.C., from Melos; from Goodyear, after Conze.

Fig. 86.—Compound flower, based on the lotus, Thebes, Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties; from Goodyear, after Prisse d’Avennes.

Thus, according to this view, the volute of the Ionic capital is merely a drooping lotus sepal, which became spiral in the Grecian Archipelago. Many of the Ionic capitals, especially the earlier ones, exhibit distinct traces of the central palmette, but eventually only the spirals persisted, and the cleft between the curling sepals was gradually reduced so that their stems came to appear as a transverse band ending in volutes.

Fig. 87.—Lotus pendant from an Egyptian necklace of the Nineteenth Dynasty; after Goodyear.Fig. 88.—Anthemion from the Parthenon.

Fig. 87.—Lotus pendant from an Egyptian necklace of the Nineteenth Dynasty; after Goodyear.

Fig. 88.—Anthemion from the Parthenon.

In following this view of the history of the Ionic capital we have practically traversed that of the anthemion. The more typical examples of this pattern not only present us with the element which we have already briefly studied, but alternating with it is a trefoil. For this again there are any number of Egyptian originals in which the trefoil indicates a lotus flower; in this case all the petals have been eliminated and only the sepals persist.

Lack of time prevents me from attempting to follow the fascinating evolution of various patterns and designs which adorn Grecian temples and vases; but I must permit myself to indicate a probable origin of an exceedingly common pattern which has also overrun our own art. I refer to the so-called egg-and-dart moulding of Greek entablatures (PlateV., Fig. 5), and the same motive painted on vases or moulded on the later Samian ware (PlateV., Fig. 6). In these two figures the pattern is drawn in its usual position, but, the better to follow the argument, a typical variety is figured (Fig.89) reversed. There are many varieties, from a series ofU-shaped figures with alternating dots, as many Greek vases (Fig.89,E), through the Samian device (PlateV., Fig. 6) and Erechtheium variety (Fig.82and PlateV., Fig. 5), to others in which there is greater complexity and more floral forms (Fig.89,D).

With any given series of designs it is possible to begin at either end—in the one case there is an ascending evolution,in the other a degeneration. Students of the biological method of treating decorative art will recognise that the latter is by far the most general order in the evolution of patterns, and by adopting it in this case Professor Goodyear has been able to demonstrate the life-history of this pattern to the satisfaction of many students.

In Fig.89,A, we have a typical lotus flower and bud pattern or Greek pattern from Rhodes; the same design occurs in a simplified form on a fragment of Greek pottery from Naukratis (Fig.89,B),[89]in which the lotus flower is now a lotus trefoil; and in Fig.89,C, the pattern is disrupted.

Fig. 89.—Hypothetical derivation of the “egg-and-dart” moulding from a lotus pattern; according to Goodyear.A.Lotus anthemion on a vessel from Rhodes; after Salzmann.B, C.Lotus anthemia on pottery from Naukratis; after Flinders Petrie.D.Egg-and-dart moulding from the Erechtheium.E.Degraded egg-and-dart pattern painted on a Grecian vase.

Fig. 89.—Hypothetical derivation of the “egg-and-dart” moulding from a lotus pattern; according to Goodyear.

In Greek vases we usually find that decoration has been made with a fine feeling for appropriateness; thus the erect anthemion occurs when the vase is swelling, but where it is contracting an inverted anthemion is placed, because the decorative lines thus widen to correspond with the expansionof the vase. Again, in Egyptian tomb ceilings the bordering lotus pattern is inverted, as the base line of the design naturally is made to correspond with the peripheral line of the ceiling—in other words, the lotus anthemion was inverted.

We have then a painted lotus bud and trefoil pattern which was often inverted and as often a simple design. According to this view, the egg of the egg-and-dart pattern is simply a semi-oval left between two lotus trefoils, the dart being the central sepal. When this design came to be incised in stone, the new technique very slightly modified the pattern, and the flat oval areas necessarily came to be carved as rounded or leaf-shaped projections. On these latter occasionally appear reminiscences of the intervening buds, as on the Erechtheium leaf-and-dart moulding. Many variants occur in this device, especially in Roman sculpture.

Professor Goodyear points out that the egg-and-dart moulding as such is unknown to Egyptian patterns, owing to the almost entire absence in Egyptian art of carved or incised lotus borders of any kind, a preference for flat ornament in colour being the rule. Stone carved patterns of any kind in Egyptian art are quite rare before the Ptolemaic period. In Greek art the absence of patterns in projected carving is also a general rule down to the time of the Erechtheium. In Greek art also colour decoration on flat surfaces was the rule in architecture for earlier periods; for example, a leaf-and-dart pattern was painted on a Doric capital in Ægina.[90]

“The Ionic capital, the ‘honey-suckle,’ the egg-and-dart moulding, the meander, the various forms of spiral ornament, the guilloche and the rosette, and some few other motives, belong to one ornamental system, and have never been used in Europe, apart from historic connections with their original system, since the Greeks, and have never been used in Europe since prehistoric ages, without distinctdependance on the Greeks. As found with the Greeks they can all be traced back to Egyptian sources; except the guilloche, which is only the later variant of the spiral scroll. The guilloche pattern has been found in Egypt on pottery dated to the Twelfth Dynasty (2700B.C.), which was probably made by foreigners resident in the country, but it may easily be an Egyptian pattern which has not yet been specified as such.

“The Egyptian rosette can be dated to the Fourth Dynasty, 3998-3721B.C.Since that time its history has been continuous. Since its first transmission to Europe it has never been reinvented in Europe, for there was never an occasion or a chance to reinvent it there.

“The spiral scroll is dated to the Fifth Dynasty, and the meander (at present) to the Thirteenth Dynasty, about 2500-2000B.C.The Egyptian Ionic capital is dated to the Eighteenth Dynasty, 1587-1327B.C.The Egyptian anthemion (‘honey-suckle’ original) is dated to the Twelfth Dynasty (2778-2565B.C.). A considerably higher antiquity than the given date must be assumed in all cases.”[91]

This in brief is Professor Goodyear’s theory;[92]it is ingenious, but time will show how far it will convince students of this subject. It is quite possible that the egg-and-dart pattern may have had a multiple origin. Dr. Colley March is still inclined to see in it a kind of artistic reminiscence of the ends of beams (PlateV., Fig. 1) of earlier wooden buildings; but it is highly improbable that the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Hulme is the correct one. He says: “The echinus, or horse-chestnut, is also called the egg-and-tongue or egg-and-dart moulding, a variety of names that may be taken as conclusive of the fact that it bears no greatresemblance to anything at all, but is a purely arbitrary form.”[93]The variety of names is conclusive only of the ignorance of the name-givers as to what the pattern originated from. In future those who write on decorative art will have to prove that any pattern or design is a purely arbitrary form; that assumption is no longer permissible.

We have left the lotus far behind, and though it is hard to believe that the multitudinous designs of so many ages and of such diverse countries are all derived from the sacred flower of Ancient Egypt, yet it may well be that the oldest stock was a lotus derivative, and that the symbolism of that flower gave to it sufficient vitality to spread and multiply and replenish the earth.

It is a matter of common observation that our children very early take delight in pictures of animals and in making delineations of them. It is further noticeable that the quality of the drawing makes no difference to children, and they are as pleased with the crudest representation of an animal as their elders are with a life-like portrait. In all this the child closely resembles the folk, whether they be the backward classes among ourselves or the less advanced peoples. All these agree in being satisfied with diagrammatic realism.

Savages, however, vary greatly in their power of representing animal forms. In Fig.3we have a number of outlines of animals which were etched on bamboo pipes or carved on wooden drums by the Papuan natives of the islands of Torres Straits or of the adjacent coast of New Guinea. The figures are all reduced to the same scale by photography from tracings of the original delineations, and are therefore faithful copies of the originals. A glance atthe figure will show that the animals are drawn with a very fair degree of accuracy, so that in most cases it is perfectly easy to identify the genus of the animal intended. There are numerous little touches which appeal to the eye of the naturalist as indicating keen observation on the part of the artists; for example, the sharks (C,D) are always drawn with unequally lobed tails, the tail of the dugong (M) is accurately rendered; several characteristic details are, as a rule, well brought out in the drawings of the cassowaries (K). On the other hand, there are several anatomical mistakes, as for instance, giving shark-like gill-slits to a bony-fish, or even to a crocodile. The mouth is represented in a sucker-fish (F) as being on the upper side of the head, whereas it should be underneath, and the view of that fish’s tail would be impossible from that particular point of view; but these and numerous other similar examples which I could name are merely due to a desire to express several salient features, without regard to the possibility of their being all seen at once. The artists’ aim was to give a recognisable representation of animals, and in this they have as a rule succeeded perfectly; it is captious to expect more from them.

On other parts of the mainland of New Guinea one rarely meets with representations so life-like as these,[94]and nowhere else on that largest of islands are so many kinds of animals drawn. Animals are often depicted by the Australians, but usually these are very poor as works of art; they are also employed in pictography.

Although animals are so frequently drawn by the Torres Straits Islanders, they never arrange them in groups or in series. They are pictures of individuals, drawn for decorative effect, but they have no story to tell. The only exception to this rule occurs in the case of certain animals,two of which are sometimes placed symmetrically on the decorated object.

Representations of animals are not uncommon in Melanesia, but they are distinctly of rare occurrence in Polynesia. They occur in great profusion in America from north to south, but here they are predominantly religious or pictographic in significance. Animal forms are not characteristic of African art, except among the Bushmen, and there we find pictures of animals which are comparable with those of the Eskimo or the natives of Torres Straits.

As far back as the time when men hunted the reindeer and wild horse in Western Europe do we find drawings of animals. This was at the time period when the glacial cold was abating and when men lived in caves, used chipped, unpolished stone implements, and were unacquainted with pottery. In archæological nomenclature this is known as the Epoque Magdalénienne of the Cave Period in the Palæolithic Age. The figures of the mammoth, reindeer, horse (Fig.90), etc., are usually cleverly etched on bone or ivory, and sometimes they are wonderfully life-like and accurate; the representation of human beings are as a rule very weak indeed.

Fig. 90.—Horses etched on an antler from La Madelaine; from Taylor.

“The wild horse roamed in immense herds over Europe, and formed the chief food of the palæolithic hunters. In some of the caverns in France the remains of the horse are more abundant than those of any other animal, more even than those of the wild ox. Thus at Solutré, near Macon,the bones of horses, which had formed the food of the inhabitants of this station, form a deposit nearly 10 feet in depth and more than 300 feet in length, the number of skeletons represented being estimated at from 20,000 to 40,000. This primitive horse was a diminutive animal, not much larger than an ass, standing about 13 hands high, the largest specimens not exceeding 14 hands. But the head was of disproportionate size, and the teeth were very powerful. He resembles the tarpan or wild horse of the Caspian steppes. A spirited representation of two of these wild horses is engraved on an antler found at the station of La Madelaine in the Department of the Dordogne.”[95]

It is impossible for me to do more than just touch on the subject of the relation of animals to decorative and pictorial art; the few examples I can offer will, however, demonstrate its importance.

Wherever it occurs the crocodile or the alligator, as the case may be, almost invariably finds its way into the decorative art of the district. From north to south the crocodile asserts itself in the decorative art of New Guinea; for further information the reader is referred to Dr. Uhle,[96]who has made an elaborate study of the crocodile in Malayo-Papuan art, has noted the strange metamorphoses to which it is subjected in north-west New Guinea; he also draws attention to the cult of the reptile in these parts. The belief of a relationship between the crocodile and man occurs among the Malays of Sumatra, Batta, Java, Makassar and the Bugis, Tagals, in Banka, Timor, Bouru, Aru, and the south-western islands. The Javanese have no fear of the crocodile when bathing, they believe that their “grandfathers” and “fathers” could do them no harm. The crocodile is reverenced in Borneo and killed only when the blood-revenge demands it; their teeth are used as talismans allover the island. The inhabitants of Kupang and Timor have an unconquerable fear of the killing of crocodiles and pray by dead ones. Even the Malays (Hovas) of Madagascar are afraid to kill crocodiles, since they would revenge themselves.

From Melanesia we will pass to Central America and take advantage of Mr. W. H. Holmes’s masterly study of the ancient art of the province of Chiriqui in the Isthmus of Panama.[97]

Wherever it occurs, the crocodile or the alligator, as the case may be, almost invariably finds its way into the decorative art of the district. From north to south the crocodile asserts itself in the decorative art of New Guinea; and, although associated with other animals, the alligator predominates among the zoomorphs of the Chiriqui.

Fig. 91.—Conventional alligator from the “lost colour” ware of Chiriqui; after Holmes.

In Fig.91, we have a highly conventionalised representation of an alligator. The scutes (or scales) are represented by spotted triangles and run along the entire length of the back; a row of dashes in the mouth indicates the teeth.

In another class of ware the treatment is quite different, more clumsy, but prominence is given to a number ofcorresponding features; the strong curve of the back, the triangles, dots, the muzzle, and mouth. In Fig.92all the leading features are recognisable, but are very much simplified, and the body is without indication of scales, the head is without eyes, the jaws are without teeth, and the upward curve of the tip of the upper jaw in the last figure is greatly exaggerated, but this is a common feature in these representations.

Fig. 92.—Simplified figure of an alligator from the “alligator” ware of Chiriqui; after Holmes.

The spaces to be decorated also largely determine the lines of modification. In Fig.93we have an example crowding an elongated figure into a short rectangular space. The head is turned back over the body, the sunken curve of the back is enormously exaggerated, and the tail is thrown down along the side of the panel.

Fig. 93.—Alligator design, Chiriqui; after Holmes.

It often happens that the animal form, literally rendered, does not fill the panels satisfactorily. The head and tail do not correspond, and there is a lack of balance. In such cases, as Mr. Holmes points out, two heads have beenpreferred. The body is given a uniform double curve and the heads are turned down, as in Fig.94. This figure “is extremely interesting on account of its complexity and the novel treatment of the various features. The two feet are placed close together near the middle of the curved body, and on either side of these are the under jaws turned back and armed with dental projections for teeth. The characteristic scale symbols occur at intervals along the back; and very curiously at one place, where there is scant room, simple dots are employed, showing the identity of these two characters. Some curious auxiliary devices, the origin of which is obscure, are used to fill in marginal spaces.” Judging from some of the figures in Fig.100we may regard the upper supplementary device as another alligator derivative.

Fig. 94.—Alligator delineation, greatly modified, Chiriqui; after Holmes.

Fig.95is an extreme form of conventionalised alligator which has become metamorphosed into an apparently meaningless design which is intended to be symmetrical.

Fig. 95.—Highly conventionalised alligator derivative, Chiriqui; after Holmes.

In Fig.96we have a series showing the degeneration of the alligatorinto a curved line and a spot. The series shown in Fig.97illustrate the tendency of linear bands not only to cramp the original in a vertical direction, but to force it into a serial pattern. Fig.97,A, is a simplification of such a two-headed form as Fig.94. One might be tempted to regard it as a doubly tailed form, but such do not appear to have been recognised by Mr. Holmes. The transition from this undoubted alligator derivative to the broad chevron of Fig.97,E, is quite obvious, the conventional scutes, dotted triangles, together with the zigzag body alone forming the pattern, and in Fig.97,F, the latter has disappeared. Mr. Holmes states “there is little doubt that the series continues further, ending with simple curved lines and even with straight lines unaccompanied by auxiliary devices.”

Fig. 96.—Series of derivatives of the alligator, showing stages of simplification, Chiriqui; after Holmes.

Fig. 97.—Series of alligator derivatives, showing modification through use in narrow zones, Chiriqui; after Holmes.

Mr. Holmes also points out that the Chiriqui havearrived at the scroll and fret by way of the alligator. I can here illustrate only two of these (Figs.98,99); in these the body of the reptile is the element of the design. In other cases Mr. Holmes finds that parts of the creature, such as head, feet, eye, or scales, assume the role of radicles, and pass through a series of modification ending in purely geometrical devices.

Fig. 98.—Scroll derived from the body-line of the alligator, Chiriqui; after Holmes.Fig. 99.—Fret derived from the body-line of the alligator, Chiriqui; after Holmes.

Fig. 98.—Scroll derived from the body-line of the alligator, Chiriqui; after Holmes.

Fig. 99.—Fret derived from the body-line of the alligator, Chiriqui; after Holmes.

The designs in Fig.100are painted upon low rounded prominences on vases, and hence are enclosed in circles. In Fig.100,A, the alligator is coiled up, but still preserves some of the well-known characters of that reptile. InB, we have the double hook modification of the alligator’s body, but the triangles are placed separately against the encircling line. In the next figure the body-line is omitted, and three dotted scutes alone represent the animal. The four scutes of the next designs assume a symmetrical position, and the central crossed line may represent the alligator’s body. In the last figure of this series the cross has become the predominating feature, and the spots have migrated into it, so that the triangles have become mere interspaces.

Fig. 100.—Series of alligator derivatives, showing modification through use within a circular area, Chiriqui; after Holmes.

Finally, Fig.101is a zone pattern, painted on an earthen drum, the central zigzag line represents the body of the alligator, and the notched hooks its extremities; these are here arranged with perfect regularity, but sometimes only the latter occur in patterns, and then they are often somewhat irregularly disposed.

Fig. 101.—Pattern composed of alligator derivatives, from a clay drum painted in the style of the “lost colour group,” Chiriqui; after Holmes.

From his prolonged study of ancient American art, Mr. Holmes formulates the following generalisation:—“The agencies of modification inherent in the art in its practice are such that any particular animal form extensively employed in decoration is capable of changing into or giving rise to any or to all of the highly conventional decorative devices upon which our leading ornaments, such as the meander, the scroll, the fret, the chevron, and the guilloche, are based” (p. 187). The importance of the following conclusion is obvious:—“We are absolutely certain that no race, no art, no motive or element in nature or in art can claim the exclusive origination of any one of the well-known or standard conventional devices, and that any race, art, or individual motive is capable of giving rise to any and to all such devices. Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that the signification or symbolism attaching to a given form is uniform the world over, as the ideas associated with each must vary with the channels through which they were developed” (p. 183).

The investigations of Dr. P. Ehrenreich and ProfessorKarl von den Steinen on the decorative art of various tribes in Central Brazil have led to results which may, without exaggeration, be termed startling. The patterns employed by these people typically belong to the class which is popularly described as geometrical. On page176I have selected examples of these patterns which will give a fair idea of the style of design.

Dr. Ehrenreich[98]informs us that in the Bakaïri chiefs’ huts a frieze of blackened bark tablets run along the wall which are painted in white clay with very characteristic figures and patterns of fish. All the geometric figures are in reality diagrammatic representations of concrete objects, mostly animals. “Thus a wavy line with alternating spots denotes a large, dark-spotted colossal snake, the Anaconda (Eunectes murinus); a rhomboidal mark signifies a lagoon-fish, whereas a triangle does not by any means indicate that simple geometrical figure, but the small, three-cornered article of women’s clothing” (p. 98).

The following quotation is also translated from Dr. Ehrenreich[99]:—“The ornaments of the Karaya consist of patterns of zigzag lines, crosses, dots, lozenges, and peculiar interrupted meanders, whereas the quadrate and triangle occur only incidentally (that is, owing to the filling up of other figures), and circles are entirely absent. As in the ornamentation of the Xingus tribes, so also here occur those apparently entirely arbitrary geometrical combinations fundamentally of wholly defined concrete presentments, of which the most characteristic traits are therein reproduced. Unfortunately it is not always possible to correctly ascertain the respective natural objects. The frequently occurring cross (Fig.102,A), which in America has so often given occasionfor amusing hypotheses, is here nothing but a kind of lizard.... Also peculiarly characteristic are the extensive wings of a bat (Fig.102,B), as well as the frequently occurring snake pattern, such as Fig.102,C, which represents the rattlesnake, while another snake is represented in Fig.102,D. Accurate representations of men and animals, as we know them to be done so excellently by the Bushmen and Eskimo, do not appear to be forthcoming among the Karaya.”

Fig. 102.—Patterns of the Karaya, Central Brazil; after Ehrenreich.A.Lizards;B.Flying bats;C.A rattlesnake;D.A snake.A.Incised on a grave-post;B,C,D. Plaited on the handles of combs.

Professor von den Steinen[100]describes the above-mentioned frieze more fully. The pieces of bark, which were from 15 cm. to 40 cm. (6 to 16 inches) broad, were blackened with soot, and the white or yellowish lime applied with the fingers. The frieze itself was over 56 m. (over 184 feet) in length.

I would ask the reader to refer back to Fig.52, p. 97, although this motive is not a zoomorph, in order to show that triangular designs, or resulting zigzags, may have various origins.

Only one tablet represented a plant. (Fig.69.) It indicates the leaves of a small “cabbage”-bearing wild palm.

The bulk of the motives for the decorative art of these people, the Schingú tribes (the Xingu tribes of Ehrenreich), are drawn from the animal world; Fig.103A,H,I,K, are Bakaïri patterns, and Figs.103B-Fthose of the Auetö.

The pattern to the right in Fig.103,H, indicates a kind of ray, the characteristic rings and dots which ornament the skin of this fish are here represented.

Back to Index Next