Melanesian Design: A Study of Style in Wood and Tortoiseshell Carving. Vol. I 9780231886406

Table of contents :
PREFACE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TEXT FIGURES
I. INTRODUCTION
II. CARVED WOODEN BOWLS
III. TORTOISESHELL ORNAMENTS
IV. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP MELANESIAN ART
APPENDIX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
REFERENCES TO ILLUSTRATIONS
ERRATA

Citation preview

MELANESIAN DESIGN A STUDY OF STYLE IN WOOD AND TORTOISESHELL CARVING VOL. I

MELANESIAN DESIGN A STUDY OF STYLE IN WOOD AND TORTOISESHELL CARVING VOL. I

BY

GLADYS A. REIGHARD

Awarded the A. Cressy Morrison Prize in Natural Science in 1932, by The New York Academy of Sciences

NEW YORK

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS J

933

M 1033

PRINTED IN GERMANY J . J . AUGUSTIN, GLÜCKSTADT AND HAMBURG

TO FRANZ BOAS

PREFACE The writer of a work involving material so scattered as that used here can be merely the web which connects the stimulation, kindness, and helpfulness of many individuals, and the resources of numerous institutions. This study was undertaken under a fellowship of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation in 1926 and 1927. The same Foundation is largely responsible for the securing of the illustrations and for publication. Deeply as I appreciate the kindness of the institution for making the work financially possible, I wish here to express my more poignant gratitude for the many experiences and pleasant contacts, direct and indirect results of the search for the material here used, which have made life richer during the years the work was in progress and which will not cease even though the bit here presented may be called finished. The Council for Research in the Humanities of Columbia University is responsible for a generous grant permitting the completion of many photographs and drawings for the chapters included in this work, as well as for a large part of the funds for publication. The main part of the work was done at the Museum für Völkerkunde at Hamburg. There my work was facilitated by every courtesy on the part of Director Thilenius, his staff and assistants. I trust I shall not cause too great an influx of students if I say the Museum is an ideal place to study museum material, especially that from Melanesia and Africa. I am greatly indebted also to the following Museums for permission to examine specimens and for use of drawings, rubbings, and photographs: Museum für Völkerkunde, Bremen; Museum für Völkerkunde, Lübeck ; ProvinzialMuseum, Hanover; Museum für Völkerkunde, Frankfurt ; Eautenstrauch - Joest - Museum, Köln; Linden Museum, Stuttgart; Grassi Mu-

seum, Leipzig; Museum für Völkerkunde, Dresden; Museum für Völkerkunde, Berlin; Museum Cinquantinaire, Brussels; the British Museum ; the Field Museum, Chicago ; Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Peabody Museum, Salem, Massachusetts; University Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the American Museum of Natural History, New York. At all save one the collections were placed at my disposal. I particularly appreciate the kindness vouchsafed in letting me work outside of museum hours, in allowing me to nose through storerooms, and to remove specimens from exhibition cases. In short, I am grateful for having been so pleasantly allowed to make a nuisance of myself. Besides obtaining material from such museums as I was able to visit, I am able to include material from the Otago Museum, New Zealand, which was thoughtfully sent me by Mr. H. D. Skinner who has shown much interest in the problem and who noted objects pertinent to it in his own visits to museums I could not reach. Professor Birket-Smith also sent some photographs of Solomon Island kapkaps from Copenhagen, after hearing a summary of my needs. I am indebted to Miss Caroline Mytinger for her kind permission to use a reproduction of one of her paintings for my frontispiece, to Mr. C. Pearson Chinnery for the photograph of Plate LXXXI, to Professor A. C. Haddon for permission to use Plate CXL, 588—-591, and to the Bishop Museum, Honolulu for Plate CXLIX, 635. Several private collectors have been of inestimable aid. The late Mr. Hellwig, long experienced in South Sea travel, helped with sketches and rubbings of his own collection as well as with encouragement and advice. Although I am not able to include any drawings or photographs of Professor Czeschka's

Viii

PREFACE

collection (Hamburg) it furnished such inspiration as only the most beautiful objects can give. Director Hintz of Berlin allowed me to use rubbings of such articles in his collection as I needed and was further instrumental in getting me photographs of another collection difficult of access. It is impossible to mention every individual who helped me, and I must needs thank all together. But I cannot refrain from especially Barnard College Columbia University

designating Miss Maria Enderlin, who not only made the majority of the rubbings and drawings, but also took entire charge of the details of the work from the European side of the Atlantic when I was working from New York. Miss Margrete Schmidt of Lübeck, Miss Emma Gottschau of Hamburg and Mr. Rudolph Weber of New York, I thank also for much help in drawing and photography. G. A. R.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TEXT FIGURES

xi

I . INTRODUCTION

1

II.

CARVED WOODEN B O W L S

Bowls from the Admiralty Islands Type I Proportions Ornamentation Class I, Relief carving (a) Borders (b) Belief on bowl wall (c) Legs Class I I , Handles Class I I I , Allover designs Composition Type I I Type I I I General Characteristics of Admiralty Island Art Long Bowls Bowls from Tami Form and Proportion Ornamentation Trademarks as decoration Design elements Elements used in end patterns Heads Bodies Tails Elements used in center patterns Upper centers Lower centers Composition A. Composition of end designs B. Composition of end designs approaching banding C. Composition of center designs D. Composition of banded designs

9

9 10 10 12 12 12 15 17 17 18 19 25 25 26 27 27 29 34 35 36 36 37 38 39 39 40 41 42 43 47 48 53

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS E. Composition of more realistic designs 1. Realistic designs in low relief 2. Realistic designs in high relief 3. Realistic bowl forms F. Unification of designs G. Habits of artists Trademarks Tami Art

III.

TORTOISESHELL O R N A M E N T S

Kapkaps from Admiralty Islands Kapkaps from New Ireland Kapkaps from Nissan Kapkaps from the Solomon Islands Engravings on Shell from the Solomon Islands Kapkaps from Santa Cruz Tortoiseshell Rings from the Carolines Ear Ornaments from St. Mathias Hairpins from Northern New Guinea Kapkaps from New Guinea TV.

G E N E R A L P R I N C I P L E S OP M E L A N E S I A N A R T

Triangles, Teeth and Zigzags The Spiral Realistic Designs The Human Figure Crocodile, Lizard, Fish Bird Composition APPENDIX

54 54 56 59 61 69 74 75 88

93 99 106 107 Ill 114 115 117 119 121 125

126 129 135 135 144 146 147 153

BIBLIOGRAPHY

155

INDEX

158

R E F E R E N C E S TO ILLUSTRATIONS

167

TEXT FIGURES Page

Page

Frontispiece Pig. 1. Admiralty Island bowl forms 2. Forms of legs of Admiralty Island bowls 3. Detail 4. Detail 5. Detail 6. Detail 7. Detail 8. Detail 9. Detail 10. Detail 11. Detail 12. Detail 13. Tami bowl forms 14. Detail 15. Detail 16. Detail 17. Detail 18. Detail 19. Detail 20. Detail 21. Detail 22. Detail 23. Detail 24. Detail 25. Detail

9 9 12 13 14 14 14 14 15 17 17 23 29 38 38 50 50 60 60 60 61 61 62 62 63

'ig. 26. Detail 27. Detail 28. Detail 29. Detail 30. Detail 31. Detail 32. Detail 33. Detail 34. Detail 35. Detail 36. Detail 37. Detail 38. Tami armband 39. Tami armband 40. Tami armband 41. Tami armband 42. Tami armband 43. Tami armband 44. Tami ( ? ) armband 45. Detail 46. Detail 47. Tami cocoanutshell 48. Tami cocoanutshell 49. Tami cocoanutshell 50. Detail 51. Tami cocoanutshell 52. Tami cocoanutshell

63 Pig. 53. Tami cocoanutshell cup ... 54. Tami cocoanutshell cup ... 64 55. Tami cocoanutshell cup ... 64 56. Details of Admiralty Island 65 kapkaps 66 57. Details of New Ireland kap67 kaps 67 58. Details of Solomon Island 67 kapkaps 67 59. Details of Caroline Island 67 rings 68 60. Detail 77 61. Details of ribbon elements 77 62. Detail 78 63. Detail 78 64. Details 79 79 65. Details of spiral elements ... 66. Detail 78 67. Details of spiral elements ... 80 68. Detail 80 69. Detail 80 70. Detail cup ... 81 71. Details cup ... 82 72. Details of human figure ... cup ... 83 83 73. Detail 74. Detail cup ... 84 75. Detail cup ... 84

Page

85 86 86 95 101 108 116 124 127 128 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 134 134 138 137 145 147

I

INTRODUCTION The extent of the land surface of the world referred to as Melanesia is relatively infinitesimal. Yet in an area comprising one comparatively large island, New Guinea, and innumerable small islands, there has developed an exuberance of decorative art which, taken as a whole, is nothing short of astounding. This art is exhibited on objects executed in the most peculiar techniques carried out in a great variety of materials. Besides variety of techniques and material there is a remarkable localization of method and of style. Not only does each tiny island have a style peculiar to itself, but even the smallest localities on the larger islands may have developed their own. Many, perhaps all, of these styles, are represented by collections in museums the world over. In fact, due to the breakdown of culture in the islands where the objects were made, they may be studied more satisfactorily in museums, especially in Europe, than in the places where they were made. Because of the wealth of material available for this study, and because of the limitation of time and funds it was necessary to restrict it appreciably. Two methods of limitation were open. One was to define the style of particular localities by a careful analysis of all kinds of objects made there. Another was to analyze chosen specimens within a given locality which might be supposed to typify its style. Prom such an analysis, partial though it might be, it was to be expected that an understanding of the general principles underlying the style of the community could be ascertained. The second method would be likely to suggest, moreover, not only the artistic principles involved in single localities, but also those of a crosssection of Melanesia in general. Since the problem was primarily aesthetic, rather than ethnological, the second course was chosen. ι

It is almost impossible sufficiently to emphasize the richness of decorative art in Melanesia. Of first importance is, of course, the woodcarving which has reached high technical and artistic development. Another development of great interest is the art having to do with the betel complex. Besides spatulas carved from wood and fashioned from tortoiseshell, there are chalk containers of bamboo and gourd which are decorated either by incising emphasized by filling in with charcoal, or by a process of pyrography. The carving and incising techniques are, in a sense, related. They are carried out, not only in wood, bamboo and gourd, but are used also for decorating tortoiseshell and cocoanutshell. The development of body ornamentation, which overruns all reasonable bounds of expectation, has given stimulus to exquisite work in shell, to weaving, to beadwork, and various other decorations. Besides the use of shell for body ornament and for currency, the technique of inlaying in wood is highly developed in certain localities. Barkcloth is used in this area more for masks and ceremonial paraphernalia than it is for clothing as in Polynesia. Such ceremonial objects are frequently highly, though grotesquely, decorated. No definite line can be drawn between pure decoration and decoration on utilitarian objects, for even the most useful implements and weapons, made of stone or shell, have become artistic because of the care taken to give them finish. The canoe, which in many cases may be considered an integrating force of a community (Trobriands and parts of New Guinea, for example), becomes an object on which years of labor and thought are lavished, a thing highly utilitarian, but also one closely related to many phases of social, religious, and aesthetic life. Houses, particularly clubhouses, may likewise express the aesthetic ideals of a

2

MELANESIAN DESIGN

group. In a land abounding in unusual flora and fauna the Melanesians have perhaps not made use of all the opportunities afforded by nature. They have, nevertheless, used a very large number of them, and perfected some to a, surprising degree. Small wonder then that there was difficulty in choosing the field for intensive work. Consequently the following criteria were somewhat arbitrarily fixed for the choice: 1. The objects studied must be beautiful from my own point of view. 2. Each sort should have a fairly wide distribution. 3. There should be some overlapping in the occurrence of the objects chosen within a given area. 4. The art should be as free as possible from symbolic or religious significance since that may be understood only by questioning the natives. Beauty, the first requirement for the choice, was the least difficult to fulfil. Woodcarving of great beauty is fairly widespread in the entire South Sea area. One of the most striking styles is that of the New Ireland openwork carving. Carving of the sort, for memorial columns, for representing ancestors, spirits, or totem ideas, is widespread. But these objects are primarily religious or social. Too little of the emotional content of the pattern and composition is known to make a study of even the formal elements as fruitful as one could wish. 1 The objects belonging to the mask cults — particularly masks and supporting staves — from New Britain have, in my opinion, such excellence of design as to make them of first importance in a study of primitive aesthetics. They, like the woodcarvings, have a wide distribution. But like the woodcarvings, they too are packed with emotional significance; practically every line and dot has a specific meaning. Knowing this to be definitely true I should not be satisfied to analyze the patterns from a purely formal viewpoint. 2 Of the possibilities of choice coming within the bounds of the three restrictions, I chose three. All of them occur in the Admiralty Islands : carved wooden bowls, breast (or head)

ornaments of shell on which carved tortoiseshell is laid, and gourds decorated by burning, used for holding chalk. When beginning an analysis of this sort, one never knows the results he will obtain, but certain points are apparent, and at first the choice must depend on them. Carved wooden bowls were chosen primarily for the study of form, those from the Admiralty Islands being so striking as to have been determining. I intended to analyze the style of all wooden bowls in the area but the material became so cumbersome and was so uneven in amount from the different areas that the analysis was confined to bowls from the Admiralties and from the small island of Tami (Cretin) off the east coast of former Kaiser Wilhelmsland. The latter were to be studied for principles of form but subsequent analysis brought out interesting and unexpected results on design and composition. The style of the bowls in both areas is representative of the style for the locality, although additional principles, which will be suggested, should be formulated to render completeness. Tortoiseshell ornaments, hereafter referred to as kapkaps, were chosen as fulfilling all the requirements, particularly in that they are beautiful, essentially ornamental, widely distributed, and in that they present a narrowly restricted but appropriate field for composition. Decorated gourds are much used in the Admiralties. Since a characteristic feature of the bowls, the use of the spiral, is one of the main elements of their ornamentation, and since they offer a peculiar surface, they were chosen, more for the interest in composition than for their beauty. (Bamboo chalk containers, more beautiful than the gourds, are widely scattered and of great interest for a study of composition but they are not made extensively in the Admiralties). But once having been chosen, the design of the gourds in its widest distribution leads to a consideration of that art which, in my opinion, far surpasses anything in the South Sea area, namely, that of the Massim District.

1

2

For examples of New Ireland woodcarving see Parkinson, Us. 108,109—111,118, 119; and Krämer, Die Malanggane von Tombára.

See Parkinson, Pis. 99—101. All references to Parkinson, except when otherwise specified, are to the 1926 edition, Dreissig Jahre in der Südsee.

INTRODUCTION A vast number of gourd designs was assembled for this study but the exigencies of space and expense make it necessary to leave this material for later publication. Certain outstanding conclusions will, however, be suggested. It will be seen that the style of the Admiralty Islands is quite thoroughly defined, although even in these three techniques not completely. The striking beauty of the large bowls from this locality was the reason for my point of departure. Museum facilities were also a partial cause. The study was to be made at the Museum für Völkerkunde in Hamburg, at which institution the collections from New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago are especially representative. Later it was deemed advisable to include other collections, hence the study includes the museum and private collections mentioned in the preface. Although the analysis concentrates on the Admiralty Island region, it naturally led (and leads) to a consideration of other techniques and other regions, for artistic reasons, as well as for the purpose of pointing out stylistic relationships. In corroboration of this fact, note the extent of the study of kapkaps which has led me to include most of Melanesia, and if carried to its ultimate conclusion, would require a treatment of tortoiseshell and other shellwork in the entire South Sea area. The analysis of the Admiralty Island bowls alone suggests such subjects as the use of animal and human figures, such forms as the spiral, lozenge, toothed motive, and many others. In order to get a true conception of the use of the human figure in the Admiralties, betel spatulas should be studied. Such a study would lead to an analysis of carved bedposts, ladders, etc. in the Admiralties, not to speak of the possibilities of a study of spatulas all over the area. No matter at what point one starts, an intensive study leads into all sorts of byways and hedges, so that it will always stimulate to search for new discoveries, but cannot, for a long time at least, be exhaustive. 1

Since the maps of the entire South Sea area are most confusing due to varied use of native terms and to the extreme nationalism of the whites in control, I have made the following coordination for the sake of clarity: 1. Since most of the literature is in German I have used the names in

1·

3

The culture area has been determined on the basis of material culture as an aid to arrangement of museum material. It has been demonstrated, by testing the distribution of specific culture traits, that the culture area is not absolute. Kava-drinking is a characteristic of Polynesia ; there are nevertheless numerous islands of Melanesia where kava-drinking prevails. The manufacture and extensive use of barkcloth is another Polynesian trait said to be typical. Nevertheless pounded inner bark is used for many purposes in Melanesia although the barkcloth mat is not outstanding. Tattoo is generally thought of as a Polynesian custom, but tattooing is a favorite type of body ornamentation among even the darker peoples of Melanesia. In like manner, art styles are irregularly distributed in the Southern Pacific and as designations of art areas Melanesia and Polynesia are decidedly unsatisfactory. Certain objects of art, wooden bowls and kapkaps, for example, cut across the boundaries set for the groups of islands belonging to either division. Besides, there are many islands in both areas where wooden bowls are not made, or if they are, they can hardly be called artistic. Large beautiful bowls are made from the western islands of Melanesia, Ninigo, the Hermits, and Anchorites1 to the Marquesas in the east and from some of the islands of Micronesia in the north to New Zealand in the south. The distribution of kapkaps and related objects is even more peculiar. It is discussed in detail in Chapter hi. With the exception of the Marquesas and Carolines, the kapkap technique is more typical of Melanesia than of Micronesia or Polynesia. The decoration and use of gourds, since they belong to a Melanesian complex, are of course restricted to that area, although there may be exceptional occurrences outside it. I have no intention of entering into the question of Polynesian or Melanesian origins, since my problem is one of style, but the German territory most common on the German maps. 2. I have appended a glossary giving where possible the German or English name, as well as the native name (or names), used in the literature (see p. 153).

4

MELANESIAN D E S I G N

analysis of the style can be complete only if it is understood from an historical viewpoint and consequently distribution must be considered. To those investigators who consider careful analyses of all phases of culture contributory to answering the question of origins, migrations and developments, the stylistic relations may have something to offer. If so, I shall feel repaid. One of the most obvious features of cultural phenomena is the fact that each is cast in a particular mould. So characterizing is this mould in the case of art that most objects bear the stamp of the culture in which they were made as surely as our own paintings carry the signature of their makers, either directly or in the peculiarities of an individualized style. It is a commonplace that primitives seldom make two objects exactly alike; it is just as well known that within a given locality certain limits are set, outside of which few artists, if any, are able to go. These limits consist of broad fundamental principles of which the artists are unconscious. Some of them are, for example, choice of design elements, laying out of fields, handling of space, the use of rhythm, of symmetry or asymmetry, perspective, symbolism and the like. Any one of these (and other) principles may be worked out in a large number of ways and the combinations of the different methods provide infinite possibilities for the resulting style. But the number chosen within any given area is limited, just as the sounds of a language are limited, and they determine the bounds of an artist's freedom. The woodcarver (or painter) of the Northwest Coast of America, for example, may arrange a pattern on any surface given him, no matter how peculiar its shape. The arrangement will, however, conform to certain broad principles which would be utterly foreign to a Tami artist, and almost certainly unpleasing to him. The pattern will, for example, be representative and curvilinear, it will represent a human being, an animal, or a mythical being by the exaggeration of certain features peculiar to that being, such as eyes, mouth, teeth, tail, fin, gills, or paws. I t will lack perspective 1

Boas, Primitive Art, pp. 183—298.

altogether; it will fill the entire space. There will be a predominance of eye and feather motives which are purely decorative and not emotionally significant; lines will remain parallel for only very short distances.1 The female artists of the Plains area of North America will show conformity to an entirely different set of principles. In their porcupine quill or bead work they will never choose a curvilinear design, but rather, simple geometric ones composed of straight lines, which may or may not have representative significance. The entire space will be laid out in fields and plenty of undecorated space will be left for background.2 I t would be almost impossible for an artist from the Northwest Coast of America to evolve a Plains' style, or for the reverse to happen. Although there may be great opportunity for variation and individuality within the broad limits of the style, it is very difficult for any individual to go outside them. This is because the bounds have been determined for him by tradition; the choice of designs and composition has been made by hundreds of artists preceding him in a very gradual and subtle way, as little understood by them as by him. The principles which make up the sum total of any style may be isolated; the reason for the choice and combination of these particular ones can perhaps never be determined, any more than we can tell why an oak leaf is different from a maple. In the South Sea area in general, in Melanesia in particular, we find the same condition as elsewhere in the world. Certain design elements, like the spiral and the human figure, are distributed from the mainland of Asia through the entire island region, always with local modifications and in characteristic combinations. That the same formal peculiarities are used again and again with constant modifications is due to the stimuli of historical contacts plus local conservatism. The broadest sort of principles, though nonetheless exacting, obtain for the whole region, but for each part of it they become strictly limited. It is the purpose of this paper to learn, by a detailed analysis of designs in specific 1

Kroeber, The Arapaho, various illustrations. Indian Art.

Lowie, Crow

INTRODUCTION

5

localities, which principles prevail, inhowfar they show relationship to the pattern of the area, to what extent individuality may be exerted. For a number of years it has been the mode to attempt a reconstruction of artistic development along evolutionary lines. Such analyses are made by arranging objects in series which purport to point out gradual developments from realistic to purely geometric designs, for example; or from simple geometric to highly realistic. The former is called degeneration, the latter progression. There are, in my opinion, several major objections to the method pursued. In the first place, it depends primarily on chronological evidence. We have definite chronology in very few cases indeed. When we do have it, we commonly find that geometric and realistic forms are contemporaneous, and that geometric designs are as likely to be found at the peak of the artistic development as are realistic forms. The second objection to the method is the need for interpretation of forms. Whereas design elements or patterns involving their combinations are often named, and sometimes packed with emotional content, the interpretation cannot be made satisfactorily from a west-European viewpoint. Too many factors, based on cultural complexity, attitudes regarding nature, differing immeasurably from those of a European or American scientist, economic activities, social and religious bias, combine to make interpretation valueless. To give only one example, the element, PI. LII, used in many Tami designs, is interpreted by Preuss 1 and Haddon 2 as a bird's head. Most of their discussion is based on such an interpretation as if it were final. Yet Lehner, who spent some thirty years among the Bukaua and made great efforts to get their interpretation of the element, found that they were indifferent about interpretation and not at all consistent even in naming it. One called it a maggot, another a scar.3

An investigator, intent upon proving derivation of a design from natural forms, would be as justified in deriving it from shell forms.4 The significance attached to a form may differ with each individual who views it. Furthermore, the interpretation given to it at the present time more often than not has nothing to do with the origin of the form. For no ethnological phenomenon has been more convincingly proved than the fact that forms travel widely with constant change of content, and that the same sort of emotional significance may attach itself to widely different forms.5 The third fault of the evolutionary method is its tendency toward evaluation implicit in the terms progression and degeneration. There is, on the part of many, a strong tendency to consider realistic forms superior to the purely decorative. Many theories make forced attempts to show how simple geometric figures grew out of realistic ones. On the basis of the above assumption they must, if they are consistent, result in a theory of degeneration. And this in spite of the fact that the earliest art we know is realistic. Must we then, following this mode of reasoning, conclude that all art subsequent to the Paleolithic, which happens to be geometric — Peruvian design or Gothic architecture, for example — is degeneration ? Such a conclusion is manifestly absurd because the two sorts are not related. It is, however, no more meaningless than some of the series of primitive objects which are arranged either in progressive or degenerating series. In my opinion, decorative art and purely realistic art, sculpture, for example, cannot be weighed with the same scales. The natives of the Sepik Eiver might be cited as having reached a pinnacle in art because they make portrait figures. The figures are, it is true, grotesque and distorted, but these characteristics are a part of the style which runs to realism. If we were to compare this — from our point of view — unsuccessful realism with the pure decoration of the Massim District using the

1

6

2 3 1

Z. f. E. 29 (1897) : Figs. 55—64. Decorative Art, 185. Neuhauss HI, 412; Figs. 6, 11. See, for example, Finsch, Pl. iv, Nos. 118, 119 and 121; P l . XIII, N o .

298.

As an example from the field of art see Kroeber, The Arapaho ; from the field of religion, Spier, The Sun Dance in the Plains; from the realm of social organization, Lowie, Primitive Society, pp. 97—99; from mythology, Waterman, The Explanatory Element, JAFL 27: 1—54.

6

MELANESIAN DESIGN

same scales, there is no doubt that the latter must weigh heavier. The mistake consists in using the same standards for judging both. Realistic art may, among primitives as well as ourselves, be art for its own sake; it may be primarily religious or social. Ornamentation may be an outgrowth of pleasure in control of technique, it may be applied to purely utilitarian objects, or it may, like sculpture, become social or religious. A well-made basket cannot be compared with a totempole. Its superiority or inferiority will depend upon its purpose and the success with which that purpose has been attained, as well as on the taste of the individual making the comparison. The very matter of taste is culturally determined among ourselves as among primitives. It seems to me also inconsistent to consider representative art as necessarily degeneration. A zigzag interpreted as a curving snake, 1 a simple spiral as a canoe, parallel zigzags with chevrons as reflections of cocoanut leaves,2 an arrangement of hooked elements and chevrons as clouds,3 a triangle with trailing sides as a waterspout, 4 these seem to me flights of fancy comparable to metaphor and figure of speech in literature which are not reckoned inferior. Such poetic fancies seem to controvert the theory that primitives do not make abstractions. They are, however, independent of the forms to which they are attached and comparisons of form and significance should be kept separate. Hjalmar Stolpe worked out a developmental sequence for design in the Hervey (Cook) Islands. His results are somewhat more convincing than others for he had considerable experience with natives himself and secured corroborative evidence from the natives through Gill.8 He was followed by Balfour® and by Haddon 7 . The latter had much firsthand knowledge through field work in Melanesia but his interpretations are purely subjective. The evolutionary method had a great vogue and

exerted much influence in many countries. Preuss8 in Germany analyzed the art of the then Kaiser Wilhelmsland on this basis, Speiser9 of Switzerland in his analysis of Santa Cruz art takes the evolutionary doctrine for granted. MacCurdy10 in America is another adherent of the school. The method is still pursued and even at the present time investigations are undertaken from the evolutionary viewpoint. Needless to say, although students of the various arts used the same methods, they did not find uniform systems of development and we have the feeling that the materials were made to fit the theories — often a bad fit too — rather than that the theories conform to the material. At the same time there was great activity in the collection of material in the American field. Much of this was undertaken from a different point of view, not so much to determine the ultimate origin of art, but rather to secure information about how the native feels about his art, about what he thinks he does and what he really does. The latest publications resulting from this method are the works of Haeberlin, Basketry of the Thompson and Lillooet11, of Bunzel, The Pueblo Potter and 0'Neale,Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers.12 These investigators were thoroughly conversant with the objective material of their respective tribes as found in museum collections. They then had the opportunity of interviewing the artists and of discovering their ideas, not only of the symbolism of the designs, but more particularly of what they considered good or bad and in some cases why. The results of such studies cannot be over-estimated. The generalizations of the natives show that they do not always achieve what they set out to do, that they think they are doing one thing when in reality the result is entirely different. In other words, they are not conscious of the limitations placed upon them by their own style, although their taste is determined by it.

1

• The Evolution of Decorative Art, 1893. 7 Evolution in Art, 1895, 1902. 8 Z. f. E. 29 (1897): 77—139; 30 (1898) : 74—120. • A. f. A. 13 (1914—15): 323—334. 10 A Study of Chiriquian Antiquities, 1911. 11 12 RBAE 41. UCal 32.

2 3 1 6

Ivena, The Melanesiana of the Southeast Solomons, p. 33, a. Ibid. o. Ibid .315, b. Ibid. 306, a. Stolpe's articles now collected under title, Collected Essaya in Ornamental Art.

INTRODUCTION Such a method of studying material and native thought as directed toward its own artistic objects, and if possible, toward other styles, and of checking over the materials again with the natives themselves, is an ideal one. But there is a great deal of material, of fine artistic finish, which cannot be treated in this way. Archaeological collections can never be checked over with their makers. Much of the material from the South Sea area is in the same class for many of the techniques are lost, or at best, since the importation of steel tools, degenerate. The question arises as to what may be gained from a study of such purely objective material and how one should go about it. If interpretations are independent of form, as we have found through many investigations to be the case, it is useless to seek for them. If origins have been lost through modification and reinterpretation of forms, and through confusion and blending of various impulses, it is futile to seek for origins. The rewards of objective analyses are inherent in art itself. They consist in formulating the principles underlying the art style; the definition of elements, their combination into an organic whole; attitudes toward zones and fields, toward filling of spaces; preference for regularity, symmetry or asymmetry, or rhythmic repetition. Almost every style furnishes surprises. In the Tami style an astonishing result is the possibility of establishing schools of influence, another is a feeling of acquaintanceship with individual artists which comes through familiarity with their work. With regret that we cannot learn what the natives think they do, but with the belief that we can determine what they actually do, I have undertaken this detailed study of several techniques which occur in the Admiralty Islands and in other localities with infinite variation and modification. None of these techniques : woodcarving, tortoiseshell carvingwith polished shellwork, and pyrography, is primitive. None is strictly utilitarian. The wooden bowls happen to be used sometimes but pure utility would not account for their size, perfection of form, or in the case of those from Tami, for their elaborate decoration. The kapkaps

7

have, as far as I can find, no utilitarian value. They are desirable ornaments, may be objects of trade, and have social values, but there is no ascertainable reason why the kapkap form, rather than many others, should have developed. The betel gourds, or more properly lime gourds, are useful as a part of a luxury complex, in the same way as cigarette cases or lighters are among us. Consequently they are over and above the purely utilitarian. Since the forms I have chosen for study belong to the realm of sophisticated art, I shall proceed on the assumption that our artists are subject to the same impulses which motivate an artisan in our own society, leaving out perhaps the desire for material reward, although in this Melanesian area even that is not unlikely. To be more specific, I shall assume that a worker has perfect control of tools and material. His interest and energy may, therefore, be directed toward individuality of pattern, toward experimentation, in other words, to carrying out of ideas. His final product, with few exceptions, will come well within the limits set by the style to which he is accustomed, but within it there are numerous opportunities for originality and for the perfection of line or mass, balance, symmetry and similar qualities. To give a very simple case, by way of example, suppose an Admiralty Island artist, accustomed to carving in curves, some day carves a lozenge with straight lines meeting at an angle instead of with curved ones (compare, for example, PL ix, Fig. 30), the angular effect might appeal to him and suggest the possibilities of rectilinear design as opposed to curvilinear. There is no apparent reason why he should give up his curved designs, and likewise none why he should not adopt the new oneB. The result may be a combination of curves with vertical lines, or a development of curvilinear patterns side by side with rectilinear ones. It happens that our artists use both indifferently but this is merely a suggestion as to the kind of thing which may happen in using a more or less free technique. One pattern carried out to perfection suggests another; another which turns out to be a failure may never-

8

MELANESIAN DESIGN

theless give rise to an entirely new successful one, and so on. There is, furthermore, the possibility of "getting an idea", as we express it. A design comes to an individual apparently from nowhere. It just "is", in the same way as it is with us when we "get an inspiration". It is of course the quintessence of previous experience plus perhaps a dash of originality. Such an experience American Indians sometimes refer to as "seeing in a dream". It was interesting, therefore, to find the exact phrase from a native of Malaita.1 We have no more satisfactory explanation than the natives of the cause of originality. It will be understood of course that only in the rarest cases is .this inspiration of sufficient originality to take an artist entirely beyond his tradition. 2 The chances for failure are greater in such cases than they are for success, I am sure. For natives, accustomed to a specific style or styles, do not take readily to one which is entirely different. We do not enjoy complex rhythms in music, especially if melody is sacrificed; a German with a keen understanding of his own music does not enjoy Negro spirituals, at least at the first hearing. But, on the other hand, it seems to me perfectly conceivable that an individual might step outside the limits of his style just far enough to create something really new, but not too far to offend his group. In such a case a new style is created from within a culture. There must be cases where such a process has occurred, although they would be difficult to prove. It is easier to find changes due to external contacts and they are certainly more numerous. We should not, however, rule out 1

Ivens, W. G., Melanesiane of the Southeast Solomons, p. 143, a, b. 2 I seem to have found a few in Tami. A few kapkaps

entirely the possibility of change from within a culture just because it is unusual. One word more regarding the technique of analysis, before taking up the specific questions which illustrate the method of approach and its possible conclusions. The objects here studied have been found in various collections with almost every possible (and impossible) provenience. The reason is not difficult to understand. All of the articles are trade goods, much valued and desired in the South Sea area. Consequently it should not be surprising to find an Admiralty Island gourd secured in the Solomons or a Tami bowl from Astrolabe Bay. In cases where records were kept the places where they were bought are indicated. It would be not only excusable but natural, to find labels indicating false provenience. Most of the old (and best) collections were made by whalers and sea captains and one could hardly expect them to know the difference between Solomon and New Ireland treatment of line, or between the use of triangles in the Carolines and in New Britain. For these reasons I have not depended too closely upon such pseudo-provenience, but have allowed the general mass of material, both objective and published, to guide me by its style which I am sure is a truer criterion than any other. There are cases where the style is suggestive of individuality and localization, where I could find no data properly to determine the place where the objects were made. I have merely given my opinion of the probable origin of these pieces. I submit the findings with the greatest diffidence and with the hope that they may arouse sufficient interest to bring in to me necessary corrections. may also be due to this cause, but more information might establish a new localized style into which these exceptions fit.

II

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS B O W L S FROM T H E A D M I R A L T Y I S L A N D S

Bowls from the Admiralty Islands are of three types differentiated by their form. They are made from extremely hard wood and many show a most excellent finish. Parkinson1 gives

a general description of them. Among the implements used in their manufacture are shell knives and awls of sting-rays. There are no satisfactory details of the technique, but we know that hollowing is done by burning. Type I. Eound bowls of varying height and

Pig., ι

. φ •

V II d

φ

Β

• h *

Β

t ^ ^ · «^fgff e

Β c

Β

^ ^ ^

1

depth, Pig. 1. Some stand on legs or feet which may be round, diamond-shaped, square (in which cases there are four), elliptical (two or four), or spiral. Two of the round legs may form the ends of a high spiral relief. A square ridge serves as a stand for several of the bowls (Pig. 2). Usually bowls and legs are carved from a single piece of wood. There are different types of ornamentation. There is commonly a narrow low relief carving around the rim of the bowl. In addition to this, gracefully carved spiral handles may be gummed on at opposite ends of a diameter with glue made from the parinarium nut. According to Parkinson2 they are purely ornamental, for 1

Fig. 2

2

p. 17 7 ff. 1907 ed., p. 358, (not referred to in 1926 edition).

10

MELANESIAN DESIGN

their daintiness and mode of attachment do not allow them to bear the weight of the bowl when lifted. Type II. Bowls varying from round to elliptical have supports like the others but the firm strong handles are carved from the same piece of wood as the bowl and represent animals or human beings (Pl. i, 1,2 ; PI. n, 3,4 ; Parkinson, Fig. *57) 1 . Type III. Bowls carved from a single piece of wood in the form of an animal (PI. x x i n , 66; Parkinson, Figs. *58, *59). The major part of this analysis is concerned with bowls of Type I as they are the most numerous in the museums visited and their art style is more complex than the style of the other two types.

TYPE I PROPORTIONS

The beauty of the Admiralty Island bowls depends primarily upon form. This may be described partly through measurements, but it is for the most part a grace achieved through virtuosity and fineness of feeling which are of course indescribable. The variation is most often one of depth, for the majority of the bowls are round, a few being slightly longer than wide. The following table gives the measurements in centimeters of a series of round bowls. The most noticeable feature is that for the majority the measurements are surprisingly exact. Two diameters were always measured and usually there was little or no difference. The height was taken from both ends of the two diameters measured. As with the Tami bowls, these measurements vary. The legs are almost never equal and the bowls wobble on a hard flat surface. Parkinson2 gives the same reason for the unevenness which I have mentioned for the Tami bowls, namely, that they stand on the ground and can be leveled. 1

2

The asterisk is used to indicate reference to illustrations in works other than this one. 1907, p. 358.

D Museum numbers

H

L

H'

D : H D : H'

Height Height Diam- Total of of eter Height Legs Bowl

H 11.88:18 130.2 105.0 S L1196 101.5 S IC57295 H 4085 99.0 Β R27 98.0 Ha (4)3647 97.5 Β R23 95.5 95.0 S 9540 87.0 S RI Β R26 86.0 Β R28 85.5 H 2730 84.0 Ha (4)3648 83.0 Β R22 80.0 Β R25 76.5 Β R24 75.0 73.5 S IC57294 Β R38 72.0 Β R29 71.5 Β 566 70.5 Η 21.118:4 70.0 70.0 S IC Η 837 69.5 Β R19 69.0 Η 21.118:3 68.5 68.0 S R2 67.7 S IC9539 Η 14.38 :43 67.0 S IC57286 67.0 Β R21 66.0 Ha (4)3654 66.0 Η 2555 65.5 S IC85747 65.5 Β R18 64.0 Ha (4)3653 63.5 Η 12.135 :193 62.7 62.6 S IC57293 61.5 S IC9543 Β R30 61.0 60.5 S IC9542 Β R12 59.5 59.0 Η R1 54.5 S IC9539 Β R37 54.0 53.5 S IC6267 Β 30(R17) 53.0 Η 21.43 :12 51.7 51.5 S R3 51.0 S IC13684 Β R16 49.7 48.0 S IC9538 48.0 S IC6292 S 9534 47.5 Β R34 47.5

47.8 44.0 27.0 43.0 36.0 35.0 49.0 43.0 41.0 23.0 39.0 42.5 42.0 31.0 33.5 21.5 24.0 18.7 23.5 27.6 22.5 19.0 33.5 26.0 20.3 29.0 19.0 18.5 27.5 33.0 18.5 19.7 21.0 18.6 17.5 18.0 21.5 24.0 25.0 17.5 18.8 25.5 14.5 12.7 14.0 17.0 14.2 16.0 16.0 15.5 15.0 13.0 14.5 18.2

11.5 14.5 2.0 17.0 7.5 17.0 12.0 12.0 1.5 13.5 16.0 15.0 8.0

11.0

2.5 1.5 .5 4.5 10.5 2.5 2.0 9.0 2.5 2.0 8.0 1.5 2.0 9.5 13.0 .2 2.0 4.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 1.2 .5 6.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 .5 1.5 1.5 2.5 .7 .7 1.5 2.5

36.3 29.5 25.0 26.0 32.0 31.0 29.0 21.5 25.5 26.5 23.0 22.5 19.0 22.5 18.2 19.0 17.1 3.1 17.0 24.5 23.5 18.3 21.0 17.5 16.5 18.0 20.0 17.7 17.0 16.1

21.0 16.2 18.3 19.5 10.7 13.0 14.5 13.7 14.5 14.5 13.0 14.2 12.2 13.0 15.7

2.7 2.3 3.7 2.3 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.2 2.2 3.7 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.2 3.4 3.0 3.8 3.4 2.5 3.5 3.6 2.6 2.7 3.3 2.3 3.5 3.6 2.4 2.0 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.4 3.4 3.1 2.3 3.7 4.6 3.8 3.1 3.6 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.2 2.6

3.5 3.5 4.0 3.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 3.1 3.9 3.4 4.0 3.2 3.9 3.7 4.1 2.6 4.1 2.8 2.9 3.7 3.2 3.8 4.3 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.9

2.9 3.7 3.2 3.0 5.0 4.1 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.3 3.9 3.6 3.0

11

CARVED WOODEN B O W L S

Museum numbers Β R36 Η E2277 Η 14.38:34 Β R33 Ha (4)3649 Η 527 Β 381 (R15) S R4 Η 714 1 S IC26259 Β RI3 Β RI 4 Β 423 Η 854 1 Β R32 Β R44 Β R45 L 4679 S IC13685 Η 4031 Η 4315 S L1196/2 Β 381 Β R46 Η 838 L 796 S L9550 Η (4)3652 Β R43 Β 348 Ha (4)3656 Ha (4)3651 Β R13a Β R48 Η 1144 S IC61022 L 798 L 6941b Β 346 Β R47 S IC9551 L 7058 Η 526 S IC6274 Β R31 Η 14.38:59 Η 2718 Β R35 S IC9552 Η 856 Β 443 Η 2692 Η 525 Β R42 Η Ε3550 2*

L H' D:H Height Height Diam- Total of of eter Height Legs Bowl D

47.5 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 46.0 45.0 44.0 43.2 43.0 43.0 42.0 41.5 41.0 41.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 39.7 39.5 39.0 39.0 39.0 38.0 38.0 37.0 36.7 36.0 34.5 34.0 33.0 33.0 32.0 32.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 30.5 30.0 29.2 29.0 29.0 29.0 28.5 27.7 27.5 27.5 27.0 27.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 22.0 22.0 26.5

Η

15.5 14.5 14.7 18.7 19.0 14.0 13.0 12.0 14.3 15.5 13.0 11.7 13.5 22.0 13.3 11.5 12.0 9.0 14.5 13.0 15.0

11.0

12.5 10.5 17.5 11.5 12.2 9.5 10.7 15.6 14.0

11.0

13.0 10.0 9.0 12.5 9.5 10.0 16.6 11.6 10.5 10.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 11.5 7.5 9.8 10.0 12.0 7.0 6.5 5.5 11.5 6.0

.7 1.0 1.0 2.5 7.0 .5 .5 .2 1.0 3.0 .5 1.5 .7 4.0 2.0 1.0 .5 .5 2.0 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 .7 3.5

14.7 13.5 13.7 16.2 12.0 13.5 12.5 13.3 12.5 10.2 12.7 18.0 11.3 10.5 11.5 8.5 12.5 11.5 12.5 9.5

11.0

9.7 14.0

—

1.0 .3 .5 1.0 .9 .7 1.5 ".7 .3 1.5 .7

11.2

.5 1.0 .6 1.0 .5 1.0 2.5 .5 1.5

11.1

2.0 .7 .3 .2 2.0

10.0 6.2 6.2 5.3 9.5

10.2 14.6 13.1 10.3 11.5 9.2 8.7

11.0 8.7

9.5 9.4 9.0 7.5 9.0 9.0 7.0 7.3

3.0 3.2 3.1 2.5 2.4 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.0 2.7 3.3 3.5 3.0 1.9 3.0 3.4 3.3 4.4 2.7 3.0 2.6 3.5 3.1 3.6 2.1 3.2 3.0 3.7 3.2 2.1 2.3 3.0 2.4 3.2 3.4 2.4 3.2 3.0 1.8 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.5 2.7 2.3 3.6 2.7 2.7 2.0 3.2 3.5 4.0 1.9 4.4

D:H'

3.2 3.4 3.4 2.8 3.9 3.4 3.6 3.2 3.4 4.0 3.2 2.2 3.6 3.8 3.4 4.7 3.1 3.4 3.1 4.1 3.5 3.8 2.7 3.2 3.3 2.3 2.5 3.2 2.7 3.4 3.5 2.8 3.5 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.8 3.0 3.0 3.9 3.6 2.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 2.3

D:H 1.8

D :H' 1

1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2

5 2 3 4

2^3

6

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

5 5 4 9

15

29

2Ì8

5 3

3

3Ό 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

9 6 11 4 8 7 8

53

3/7

4

2.9

3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1

10 ÏÏÔ

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

1 2 0 2 2 2 3 3

15

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1

8 3 9 4 8 7 7 6 7 6 4 5

74

4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0

0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

3 92

Since the number of bowls measured (110) is smaller than the number from Tami, the results are not quite as conclusive. It should be mentioned, however, that measurements of an original series of one hundred and nine Tami bowls were made and the proportions computed. When the series was later enlarged to two hundred and fifty-six, there was no difference in the range of variation but only an enlargement of the number distributed around the mean. It is likely, then, that the series from the Admiralties, though smaller, is representative. Two proportions have been determined, the relation of the diameter to: 1st, total height (D : H) ; 2nd, height of the bowl not including the legs ( D : H ' ) . The table which summarizes the proportions D : H shows two types of deviation, which correspond to two types of bowls, one where the proportion D : H varies between 2.Β and 2.7, including thirty bowls, the other where it varies between 3.0

12

MELANESIAN DESIGN

and 3.6, including fifty-three bowls, nearly half the series. If, however, we consider the proportion of the diameter to the bowl height (D:H'), that is, the height of the bowl exclusive of the legs, we get one wave in the curve lying between 3 and 4.1 and including seventyfour of the ninety-two bowls so measured. This table suggests the fact that, although the bowls look shallow, their height depends more on the height of the legs than on actual hollowing out of the bowl. The average Admiralty bowl would have a diameter about 3.5 times the height not including the legs. If we consider total height, the diameter would be about 2.7 times the height where the legs are reasonably high and the bowl is deep. But if the bowl is shallow and the legs short — they are sometimes only.2 cm. high — the ideal size would have the diameter 3.2 times the height. A comparison of the proportion of the leg height to the total height shows no uniformity at all. ORNAMENTA TION

Some of the Admiralty Island bowls are splendid examples of form without ornamentation. Many, however, have decorations which vary from the simplest on some bowls to rather complex on others. These types of decoration must be considered in four classes, no two of which have a close organic relationship. Class I. Belief Carving To this class belongs relief carving on the wall of the bowl. The relief is low and, although effective, is frequently crudely done. In fact the examples of extreme virtuosity in this kind of carving are the exception rather than the rule. Relief carving must be sub-divided according to its position on the bowl : (a) borders, (b) relief on the bowl wall, (c) legs. (a) Borders: The most common type of decoration is the narrow border in low relief. There is a large number of bowls with only a narrow raised ridge which looks as if the border field were planned out and the carving had not been done. One well-made bowl (B 2718) has a simple rim design repeated four times. This

design is filled in with small triangles for one quarter of the distance. This suggests, as do several other examples, that the intention for later decoration may have been present. It is quite possible, too, that the ridged rim is a stereotyped form and no further carving was intended. We know little about the use to which different types of bowls were put and it may be that these were needed in large quantities or for more hasty use, perhaps for trade, and therefore did not get carved. Their form, however, shows perfect proportion and grace and in most cases there is no evidence of haste or carelessness in manufacture. The question arises as to what the native considered as design and what he regarded as background. From the many examples we have of the horizontal cutting out of rectangular border patterns it is almost certain that the relief which is the blackened portion of the rubbings is the design. But the reverse may be true (PI. χ, 33). I think we are justified in treating designs, whether in positive or negative relief, as equivalent. But at the same time we should take into account the differences in effect which are apparent to us and of which the native also must be conscious. One bowl has the border (Fig. 3) extended into unequal-sized points at either end of a diameter. A basket in the Bremen Museum has this identical design formed of the gum coating of parinarium nut commonly used on baskets in the Admiralty Islands. Flg· 3 Pis. in—XIII show some of the design elements which are used as borders. There are really very few compared with the number of bowls on which they appear. They have been arranged with respect to their relative complexity in a series, beginning with very simple patterns. It is difficult to say which of several types are the simplest. The raised rim may have mere horizontal cuttings, leaving vertical supports at regular intervals so that the raised design is Fig. 4. If we consider the growth of design from this simple pattern we must decide whether it is a development of rectilinear or of

Τ

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS curvilinear designs. It is necessary out after the very first stage. The the four triangles vertex to vertex forms a simple variation on the

to branch placing of (Pl. ni, g) somewhat

Pig. 4

widened vertical portion of the simple rim. This motive is a favorite separator or secondary motive although it may be used as a primary motive with the vertical supports as secondary. Another variation of the same principle is shown in Pl. m , h where two zigzags fill the same kind of space. Triangles and right lines in various combinations make up a large number of designs. Similarly, combinations of curved lines form patterns which vary from the simplest to some which are quite complex. The border of PI. x, 33 is an example of the simplest curvilinear design, merely a row of circles placed at wide intervals between two lines which form the band. The use of lozenges, either with points making a diamond, or with rounded edges, is extremely common in Admiralty Island art. Variations in treatment are shown in Pis. iv, ν, vi, 11,12. There can be no doubt that the form is the same whether it be developed as in PI. v, 5, 6, 7, 8, or as in PI. v, 9,10. The series of related designs, PI. vi, 13—17, might point to an origin in the attempt to depict the human figure. Related art executed in other techniques in the Admiralty Islands, as for example, the tortoiseshell ornaments (see Chap, in) seems in some measure to justify such an assumption. PI. vi, 13 is the simplest of these design elements and it would not be farfetched to interpret a as "arms", c as "body" and b as "legs" of the figure, especially if compared with PI. vi, 14. The next variant, PI. vi, 15, shows the "body" composed of two parts, a reduced lozenge; in PI. vi, 16 "arms" and "legs" are varied by triangular incisions perhaps to indicate "fingers" and "toes"; and PI. vi, 17 shows variations of "body" and "limbs".

18

The next series, Pis. vni, 21—28, PI. ix, 29, tempts in the same way to interpretation of the design as lizard or crocodile. Pl. vni, 21 observed in full is especially intriguing in this respect and we may postulate a degenerating series from a quite realistic lizard (PI. vni, 21) through stages PI. vni, 23, PI. ix, 29, PI. vni, 22, to PI. vni, 24, the simplest form. Or, if we like the reverse, a progressive series from a simple symbolic form to a complex realistic one. But let us now look at the matter from the point of view of our previous observations. PI. vni, 25 is an elaboration of the design elements which, a minute ago, seemed to have been derived from the human figure. The evidence is equally good in both directions. Obviously the experiment at interpreting either design or origin must be inconsistent. A study of the elementary form of the patterns and their composition gives an explanation which is neither inconsistent nor futile. In PI. vni, 25 the lozenge design lost its form merely because its two points were placed on either side rather than one. Thus the body of the human being was transformed into two hind and two fore legs of the "crocodile". Certainly all of the elements of PI. vi, 17 are present in PI. vni, 25; the "limbs" have been elongated and the lozenge modified. Another explanation of PI. vni, 25 which is quite as sane is that the entire lozenge was used with an "arm" design on either side, making a simple composition which was repeated symmetrically above and below. In Pl. vni, 26 the only difference is that the double lozenge was divided in half vertically and used so as to make all the points run in the same direction. PL vni, 21 is a conventional crocodile design but if looked at from the viewpoint of combining decorative motives, it is just another arrangement of the entire lozenge and the points in such a way as to form a symmetric and realistic whole. PI. vni, 22 may be explained in the same way. In this case there are two "arm" elements combined with half a lozenge on either end. The variation of the design is that one "arm" is toothed on the outside. This entire composition is then placed with the teeth facing so as to form a symmet-

14

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

rical design which at first we were inclined to call a crocodile. Even if, after the composition has been made, a realistic interpretation is plausible, it is nothing short of absurd to conclude that such a design was the outgrowth of an attempt at realism. It is far more probable that there were simpler forms, geometrical in this case with rectilinear or curvilinear features, which were combined in many ways so as to make what to one classifying investigator is a crocodile, to another a human figure. A consideration of the other motives here shown serves only to confirm the conclusion. Variety is secured, not by a wealth of design elements, but rather through cleverness in utilizing modifications and possibilities for combination. Thus the lozenge is diamondshaped as in Pl. IV, d; PI. v, 9, b, 10; PI. viu, 21. Or it may be extended by repeating the lines with intervening spaces (Pl. v m , 25). Another variation — and that a most graceful one — is to give the lines composing it a concave turn (PI. v, 9, b; Pl. v m , 28). Perhaps the greatest success is achieved with this design when it is composed of curved lines as in Pl. ν, 7, 8; PI. vi, 11, the last two of which are splendid examples. The design which I shall now call the "arm" motive without quotes shows many modifications. They may be noted by observing in succession the following: PL vi, IB where it is smooth, PI. vi, 16 and PI. vi, 17 where it is toothed, PI. v, 8 where it is formed of several equidistant lines making a very graceful effect, PI. ν, 9 c where the teeth are exaggerated to deep zigzags. It has had an effect too on contiguous lines. PI. vi, 12 shows how the vertical straight line became curved so that the çut-out portion (shown white in rubbings) of the design is a lozenge formed of curves. In PI. vi, 11 one lozenge is placed at right angles to another, the horizontal one finished off with a zigzagged curve at top and bottom. It has been suggested that upon occasion design and background may change places. Here we have further corroboration of this fact. The background of PL vi, 13—17 is Fig. 4 repeated. In PL vm, 26, 28; PL ix, 30 this element has become the design. Another modification which has crept into PL ix, 30,

which is finer than many of the others, is the use of the beading, a feature found quite often (H 21.43:12, H 837, H 21.118:3, L 4769, S L1196/2). Another common element which belongs properly to the simplest type is that shown in PL χ, 34. This design is varied by the number of triangles cut out at the top (cp. PL ix, 32). I have the feeling that here the portion of the wood which is cut out rather than that which remains as relief should be considered as the design. By this I mean Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 or Fig. 7. It seems to me that if looked at in this

C

> Fig. 5

Fig. 6

^

1 Fig. 7

>I Fig. 8

way the designs Pl. vm, 21—24; PL ix, 29 may be viewed as combinations of reverses of these three elements or modifications of them. Simple arrangements of the elements shown in PL ix, 31, 32 are as great favorites as those in series PL vi, 13—17, for they occur on a large number of bowls. They may be modified as in PL x, 34 or all may be looked at as variants of series PL vi, 13—17 and designs related to them. Several other border designs must be noted. Pl. χι, 35, 39, combinations of toothed bands, illustrate the Admiralty Island type of teeth. The following remarks about the use of the toothed decoration apply to all phases of Admiralty Island art. Toothed designs when used

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS in this area, whether they are carved out in openwork, or in relief, or painted, are always blunt (PL vi, 12). Frequently the toothed line is broken by alternating pointed and blunt teeth thus making a line, Fig. 9. Another

15

central line crossed by the segment of a circle and ending with two upturned round lines. This simple pattern is apt to be carelessly made and may appear awkward as in PL x, 34 (H 4085 and B R16) where the unrelieved central line is too long in proportion to the rest of the design. On PL vii, 19 where it occurs between two excellently carved lizards it is the least felicitous stroke of the entire comPig. 9 position for the same reason. Pl. XV, 43 shows a variation of the pattern feature of the Admiralty Island manipulation of the toothed motive is that it is almost al- with the central line broken by a larger segways turned inward, thus having a frame or ment which is toothed on the bottom. In binding line. This scheme and the wide angle Pl. XII, 40 the two lower curved lines have of the teeth give the Admiralty Island art a been joined to form a continuous line relieved repose which is markedly lacking in Tami art by small triangular cuts. To correspond with this the central line is broadened to accom(cp. p. 126). Still another characteristic of Admiralty modate triangles and the upper part of the Island design is the abundant use of triangles. 1 design has two smaller upcurved lines. Pl. xii, Just as the teeth are blunt or wide-angled, so 39 is another variation of the same theme. the triangles are flat or obtuse-angled isosceles Although these designs seem to be great fatriangles. The diamonds used are correspond- vorites with the Admiralty Islanders, they are ingly flattened and may be thought of as two for the most part badly executed and awkward triangles placed base to'base. The arrangement in appearance. of these elements is shown in Pl. in. PL m , a The peculiar arrangement of PL χι, 37 shows regular rows of the typical triangles; must be attributed to an artist who wanted to PL in, b, rows of triangles with bases and ver- try something new. His border (Pl. vm, 22) tices alternating; PL in, e, double contiguous is well done and quite within the traditional rows of Pl. ni, b which form a central row of style. It seems as if he wanted to make the rhomboids with border rows of triangles; and usual dangling fleur-de-lis more of a unit with PL HI, c shows double rows of alternating his border, and hit upon the idea of a toothed triangles which are not contiguous. PL in, g, motive. In a sense he did unify the two the small design formed by turning the ver- ideas for the toothed lines certainly match the tices inward, is used frequently on all kinds bilaterally divided zigzag outlines of the border of carved wooden objects. Two bowls (Β E16 lizards. But in so doing the artist departed and H 7141) seem to have the triangular orna- from one of the laws of his own art and apmentation merely to breakup, or fill in, the plain proached the sprawling style of the New Guinea surface. In the case of B R16 the attempt is artist. This, too, in spite of the fact that he not particularly successful whereas on Η 7141 perhaps succeeded in what he attempted. the carving is very effective. A different treatment of this same design (b) Rejief carving on the bowl wall: Since in Pis. χ ; xi, 36; x n i ; xiv, 41; xv, 44, 45 attempts at ornamentation on the bowl wall shows a great improvement in proportion and are less effective, as well as less finished, than balance. This is due to a simple change in the borders or handles I suppose them to be the pattern. Instead of the long central line a later development than the openwork handles. which frequently tends to sprawl, a circle or One very common design of this sort I have lozenge with rounded sides is used as in named the "fleur-de-lis". It is a design which PL xv, 44 and 45. In PL xi, 36 the central varies from great simplicity to considerable line cuts through two circles which broaden complexity. In PL vii, 19 there is merely a the pattern and improve the proportions. 1

I am now speaking of carved-out patterns or backgrounds which here, as frequently, seem to be the design.

16

MELANE8IAN DESIGN

Pl. XIII shows the repetition of the segment and circle elements, and PI. xiv, 41, the most variant, introduces the circle in the middle of the segment and uses rounded lozenges above. As for the larger units of reliefs, PI. x i v , 41 and PI. xv, 45, they are mere combinations of the elements previously described. In PI. x v , 45 the design below the fleur-de-lis 1 is only a variant of the segment element; in this case it has been cut out and varied by the introduction of two circle elements and a zigzag. The good relief of PL xiv, 41 is a combination of circle, segment and rounded lozenge elements. Many scientists, among them some who have been in the South Sea area, regard the pattern with the two upcurved elements always as the "flying dog". It may be so viewed in some of the islands. But the liberties which have been taken in the Admiralty Islands (as well as elsewhere) with the design make it clear that it is also regarded as a decorative motive, the elements of which may be played with and rearranged at will. When an artist has achieved a design such as PL xiv, 41 it may be impossible to recognize the pattern elements without careful analysis. Furthermore, these elements may be only names and not symbols in any sense of the word, in which case my "fleur-de-lis" label is as good as some one else's "flying dog". Besides the "fleur-de-lis" dependent from the border we occasionally find medallions of several sorts arranged on the outside wall of the bowl (H 2730, Β R26, Β E 4 8 , Β R23). In connection with what was said of the toothed and grouped fleur-de-lis of PL xi, 37 let us first discuss the medallion of PL xiv, 42. This medallion is really an element of the border of Pl. IV, d, somewhat extended. The border of the same bowl demonstrates the Admiralty Island tendency previously mentioned (p. 15) to have the zigzags or teeth turning inward and the bounding line a straight one. This medallion, however, does not have the smooth bounding line, but since the lines are more closely unified the sprawling effect of PL x i , 37 is partly avoided. Pl. XVI, 50 shows a design of lozenge shape 1

PI. xv, 45 ÌB reversed; the fleur-de-lis really hang down.

with blunted points. The small central portion is circular with a curved diamond and circular design. The rest of the medallion is effectively filled out with a low relief consisting of a network of typically blunt Admiralty Island diamonds. The medallion is used at the ends of one diameter and the border design, a simple one of type PL i x , 32, is repeated twice on either side of the medallion. Four bowls (B R26, H 1 3 . 1 3 5 : 1 9 3 , Β B 4 8 , S IC9537) have circular medallions (PL x v , 46, 47; PL x v n , 51), only one of which PL x v , 46 shows careful workmanship. With this exception the medallions consist of several concentric circles in the outer band of which zigzag lines have been cut. PL x v n , 51 has an additional circular band with opposing triangles. One of these round medallions, Pl. xv, 46, merely a circular combination of elements previously described, has been carved with greater success. The center is a circle which has in three medallions, six tangent segment elements, and in one, seven. A larger circle concentric with the central circle is formed by large heavy segments in relief. Two more circles form a bounding band which is cut up into opposing triangles. Two designs on the wall of the bowl, Pl. χνι, 49 and Pl. x v n , 52, may really be unsuccessful extensions of the borders. PL x v , 48, the last of the geometrical wall reliefs to be discussed, is interesting as a typical element of Admiralty Island art. I t is a crudely carved double spiral with facing coils. The bands forming the coils are relieved by a row of triangles, but the long line connecting them has one row of the blunt teeth turned inward and another line partly toothed, and partly smooth. This medallion is almost certainly an attempt on the part of an unskilful individual to imitate the beautiful openwork handle designs. The double facing spirals are found also in other techniques, as for example, on gourds and shell ornaments (see p. 130). There are several realistic reliefs on the walls of two bowls shown in Pl. vu, 18, 19 and 20. There is no doubt that these are conventionalized lizards. The use of the pairs of lizards Pl. vu, 18 and 19 on opposite sides

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS of one diameter of bowl Β R I 8 shows in one case the combination of the realistic with the "fleur-de-lis" element. The tails of the lizards turn in the same direction on either side of this element. On the opposite side of the same bowl this element is lacking and the tails turn toward each other so as to be connected in a smooth curve. Neither pair is placed in exact relation to the border design although one is quite equally distant from the other. At the opposite ends of the crossing diameter are two long disproportionate fleur-de-lis. The two pairs of lizards PL VII, 20 are in one sense more realistic and in another more highly conventionalized than those of Pl. vu, 18 and 19. On this bowl the use of beading in the lizard pattern is without doubt to correspond with the simple but very well- done border of the type of PL i x , 31 with beading introduced. This bowl is remarkable for the unity of its designing and for its fine workmanship throughout. (c) The legs or feet of the bowl : By far the greatest number of the Admiralty Island bowls have four round legs varying in height from .5 cm. to 17 cm. They seem to have no relation to the carved designs. But now and then an artist saw fit to vary even this simple form and made square, diamond-shaped, or elliptical legs (Fig. 2). Still other carvers saw in the round knobs the possibilities of a graceful art form and connected them; the result was two facing spirals instead of four round feet (Fig. 2, /). (H 21.118:3, Η 527, S IC9538, H 525, H 526, L 7058, L 4679, H 4315, H 1144, S IC9551, Β 423 have this kind of base.) Two others (B R12 and Β R13) have modified spirals, that is, the connecting lines are pointed and the spirals turn their backs to each other (Fig. 2, d). Other variations are found on Β R 42; the base is formed of two facing spirals which are connected by pointed lines in somewhat Pig. io lower relief (Fig. 2,e). Bowl Β 381 has the usual four legs but each pair is connected by a slightly lower relief so that the profile view is Fig. 10. A few bowls (S L1196/2, S IC61022, Ha [4] 3656) have a

17

high square ridge forming a stand (Fig. 2, h) and one has a circular stand (S IC6274). Since some of these variants have the same museum serial number they may have been procured from the same region and the type of base may well be a local characteristic. With one or two exceptions which will be discussed under composition the carving of the legs seems to have no relation to the other carving on the bowls. Class II.

Handles

Here we meet the acme of success in Admiralty Island art. Some of the bowls have handles which for virtuosity and artistic grace may be favorably compared with any art in the world, whether the art of so-called "civilized" peoples or of other primitives. In the field of primitive art they call to mind the art of New Zealand or of the Amur River, both of which are of exceptional finish, and both of which specialize in the spiral. Although a few of the Admiralty Island bowls are crude and unshapely, although bowls of good form may have unfinished or badly composed reliefs, very few of the handles are badly carved and none of the poor ones are old. PL xvin, 54 and PL x x , 59 show a slight flattening of the handle where others are curved. PL x i x , 57 and 58 illustrate bowls in the American Museum of Natural History purchased in 1929. They show how the art has degenerated since the importation of steel tools and the deprivation of a stimulus for good craftsmanship. The illustrations furnish the best description of the handles, but they may be briefly characterized as follows: They consist of a simple graceful spiral of two and one-half turns. The band forming the spiral gradually widens from the center out, the last turn is wide and carved in openwork. This openwork is attained by the Fig· il cutting out of rows of blunt isosceles triangles, diamonds, and patterns of the form Fig. 11. The placing of the latter spaces side by side leaves what we may call supporting posts (Pis. iv; xiv, 42; xvin, 55, 56; XXI, 62).

18

MELANESIAN DESIGN

Some of the handles have a smooth bounding line (Pis. x, 34; xvm, 54, 55; xxi, 63). Others are cut out at the edge (Pis. iv; xiv, 41, 42; xvm, 58, 56; xx, 60; xxi, 61, 62). Both types give a sense of grace and repose. The feeling of sprawliness which is so strong in the art of New Guinea is never present even if the toothed edges are used. There are several reasons for this. First of all, the teeth are carved along regular bands; second, they are not so sharp as in Tami style; and third, the actual zigzag, when found as a bounding line, is frequently relieved by an intervening pointless or blunt tooth so that the effect is as in Pig. 9. Some of the handles are carved in the simplest style of openwork, but the heavy part of the handle is then decorated in low relief of zigzags in single or double rows (Pis. xiv, 41; xx, 60). In PI. xxi, 62, which is unusually elaborate, the bands run vertically and diagonally. Were the spiral to be complete in itself without an intervening design it would have to be set lower on the bowl, thus ruining the proportions, or it would stand too high and the relation of the spiral to the bowl proper would not be close (PI. xix, 57, 58, for example) . The balancing design which ' comes between the spiral and the bowl rim and furnishes a support for the spiral is usually a diamond or lozenge openwork element which may take on rounded lines (Pis. x, 34; xiv, 41, 42; xvm, 55, 56; xx, 59, 60; xxi, 61—63), or the same designs may be somewhat elaborated (Pis. iv ; X X I I , 64, b). Several of the handles (Pis. xx, 60; XXII, 64, a, and E.P. PI. *187) have little realistic bird figures gracefully perched on the top. I hâve found several examples of double spirals used for handles. One in the Hamburg Museum was tied with a small handle of the usual type and both were unmounted. It is doubtful if these two belonged to the same bowl. Two other pairs were mounted on bowls in the Linden Museum (Stuttgart). Strange to say, they were mounted horizontally on the wall of the bowl, as were also a pair in Cologne (Pl. X X I I I , 67) which seem to be carved from the same piece of wood as the bowl. One in

Berlin (PI. xxin, 68) is well done and graceful but the pattern suggests the influence of the Hermit Islands. Though these handles and bowls are beautifully carved they lack the grace of those with the single spiral. Two large bowls in the Field Museum have double coiled handles, graceful as the smaller ones and attached in the same way. In both cases, the smaller coil takes the place of the supporting lozenge or element. Although the Admiralty Island artists use the spiral as a favorite motive in gourd burning, shell incising, as well as in woodcarving, in no technique does it achieve the success found in these bowl handles. The nearest related form is on the carvings of certain canoe ornaments but in these (PL xxii, 65) something of the grace and beauty found on the bowls is lacking. For one thing this spiral has fewer turns, one to one and one-half as against two and one-half on the handles. Furthermore, the lack of grace may be due to their setting, for they are set in rectangular spaces and only the spiral stands out. There is in this particular type of Admiralty Island ornamentation a most successful solution of a difficult problem. In reality the bowls are complete in form and ornamentation without the handles. Nevertheless the handles enrich the beauty of the form to a marked degree chiefly because their simplicity and grace are so eminently suitable to the shape of the bowl. They give also, not only by their carving, but also by their position, a feeling of perfect balance. All of these features are characteristic in spite of the fact that the handles are frail and delicate and could not possibly bear the heavy weight of the bowl. These handles are undoubtedly made for purely aesthetic reasons. Class III.

Allover Designs

I include allover designs merely to make the description of the Admiralty Island bowls complete. They are peculiar, lightly-incised, somewhat irregularly placed designs which cover the entire outside wall of a few of the bowls. Sometimes the incisions are filled with chalk. The patterns consist of short lines combined as chevrons, or herring-bone patterns,

19

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS these in turn arranged in large diamonds with a row of the same type of lines bisecting them. Or the same short lines may be arranged in a daisy-shaped design placed between the large diamonds (Pis. i, 1, b; x, 34; x x i n , 66). The bowl illustrated by Parkinson, Fig. *57, shows one of the better examples of the use of the allover design. The only relation they have to other decorations on the bowl — and that apparently a very remote one — can be seen by a comparison with the most highly elaborated handle, PI. x x i , 62. It is difficult to account for the use of these designs. If the natives considered them beautiful they made little effort to do them well. Perhaps they have a special significance entirely apart from aesthetic considerations. In addition to the lightly-incised designs several bowls have the crudest kind of red painting which is also done in the bisected diamond pattern. One of the bowls with such painting is a medicine bowl containing a variety of herbs. It has a crude carrier of vegetable fiber, which together with the paint disguises all beauty of form and ornament which the bowl actually possesses. It is possible that the allover designs may be related to magic or medicine in some way or other. Another possible explanation of the incising is that it is a carrying-over of design from one technique to another. For instance, we find on Kelana 1 pottery designs almost identical with the Admiralty Island allover bowl patterns. The two areas are by no means contiguous, but it should be no more surprising to find borrowing from such a distance than, for example, to find an Admiralty Island design on a Tami2 boat. Dr. L. Cohn3 found a New Ireland design on the northern coast of New Guinea. This happening was readily explained by the fact that a man from New Ireland was living there and naturally used his own art style. COMPOSITION

I have described in detail the somewhat varied elements which contribute to the art style of the round bowls from the Admiralty 1

Neuhauss, Vol. I, Pigs. »162 and »163. 3»

Islands : the proportion of the bowls, the form and openwork carving of the handles, and the relief carvings on the walls of the bowl, including border designs, wall medallions and bases. 1 have described also the allover designs on the outside of some of the bowls which seem to have no aesthetic relation to any of the other elements. This catalogue of design elements is merely preliminary to a study of the relation of the elements to one another, in other words, the composition. The close relationship between the handles and bowl is one of form. In no case is there an apparent relationship between the allover designs and any of the other classes of patterns. Therefore the discussion of composition narrows itself to the consideration of the combination of the various design elements of Class I, namely (a) border elements, (b) wall reliefs, (c) legs or bases. Several problems which are of special interest are: What rhythmic repetitions are found here? Is there a feeling for symmetry? How are rhythm ând symmetry related ? How successful is the attempt to achieve either? Is there a special relation between the border, wall and base reliefs, or between these elements and the position of the handles? The answers to such questions lead to two conclusions; one theoretical as to the purpose of the artist, the other a practical one, inhowfar the mastery of the technique aided the purpose. The simplest borders, or border plus "fleurde-lis" elements, are usually repeated at regular intervals. In order to show how regular they are I shall tabulate a few measurements. They are taken from the exact center of one element to the center of the next. Bowl, Pl. χι, 36, (H 21.118:3) has a very simple but effective design repeated eight times. A fleur-de-lis drops from the center of each element at the following distances: 31, 26, 25, 26.5, 26.5, 27, 21.5, 26. Average 26.2 cm. In one spacing an error of 5 cm. was made and it was corrected in a single spacing of 21.5 instead of being distributed between the remaining distances. 2

Neuhauss, Vol. I, 360.

3

Personal information.

20

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

H E2277 has the simple design PL ix, 81, the only ornament repeated eight times at the following amazingly accurate intervals : 18,18.5,18,18,18,18.7,18,18. Averagel8.1 cm. Β R24. Design of type PI. ix, 31 repeated twelve times : 24, 22.5, 17.5, 19.0, 20.5, 19.5, 20.5, 18.5, 14, 16, 22.5,17.5. Average 19.25 cm. Neither technique nor spacing of this bowl is very good. Β E 4 6 : A fine bowl with a single simple design repeated eight times : 19, 15.5, 10, IB, 15.5, 14.5, 14, 15. Average 14.8 cm. It has the same error in spacing as Η 21.118 : Β, namely that one space is too large and one much too small, the others all more nearly approach the average 14.8 cm. Η 21.118:4. Design PI. xx, 31 repeated twelve times : 19, 20.5, 18.5, 19.5, 18, 17, 16.5, 15.5, 18, 20, 19,17.5. Average 18.3 cm. Although irregular, no spacing of Η 21.118:4 varies widely from the average. The measurements of Β R47 and its general appearance agree in being somewhat careless. The design, a simple but effective one, is repeated eight times; only one spacing even approaches the average 11.5 cm.: 14, 13.5, 12.5, 10.5, 9, 9.5, 8, 15. Average 11.5 cm. The borders so far considered consist of only one element. A few examples will now be given of two elements, usually one primary and one secondary, repeated in regular order: Η 21.43:12. A two-element border (primary element PI. ix, 31, secondary PL vi, 13) with fleur-de-lis suspended from each of the primary elements. A condition which is now found to be common, in this case, however, not exaggerated, is that one spacing is too great, one too small: Elements 19.51 22.5 J

Fleur-de-lis 42

Elements 19.51 2O.5J 19 j 23.5 J 16 j 20.5 J

Fleur-de-lis 40 42.5 36.5

Β E36. Border of two elements repeated four times : Distance between elements 19 5 1 15.Í 5.5 J 19 Ì 18 j 18 1 21 j 18.51 18 j

Rhythmic unit 34.5 37.0 39.0 36.5

Β 423. Two elements repeated four times: Element distance 16.5Ì 15.5 J 16 ] 14 J 20 1 I2.5J 17.Í 7.51 16.¡ S.5j

Unit distance 32 30 32.5 34

Β R19. Two-element border (Pl. ix, 32) repeated ten times : 11.51 11 J 11.51 11.5J 10.51 11.5J

22.5 23.0 22.0 23.5 13.5

11 12 11 11 11 11 10.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

23 22 22.5 22 23

Β E l 3. Two-element border repeated six times : 8.51 10 J 10.51 11 i

18.5 21.5

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS 15 15

ι

J

30 27

21

Arrangement ABCB M

ABCB M

ABCB Β M

ABCB M

ABCB M

ABCB Β

M

Distances

1 }

19.5 17.0

H 11.88:18 (Pl. iv). Two wider and more elaborate border elements (PL iv, d) repeated seven times on each side of handle (two spacings cannot be measured because of the handles and gum) : 30, 30.5, 30.5, 30.5, 30.5, 29.0, 25, 30, 30.5, 31.5, 30.5,14. Comment on the last examples is unnecessary, the figures show the degree of virtuosity. Besides such simple arrangements there are a few bowls whose border designs have a more extended unit of repetition. Their description and composition follow : Β B17. Designs with a simple diamond design between them so that the repetition is Abeb, Abcb, Abcb, Abcb. The measurements show the distance from : A to c 23 3 1 20.Í 3.5 J 18 20 22 19 21

0.5}

20.Í

A to A 43.5 38 41 41.5

Β B18. The border design (PI. vii, 18, 19) is composed of two units repeated Abbbbb. This unit is repeated eight times, its size being as follows : 23.5, 26, 26, 26.5, 25, 25, 24.5, 25. From the measurements the border seems to be very regular but even the two variations illustrated show how the unit b may vary. Η 8541. A more complex border, each unit composed of three elements (PI. v, 9, a, b, c) arranged in the following order: cba cba cba beb cba b c handle cba cba cba cba cba handle. Η 2730 (Pis. χι, 35; xiv, 42). The most complicated arrangement of the border elements. The scheme shows also the relation of the medallions on the bowl wall : 1

Boas, Primitive Art, 279.

A Β C Β

9.5' 11.5 9.5 10.0

A Β C Β

40.5

A Β C Β

8.5' 12.0 9.5 10.0

40.0

9.5' 10.0 10.0 11.0

40.5

A Β C Β

10.0' 11.5 11.0 11.5

44.0

A Β C Β

10 11.5 8 9

38.5

A Β C Β

10.5' 12.0 9.5 9.5

Β

8

Β

9.5

41.5

Distance from center of one medallion to center of next : 29.5, 30.0, 45.5, 29.5, 33.0, 37.0. The last four examples show that increasing complexity of design does not cause poorer workmanship, but rather the contrary, the more complex the design, the more carefully is the spacing judged. This fact is not a new or unknown one in primitive art 1 but leads us to the conclusion that only the artists who have attained a high degree of virtuosity are able to succeed in the more elaborate undertakings. Another fact of repetition is noticeable, namely, that with few exceptions the units are used an even number of times: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 24. The exceptions have the elements repeated 5 and 13 times respectively. A matter closely related to that of rhythmic repetition is that of symmetry. The bowls with handles are naturally divided into two halves and these halves are usually felt as unit surfaces. The rhythmic border unit is repeated an equal number of times on either side and if there is a wall decoration it is customarily arranged with respect to the position of the handles (PI. x x , 60, e. g.). But besides the rhythmic repetition of the border unit and of symmetrical arrangement of wall patterns there are also definitely planned symmetrical arrangements on bowls with and without handles :

22

MELANESIAN DESIGN

H 4085 has a definitely unified and wide design (variant of PI. x, 34) repeated twice, one on each side of the handled bowl. The fleur-de-lis elements are arranged with reference to the border. Β E21. Each side has a special design (Pl. χ, 34) arranged symmetrically with respect to the center of the distance between the handles, and on each side of the center a secondary design repeated twice. Β B25. A bowl technically not good with excellent handles. A design composed of two elements is symmetrically placed on one side of the bowl ; on the other it occurs only on the right of the center and not on the left. Symmetrical grouping is to be expected on a surface divided into two equal parts as these bowls are by the handles. But there is also evidence of a feeling for symmetry on bowls without handles : Β B13. At one end of one diameter a unit consisting of abbbba, and at the other abbba, with element a repeated at intervals of about 13 cm. between the two center designs. Elements a and b are very closely related, b being merely an elaboration of a. Β R28. Bowl without handles has the border design (Pl. vni, 23) modified at the two ends of one diameter. The border is a conventionalized one, at these two centers two simple lizard designs are enclosed by a kind of garland pattern which widens the decoration. At one end of the garland is a smooth relief increasing in width toward its center, at the other the inside line is toothed. Many features of this bowl are so similar to those of Β B22 (Pl. χι, 37) that one suspects the same artist made both. This bowl has another individual character, a wide band which extends from the border to the legs in a vertical direction and divides the surface in four equal parts. The effect is one of unified ornamentation over the entire surface (cp. PI. xm). Η 2555. The carver of this bowl makes the most subtle use of symmetry with very simple decorative elements. He conceives the entire surface as a unit, instead of half of it. From a chosen center the simple pointed elements, Fig. 8, turn away. Since the plan is consistently carried out they turn toward each

other directly opposite the center. The result is perfect symmetry of the whole, rather than of the half, surface. The distances between the designs are as follows : Between secondary elements 11 12.Í 2.5} 11.51 1.51

IS.! 3.5 J 16 }

1L 15 11 11

Between primary elements

Between fleurde-lis

23.5

48.5

25 27

53.5

26.5

1

11.5 J 11.5) 15 I

15.51

12 J 12.5 ι 12.5 J

22.5

49.0

26.5 27.5 52.5 25

As is to be expected there are a few examples of asymmetry or irregular repetition, so few, however, as to be readily ascribed to failure in carrying out a purpose, or to a mere trial of a design (perhaps without the approval of the worker). B R38 has a special design (slight modification of PI. x, 34) at each end of one diameter, thus dividing the surface into two. On each of the surfaces three designs occur. Besides this the element, PI. vi, 16, is used once with apparently no relation to any of the other elements. B R12 (Pl. xxv, 72) is a bowl of good finish. It has a border PI. ix, 31 with fleurde-lis dropping from every other one of the main elements. Pl. in, g occurs once on the border and throws the measurement of the last spacing away from the average. It may be that too much space was left over to suit the artist's taste, but too little to admit two of the primary elements. The primary element is repeated eight times, nine would not be at all usual. Primary designs 24 1 20.5 J 22 1 23 J

Pleur-de-lis 44.5 45

CAEYED WOODEN BOWLS Primary designs 21 i 20.5 / 15 i 14.5 J 22

Fleur-de-lis 41.5 51.5

28

fleur-de-lis seem to be a part of the border and may therefore not be treated as a separate row. On bowl Β E26, however, the border element, PI. vi, 12, is repeated fourteen times, there are four pairs of fleur-de-lis placed with no reference to the border elements, but with some respect to the four medallions on the lower wall of the bowl, for the fleur-de-lis alternate with the round medallions the entire distance around. Β E18. A bowl technically very good has eight repetitions of a border design, PI. VII, 18, 19, which would definitely lend itself to an even division of the surface for the placing of the wall figures. Of the two badly carved pairs of fleur-de-lis and of the two well carved pairs of lizards, only one pair is accurately — and that not too carefully — placed in the center of the border circle. It is highly improbable that the maker of this bowl was incapable of placing the larger designs evenly (see measurement p. 21). He evidently had no interest in such a relation and considered the two types of decoration independently. Η 12.135:193. This bowl shows by the accuracy with which border and medallions are -ι 1 « 1 1 1 jZoo So 75 /oo /is /So 175 /

This bowl is also peculiar in that four birdlike carvings extend inward from the bowl wall. They are not placed with respect to any of the outside ornamentation and are found somewhat irregularly at the four quarters. H 14.38:34. A much simpler bowl than those preceding has the regular design, Pl. vin, 27, repeated 24 times. A small element is used once. Β E l 5 is a bowl of very fine technique with eight fleur-de-lis at distances : 16 17.5 18.5 19 15.5 15.5 17 16.5 The border between them for a distance of three and one-half spaces is carved with the favorite pattern Pl. in, g. It ,— looks as if the artist had started \ i5 the additional border decoration \ and found it too tedious, or \ \ perhaps he had a chance to sell or trade the bowl before it was \ finished and made use of the < St opportunity. A casual, and even a more detailed, observation of art objects with banded ornamentation Pig. 12 from different areas has aroused the suspicion that when more than one row of placed the fact that the decoration on each was ornamentation is used each row is considered placed independently of the other: an entity in itself and is not thought of as Distance between secondary Primary elements related to the other rows. This fact can be elements (modification of PI. x, 34) (PI. vi, 11) shown, for instance, by many of the pots of the southwestern part of North America and Peru, by many Tlingit baskets from Alaska and by woven fabrics, as for instance, Moroccan rugs. Whereas the general style of the Admiralty Island bowls is not one which would completely answer this question, it nevertheless throws some light on it; usually the The scale, Pig. 12, showing placing of border

S3 S} ÎS) «}

24

MELANESIAN DESIGN

and medallion in proportion to shape of bowl will make this matter clearer. Distance from center to center of medallion (PL xv, 47) unrelated to above: 46, 48.5, 43.5, 41.0. In contrast with the examples above cited there are also a few wall reliefs other than fleur-de-lis which are definitely fitted to the border reliefs : Β R 1 3 a has a border repeated eight times at distances: 11.5, 12.5, 11, 13.5, 11, 15, —, — (break in rim). The spiral relief, PL xv, 48, is repeated four times with two of the border designs between. Β 381. A model of good technical finish has relief, PL xv, 45, repeated four times exactly under every other one of the elements a (PL vi, 11) of the unit consisting of a bbbb so that the entire relief is very well unified. The following conclusions are therefore to be made: where twofold symmetry is worked out the rows of design are related; where the field is divided into more than two the relationship may be found, but it is more common to find the rows treated independently. Bowl Β E 2 8 (Pl. χνι, 49) was mentioned (p. 22) as an example of a bowl where the entire surface was decorated, the vertical ornamented strips connecting the border design and the simple round legs. Three of the strips placed at right angles to the border have the form cdcdc, leg, as in PL xvi, 49. The fourth has element c elongated the two times it appears and element d in negative relief. Incidentally it should be noted that the strips and the border have very different patterns. The legs have been regarded as a kind of relief carving. There is one bowl, Β E 4 5 (Pl. χιιι), which is a model of unity and of accurate arrangement. The artist saw in the round feet the beginnings of the spiral. He connected them by a curved band exactly like the band he used to connect the two spirals and the fine border which is composed of an element repeated twice with a plain space between. From the exact center of every one of these units hangs a fleur-de-lis, and from the exact center of the alternate ones the stripe extends to the spiral which connects the legs at the base. The characteristics of this type of Admiralty

Island bowl may be summarized as follows: The bowl is round with a diameter between two and three and one-half times the height. I t may or may not have finely carved handles and it rests on four round, elliptical, square, or diamond shaped legs, but most often on round ones. Border designs consist of simple geometrical figures but show no preference for angles or curves, both occur. Diamonds, however, when at all large have curved rather than straight sides. Teeth are used frequently but the bounding lines are usually smooth so that teeth turn inward. The teeth are blunt and the line is often varied by the device of alternating a pointless tooth with a pointed one. What has been said of the use of zigzags or teeth holds for the openwork handles as well as for the relief designs. Besides the border designs the bowl walls may have low relief carvings. A favorite design is a kind of fleur-de-lis, and curved diamonds as well as round medallions occur. Some bowls have a characteristic shallow incised allover design on the bottom. I t may be outlined with chalk or painted red. The simple border elements are combined into rhythmically repeated units which are, however, not complicated, the most complex being Abcb. The repetitions are frequent enough, however, to show a definite feeling for rhythm, and are, with several exceptions, even in number: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 24 being found, with four and eight as favorites. The division of the surface into parts is sometimes very accurate. In the cases where it is not so exact it is usual to find one space much longer and one much shorter than the average. The unevenness is all made up at once, it is not divided between the units. This fact shows that the spacing was not planned out beforehand but rather made as the worker progressed from one unit to another. Another noteworthy feature is that the more complex the designs are the better the virtuosity is. The feeling for symmetry is likewise very pronounced. Perfect symmetry is found on bowls with and without handles. A few bowls have irregular patterns introduced once with no apparent purpose but the examples are not sufficiently numerous to convince one that the

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS Admiralty Islanders like asymmetry or irregularity. When there is more than one row of patterns the tendency is to treat each separately and independently, but a few bowls have the border and wall relief definitely related and one rare example shows a unification of border and wall reliefs as well as of bases which have been combined into spirals.

25

Several bowls, PI. n, 3 and H 12.135:194, show a male figure as one handle and a female as the other, but most of them are sexless figures. The characteristic of the human figure is the bent position of the arms and legs (Parkinson, Pig. *57, Β Dl332). On the bowl Β 559 these lines are curves (in profile) and on PI. ι, 1 the elbows rest on the knees as in forks. These are highly conventionalized examples. Pl. χ , 33 has bent knees although the angle TYPE I I is not as sharp as usual, and the arms are To this type belong bowls which are not so straight. The carvings on this bowl show a plentiful in the collections but which are tech- degree of modelling lacking in the others ; the nically even better than those of Type I. They leg is thickened at the calf and the elbow is may be round as in PI. n, 4 and PI. x, 33 or more realistically portrayed than usual. elongated as in Pis. i, 1, 2; PI. n, 3. A characThe face of the human figure is usually teristic feature is that they have realistic round and has otherwise somewhat unindividhandles carved from the same block of wood ual characteristics, the modelling being very as the bowl itself. The rim of the bowl which is conventionalized and not highly developed. somewhat thicker but more carefully smoothed But the peculiar cowl which comes over the than in Type I is sometimes widened toward forehead and the pattern PI. in, b, which the place where the handles project. These outlines it, are special Admiralty Island feabowls have a stable and well-balanced appear- tures. Parkinson's animal figures have the latter ance due to fineness of form and finish. But also. It is found on every bowl of this type I they lack the grace which results from the rare studied as well as on human heads carved on combination of the heavy but well-curved many other articles made in the Admiralty bowl and dainty openwork handles of Type I. Islands (see p. 26).2 The design may be found Some of these bowls have the same features on other parts of the body as well, as for exdescribed for Type I. For instance, the one ample on the abdomen (PI. x, 33) or on the illustrated by Parkinson, Pig. *571, has the cheeks. The notched design like that on the border design repeated twelve times (six on handles of Type I is common here also (PI. i, each side of handle), a modified fleur-de-lis 1, b; Β 559; Β 573; Parkinson, Fig. *57). symmetrically arranged at the middle of each The handles of bowl Β 573 combine very side, and the rather better than usual allover illuminatingly three Admiralty Island features, incised pattern. the characteristic human figure with cowled Others have none of these characteristics head, under the body the favorite design but all have a new realistic feature, that is, PI. HI, b, and finally the openwork of sharp the handles carved in human or animal shapes. and blunt teeth. The Parkinson bowl has what is apparently an animal figure sitting upright. All those in the TYPE III Hamburg and Bremen collections have human figures lying on the back, in some cases highly To this type belong dishes of realistic carvconventionalized. A description of these fig- ing, the illustrations of which show more than ures in Admiralty Island woodcarving serves any verbal description. The animals carved to characterize generally most of the human are birds (PI. xxin, 66; Parkinson, Fig. *58), figures. This statement does not mean that crocodiles (PI. xxiv, 70; Edge Partington, none may be found which do not fit the de- PI. *188, no. 1), a boar (Edge Partington, scription; it means simply that the type is PI. *188, no. 2), a pig (Edge Partington, PI. *188, no. 3) and a dog (Parkinson, Fig. *59). characteristic. 1 2 Op. dt. Cp. Kühn, Pig. »64. 4

26

MELANE SIAN DESIGN

The bird dishes are characterized by two extensions of the bowl wall in the front, evidently to represent wings. The tail in both specimens is spreading and the feet are the usual round feet of the Type I bowl. Some dishes represent other animals. Here it is necessary to refer back to peculiar features of two other bowls previously described. The four figures protruding from the inside wall of Pl. XXV, 72 are similar to the front view of these bird bowls. The large Hamburg bowl has two carved figures hanging inward from where the handles are fastened (PI. iv). These figures are somewhat realistic and show a long pointed face with prominent eyes. Of the animal dishes the bowl part is the much elongated body, the feet may be realistic (Parkinson, Fig. *59; Edge Partington, Pl. *188, nos. 2 and 3) or the usual round type. The open mouth and prominent teeth are indispensable features of the crocodile. So far what we have said might characterize bowls from any other region where realistic forms prevail. There is, however, a way of recognizing Admiralty Island carving so plain, as to be a decorative trademark, that is, by the ornamental carving on the figures. The bird dishes are characteristically Admiralty Island because of the peculiar shape of wings and tail, but the wings and tail themselves have rows of the favorite double zigzag, PI. ni, e. This and the single zigzag are very widely used. They are the same elements which characterize the Admiralty Island heads. PI. xxin, 66 has a variation of PI. vi, 16 which is also quite common on various carved objects. On the dish illustrated by Parkinson, Pig. *59, are other familiar motives, the fleur-de-lis, and elements of PI. xin. G E N E R A L CHARACTERISTICS OP ADMIRALTY ISLAND

ART

The foregoing description is an attempt to define in detail the characteristic and identifying features of Admiralty Island bowls. The question now arises: May we apply the conclusions of this analysis to the art style of the Admiralty Islands with these criteria as a basis? I think we are more than justified in

applying the description to the woodcarving of the locality, to confine the definition at first to one technique. A brief survey of the other objects carved from wood and their ornamentation will make this matter clear. PI. vi, 11 and the border of PI. x m are found on spears, beds, neckrests, cocoanut graters, combs, canoe ornaments, house beams, doorposts, and steps (PI. xxvi, 75) ; also on baskets decorated with pitch (PI. xxv, 73). All the elements of PI. HI are found on almost every kind of carved object from the Admiralty Islands: on bedposts, net sinkers, crocodile boat beaks, spoon and spatula handles, besides on the objects mentioned above. The element Pl. in, b outlines the animal head or human head with the characteristic cowl, or is found on the face or some other part of the body on the following objects: lime spatulas, spear handles (Parkinson, Fig. *56), obsidian sword handles, bedposts. The peculiar war charm, made of a head carved in wood like the preceding description — cowl with zigzag outline — is further unified and made subservient to the style in that it is fastened to a thick bunch of feathers which are notched out to give the blunt zigzag effect (PI. xxvn). The ornament based on the diamond or lozenge as it is found on the openwork bowl handle supports, as well as in the border designs (PI. v, 8—10, PI. vi, 11) is a favorite for use on openwork handles of betel spatulas and has many graceful modifications and variations. These examples are sufficient to show that these motives are highly characteristic of Admiralty Island woodcarving. I make no pretense that the list is exhaustive. For instance, the spiral used on the bowl handles is somewhat different from that used on the canoe ornament (PI. xxn, 65) and certain bedposts. The latter has the same form but fewer turns. These ornaments which are really reduced to very simple terms may, however, be used as a fundamental basis for the style of Admiralty Island woodcarving. A similar detailed study of spatulas, spears, and canoes will add to the ornamental elements but will not change this foundation.

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS

27

The Tami inhabit the tiny island of Tami (Cretin) at the northeast corner of Huongulf. They have close affiliations with the people of the mainland of New Guinea, the Jabim and Bukaua, as well as with the inhabitants of the western part of New Britain. There is cultural and legendary evidence1 that some of their sibs may have come from there. However that may be, certainly the more recent contacts between these peoples are extremely close for more objects, especially bowls, made by the Tami, are labelled in Museum collections as coming from New Britain than from Tami itself. Trade in this area was exceedingly lively. The Tami are excellent seamen and besides trading with the inhabitants of the mainland of New Guinea and New Britain they carry on extensive trade with the islands of Rook and Siassi.2 It is not at all surprising to find Tami manufactures as far north as Astrolabe Bay on the north coast of New Guinea ; northeast, to the French Islands ; or south, at least to the

former English boundary. Pottery, tortoiseshell earrings and armbands were traded from Astrolabe Bay as far south as Finschhaven. 3 The entire South Sea region is one of extreme localization and the Tami fall in with this pattern. On this island and on a very narrow strip of the mainland there has developed an art style which is characteristic and finished, a style which has spread over a large area through trade but which, because of social restrictions, is confined to the Tami as manufacturers. Specialization is the keynote of the area. If any individual used a pattern of a sib other than his own, the act would constitute such a grave offense as to start a blood feud. This notion is a strong factor of cultural resistance. For even though a person were allowed to make a pattern nearly like another's he would not do so for fear of inducing antagonism.4 So it happens that the Tami are experts at woodcarving; the Bukaua, at making hognets; the Kai, at manufacturing articles for nets and spears ; the Boang and Laukanu, at pottery making ; and the Siassi, at breeding hogs and serving the trade with boar's teeth. A resistance as strongly held as this might tend to limit the life of the people. However, in this area, trade counteracts the tendency and foreign ideas as well as material comforts constantly enrich the lives of the tribes concerned. The Tami woodcarvings are deservedly famous over a large area. As is true in some other parts of Melanesia, the Admiralty Islands for example, all kinds of wooden objects are carved, more especially canoes, house beams, drums, bowls, lime spatulas, and neckrests. A study of the bowl carvings will lay a foundation for the principles of the art style of these people. Necessary extensions and additions may later be made as other objects are studied. The present discussion is based on a detailed analysis of over two hundred fifty Tami bowls, their proportions, design elements, and composition being especially considered. The usual Tami bowl is a long, boat-shaped vessel carved from the hardest wood (one of

1

3

LONG

BOWLS

Besides the bowls above described I have examined a number of long boat-shaped bowls said to have come from the Admiralty Islands. I shall not describe them here for several reasons: 1. The series is too small to yield definite conclusions as to style. 2. The provenience of the bowls is not certain. They have conflicting labels but must have been made within the limits of a small area. 3. They are too crude to be classed as objects of art. Although their form is sometimes reasonably good, they cannot be put in the same class with the other bowls analyzed. 4. They show no relation in art style to other forms from the area. This fact alone would not rule them out, as variations in style, even wide divergences, are quite possible. If they do really belong to the Admiralty Island area they are a highly localized type. I think it quite probable that they have been traded in, perhaps from the northern coast of New Guinea where related forms are common. BOWLS FROM TAMI

2

Bamler, in Neuhauss III, 507, 508, 522. Ibid. 522. 4*

4

Preuss, Z. f. E. 29 (1897): 103. Lehner, in Neuhauss III, 428 ; Bamler, ibid. 524.

28

MELANESIAN DESIGN

the Azaleas) and bearing decorations which with simple stone or shell tools do not make vary from deep etching to high relief. Many of even better things when iron or steel tools are them are blackened with a manganate graph- given them. The following is a possible exite compound and are highly polished.1 Few planation. The most highly skilled workman in of the bowls of New Guinea can vie in beauty any hand technique knows as much about of finish with those from Tami, many of which making and repairing his tools as he does about show an exceptionally high degree of virtu- manufacture. If a shell knife dulls or breaks, osity. The long bowls from Astrolabe Bay, for he knows how to sharpen it or, if it is past example, are made of soft wood and are crude repair, where to get another shell and how to affairs, both as to form and ornamentation. shape and sharpen it. Give him then a steel The inhabitants of the Trobriand Islands have knife, no matter how fine, and the muscles of also developed a very fine grade of carved his hands, trained to do his bidding with a shell bowl, the style of which is more conventional knife, will have to begin a new course of trainthan that of the Tami, though not nearly as ing to accommodate themselves to the new shape. exotic or lively. It is common knowledge that the harder The chances are that in so doing the knife wood is, the more finished is the carved object, will be ruined before the muscles are trained. if the carver is able to overcome the exigencies The whaler, trader, or missionary who has of the technique. Most writers emphasize the given our native the knife fails to tell him fact that Melanesian tools being what they how to sharpen it and the process of making a are, the results of the wood-carver's art must new one is beyond the ken of even many Whites. The native then struggles with unbe doubly astounding. The information available regarding the familiar movements and also with poor tools, technique of bowl manufacture is exceedingly even as most white men who try to do home meager and general. Lehner2 mentions the carpentering. The result is not only a poor following tools used for wood working by the product, but loss of interest often to such an Bukaua: stone axes of different shapes and extent as to cause a degeneration of the art. That the explanation is not a blanket one sizes, bamboo knives, teeth of the tree-bear, two bones of the pig, two of the cassowary and is attested by the fact that the Eskimo readily two of the flying dog. The teeth and bones are took to making tools out of hoop iron when used as etching points. Broken or undeveloped they could get it. They found no difficulty in boar's teeth are used for smoothing carved sharpening them, and the introduction of iron objects. The larger implements are sharpened marked an advance in their art rather than a on rough stones and the smaller on rough degeneration. The decline of art on the Northleaves or on parasitic formations on driftwood. west Coast of America is attributable to causes Neuhauss3 mentions axes of tridacna shell, other than the use of new tools, for the linescrapers of sharpened shells, bone awls, augers work of a good artist is quite as good if not of stone or of shark's teeth. The last, to be better when done with steel tools. The rough leaves and driftwood with parasure, are used by the Papuans in general and we do not know whether the Tami have them sitic formation, besides serving as sand paper all or perhaps lack some and substitute others. for sharpening small implements, are used by Such tools are very different from those to the Tami to give the fine polish to the bowls. In certain parts of Melanesia, including which we are accustomed, but anyone who is parts of German New Guinea and the Admiracquainted with well-made stone or shell imalty Islands, large pieces of wood are hollowed plements cannot but acknowledge that they are by burning. According to Neuhauss4 this efficient in the hands of a skilled workman. We often hear wonder expressed because process is unknown to the Tami who do all primitives who once made beautiful objects hollowing by hand. 1 2

Pinsoh, Südseearbeiten, 463. Neuhauss III, 437.

3 4

I, 325. Ibid.

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS The question of technique is especially interesting in a study of form. We should like to know the character of the trees which furnish the materials, the method of felling them and cutting the logs, as well as the treatment of the logs after they have been cut. All of these matters are unrecorded. A knowledge of the method of manufacture would most certainly answer some of the questions which now vex us. The wood is so hard that only with difficulty can the sharpest, hardest steel pin be inserted in it without bending. Such wood is exceedingly heavy and must present various difficult problems to the workers before they have even reduced the material to a workable size. Since they do not hollow by burning the effort required to dig out the log to secure the proper shape must be tremendous. We do not even know whether this labor is an individual or communal affair. After the artist has secured a form to suit his taste he is not particularly limited by his technique as regards the designs he is obliged to use. He may choose geometric or representative patterns. Whichever he chooses he may use angles or curves, for his wood is so hard and the grain is so fine that he may etch it or carve in high or low relief as he will. Many of the bowls have a black surface with a very fine polish. Unfinished or broken bowls show that they are made of wood which varies from dull yellowish to dark reddish brown. The uniformity of the surface cannot be accounted for by burning through use. This surface black is a stain made from the same earth or clay1 which is used for staining the teeth. It is found on the islands Rook and Logaueng. In order to form a wood stain it is mixed with the juice from the root of a beach plant (Strandmandel). "The natives of Rook say that the volcanic mud which supplies this black earth is so strong that it eats the cocoanut vessels in which they gather it. From which fact a content of free sulphuric acid is to be suspected." 1 In some cases the incisions made by carving are filled with chalk which serves to outline the design. Other bowls are smeared — they can hardly be said to be painted — with red or with red and white. This paint probably 1

Neuhauss I, 825.

29

serves a purpose other than that of decoration, but the intention cannot of course be ascertained from museum material. Red paint is almost never confined to any particular design as if to emphasize or complete it, but is indiscriminately and carelessly smeared over all or part of the relief; sometimes it is found with white. From our point of view it detracts from, rather than adds to, the finish of the ornamentation. This type of painting is a characteristic of the Melanesian area, but in some cases it is an organic part of the design, as for example, on the carved openwork poles from New Ireland. FORM AND PROPORTION

Tami bowls have a characteristic shape. They are long and narrow with somewhat pointed ends. Fig. 13 shows the curve of rim

Pig. 13 and sides. Generally speaking the Tami bowls do not vary in curve as much as those from the Admiralty Islands. Most of them have a curved bottom, but one which is in every respect unique is flat (PI. xxvm). There is no need for flatness since the bowls stand on the ground which may be hollowed out to steady them. 2 2

Neuhauss I, Figs. »217, *219.

30

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

Some of the bowls which are otherwise technically excellent have a peculiar twist to the rim (Pl. XXXIII ; XLV, 120, 122). This twist is due no doubt to the grain of the wood. It may, however, be due to carelessness in hollowing but since the bowls seem not to be stretched by steaming — there is no record of steaming, nor do the bowls have the grace which comes with artificial spreading — it does not seem likely. Since it is known that measures are used in the South Sea area we might infer that they are in use among the Tami also. I am inclined to suspect rather special measures. However, from our knowledge of other areas it is not necessary that objects be made according to a standard measure. 1 The worker has a feeling for his own proportions and may achieve them unconsciously, or he may use the common measurements of fathom, ell, or finger which will vary with each individual. Only the most general information is available about the Tami. The measures from fingertip to wrist, from fingertip to elbow, from fingertip to shoulder, and from fingertip to opposite shoulder are in general use in the area.2 In the Carolines lines are used to measure canoes and canoe parts. One such line is in the Hamburg Museum. Codrington3 mentions also a line to measure large things in the New Hebrides. But just because measures are used in some parts of Melanesia is no proof that the Tami have them. Burning wood to hollow it out is known to other tribes (for instance the Admiralty Islanders) and we should expect the Tami to use it also, but they do not. The measurements of two hundred fifty-six Tami bowls and their relative proportions are given in the following tables in centimeters. Four measurements were taken, length of rim from tip to tip, width from the outside edge of the broadest part of the rim to the outside of the opposite side, and the height of two sides. Only one height is here given. The difference between the two was so slight as to justify an average. 1 2 3

Haeberlin, RBAE 41: 212—223. Neuhauss I, 370. p. 319.

Museum numbers Me 12022 D 16813 Κ 27280 Η 1650 Η 12.135:285 Η 15431 Be VI 16989 Κ 22564 Be VI31564 S L1245/J.N. 99 FM 147250 FM 141398 Β R7 FM 107199 FM 138303 FM 146285 FM 138399 H 514:08 FM 146019 L SKI58 L 1934 Κ 22563 FM 137859 L 7503 FM 138401 FM 147267 H 918 FM 146287 FM 144076 H 26.46 :1 Me 12023 D 12061 D 16809 FM 137335 FM 146063 D 16810 FM 147272 FM 147270 Κ 25610 Κ 6932 H 8390 Be VII 8394 FM 138408 Β D1660 Be VI22312 Be VI24793 S 62823 D 16793 Β D1658 S 3039 (2623) FM 147251 FM 146206 FM 144078 FM 146207 FM 144080

Β R6

FM 147271

124 113 112 104 103 101 101 99 96 95 95 95 94 94 93.5 93 92 92 91.5 91 91 91 91 91 90 90 89 89 89 88.5 88.5

87.5 87 87 87 86.5 85 85 85 84.5 84 84 83.5 83.5 83 82.5 82 82 82 81.5 81 81 81 80.5

W

H

L :W

55 47.5 43 37.5 42 35 36 36 32 34 38 36 42 34.5 40.5 35.5 37.5 34 37 36 34.5 36.5 37 37.5 33.5 34 31 33.5 33 31.5 40 33.5 34 32.5 33.5 30 32 31 35 33 32.5 32 29.5 34 31.5 32 35.5 30 28 29.5 32 35 35.5 32.5 35.5 30.5 29.5

30 29 26 23.5 21.5 25 23.5 21.5 27.5 23 21 16.5 20 23.5 21 21 18.5 15.5

2.2 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.4

17 20.5 20.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 18 17.5 19 19 18 19 21 20 16.5 15.5 18 15.5 20 17 18.5 13.5 18.2 19.5 18 15.7 17 17 19.5 15 16.5 17.0 17 20.5 18 18 17.5 16 14.5

2.8 2.8 2.8

3.0 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.6

2.4 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.6

2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6

2.7 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.8

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.7

CAEYED WOODEN BOWLS Museum numbers Be R2 Be VI24794 D 16796 D 16811 FM 144082 FM 146392 FM 147210 Β 2261 Η 3498 FM 146286 S 71027 FM 107200 FM 145954 Be VI22314 FM 138398 S L1482/261 D 16794 FM 138402 FM 144077 Be VI29547 Be VI22313 Be VI22084 FM 146209 H 3441 1 H 3479 IAE VIII F n.s.1591 Κ 6927 Be VI10225 Be V17400 FM 144081 FM 138407 FM 146208 Κ 6931 Κ 27279 FM 138372 Be VI9435C Be VI24795 Κ 13549 Η 14.2:32 Me 389 Β D1659 FM 146204 Be VI26003 Η 83301 S 63039 D 16800 FM 144090 S 29275 D 6265 FM 146205 L SK159 S 62824 Me 499 FM 137862 H 35151 Κ 6915

L

W

H

80 80 80 79 79 79 79 79 78 77.5 77 77 77 77 76.5 75.5 75 75 75 75 75 75 74.5 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 73.5 73 73 73 73 73 71· 71 71 70.5 70.5 70.5 70 70 70 70 69 69 69 68 68 68 68 67 67

29.7 33 26.5 27 27 30.5 30.5 24.5 29.5 29 31 28 32.5 28 29 25.0 24 29 34 25.5 23.5 29 29 27.5 26.5 28.5 28 30 26 27.5 31.5 29.5 31.5 31.5 30 31 27 27.5 29.5 26.5 26 23.5 26.5 28 27.5 28 26 27 28 24.5 25 26 27.5 25 25 23.5 24

18 17.5 15.5 12.5 15 19.5 14 14 16.7 16.5 15.5 12 16 14 16.5 10.5 13 15.5 16.5 17 18 16 15 17.2 15.5 13.5 13.2 15.7 15.5 17 15 11.5 16 16 17.5 18.5 14.5 13.'5 13.5 12 12 14.7 15 14 12.2 13.7 14.5 10.5 16.2 18 13.5 16.5 11.7 14 12 14 10.5

L : W L :H W : H 2.6 2.4 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.5 3.2 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.6 3.0 3.1 2.5 2.2 2.9 3.1 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.1 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7

4.4 4.5 5.1 6.3 5.2 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 6.4 4.8 5.5 4.6 7.1 5.7 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.1 4.6 4.9 4.2 4.7 5.4 5.5 4.7 4.7 4.3 4.9 6.4 4.5 4.5 4.1 3.9 5.0 5.4 5.2 5.9 5.9 4.7 4.7 5.0 5.7 5.0 4.8 6.6 4.2 3.8 5.1 4.1 5.7 4.8 5.6 4.7 6.3

1.6 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.8 1.5 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.3 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.7 2.5 1.7 1.3 1.8 1.5 2.3 1.7 2.0 1.6 2.2

Museum numbers F n.s.1589 H 8402 H 1451 1 FM 144083 Be VI9390 IAE V I I I FM 138404 Be VI22083 Be VI9435g FM 147209 Me 7050 FM 138371 D 16797 H 8662 1 S 71014 D 16798 D 16799 FM 138405 Be VI9535Í Be VI24025 Be VI26001 Be VI24052 Be VI22243 FM 138406 H 14451 S 65073 S 83943 Me 8894 FM 145953 Be V126536 Be VI9341 H 3412 1 Κ 6919 Me 9636 Be VI24051 Me 8085 FM 107201 H 3664 1 L 26.14:3 Κ 20758 Κ 13550 Me 12024 Me 12982 FM 138451 FM 144084 L 7512 Κ 6920 FM 146419 S 82825 FM 144086 FM 146202 FM 144046 FM 144085 FM 144047 S IC6290 Β D2538 S 91427

31 L

W

67 67 67 67 67 66.5 66 66 65.5 65.5 65 65 64.5 64.5 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 63 62 62 62 62 62 61.5 61 61 61 61 60.5 60 59 58 58 58 58 58 58 57.5 57 57 57 56.5 56.5 56.5 56.5 56.5 56 56 56 55

26 25 23 25 23.5 24.5 31 24 23 25 24 27 23.5 24.5 23 24 21.5 25.5 23 22.5 23 21 20 25 32 21.5 19 23 23.5 23 20 19 25 21 24 22 22 21 21.5 19 21.5 22 23 21 24 20.5 20 21 21 23 20 25 23 20 20 20.5 23.5

H 14 12.7 13.5 12 14 12 17 12 14 10.5 13 15 14 11.7 11 11 13 12 12 12.5 12 10 14 14.5 14 13.7 8.7 8.5 11 10 12 13 13.2 12 11 10.5 13 10.5 9.0 14.5 11 11 10.5 11.5 12.5 9 11 9 10.7 12 10.5 9 11 10 9.5 9.5 12

L : W L :H W : H 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.1 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.0 3.1 2.5 1.9 2.8 3.2 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.0 3.2 2.4 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.3

4.2 5.2 4.9 5.5 4.7 5.5 3.8 5.5 4.6 6.2 5.0 4.3 4.6 5.4 5.9 5.8 4.9 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.3 6.3 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.5 7.0 7.2 5.6 6.2 5.1 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.5 5.7 4.6 5.6 6.4 4.0 5.2 5.2 5.5 5.0 4.6 6.3 5.1 6.3 5.2 4.7 5.3 6.2 5.1 5.6 5.8 5.8 4.5

1.8 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.6 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.6 2.8 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.4 1.7 2.2 1.5 2.1 2.7 2.1 2.3 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.6 2.0 2.4 1.3 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.8 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.9

82

MELANE SI AN DESIGN Museum numbers

Be VI24026 D 16795 Be VI26537 FM 147208 H 3956 FM 147151 FM 146201 L 5690 Κ 98 Me 390 D 16806 FM 147269 Η 39541 F n.s.l586 FM 144089 Β 216 Κ 91 D 6310 S 83942 Be VI9435b Be VI7446 Κ 6925 FM 138393 D 16808 FM 97769 S 90737 Be VII 3345 FM 147248 Β 523 H 8020 FM 147268 FM 107202 Β III 960 D 16805 L 5639 FM 147207 Be VI26002 S 83940 Be RI Β R2 D 16803 FM 138394 FM 138397 Be VI30936 F n.s.23357 FM 144088 Κ 6916 L 2866 Κ 6921 FM 144087 Me 392 Me 4792 S IC60698 Β 2/XI FM 145243 FM 147249 Κ 6917

L 55 55 55 54 54 54 53.5 53 53 53 53 53 52.5 52.5 52 51 51 51 50 50 49.5 49 49 48.5 48.5 48 48 47.5 47 46 46 46 45 45 44 43.5 43 42.5 42.5 42 41.5 41 41 41 40 40 39 38.5 38 38 37 37 36.5 36.5 36 36 35.5

W

H

19 11.5 17 12 21.5 10.5 23 12.5 21 10 23 9.5 9.5 21.5 19.5 8.5 21.5 11 17 9.5 21 11 18 9 7.0 15.5 16.0 9 9.5 20.5 19.5 11.2 19.5 10.2 19 7.5 16 9 12 19 18 11 18 9 9.5 16 9.5 19 11.5 20 8.2 18.5 •18.5 13.5 9.5 17 7.2 18 19 12 14.5 9 7.5 14.5 17.5 9 16 12 14 8 16 7 16 6 16 8 16.5 8 14 10 9.5 14 15 5.5 9.5 17.5 14 8 8.2 14.5 17.5 10.5 16 8 16.5 10.5 8.2 13 20 9 14 6.5 15 10 18 9 14 5.7 14.5 • 7 8 16.5 16 5.5

L:W L:H W:H 2.8 4.7 3.2 4.5 2.5 5.2 2.3 4.3 2.5 5.4 2.3 5.6 2.4 5.6 2.7 6.2 2.6 4.9 3.1 5.5 2.5 4.8 2.9 5.8 3.3 7.5 3.2 5.8 2.5 5.4 2.6 4.5 2.4 4.8 2.6 6.7 3.1 5.5 2.6 4.1 2.7 4.5 2.7 5.4 3.0 5.1 2.5 5.1 2.4 4.2 2.5 5.8 2.5 3.5 2.8 5.0 2.6 6.4 2.4 3.8 3.1 5.1 3.1 6.1 2.5 5.0 2.8 3.7 3.1 5.5 2.7 6.2 2.6 7.1 2.6 5.3 2.5 5.3 3.0 4.2 2.9 4.3 2.7 7.4 2.3 4.3 2.9 5.1 2.7 4.8 2.2 3.8 2.4 4.8 2.3 3.6 2.9 4.6 1.9 4.2 2.6 5.6 2.4 3.7 2.0 4.0 2.6 6.3 2.4 5.1 2.1 4.5 2.2 6.4

1.6 1.4 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.1 1.7 1.9 2.5 1.7 1.5 1.6 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.7 2.2 1.3 1.7 2.8 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.4 2.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.1 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.9

Museum numbers Κ 6937 H 39701 S 91839 L 7382 D 16802 S 71026 Κ 6933 Κ 1704 Β R5 Κ 6918 Me 7815 Me 8895 F n.s.1583 Κ 6929 FM 97180 FM 36550 S 60699 Κ 1705 Me 11474 Κ 11488 Κ 20759 D 16804 Β R3 Β R4 Β II! Κ 16848 D 16812 S 63164

L

W

H

35.5 35 35 34.5 34.5 34 34 33.5 32.5 32 32 31 31 29.5 29 29 28.5 28 28 27.5 26.5 26.5 26 26 24 23.5 22 21.5

10.5 15 20 16.5 13 11 11 13 13.5 11.5 13.5 13 12 10.5 10.5 9 12.5 10 12.5 10 10 10 9.5 10 9 10.5 7 9.5

8 8.5 11 7 8 8 8.5 7.2 8.2 6.0 7.5 7.5 8 5.5 7.5 6 7 6 7.5 7 6.5 5 5.5 5.2 4 5.5 5 5

L:W L:H W:H 3.3 2.3 1.7 2.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.7 3.2 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.2 3.1 2.2

4.4 4.1 3.1 4.9 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.6 3.9 5.3 4.2 4.1 3.8 5.3 3.8 4.8 4.0 4.6 3.7 3.9 4.0 5.3 4.7 4.9 6.0 4.2 4.4 4.3

1.3 1.7 1.8 2.3 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.9

Tables i-in summarize the proportions, two of which show considerable uniformity. Of the total of 256,155 or 60 % have a variation in the length to width ratio of only .4 and if we include .2 more we account for 198, or 77 % of the total. The proportion of width to height is nearly as constant, for 185 bowls or 72 % fall within a range of .6 between 1.6 and 2.1. The range of the proportion L : H is much greater, 4.4. 180 or 70 % of the bowls fall within the range 4.2 —5.6. We should expect the greatest variation in this proportion because the comparison is between the greatest and the least dimensions. Another reason which might account for it is the apparsnt carelessness regarding the height. But the ratio W : H shows too much consistency to be accounted for by carelessness. The dimensions compared in this proportion are of course the least but even so the variety is slighter than that fact need account for. There is certainly a feeling for reasonably stable proportions of which the L : W ideal is 2.6, the W : H near 2.0

CAEYED WOODEN BOWLS L:W

11.

L:H

1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3

1 0 2 2 3 12 19

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

29 35 50 41 24 11 11 8 6 2

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1

1 0 0 0 2 1 3 6 4 9 8

4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

11 12 10 15 22 12 12 13 11 13 8 12 6 12 11

5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

5 6 4 1 1 6 6 5 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1

I.

2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3

39

155

62 256

III. W : H

1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1

1 1 7 11 16 32 30 34 30 38 21

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

13 8 4 3 1 3 2 1

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

34

36

185

Κ 91

256

180

Although grouping by means of relative size offers no results, groupings into schools or branches of schools, while not absolute, do nevertheless add evidence to that afforded by design of the validity of such groupings. The schools and their branches were determined from details of style, then the bowls which seemed to belong together were viewed as to proportions with the following results. School I, branch t (p. 70) : two bowls which are undoubtedly by the same artist show the proportions : No. of bowl L:H W:H L:W Pl. XXIX, 7 7

35

83

4.9 4.8

2.6 2.4

1.9 1.9

These proportions show that the maker has a tendency toward uniformity. None of the other groupings shows such regularity but they are given here to show inhowfar they are legitimate. School I, branch u (p. 70): No. of bowl Pl.

XXX,

80

Pl. XXXI, 8 3

PI. x x x n , 86 Pis. xxxni, 90 ; Lxxvm S 29275

L:W

L:H

W:H

2.4 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.4

5.7 4.8 4.7 4.2 4.2

2.3 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.7

L:W is remarkably constant and the variation of W:H, .6, is not great. School I, branch ν (p. 70) : No. of bowl PI. x x x i v , 91 PI. x x x i v , 92 S 71026 Β 2/χι Pl. XXXV Pl. XXXVI, 95

42 256

Pl. x x x i v , 93 Pl. χ χ χ ν π , 101

L:W

L:H

W:H

3.3 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3

7.5 5.5 4.2 6.3 5.0 4.9 4.5 4.5

2.2 1.7 1.3 2.4 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.9

School I, branch w (p. 71) : No. of bowl

L:W

L:H

W:H

and the L:H about 4.6. There is no striking P l . X X X V I I I , 1 0 4 1.6 2.8 4.6 correlation between the largest and smallest P i s . X X X I X , 1 0 9 ; L X X X I I I , 2 2 6 1.9 2.4 4.7 proportions of each series, with one exception. The bowls which have 7 or over as L:H have The proportions of the last four of branch also a L:W index of over 3. ν and the last of branch w are extremely The measurements have been listed accord- regular, average throughout, but the variing to the size of the bowls. The proportions ations in L:H and W:H of the rest are larger or smaller than the mean do not group greater. As is the case with the entire collecthemselves according to the size of the bowl. tion of bowls, L:H is most variable. 5

34

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

School I, branch χ No. of bowl Pl. XXXVI, Pl.

LXXII

PI.

LXXIII

Pl.

LXXXVII

94

(p.

School III (p. 73):

71):

L :W

L:H

W:H

No. of bowl

L:W

L:H

W:H

2.6 2.5 2.7 2.9

5.2 5.5 5.7 5.6

2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9

S L1482/261 H 3515 1

3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4

7.1 4.7 5.3 5.2 4.8 5.4 4.4 5.2

2.3 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.8 1.7 2.3

School II, branch m (p. 71) : No. of bowl PI. x x x m , 88 Β D2538 Pl. x x x i x , 107

P L XLVii,

129

PL XLVii,

130

Pl. XLviii,

L:W

L:H

W:H

2.7 2.7 2.5

6.3 5.8 5.8

2.2 2.1 2.2

128

PL XLVii,

PL

LXXIX

Κ 13549

132

The points to be noted in this group are the high ratio of S L1482/261 L : W and L : H The regularity of proportions of these bowls as compared with W:H; and the high ratio is unusual; especially noticeable is the uni- of Pl. XL vin, 132 W : H ; the rest are about formity of L : H, the figures being respresent- average. ative of the higher part of the L : H range, A somewhat general tendency is to combine School II, branch η (p. 72) : an average L : W with high L : H and W:H. It would be possible of course to group the W:H No. of bowl L:W L:H bowls in order of their proportions but the 2.8 5.1 PI. χ LI, 112 1.8 2.8 classification would not mean much because P l . XLII 5.8 2.0 PI. Χ L I U 2.8 4.0 1.4 of the variation. It seems wiser therefore to 2.7 PI. XLIV, 1 1 5 6.4 2.4 allow the criteria of ornamentation to deterPL x l v , 120 2.7 5.4 2.0 mine the categories and to use the proportions Pl. XXXI, 85 2.6 5.2 1.9 as an approximate check. It is quite probable Pl. x l v , 122 2.5 5.0 2.0 that mistakes have been made in certain cases 2.5 6.4 PI. Lviii, 171 2.5 in determining the schools but it is not likely All these proportions are quite uniform with that the proportions could correct these errors the exception of PI. XLIII which has an unusu- as they are far more variable than is the decoally (even for the entire collection) small L : H rative style within the groups themselves. and W : H. PI. XLIV, 115, which has a high L : H Bowl H 81071 is a scoop-shaped bowl (PI. index, has also a high W : H index. XXVIII) of light-colored wood. It is beautiSchool II, branch o (p. 72) : fully polished but not blackened. The technique is excellent. The artist who made this bowl L:H W:H No. of bowl L:W departed widely from Tami style not only in Η 8479 2.7 4.7 1.7 Β 523 2.6 6.4 2.8 decoration but also in the form and proportion PL x x x v i i i , 103 2.6 4.6 1.7 of his bowl and in doing so was highly sucL SKI59 2.5 4.1 1.5 cessful. 2.4 Η 26.46:1 4.6 1.6 PI. LXXXVI illustrates a square bowl which 2.8 P L XLVi, 1 2 6 5.6 2.0 is not uncommon but also not typical. It has This group shows remarkable uniformity a curved bottom and is carved in the shape with the exception of Β 523 whose L : H and of a bird. Other forms of a type not very common are W : H indices are both much higher than the others of the group. They compare with bird forms such as those illustrated in Pis. LI, PI. XLIV, 115 above which has a high W : H 140; Lxxvi, 219; L X X X I I ; LXXXV, 227, 228. corresponding to its high L : H. ORNAMENTATION School II, branch ρ (p. 72) : One finds among primitives as well as among No. of bowl L:H W:H L:W more sophisticated peoples objects depending Η 1650 2.8 4.4 1.4 for their beauty solely upon form and material. 2.6 5.0 P l . XLVi, 1 2 5 1.9 Alabaster vases from Greece or Egypt appeal 2.5 4.6 1.6 Pl. LUI, 143

CARVED W O O D E N BOWLS strongly to our modern consciously simplified taste. Bowls from the Admiralty Islands, even though the carving on the walls is crude, find favor in our sight because of the emphasis on form of bowl and handles. Perhaps the grace achieved in the form of the Admiralty Island bowl is due to artificial hollowing. Where the art of stretching wood is known, objects attain a beauty of form not found on purely natural forms. Wooden and horn objects from the Northwest Coast of America have, I think, much better forms than those from Africa where steaming is not used. I suggest hollowing by burning as a reason for the contrast in perfection of form between Admiralty Island and Tami bowl shapes. The beauty of the Tami bowls depends more forcibly, in my opinion, on their carved designs. The carving on the more typical Tami bowls is placed as follows: a small design on the bottom which may or may not be artistic; a design at the center of each side of the bowl which may be carried to the rim which is wider at the center of each side than elsewhere; designs at each end of each side of the bowl a few centimeters below the rim. On some of the bowls these designs are extended to cover half of the surface of the bowl in high relief. TRADEMARKS

AS

DECORATION

On the bottom of many of the bowls there are marks which may properly be called trademarks (Pis. XLIX; L). They will be referred to at greater length later where their function as identifying the makers is discussed. In this place they are mentioned only as decorative motives. They seem not generally to be considered ornamental, nevertheless on a few bowls they appear on the sides where other carvings are more usual. One ( K 16848) has the element of Pl. XLIX, m as a center design on either side and a small design approaching a band at either end. On another bowl, PL Lix, 183 (L 5639), there are pairs of element PI. XLIX, A which serve as center and side designs, except at one end where an end design is used. A third example (F. n. s.1589) somewhat resembles the second. An ordinary center design is used, but a group of three of 5*

35

the elements PI. XLIX, A is used on three ends, and the fourth has the element PL XLV, 121, c (as also on Be 34048, Be 24052, D6310, FM 97180, FM 147210). There are cases (Pl. XXXVIII, 106 and Β D2538) where the artist uses as decoration a trademark other than his o w n . P l . XXXVIII, 106 has t h e e l e m e n t P L XLIX,

a repeated twice on either side of the central pattern; the carver's trademark is PL XLIX, j. Β D2538 has the mark Pl. XLIX, m four times on each side of the center but the trademark is PL XLIX, g. Be 9435 c, also has a trademark different from the mark used on the side. The bowl illustrated in PL LXXX, 223 uses PL XLIX, K as a center element. It is really decorative and corresponds with the other designs of the bowl. On the bowl, Κ 6937, the same motive is a trademark. Of all the bowls in the collection only a few show an attempt at composition of trademarks to make a more complicated design, and all of these are very simple. The bowl Be 7400 has two of PL XLIX, A at the left of each center, and at the right a double trademark PL XLIX, /, the same as on the bottom, is used twice. FM 146419 is unique in respects other than that of decorative use of trademarks. On both sides of one center and at the left of the opposite center the trademark of the bowl, PL XLIX, a, is used twice. But at the right of the opposite side the design, PL XLIX, V, composed of trademarks is used. A simple combination of two trademarks, PL XLIX, a, both different from the owner's, is used at right and left center on each side. A very simple extension of the double circle trademark, PL XLIX, n, is suggested by the composition of FM 107202 where an approach to a simple medallion is evident as it is also on PL LI, 135. PL x x x v i i , 98 is the only real attempt to amalgamate the trademarks into a more typical Tami design, and at that is not particularly elaborate. Although generally these marks do not seem to be considered decorative a few artists like them. It is quite conceivable that a carver who made his mark nicely might have hit upon the idea of moving it up to the side of the

86

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

bowl and repeating it. It may be too that an artist admired a trademark which did not belong to him, enough to use it as an ornament. It is not likely that anyone not enjoying the right would use a trademark, but it is quite likely that the same formal element which is a trademark on the bottom of the bowl is not that if moved up to the side. Hence a man not possessing it as a trademark might nevertheless be entitled to use it as a design element. In reality, however, the question is not one of art, but of social organization, and will be referred to later as such. PL xLix, a-w, and PL L, α-e are variations of the most characteristic of all the Tami design elements. Pl. XLIX, k shows a combination of the trademark characteristic of PL XLIX, α-e, and an ornamental detail used on PL XLIX, p, t, u, v. The whole effect of this trademark recalls the style of the Massim District. DESIGN

ELEMENTS

It is an ethnological commonplace that primitive artists rarely decorate two objects exactly alike. The truism holds for Tami as well as elsewhere. As is frequently the case, the number of design elements is relatively small, the variations being secured by the combination or modification of the elements, in other words, by the composition. The most characteristic of all the Tami elements, one which almost stamps the art style, is that shown with its divergencies in Pl. LU, a-u. The variations in this small but effective design are interesting and may be seen better than described. The element will be referred to with the figure number throughout this paper. Preuss1 treats this and related designs which I do not include here as a bird's head. His illustration, Fig. *56, is slightly convincing, but not more than slightly, since the designs are not really the same. Doubt is turned to assurance when we turn to Lehner's evidence.2 He, after long and conscientious attempts to secure interpretations from the natives, records his failure. The design here discussed is thought of — or perhaps only named — as a maggot or a scar. ' Z . f. E. 29 (1897): 116—120.

While deploring the subjective interpretation of the investigator who has an ardent desire to find origins I shall give one more example from Lehner to show how greatly a student of museum material may err. Lehner's Pig. *16 which is almost identical with Preuss, Fig. *148, is said to be the eyelash or eyelid of the fruit of the "kabo-tree". This design represents a phase of the "balum" or circumcision ceremony which has to do with magical technique. Preuss interprets the design as the top part of the bird head. I might consistently proceed to reduce many interpretations ad absurdum but enough has been said to justify my giving numbers to design elements rather than names which at best may be highly misleading. In cases where elements or designs are more conventionalized 1 have tried to use names which are not interpretative. The grace of the elements of PL LII is their most noticeable feature. They add charm to almost every design of which they are a part and that charm is constantly enhanced by variety. PL LII, d and h are a bit awkward because they are so stubby. The mere elongation of the point as in Pl. LII, a or the change of proportion with addition of rectangular elements or teeth as in PL LII, /, g and i, and more elaborately, giving the figure two points with intervening curving lines, as in PL LII, o, are most effective devices. Other means of changing the effect will be seen as we study the composition. They include the angle at which this element is turned ; its doubling — either facing, or back to back; and a more subtle reversing of the element in negative relief. Elements used in End Patterns The designs used at the ends of each side of the Tami bowls have been named "lizard" or "crocodile". There are grounds for using these names since some of the designs are realistic though stylized. For this reason I may adopt one of the terms, say crocodile, for the sake of convenience. In describing the elements of which they are composed I shall refer to them 2

Neuhauss III, 412; Pigs. *6, »11.

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS as head, body, and tail, although in many cases body and tail appear to be one, since the pattern consists of only two of the elements.

87

ingly related to technique which shows how one type of design may grow out of another very different one. I refer to the fact that in Pis. x x x i n , 88, d; LIII, 141—143, 145 this element is formed of curved lines whereas Heads Pis. XLIII, a; LIV, 148, 149; LV, 156, 157 have I shall first discuss the treatment of the right lines in the same place. The effect is "head" which has been designated by χ in the quite different, one type using semi-circular tracings Pis. LIV, 148—158; LV, 154—157. and circular bands in the same place where After the above plates have been exam- the other uses straight lines in the form of a ined there will be no difficulty in finding the cross and fills the space with triangles. A "heads" of Pis. xxxi, 83, e, f , 84; x x x i n , glance at the various patterns shows how 88, c, d, 89, /, 90, d; x x x i x , 109, d; XLIII, a; closely the two types are related. A slip of the Lvii, 168, d, 169, c. Half of an ellipse is marked knife may make a curve where the artist off and boldly outlined with a row of character- intends a straight line. PI. LIII, 146 shows istically long and acute-angled teeth which are curved lines for one half and right lines for the Tami's favorite type. Next a band and then the other half of this element. But it occurs crossed lines or the use of curved lines very on a bowl which is not very well-done, whereas closely approaching the St. Andrew's cross are PI. LV, 154—157 are all found on the same used. At the edge are one or more triangles well-made bowl. Two of the elements on one with curved sides which characterize this side show curved, two on the opposite side, particular type of head. Variation is secured in right lines. In addition to the paired elements every one of these features by different means. is the use of curved lines to fill the point of the In PI. LIII, 141 the artist was evidently not able first pair and the use of a heavier and someto adjust the zigzags to the curved edge and what — but not altogether — right-lined the line of zigzags is unskilfully broken. The motive for the same point of the second pair. carving on this bowl is generally not well-done. From the treatment of these elements as well It is certain from the other examples that as from the variations of other themes it is the line of zigzags should be broken, even so evident that the Tami carver uses curved as crude a one as Pl. LUI, 145 showing two frequently as straight lines, and that he has trapezoidal instead of triangular units at the no preference for either. That he is conscious center. Pl. LUI, 144 has four of these units, to some extent of the use of one sort or other Pl. LUI, 142 has one. Pl. LUI, 143 shows the when his carving is at its best is shown by the teeth spread so as to accommodate a trapezoi- way elements of a pattern correspond. Other dal unit. In Pis. x x x i n , 88, c; XLIII, a ; LIV, examples of this notion are the triangles at 150; LV, 154—157 the toothed line is inter- the back edge of the head whose sides are more rupted. A long narrow wedge fills the space in often curvilinear than straight and the fillers PI. LIV, 150, a sharp-angled triangle with outline of the space left open by the row of teeth fills it in PI. XLIII, a, and in PI. LV, 154—157 which may be right or curved (Pis. LIII, 145 ; there are curves of decreasing size reminiscent LIV, 148). of the art of the Massim District. PL LIV, 148, A bowl whose patterns are depicted in 149 show oblong elements containing a circle PI. LIV, 150, 151 presents peculiar characfilling the space. The most successful of all teristics in the entire treatment, but especially the varieties of this particular feature are PI. in the treatment of the head. The design of PI. LV, 154—157, all of which are found on the LIV, 150 is usual as far as the band behind the same bowl which is very well-made. zigzag. There it begins to change in an unusual It is impossible to point out every detailed way. Traces of the cross can be seen but by the difference in all the illustrations but in the simple device of not including one arm of the element next the smooth line behind the cross and of extending one arm around in an narrow row of zigzags there is a point interest- irregular fashion an effect is achieved which

38

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

reminds one very strongly of the irregular but beautifully balanced treatment of the Massim District. The unit χ is then further elaborated into unit x' by means of curved bands, curved rows of zigzags and the use of flat ellipses. In this portion of the design, x', the curved triangles are used as negative relief. On the opposite side of the bowl, the same artist gave further vent to his urge for originality as shown in PI. LIV, 151. Here he used sweeping, gracefully curved, indescribable lines and achieved a design far removed from the orthodox Tami end designs, but even so including, many of the typical features. The treatment of the center element, for example, is more nearly ordinary than is PI. LIV, 150 but the skilful combination of curve and straight line savors a bit of the style farther south. Just in front of the usual triangles on one side he carved what look like feet or claws and on the other side abortions of the same pattern. The heads here described are characterized by a smooth elliptical bounding line and by one or more curved triangles on either side. The heads of the next category are elaborations and modifications of the same motive. The category includes Pis. xxxi, 84; xxxni, 90, D; LIV, 152 and LVIII, 172. The front of PI. xxxni, 90, d is the usual toothed ellipse and the element behind is also typical of the heads described above. But instead of the curved triangles there is here a rounded element which might well be an outgrowth of the placing of two such triangles as are found in Pl. LUI, 143 back Fig. 14 to back and binding them in. Fig. 14 shows how a, the characteristic feature of this class of heads, is changed by the mere etching of a small connecting line indicated in b. By such simple means the entire effect may be changed. PI. xxxni, 90, d is further elaborated in an unusual manner and the element Fig. 14, b is repeated. This elaboration belongs rather to the subject of composition and will be discussed later. The type of head elaboration — and here we may see the folly of using the term "head"

m

— I am now describing shows a transition between the simplest type previously mentioned and the one following. In Pis. xxxi, 84; LIV, 152; LVIII, 172 there is a decided variation of the elliptical zigzag treatment. The zigzags remain but they (particularly PI. LIV, 152) are arranged around an element that resembles those of Pl. LII. Pis. xxxi, 84 and LVIII, 172 show rows of the little element of Fig. 14, a but element Fig. 14, b is also used. The last category of "head" designs includes Pis. xxix, 76, e ; xxxi, 83, e, /; xxxni, 88, c, 8 9 , / ; LUI, 1 4 7 ; LVI, 1 6 6 , 1 6 7 ; LVII, 1 6 8 ,

d,

169, c, but since all of the new effects are achieved by combining elements already described the discussion will be resumed under the subject of composition. Bodies The body designs are presented as briefly as possible. A list of their characteristics together with the illustrations will be sufficient. Pis. xxxi, 85, c; XLV, 120, c, 122, d; LVIII, 170, 171 ; LIX, 174—178, 180, 182, c, d show the end design reduced to a body with rare and vestigial (or newly developed?) evidences of head and in a few cases evidence of tail. Body designs are elongated tapering forms consisting of from one to nine lines or masses. The simplest of them all is the smooth body consisting of one mass in rather high relief (Pl. LUI, 145), or of a central mass surrounded by one or more lines (Pis. LVII, 168, d, 169, c; LIX, 174,180). PI.LIX,

183, c possibly belongs here although it approaches also the hollow type. Fig. 15 Another treatment of the body is wavy, either plain as in Pis. xxxni, 90, d; LIV, 152; LVIII, 172, or outlined by a line broken up by blunt teeth etched on the bowl surface (PI. LIV, 150,151). Quite as simple as the smooth body is the hollow one shown by Pis. xxix, 76, e; xxxni, 88, c, d; LUI, 141, 146; LIV, 149. This kind of body always ends in a tail of type PI. LII, or Fig. 15. The. smooth mass may be cut into vertically

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS so that rectangles result (Pis. xxxi, 85, c; Liv, 148,153; Lix, 175—177). The smooth center may be further elaborated by cutting out curved lines or circles; hollow circles, ellipses or hollow ellipses fill the center space as in Pis. LV, 157 ; LIX, 177. The centers may have toothed elements although they are somewhat rare (Pis. LVI, 167; LIX, 178). One of the most interesting elements of the entire Melanesian area, because of its distribution and the difference in its treatment, is the "ribbon" design of Pis. xxxi, 83, /; LIII, 142, 143; LV, 155, 156. PI. LVI, 167 is a good illustration of a way in which this design may be gracefully used to fill smaller spaces. Note the abbreviation of the element in the center and the taking up of it again at each end after the sharp teeth have been used. The ribbon of PI. LIII, 142, which occurs on a bowl of good enough technique, is nevertheless awkward and ungraceful. If contrasted with PI. xxxi, 83, e or /, both of which are carved on the same bowl, the reason is apparent. The teeth which form PI. LIII, 142 are too wide and too close together. Furthermore, they do not cut into the center deeply enough, some are blunted. All these technical shortcomings keep the ribbon from "running" in a graceful fashion. PI. LX, 191 shows an unusual motive composed of the ribbon element and masses. It is the only example of its kind and is not quite appropriate for it seems as if it ought to be part of a larger, more extensive design. It may have been suggested by the unusual treatment of the bottom of the same bowl. The entire composition of this bowl which is well-done is original. I shall return to this subject later in order to make some more general observations on the technical development of the design, on its wider distribution, and on the influence of motor habits (p. 127). The remaining element to be discussed is used only in combination with other elements. It is one composed of two sharply acute angles which may touch each other forming a solid design as in Pis. XLV, 120, c, 122, d; LV, 155, 1

If the rim designs are the same on both sides only one is shown, but if they are different the pair is shown in PI. L X I I .

39

156, or may be placed independently as in PI. LV, 154, 155. Two of these elements touching each other form the Y- element of PI. LV, 155. Tails The only two elements which are found in the position of "tails" have already been described. The hollow bodies end with one element of PI. LII, usually a very simple form. (See Pis. xxix, 76; xxxin, 88, c, d; LIII, 141; LIV, 149.) The second tail element is composed of two of the curvilinear triangles mentioned on page 38 as characteristic of one type of head. These triangles may remain independent as in Pis. LVI, 166; LIX, 175, or they may be placed base to base in juxtaposition in which case a fan-shaped "tail" results as in Pis. XLV, 120, c; LIII, 146; LIX, 175. Once more what appears to be a new design element is really merely a repetition and adaptation of a simple form already frequently used. Thus it happens that, as with "head" elements, so also by means of a slight twist of the "tail" design, an entirely different effect may be achieved. The peculiarities of PI. LIX, 179 and 181 are due to composition and no new element enters in. The designs of Pis. XXXI, 83, c; xxxvn, 99; XXXIX, 1 0 7 , E, d;

XLV, 1 2 1 , C; LI, 1 3 9 , C; LXI,

193, d form end pieces of unusual types. As they present no new elements their analysis belongs more properly to the subject of composition. Elements used in Center Patterns

The Tami bowls have a pattern carved in higher or lower relief, frequently in as many as five planes, at the center of each long side. The usual plan is to etch a part of the design on the bowl surface some inches below the rim. The design is built up from there in increasingly higher relief until it reaches the rim. This particular part of the rim is widened to accommodate a pattern which, I am convinced, is thought of as a definite part of the central side design by the artist. PI. LXII shows the rim designs.1 It is not at all unusual

40

M E L A N E S I A N DESIGN

to find the rim ornaments of the same bowl different. Only bowls of the finest technique have these patterns directly opposite. The manipulation shows that the artist meant them to be at the center, but if one is a centimeter or so either side it does not annoy him. Since the carving becomes higher as it approaches the rim it has been impossible in some cases to represent the upper part of the carving in the rubbings; it is shown in the photographs. The rim patterns show in no case new elements, that is, elements which have not already been described as being used for end designs. Since the rim extensions are on a different plane from the rest of the design, they are illustrated independently. I wish to emphasize the fact that they give a somewhat false impression since they should be continuous with the rest of the design. In only two or three cases, and those where the style is unusual, is the central figure placed on the bowl so far beneath the rim as not to be continuous with it. Only those design elements of the center patterns which differ from those used in end designs are mentioned here. Several terms which will be frequently used from now on have been abbreviated as follows : u. c. upper center 1. c. lower center c. e. center end Central designs must be analyzed into at least these parts for the purpose of description. Upper centers The upper central design occupies a broad space, frequently with a centralizing unit of design, which tapers to a point on either side. The treatment of this space may be very plain, only a line being carved out as in Pis. XXXIX, 108 and LXI, 192, b which are very crude, or inLxvi, 199 which is well-done. The center may have the same type of carving which secures its effect by repetition of lines as in PI. XLVI, 125. Or the same devices familiar in end designs may be used, that is, the carved out space is cut up into rectangles and left

with tapering ends as in PL LXI, 192, a, 194, a. Instead of cutting the relief portion clear through it may be zigzagged and a ribbon results as in PL LX, 188, or interest may be centered more on the outside of the space which has the toothed design of PL XLVI, 127. By far the greatest number of u. c. designs have a center around which the other elements we already know are placed. A favorite center is the cross with triangular filling of the spaces. Pis. XXIX, 77, a and x x x v m , 106 show it in its representative angular form and Pis. x x x n i , 88, a ; x x x i x , 107, a ; LXIII, a show the tendency to use curves for the same design. The element is the same as that in end designs. The greatest favorites which fill the upper central space are the circle, lozenge, or ellipsoid with radiating variations. Pis. x x x v i , 95, a; XXXVIII, 106 show concentric circles with simple tapering ends. P i s . LVII, 168, b;

LX, 1 8 4 ; LXIV, a s h o w

con-

centric circles with rows of semi-circles of lessening diameter in close proximity, a very effective treatment. Instead of the circular center, Pl. LX, 185 has two short ribbons lying back to back as the unifying center element. In my opinion the lozenge in the same position belongs to the same category as the circle, for the ends radiating from it are treated in much the same way. Pis. x x x i , 88, a,

85, a;

xxxviii,

1 0 3 ; XLIV, 1 1 7 ; LXIV

are examples of a lozenge used as a center with ends described before. An element which differs in effect from the lozenge is the ellipse which is centered horizontally as in Pis. x x x i n , 89, b ; x x x v i , 95, a. The ends of all these u. c. are very similar to the bodies of the end patterns previously described. PL XLIV, 116 is the only one in my collection with the center of the u. c. design expanded into a more elaborate design consisting of several rows of teeth. I t resembles more closely a 1. c. in this respect. PL LVII, 168, a and 168, b are on the same

bowl and introduce a feature very unusual in Tami bowl carving, namely the hatched motive. In u. c. of PL LVII, 168, a the center is run into a high point and filled with hatching and the same idea is carried out in filling in the space toward the ends. Hatching is used sparingly also in Pl. LXVI, 201, b.

C A E Y E D W O O D E N BOWLS On a number of bowls the center circular element is doubled so as to create an effect much like an eye motive. The whole treatment of the two circles with their adjacent parts as i n P i s . XLIV, 118, 119 a n d LVI, 164 r e m i n d s

one of a human face. PI. LVI, 164 and 165 belong more properly perhaps to the category of face patterns to be described later (p. 57). The central element of the u. c. design of Pl. XXXII, 86, a, b must be especially noted. It consists of two gracefully branched curved designs which are indescribable. In their grace of line, accompanying semi-circular elements, skill of execution, as well as the impossibility of description, they are similar to elements from the Massim District. PI. x x x , 78, 79 is to be favorably compared with PI. x x x v i , 94. Lower centers Generally speaking these parts of the design fall into two groups, those having a fan-shaped effect and those more rounded and compact, frequently broader from top to bottom and almost always finished with elements of PI. LII. Pis. xxxiii, 88, a, 89, a, b; x x x v n i , 106; XXXIX, 107, a; XLIV, 115, 116, 1 1 8 ; XLVI, 124,

125; Lx, 184, 185, 189; LXI, 192, b, 194, a; LXIII, a, with fan-shaped center, show nothing elemental which has not been encountered before. The 1. c. consists of an outer row of teeth. Within the frame thus made are combinations of ellipses, circles, semi-circles, rectangles or trapezoids, straight lines, triangles, ribbons, the cross element with triangles, all customary elements. The differences in effect are secured by variations in combination. The maker of bowl PI. XLIV, 118, 119 tried several types of c. e. as well as of 1. c. at the same time consistently using the same u. c. One of his 1. c. is of the ordinary fan-shaped type whereas the other is divided into two unusual, somewhat rectangular, spaces which, however, are treated in the conventional way with teeth, lines, and triangles. The second group of 1. c. contains much more graceful patterns although essentially they may be looked at as elaborations of the preceding, attaining their effect through difference of proportion, and by the addition of 6

41

familiar elements. The first group is characterized by width of designs and points. The second gives an impression of roundness and depth of spacing. In no case are the elements new, but in two cases, Pis. xxxii, 86, a, b, and Lvii, 168, b, the treatment is unusual, not more so, however, than it was for the u. c. with which they show considerable unity. Several 1. c. show a transition between the definite types of the two groups just described. PI. Lxv, 196 is merely the fan-shaped pattern with its customary proportions, to the edge of which several etched points and two elements of PI. LII type have been added. PI. LX, 189 shows an addition of PI. LII elements and ribbons to the fan-shaped 1. c. On the opposite side of this bowl the fan-shaped 1. c. alone is used. PL XXXIX, 108 is exceedingly crude but shows the difference in the proportion of the space covered and the use of a smooth round frame. Instead of by an unbroken bounding line, PI. LI, 139, a is elaborated by the use of points, a device which is not rare, but which is often combined with the use of elements of PI. LII. InPl.LVI, 164 andl65 thel. c. space has been rounded and elongated. The difference between this type of pattern and the 1. c. just described is slight — the ellipse is closed and continuous instead of flattened where it meets the u. c. — but because of its relationship to the face designs referred to on p. 57,1 have named it a "mouth" element. PL LXVII, 202, b, 208, a are examples of these elements and in most cases have no apparent representative significance. In PL LXXIV, 212, a the "eyes" of the "face" are PL LII elements. PL LXVII, 202, b is an especially good example of the absurdity of using representative names since the so-called "mouth" design may here be looked at as a " b o d y " which has a "head" and two "tails". No design better illustrates the inconsistencies into which classification and interpretation may lead. P i s . LXVII, 202, a,

b; LXVIII, 202 c, d,

all

on the same bowl, show an element, PL LII, t and u, which may be related to the other elements of PL LII, but which has been greatly modified. PL LV, 161, a and b uses an element somewhat related but running more accurately

M E L A N E SI A N D E S I G N

42

into a coil. The use of a coil or a trae spiral is rare in Tami art. Two unusual designs, Pis. xxxvii, 101 ; LXIX, 205, a, show a wide departure from Tami art tradition. The former is a central design which has no new elements but is distinctive because of the peculiar combination of the well-known elements and for the utilization of mass instead of line. PI. LXIX, 205, a represents a new element which is found nowhere else on the bowls or other carved objects I have observed and has no apparent relation to the other elements here discussed. The bowl upon which this design is carved is unique. Nevertheless, it has earmarks which stamp it as Tami without the least doubt. PL Lxxi, 208, the only example of its kind in the entire collection, has a toothed motive, in itself very common, curved so as to form what might suggest a leaf motive. The simple use of the curve sets this element off from the others described. The outstanding characteristic of the Tami designs, whether at ends or center, is the fact that very few elements are employed to achieve them. Circles, ellipses, rectangles, zigzags, figures of PL Lii, lines—right or curved — lozenges are the rule. In several cases hatching is used. The paucity of elements used may be a universal trait of primitive art for it is found in many areas as well as in those discussed in this paper. The elements which are favorites have been chosen perhaps in some such unconscious manner as the limited sounds or categories of a language, and we may never be able to give the real reason for the ultimate choice.

COMPOSITION

In discussing the elements which go to make up the Tami patterns I have frequently mentioned the fact that one point or another had to do with composition rather than with single elements. With respect to the Tami bowls the question of composition is twofold: 1st, how are the elements combined to form end and center designs ? and 2nd, how are these designs in their turn combined to decorate the bowl ? Finally there is the question whether or not

the composition of various bowls having similar trademarks shows sufficient uniformity to allow any conclusions as to the style of individual artists and their motives. Before taking up these questions a word should be said about the laying out of the fields. The Tami bowl presents a large surface which might be decorated. One of the outstanding features of the treatment of this surface is the large amount of unfilled space. Group I. Most of the bowls have a relatively small portion of the surface ornamented. That small part includes a portion in the center of each side and a part of each end. Pis. x x x v i ; XLV ; LVII show the relative position of these designs. Group I I . A few of the artists have allowed the designs to form a continuous pattern so that banding results. In these cases — and they represent the best — the bowl has a continuous decoration several inches wide around the rim with the rest of the space left plain ( P i s . x x x i v , 92, 9 3 ; XLII).

Group I I I . Another group of bowls — these with few exceptions technically excellent — shows an extension of the end designs to form a kind of banding which is carried farther down on the bowl wall and in some cases the two ends of either side are connected (Pis. XXXII, 86; LXVI, 199—201). The bowls in this group give the appearance of a more fully covered surface but actually much of the space is unornamented. Group I Y . The last group contains several bowls whose carvings have no close relationship to those previously described. The center, and sometimes the end designs, are present but the decoration of the surface is laid out on entirely different lines. The main unit of ornamentation is a face at the end done in high relief. From the face toward the center of the bottom extend designs usually tripartite, one on each side and one in the middle. The middle one ends at the center of the bottom in a carving which resembles a fishtail (Pis. x x x i x , 1 0 9 ; XLIII; LXIII; LXIV; LXIX; LXX; LXXI, 210),

or extends in a continuous design constricted at the center of the bottom and extending to the opposite end where it may end in another face in high relief. The side portions of the

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS tripartite design take the place of, but do not necessarily resemble, the end designs previously discussed. There is a great difference in the way the surface of the Groups I — I I I and that of Group I V is viewed. The first three are undoubtedly looked at as they appear when standing on the ground and the decoration is arranged from this point of view. But in the fourth group the surface is treated from the viewpoint of the bowl lying on its rim and seen from either end. This fact does not rule out the use of ornamentation seen from the broad side when the bowl is standing but is in some cases a combination of the two views. The first three groups may, with few exceptions, be said to be technically more advanced the greater the amount of decoration. Such is often the case with other art styles.1 But exuberance of decoration in the last group does not necessarily mean greater virtuosity. Relief carving is well done but never attains such excellence of finish as is shown for instance in Pis. XXXII, 86 and xxxiv, 93, although PI. Lxx, 204 is exceptionally well-done. I t cannot therefore be said to represent the highest attainment which comes with skill and experience. These bowls are ceremonial and represent an entirely different phase of Tami art for they are closely related to religion (see p. 56). The other carvings seem to serve none but an aesthetic purpose. It is not unusual to find sketchy work in the artistic manifestations of a religious idea, the idea seemingly being more important, than the technique used in carrying it out. The details of composition on these bowls will be discussed in the following order : A. Composition of end designs B. Composition of end designs approaching banding C. Composition of center designs D. Composition of banded designs E. Composition of more realistic designs: 1. in low relief 2. in high relief 3. in use of bowl form F. Unification of designs in A, B, C, E 1

Boas, Primitive Art, 281ff.

6*

48

G. Habits of artists as evidenced by choice and composition of elements, virtuosity, and trademarks. A. Composition of end designs The heads of end designs are marked χ in the illustrations referred to. They are based primarily on a cross element which may be carved in straight or curved lines. In front of the cross element, which has variations best shown by the rubbings, are curved lines and bounding the whole is a toothed element, usually broken in the center where the space is filled with wedge-shaped elements (Pis. LIII, 142,145; LIV, 150), lozenges (PI. LIV, 148, 149), triangular elements (PI. XLIII, a), curved lines (Pis. x x x n i , 88, d; Lv, 154—157), or a circle and curves (PI. LIV, 153). PI. LIII, 141 shows a break in the toothed element at the side. Nearer the center, but not exactly at it, is a blunt tooth which was probably made to fill in. The whole pattern is badly done. So much of the head design is general for the end designs, with some exceptions which will be noted later. The differences in effect are secured by difference in proportion, variations of little details, and elaboration of the pattern outside the zigzag. In Pis. LIII, 141—146; LIV, 158 the heads are short, wide and bluntly r o u n d ; in

Pis.

XLIII, a;

LIV, 148,

149;

LV,

154, 155 they are long, narrow, and tend to be pointed; in Pis. x x x m , 88, d, 90, d; LV, 156, 157 long, narrow and rounded in front but not as blunt as in Pis. LIII, 141—146; or LIV, 153. In a discussion of elements attention has been called to the use of details which alter the character of the design. To recapitulate, end designs are characterized by the use of the somewhat curved triangular elements at the sides of the head. One or a pair of them may be used and variation is secured by their position. They may be nearly straight as in Pis. LIII, 145; LV, 154. They may be single or paired in curves facing toward the head design (Pis. XXXIII, 88, d;

XLIII, a ;

LIII, 141, 1 4 2 ;

LIV,

148, 149, 153; LV, 155—157), single or paired turning away from the head design (Pis. XXXIII, 89, /; LIII, 146; LIV, 150,151), or they may be

44

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

in pairs with one facing toward and one away from the head design ( P I . L I I I , 143). P I . L V I , 167 shows an unusual modification of the element which has been much elongated and filled with chevrons. When a curved line connects a pair of these curved triangular elements the resulting element is Pig. 14, b. The use and repetition of this element changes the effect of the end designs so much as to establish a new category. This is evident in Pis. x x x i , 83, /, 84; x x x i n , 8 9 , c, d; LIV, 1 5 2 ; L V I X , 1 6 8 , d, 1 6 9 , c ; L V I I I , 1 7 2 .

In this category further elaborations are seen. The cross element is extended and modified (Pis. x x x i n , 90, d; LVII, 168, d, 169, c; LVIII, 172). I t may be repeated (Pis. x x x i , 83, /, 84;

LIV, 152). B u t Pis. x x x i , 8 4 ; LVII, 168, d, 169,

172 show, I think, that designs characterized by the use of Fig. 14, a are not to be set apart from those preceding for they use that element as well as Fig. 14, b. They are to be looked at as decorative extensions and modifications of the simple patterns which were first discussed. Along with internal variation and extension or repetition of the cross element there may be further external elaboration. This is characterized by the use of the elements of PI. LII, the effect depending upon the arrangement of the elements, as it does also in the center patterns. Placed tangentially to the head design with points directly outward the effect is as in Pis. x x x i , 83, e; x x x i n , 89, / ; LVI, 167. They take almost the same position but with points at right angles in Pis. x x x i , 83, / ; x x x i n , C ; LVIII,

8 8 , c; L V I I , 1 6 8 , c. I n P I . L V I I , 1 6 9 , c t w o

of

the elements which lie with points along the head are connected and take the place of the customary toothed element. An element of PI. LVII, 168, d shows a close relationship to elements of PI. LII, but is somewhat reduced. Two of these have here supplanted the toothed design previously noted. PI. LIV, 152, as well as Pis. x x x i , 84 and LVIII, 172, where such an element has become closely amalgamated with the internal design, show the relationship. In the case of PI. LVII, 168, d this substitution has taken place but the head was extended by an area of hatching and the elements of PI. LII, h were added.

Pis. Lxxii, d, / ; and L X X I I I , e have more peculiar though very graceful variations of PI. L I I elements. In PI. L X X I I , 211, d a blunt form of the element is used but it extends in both directions into a slim gore filled with chevrons. In PI. L X X I I , 211, / the PI. L I I element is reduced to a circle from which similar gores extend. PI. L X X I I , 211, c and e have unusual variations of the PI. LII, U element also and the end patterns, d, e, and /, are unique in the use of the trumpetlike extensions of the head which should be compared with PI. X X X V I , 9 4 , e.

PI. L X X I I I , e, a medallion-like figure, shows the extension of PI. LII, C element into a somewhat curved gore. The use of gores on Pis. L X X I I , 211, d, / ; and L X X I I I , e, and other characteristics of the bowls, suggest Massim influence. "Bodies" which have been described are formed of various elements but they are combined with heads (or tails) in an almost infinite variety of ways. Three styles of body are outstanding: the hollowed type which usually ends with a "tail" element of PI. LII, the wavy type which has no "tail" and the tapering type on which many elements characteristic of Tami art are used: parallel lines, curved and right; rectangles, chevrons, zigzags, ribbons, ellipses. In every case the wavy, tailless body is used with an elaborately elongated head design, although the reverse, namely, that such a head design must have a wavy body is not necessary. With this exception there is no regularity in the type of body used with a particular type of head. The matter seems to be more directly related to the general style of the bowl. The last remark should not be taken to mean that all the patterns combined on a single bowl are uniform. The point will come out a little more clearly in considering the complete composition of the bowls. Commonly, four end designs are used on a bowl. However, it is not usual to have all these four alike. In fact it seems to be the aim of individual artists to make them different. For example, PI. XLV, 120, c occurs with slight variations three times on the bowl and the fourth place is filled by a variant of the design PI. LIX, 176. One might argue that such designs as the

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS latter were unfinished since they are the foundations of the more elaborate ones. That does not seem to be the explanation for too many of the bowls show these features. This is only one of many examples that lead to the conclusion that absolute symmetry is avoided rather than encouraged in the Tami area. The tendency is to vary in some way designs which might otherwise be said to be repeated. Consequently, not only two bowls, but even two designs, are rarely identical. The bowl just given as an example illustrates this fact more fully. Each of the three designs of Pl. XLV, 120, c type is a tapering body with fan-shaped tail outlined and elaborated by parallel lines. The fore part consists of curved lines ; in one case, a center dot with concentric circles ; in another, a center dot with concentric semi-circles; and in the third, a center dot with the circular portion one of the lines of the main design. Further variation is secured by the treatment of the inner field. The theme adopted is the chevron, or rather a combination of long acute right-angled triangles placed so their base angles touch. In PI. XLV, 120, c the design thus formed points away from the front of the pattern; in another, it points toward the front ; and in the third, although it points away, it has been varied by the use of three of the triangles placed point to point in the first row behind the circles forming the front. The next row consists of two of the triangles and the central body field is filled out with trapezoidal elements and a much elongated triangle. Pl. XXXVI, 94 is an example of almost perfect technique and composition. It would be absurd to contend that the artist of such a product could not achieve symmetry if he wanted to. In the treatment of the back part of the body of end designs PI. x x x v i , 94, c, d considerable restful variation which depends on the use of the rim element, P l . LXII, I , is

noteworthy. PI. x x x v i , 94, e has a trumpetlike extension of the head which is unique. These examples are sufficient to show that asymmetry is one of the chief characteristics of Tami style. Because the patterns, though lacking symmetry, are usually placed so as to

45

preserve perfect balance, the art has subtlety easier to feel than to describe. Asymmetry is too general to be due to accident or lack of skill. It may well be that the artists are not conscious of their variation in treatment. I believe, however, that exact symmetry or repetition would bore a good Tami carver. This detailed analysis, which holds for the conventional as well as for the more unusual use of end designs, leads to a discussion of the end designs of PI. LIX, 174, 175, 178. The figures show the plainest sort of treatment of the body which may be considered a design in itself. PI. LIX, 174 and 175 are used on a bowl with two other end designs of Pl. LUI, 145 type. One of these plain ones is used on each side diagonally opposite. PI. LIX, 178 is used twice on its bowl, the other two patterns are of Pl. XLIII, a order, and the two similar ones are diagonally opposite each other. One more feature of PL LIX, 178 should be noted, namely, that the teeth are less sharp than usual and point inward instead of outward. The bowl on which this pattern was found is very coarse, not because of bad technique but because of a heavy coating of grease and soot acquired by use. P i s . XXXI, 85, c ; XLV, 120, c, 122, d; LVIII, 170,

171 ; LIX, 174—176,178,180,183 might furnish a series of an evolutionary scheme. I do not know, however, that a simple figure like PI. LIX, 174 was made earlier than PI. XLV, 122, d, for instance. The chances are that they are contemporary, for other parts of the bowls on which they occur show that their makers were not obliged to make simple rather than more complex designs. PI. LIX, it seems to me, does more than any amount of argument to refute the evolutionary doctrine. In PI. LIX, 181 there are a "head" and a " b o d y " design but at the opposite end of the body is a repetition of the conventionalized cross element commonly used for heads but without the toothed frame. In PL LIX, 179 are two "tail" elements, one of which, a, has become head. This is convincing evidence, in my opinion, that the elements are considered formally and may be combined at will to form designs which are purely decorative and which have little, if any, representative significance.

46

MELANESIAN DESIGN

If further evidence to support this conclusion is necessary, Pis. xxxi, 83, c ; xxxvn, 96, a, c, d ; XLv, 121, c; LV, 159,160, 162,163 give it without stint. PI. LV, 163 shows a grouping of four of the Pl. LU elements, two around a small reduced figure of the fan type, the result being a compact little medallion which is graceful and highly conventionalized. In PI. LV, 162, which is diagonally opposite PI. LV, 163 on the same bowl, the four common elements of PI. LII are again used but at the ends of two fans of zigzags, which are joined by a crossbar. The whole design has the effect of a center design. The artist used another design in the center showing that he did not consider this as a center pattern. He evidently had an eye for variation, for on the third end he used PI. x x x v n , 99, one of the "mouth" designs which apparently has no relation to the other patterns on the bowl. The maker of the bowl on which appear PI. LV, 159, 160 had a similar idea but combined Pl. LU, h elements to form dainty designs which might well be faces. PI. LV, 159 is used at ends diagonally opposite; PI. LV, 160, and a variation of the former, is used at the other ends. The "head" of PI. x x x v n , 96, c, d is exactly the same design but is placed vertically instead of horizontally and becomes the mouth of the end pattern. Pis. xxxi, 83, c and XLV, 121, c are small, well-designed motives made by the repetition and symmetrical placing of the formal head elements of PI. LIII, 141—142. The only difference is that PI. XLV, 121, c has long, narrow proportions tending to points with the curved triangular etched elements at the side, whereas PI. XXXI, 83, c is shorter, broader and blunter, the general proportions in keeping with the use of Fig. 14, b etched at the sides. PI. Lxi, 193, d is still another composition of the same motives but in this case the internal cross is used only at one end, the curved triangle and Fig. 14, b are used at the sides, and the opposite end is broad and round. Variations of the treatment of the central field of the similar patterns used on the same bowl are achieved by the use of rim elements P I . LXii, p, t, b'.

PI. Lin, 147 shows, however, once more a realistic form. It differs from PI. x x x n i , 89, / essentially only in the fact that almost realistic legs are placed where the latter has the element Fig. 14, a. Conventionalized animal forms which will be considered later also have legs of the same type (cp. PI. LIV, 153). In PI. LXXI, 206 the body is more realistic but the four (instead of two as in PI. LIII, 147) realistic legs have been replaced by elements of PI. LII. This is a common form of composition on extended end patterns (cp. Pis. xxx, 80; x x x n , 86). PI. LXXI, 209 is an end pattern which is a complete unit (as are Pis. XXXI, 83, c ; xxxix, 107, c, d; XLV, 121, c; LV, 159, 160, 162, 163; LXI,1 93,c). But its effect is achieved by repeating the elements Fig. 14, a and b around the "body" which is blunt, and using a pair of PI. LII, A elements at both ends. The total effect is far from the conventionalized "crocodile" pattern. PI. XXXVII, 97 is the result of mirror repetition of the "head" motive. It is not as effective artistically as a number of the designs already discussed only because the element chosen for representation is an awkward one for such a purpose. There is no special reason why Pis. XXXVII, 99;LI, 139, c; and Lxxm,d, e should be classed as end designs any more than as centers or even as rims. They are placed here merely because of the position they chance to occupy. Formally they and Pis. LXII, t, u, ν and LXVII, 203, a belong together. Of these, Pis. XXXVII, 99 and PI. LXII, ν are the simplest combinations of concentric circles and teeth. PI. LXII, t has a slight variation in the center, the common elements and arrangements of PI. LXII, O having been slightly varied and a semi-circlet of teeth added. The bluntly elliptical PL LXII, U uses a ribbon as center and parallel lines and teeth surround it. PI. LXVII, 203, a is closely related, as is PL Lxxiv, 212, a, b. The composition of PL LI, 139, c is more complicated. Here a field, long and narrow with rounded ends, is laid out. The center is filled with a dot within a circle. From the center, lines radiate to form four segments, two short and wide, two long and narrow. Teeth of varying sizes fill in the wide ones and trapezoids or curves, the longer ones. If this pattern

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS ever had any representative significance it has by this time been entirely lost or changed, and it must be considered as a combination of formal elements. The bowl on which this pattern appears is more symmetrical than any, there being very few variations of detail even on the four medallions which are merely repetitions of the one here pictured. PI. Lxxiii, e is comparable with the medallions of PL LI, 139, β, but is further elaborated. Toothed gores spread from modifications of Pl. LU elements at the center and the medallion has two unusually extended PL LII elements at one end. The arrangement of elements within the framework of the medallion more nearly approaches the style of the carved cocoanut cups (Figs. 47—49, 51—55) than any of the bowl designs. PL LXXIII, d is much simpler in conception and is finished symmetrically with two ordinary PL LII elements at each end. PL LXXIII in its entirety illustrates all the carving on a particular bowl and is a splendid example of asymmetry, together with perfect balance achieved through a fine conception of design and good workmanship. Of the design, PL LXIX, 205, taken by itself very little can be said. PL LXIX, 205, a shows absolutely no relation to anything in Tami style and were it not for the way it has been finished, that is, by continuation into a wavy line ending in the Tami cross, common to the head design, I should say it was not Tami. It may be an intrusion due to foreign influence which was tried by an artist who at least had perfect control of his knife and made a graceful and successful, if un-Tamilike, pattern. B. Composition

of end designs banding

approaching

Many of the patterns described in Section A may be used independently and are considered sufficient to ornament the space they are designed to occupy. But some artists who have by experience acquired perfect mastery of their materials show a desire to elaborate upon designs commonly used and the bowls which are the result of this impulse show numerous divergences. One way of varying the effect is by extending end patterns so that

47

they occupy more space on the side of the bowl. The extension of the design which may connect the two end designs is a curved band filled with circles, ellipses or ribbons. This band may be relieved by placing elements of PL LII at regular intervals (Pis. xxx, 80 ; x x x n , 8 6 ; LXVI, 1 9 9 , 2 0 0 , a, b;

2 0 1 , a, b). P L

xxx,

80 shows the band run just a little below the center design and broken at the center by a lozenge element which exactly meets the middle of the 1. c. pattern. In PL x x x n , 86 the band and end designs are very similar to those in PL xxx, 80, the chief difference beingin arrangement. The band of PL xxxii, 86 is brought much lower on the bowl wall, in fact, it almost reaches the bottom where it is terminated on each side immediately under the middle of the center design. Pl. LXXVI, 220 illustrates a bowl with extended end designs not too well done. A bowl of excellent finish in the Field Museum is laid out in the same way. Pl. LVIII, 173 shows the variation of one extended end which is not usual in Tami style. The other three extended ends are more usual in making use of ribbon, concentric circle, and elliptical elements. A third variation of the band extension of the end designs is shown in PL LXVI, 199, 200. The use of several simple devices explains the unusual effect of PL LXVI, 199:1st, the end designs, which are very simple, point inward instead of outward; 2nd, the band which connects the two designs of the same side is filled with a ribbon element instead of the ellipses and circles. In its simplicity and treatment of space it is more closely related to the end patterns of Pl. LUI, 142, 143 than to those of Pis. xxxni, 88, d; XLIII, A; LIV, 148, 149; LV, 154—157. It is similar to PL xxx, 80 in its centering and in having elements of PL LII ornamenting its sides. 3d, the bands on each side are carried farther under than in any of the previous examples, so far in fact, that they almost touch at the bottom. The result is a smoothly unified inturning ornament which is much stiffer than the ordinary Tami product. For, after long acquaintance with Tami style (perhaps we might even say Melanesian style), we expect that animation which, if well-done is pleasing,

MELANESIAN DESIGN

48

if overdone, as it often is, results in sprawliness and unrest. This bowl might be called a settled spinster of Tami style as compared with its more vivacious sisters. PI. Lxvi, 200 is a second example of the same arrangement. The work on this bowl is finer but the design is not so carefully laid out as on PL LXVI, 199. It is more Tami-like than the latter in that it is less sedate owing to a slight difference in placement of the bands, somewhat higher on the bowl wall. PI. LXVI, 201, a and b shows an extension of end designs, but instead of carrying the banding down to the wall of the bowl, the artist carried it, by means of a graceful curve, to the central design. On one side of the bowl, a, the end patterns, which are more highly elaborated, are turned toward the center, the banding, which is characterized by a ribbon, is gracefully curved, and broadened in the center. The ends of b resemble a highly conventionalized crocodile, but those of a are highly decorative rather than realistic. If PI. LXVI, 199 is characterized by sedateness, PL L X X I V , 212 certainly makes up for it in flare. The maker of this bowl compressed his center and extended his end designs by wavy lines. But instead of placing them as usual, he lets his wavy lines carry the heads over to the center where they bend under and give the entire side great unity. The effect is very Tami-like and very individual. The bowl belongs with the best, artistically and technically. Another artist created an altogether new impression with the same elements. Using a band similar to that of Pis. x x x , 80 and x x x n , 86, he connected the end patterns (turning away from center) of opposite sides of the bowl PL XL, 110, b. In this way he decorated two cross sections of the bowl giving the bowl three fields practically independent of one another, the two banded parts and the central space which is relieved on either side by an ordinary center pattern. This artist added subtlety to his pattern by finishing some of the circular and elliptical elements of his band with corners. This device has been noted before with reference to the treatment of the middle of the 1. c. NI "PI

wvTT

QA

T T T V »

RVVN Ι4· ΤΤΤΗΑ

ιυιλμ^ΙΛΜΛ/Ι

ΠΑ

reminiscent of the art of the Massim District. However, although the two bowls may have been made under the same influence, they do not look as if they were made by the same artist. A small group of bowls in the Field Museum, all of which are well-made, have the bands placed in the same way. The few examples of the connecting of end patterns by bands show that the Tami have used all the possibilities except one, namely, that of connecting diagonally opposite end designs by means of the band. Such an arrangement would cause the bands to cross on the bottom; I have never found it. C. Composition of center designs Center designs secure their primary effect through composition. For convenience they may be discussed in classes but we should bear in mind the fact that there are always gradations from one to another. 1. To this class belong patterns whose chief characteristic is that they are broad and quite short with a fan-like 1. c. and many variations as to the u. c. which is combined with them. In my opinion the u. c. which is the backbone or foundation of the design is not the outstanding feature but rather a connecting skeleton on which the other elements are hung. The 1. c. and c. e. are the elements which stamp the pattern. The broad fan-shaped 1. c. as described on p. 41 is combined with several types of c. e. : (a) small fan-like elements (Pis. XLiv, 117; LX, 188), or approximately the same design treated with trapezoids instead of teeth as in Pis. XLIV, 119; XLVI, 125. (b) elements tail-like in shape but filled with ribbons, trapezoids, rectangles, and the usual Tami units favored for filling spaces (Pis. xxxvin, 103; XLvi, 126, a; LXV, 195). (c) elements of Pl. LU which have numerous variations (Pis. X X X I I I , 88, a, 89, a, b; x x x i x , 107, a ; X L I V , 115, 1 1 8 ; L X , 1 8 4 , 1 8 5 ; L X I , 1 9 4 , a ) . P l . L X I I I , a is

an unusual pattern in that the c. e. of PL LII has the points turned upward and toward the center and then a broad rectangular space is marked off beyond the element and filled with VAnf nrifvlAQ

im

vaIiaÍ

m η In r» rt

TItVi γΛ Û

ΰί-ΡΰΛ+·

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS clumsy. In PI. XLIV, 119 the fan element of the 1. c. is split by an unfilled space left between, causing an unusual effect. Whereas some of the patterns with c. e. as in (a) and (b) are well done, none of them are fine as are those with the c. e. of the (c) type, the majority of which are fine. A word here as to the exceptional combination of several upper and lower center elements. The cross element as in PI. LXVI, 200, b (u. c.), which is one often used, appears with variations in Pl. XXXIII, 88, a in the same position. But in Pl. XXXIII, 89, a, b another u. c. is used and the cross element is much lengthened for use as a 1. c. Besides, this favorite element of the end design is treated exactly as in an end pattern even to the break in the center of the toothed line. The fan-like elements of the 1. c. in this class are finished by a continuous line of teeth. 2. This class of center designs is characterized by the lengthening, narrowing and rounding of the 1. c. and by the addition of Pl. LU elements. It is interesting to note also that, with few exceptions, these elements are the only ones used for c. e., and the patterns thus formed belong to the most graceful and well-done of any on the bowls. PL LI, 139, a shows a formal transition from the Class 1 type to the Class 2 type with all features of Class 2 stressed except the addition of the PI. mi elements. The 1. c., which is round, is finished by an etched line with teeth. This touch is not used on patterns of Class 1 with one exception. PI. LXV, 196 has not only this line but has also two elements of PI. LII somewhat awkwardly appended to the wide, short fan 1. c. The c. e. elements are also essentially of the Class 1 (a) type. The whole pattern is good enough but coarse. Many variations in effect in this class are secured by simple devices. For instance, the etched bounding line may be used with points at regular intervals (Pis. x x x n , 87, a, b ; x x x v n i , 106); the points may be paired at intervals (Pis. xxix, 77, a; LVII, 168, a, b; LXI, 192, a); or, they may be tripled (Pis. xxxi, 88; xxxii, 86, a, b). They may show rudiments (?) of the curved triangular elements of the end designs, as in PI. xxxvi, 94, «, or they may use the ele7

49

ments outright (Pis. x x i x , 76, δ; x x x i , 85, a). An exceptional treatment of the space these elements occupy is shown in PI. XLV, 122, b where three clawlike reliefs fill a kind of rectangular space and recall the c. e. of PI. LXIII, a but are used more appropriately and gracefully. If the designs are any indication, nothing gives the Tami artist greater pleasure than playing with the elements of PL LII; by juggling them he obtains his best effects. Used at the c. e. they may gaily point up (Pis. x x i x , 76, a; xxxi, 83, a; xxxii, 86, a, b; xxxvi, 95, a; XLV, 1 2 2 , a, b; LVII, 1 6 8 , A; LXI, 1 9 2 , A; LXVI,

199, 201, b). If their points are moved through an angle of less than 45° they turn shyly down as in Pis. XXXVIII, 104; LI, 139, a. In a carefree mood one turns up and the other down as in Pl. LXIV, a which shows other signs of the maker's desire for change in the way the same elements are attached to the 1. c. The variation of the same elements on PL XXXVIII, 104 is further evidence of the fact that the Tami carver is no stickler for symmetry. It is, however, in his treatment of the 1. c. that he achieves his best and greatest variations and effects. Most often he uses a pair of the elements and two very different aspects are given to the 1. c. by varying their position (Fig. 16). They may be added to the top part of the 1. c. as in PL XLVI, 123 in which case they are not an integral part of the design but merely something added on. When the points are free, the bounding line may be gracefully widened at the center through their use (Pis. XXXII, 87, a, b; x x x m , 90, a; XXXVIII, 106; LXI, 192, a; LXVI, 199). When the points lie along the design, they smoothe the bounding line and unify the design completely (Pis. xxix, 76,a; xxxi, 83, a, 85, a ; xxxvi, 95, a ; XLV, 122, a, b). PL LX, 189 shows a skilful use of the elements in positive and negative relief. The round portion of the element serves for both. The point extended gracefully upward and filled with a small fine ribbon element gives the negative effect. The usual lines carried downward and meeting form the positive carving. The 1. c. on the opposite side of this bowl lacks the PL LII elements. The pattern formed by these elements and ribbons is purely

50

MELANE SI AN D E S I G N

Pig. 16

additional but is nevertheless appropriate and unified with the rest of the 1. c. PL L X V I I , 202, a (1. c.) is a more simplified pattern which looks as if the center of the pair of elements had become amalgamated and only a dot in a circle is left but the ends along the 1. c. remain. Besides the arrangement in positive or negative relief, the artists have used minor variations which the following figures show: In positive relief elements pointing away from each other, Pis. x x x n , 87, a, b; x x x i n , 90, a ; xxxviii, 106; LXI, 192, a; LXV, 196; pointing toward each other, PL LXV, 197 (very peculiar arrangement where the elements at the ends of a curve form the entire 1. c.), PL LXVI, 199 (with ends much elongated). All of these combinations are used with a broken bounding line, of which they themselves are a part. Pl. L X I V , A shows the simple 1. c. bounded by three smooth lines and the PL LII elements tangentially tacked on with points at the greatest possible distance from each other. The treatment takes a possible unity from the 1. c. but adds a certain daring which is further evidenced by the toothed type of the elements as well as by the position of the c. e. previously mentioned. As is to be expected, the variation in position of the elements when they are amalgamated with the lower central portion of the design characterizes it. Tangent to the main part of it with points down and toward each other they lengthen the design as in Pis. x x i x , 76, b\ x x x ,

80; X X X I , 83, a\ x x x n , 86, a, b; xxxvi, 95, a; XLV, 122, a, b; LVII, 168, a, b; at the same time they are an integral part of it. Pl. L X V I I , 202, a, which has been mentioned before as a reduction of two of the elements having only one center, has become more thoroughly a part of the design than any of the others. Pl. χχχι, 85, α uses the elements turned in the opposite direction, that is, the points lie along the main curve of the pattern. This pattern is also peculiar in that fan ends are combined with the 1. c. of the Pl. LII element type. PL LV, 161, a and b are interesting in that to the 1. c. of b finished off by elements of PL LII with bound-in points and to the 1. c. of a finished off by those elements with free

Fig. 17

points, scroll or coil elements are added at the side. It is not at all difficult to understand how such a design could grow out of PL LII elements, for by merely connecting the line where it is indicated by a broken line in Fig. 17 the scroll is achieved. It is a wonder it has not been discovered by other artists and

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS used more commonly. This is one of few examples of it I have found. Special attention should be called to the planning and execution of the central designs P i s . XXX, 78, 7 9 ; x x x v i , 94, a , b ; LXVI, 200,

a, b, 201, a, b. There are no new elements, but those which are used are combined with consummate skill and each has its individuality. PI. LXVI, 200, for example, instead of using a fan, fish, or PI. LII element as ends of the u. c., uses "head" elements of end patterns. The ends of the u. c. of PI. LXVI, 200, 201 are unified with the extended end designs but belong nonetheless to the center in unity. They serve to unify the composition of the entire side. PI. x x x n , 86, a, b is exceptionally beautiful in the treatment of the end elements of the u. c., as well as the center of the u. c. Pl. XXX, 78, 79 show perfect control of technique and original ideas for composition on the part of the artist. Sufficient can hardly be said in admiration of the finish and beauty of PI. x x x v i , 94. PI. LX, 190 is a center design used on both sides of a bowl whose keynote is the use of the ribbon element. I t is here used for the u. c. which ends in stiff fan elements. The portion carrying the ribbon element forms a cross which divides the 1. c. into two fan-shaped parts which remind one remotely of the field of PI. X L i v , 119. The entire treatment of the center, end (PI. LX, 191) and bottom designs of the bowl is unique. The descriptions of the classes given above are, comparatively speaking, stereotyped even though there are many transitions and gradations between these arbitrary categories. Another type of arrangement of center designs uses no end patterns but develops the center elements already described and extends them to cover more space in each direction. PI. Lxxv, 217 shows a somewhat crude example with the Class I features. But the u. c. has been lengthened on each side and this pattern is sufficient to decorate the bowl, it being used on both sides. This bowl is interesting in that the treatment of the ribbon element approaches t h a t of P l . XXXVII, 101.

PI. XLI, 112, a, b shows an attempt to get almost the same effect as PI. LXXV, 217 but 7*

51

this is a successful one. It is unnecessary to describe these patterns in greater detail. Attention may be called to the fact that the center design is extended to approach banding, and to the ease with which elements like the end designs may be simplified and assimilated to suit the taste and style of an exceptional worker. However, it seems probable that in this case the treatment may be due to lack of virtuosity rather than to intention as seems to be the case with PI. x x x v n , 101. In PI. xLvii, 130 the well known end design (cp., for example, PI. LV, 155) is used but is extended in graceful wavy lines to right and left and the waves are finished with the etched line broken by points placed at regular intervals. In PI. XLVII, 128 the wavy lines run into regular end designs and the whole design is a unit. PI. XLVII, 131 is a pattern in the true Tami spirit even though the way in which it is executed is novel. The center element is formally a closely related, but simplified, variation of the cross element so common to end designs and quite frequently used also in this type of center pattern. But here its treatment is suggestive of a face. Several reasons, all formal, may be given to account for this suggestibility. They are as follows: 1st, the elements above the face usually occur on the rim (cp. PI. Lxii, a, b, /) rather than on the wall of the bowl. This is one of the examples which makes me think the rim elements are considered as a part of the wall carvings by the artists. 2nd, the positive relief of the cross element is more massive than usual and the emphasis on mass naturally reduces that on line which dominates in the other arrangements of the same element. 3d, the cross element is not surrounded by the curved toothed line. Instead there are widened coarse toothed motives on either side around a common simple u. c. motive. They are further elaborated by the use of the curved triangles of Fig. 14, a. The opposite side of the same bowl shows also an attempt, and one technically successful, at including a simple 1. c. element. This bowl, although coarse in style, nevertheless shows an attempt to go outside the compositional limitations of the Tami style,

52

MELANESIAN DESIGN

while at the same time using no motive which is not genuinely Tami-like. Pis. XL v u , 129 ; XLVIII, 132, a and b are elab-

orations of the type of end designs illustrated b y P i s . XXXI, 83, e , f ; x x x m , 88, c; LVII, 168, d,

169, c. To the cross element of PI. XLVII, 131 which is extended and treated more in line than in mass are added the elements of PI. LII with variations secured in the same way as they were in end patterns, namely, by variations in proportion and arrangement. PI. XLVII, 129 is comparable with Pis. x x x i , 84 and LVIII, 172. Pi. XLVIII, 132, a shows the motive enlarged by the addition of the elements with free points, PI. XLVIII, 132, b with them bound-in. These center patterns (Pis. XLVII, 129; XLVIII, 132, a,

b) are gracefully completed by wavy lines. PI. XLVIII, 133, a, b is peculiar in the com-

bination of good technique with original, even excellent, ideas of composition. For some reason, however, the result is not good. Elements more commonly used in banding or on the bottom, namely, the elliptical and toothed elements, are used to extend the u. c. which is finished at each end with a somewhat unusually composed "end" design. The 1. c. of side b is not well shaped; the 1. c. of a is good. The 1. c. of side b combined with u. c. of a would make an effective pattern although not as graceful as is usual for the Tami. The combination u. c. side b and 1. c. side a would be more unified but not particularly good. The line of long sharp teeth is not appropriate for an u. c. and the awkward shape of 1. c. of side b is not good for any design. There can be no doubt that the design on this bowl is the experiment of a good technician whose design was only partially successful. As PI. Lxxi, 209 shows a complete and unified end pattern, so PI. LXXI, 208, occurring on the same bowl, shows an unusual arrangement of the center. The cross element is used as a center of the u. c., the curved toothed motives previously described branch out from it and are completed by a pair of PI. LII elements. The space above is filled in with Fig. 14, b elements. Below is a 1. c. composed of an elongated space filled with teeth and finished off with two elements of PI. LII. The difference in effect is caused by the

unusual elaboration of the u. c. which is finely and carefully done, although the design does not extend very far. The center represented by PI. XLI, 114 is almost like the 1. c. of PI. x x x v i , 95, a except that the PI. LII elements are used in two ways, at the bottom with points joining and at the sides with free points. The u. c. is extended and no end designs are used. The 1. c. of this pattern, and even the u. c., are well done, but the prolongation of the line detracts from, rather than adds to, the effect since it is not well done. PI. XLI, 113 is also interesting in that it shows the effect we should get from the carving of PI. LII elements with bound-in points (to see this, cover the free points of the elements), and at the same time retains two of the elements with free points. These are good examples of what may be done with varying arrangements of the simplest elements. PI. Lvi, 164 and 165, both of which occur on the same bowl, show a central composition which is in all respects Tami-like yet exceptional. In the first place it is not customary to use the "mouth" patterns as they are here as 1. c. PI. LVI, 165 has a smaller "mouth" motive as an u. c. PI. LVI, 164 has a peculiar u. c. composed of two elements of PI. LII so arranged as to appear like eyes and eyebrows. Above these combinations of motives on either side runs a wavy line ending at either end in a specially elaborate end design; each end design has in its turn a PI. LII element. Furthermore, above this whole arrangement is a handle in high relief. In these designs there is a rich combination "of "mouth", rim, center, and end elements to form a single pattern. It might seem that this design would be sufficient to ornament the bowl. Such is not the case however, since end designs — and those by no means ordinary — are also used (PI. LVI, 166 and 167 are end patterns on the same bowl). There is no doubt that the artist of this bowl set out to combine many elements in an unusual way and succeeded well in his attempt. This bowl furnishes one of the few examples where "mouth" motives are used as elements in less realistic composition. They are more frequently used as parts of the "face"

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS carvings or as independent medallions (Pis. XXXVII,

99;

LI, 1 3 9 ,

c;

LXVII, 2 0 2 ,

b,

208,

a used as centers or as ends). One more design, and that almost a medallion, should be noted before taking up the next type of composition. Every element about PI. XXXVII, 101 except the massing at the center is common in Tami art. Nevertheless the composition is such that the decoration has a very strange effect. One reason for this is the way in which the elements at either side of the central mass have been placed — they have been brought down from the rim to the sides, being really rim elements (PI. LXII, j, k, I) — and another is the treatment of the outer toothed band which has the teeth in negative relief and the bounding line framing them again toothed but approaching more nearly a deeply cut ribbon. This design on the center of each side is the only ornamentation on the bowl, which has one of the finest trademarks (PI. XLIX, p). PI. xxxviii, 105 should be noted in connection with PI. XXXVII, 101. The center of the u. c. is composed of the same rim elements. These elements are an attempt, I believe, to depict in bas-relief, certain elements otherwise executed in openwork carving. They are not common in Tami art but are found on excellently carved, but peculiarly planned, bowls as on the one of PI. xxvin. The end designs of PI. xxxvi, 94, c and d show skilful and artistic use of the elements, an unusual variation in the complex development of the "crocodile" end pattern. I have seen them also on other carved figures (not bowls) of Tami manufacture. The motive is a favorite one in the Massim District. D. Composition of banded designs

Several examples have been given of center designs which have been extended to cover more than the customary space. These patterns have shown an approach to banding by use and extension of a center design. In the class of bowls here under discussion this treatment has been carried further and the entire ornamentation of the bowls on which it occurs consists of a band around the rim ; some bands

53

are extensions of the center pattern, others of the end designs. Some of the bowls are the most elegant examples of the Tami carver's virtuosity. PL XLII includes some of the usual end and center designs, but they have been united into a continuous design on either side of the bowl by the use of graceful combinations of ribbon and toothed elements which fill the intervening spaces. The center design has been brought up to the rim by filling the surface with some of the favorite Tami space fillers. The lower line of the band is a graceful, wavy, non-continuous curve much wider at the center to accommodate the more conventionalized center pattern. .The banding of the two sides is further unified by a simple narrow connecting band at either end. PI. xxxiv, 92 shows by the banding on either side the approach to banding by connecting two end designs. Here the artist used end patterns of the extended and elaborated cross element type, joined them by wavy lines and on one side filled in the spaces between the waves with elements of PI. l i i and little teeth, using the rim as his bounding line at the top. The bowl illustrated in PI. xxxiv, 93, a, b shows the most complex as well as ornamental treatment of the designs in the banding composition which I have found. The same device was used as in PI. xxxiv, 92 but in this more motives were combined and all the wave spaces, top and bottom, were filled in, in this case as before, with circular (related to PI. LII) and toothed elements making the band of approximately equal width for its entire extent. The finish of the rounded corners shows that the decorated surface is thought of in two parts. The banding on both sides further substantiates the theory that the Tami artist, not only does not demand, but actually avoids, absolute symmetry. It is incredible that an artist, master of his technique as evidenced by this bowl, could not have divided his space evenly had he so desired. He preferred rather to preserve balance while at the same time avoiding exact repetition. He was thus enabled to fit in smaller artistic designs which lend a subtlety to his decoration which perfect symmetry can never attain.

54

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

Although Pis. XXXIV, 91 and xxxv show the development of end designs considered satisfactory to fill the space of the side wall, I nevertheless include discussion of them here. I have previously mentioned the fact that many gradations and transitions between categories may be found. The only excuse for making classifications is that of convenience in assembling complex material. Therefore attention is called to these two bowls here because the question is not so much which designs are used — end and center designs have been shown to have much in common — but rather how the space is filled. Pl. XXXIV, 91 represents the carving in high relief on a bowl of somewhat unusual shape in that it has a broad flat bottom. The end design with a long wavy body is used twice on the bowl with the two "heads" at the same end and facing the point of the bowl. The tail-like bodies wave away from the end point as centers and approach the opposite point as a secondary center. The view of the bowl from end point as center around which to arrange the ornamentation is comparable with the view necessary in carving the faces (see p. 56). The maker of the bowl illustrated by PI. xxxv sought another solution to his desire for unification. He saw the bowl surface as a unit and decided to unite his side patterns. This he did by mean« of an elaborate elongated end design comparable to PI. LIV, 153 but much better done. This connecting pattern retains realistic elements like the feet, although even they have been highly conventionalized. In unifying his design in this way this artist allowed his end patterns to face away from each other showing that he saw his surface as a whole viewed from the center of the bottom instead of from the middle of one of the end points. The more complex banding compositions have been discussed first because of the close formal relationship they bear to the composition of Sections Β and C. There are several simpler bandings which are used on smaller bowls, all of which are well-made. Pis. LI, 136—138 ; LXXVI, 218, a, b illustrate these. They are bands of commonly used elements and present three types of arrangement : 1. banding

of equal width all around the bowl (PI. LI, 137, 138). 2. banding which is wider at the center of each side and tapers toward the ends (PI. LI, 136). 3. banding of equal width on the sides (with variations of elements filling band) with a wider "mouth" element at either end (PI. LXXVI, 218). Even these simple bandings bring out the point that some surfaces are seen as broadside views, and others as two spaces radiating from the end points. E. Composition of more realistic designs

Up to this point I have been dealing with designs which are not realistic although they show some evidence of derivation from (or advance toward) such patterns. These designs have been discussed from the point of view that they consist of formal elements which may be combined in a large variety of ways. The very infinitude of the combinations is evidence, I think, that the approach is a legitimate one; cross elements which suggest human faces may be combined with fish-like bodies and tails, they may show definite attempts at depicting faces or they may be only skeletons around which smaller decorative elements are arranged. So far I have dealt primarily with the composition of elements and designs on the sides of the bowl. I shall now discuss a set of designs which are certainly realistic although they may be highly conventionalized. These designs, especially those discussed in the first division of this section, are found on the outside bottom of the bowl. Those analyzed in the second part are also found on the bottom but the viewpoint is different. The composition of these designs will be taken up as follows: 1. realistic designs in low relief (found on bottom of bowls). 2. realistic designs in high relief. 1. Realistic designs in low relief PI. LXXIX. Two slender elongated and conventionalized crocodiles with bodies touching in the center are placed with the head of one and tail of the other in juxtaposition. Each crocodile consists of a combination of

C A E Y E D WOODEN BOWLS familiar formal decorative elements, but so composed as to make a realistic form. The snout of one crocodile consists of parallel rows of trapezoids, the eyes are formed of the cross element but the cross runs into a ribbon, the neck is made of ellipses, the body consists of a long central strip of rectangular elements alternating with squares. On each side of this strip which may be thought of as a backbone the body spreads out widely to form an ellipse. The long vacant spaces of this body are broken by incomplete concentric circles, a smaller one on the inside of each body and a larger one outside. These circular elements are arranged with true symmetry in the two bodies. The entire portion of the animal from behind the snout to the joining of the tail with the body is surrounded by sharp-angled teeth. The tail portion tapers gently at the end and joins the body in graceful curves representing legs. These curves are repeated where the neck meets the body and the inside ones show claws or toes. The foreleg of one animal "holds hands" with the hind leg of his mate. This entire description sounds exactly like previous ones of decorative motives. I feel that though representation is traceable, in fact apparent, in these figures they are nevertheless purely decorative. If they retain any further significance it does not detract from their grace as decorative motives. A further argument in favor of this opinion is that the space between the linked claws is marked off into a tapering form and filled with a fine ribbon element. This can be nothing but a decorative device. PI. LXVII, 203, b is an animal, so highly conventionalized as to be zoologically indefinite, with much the same features as PI. LXXIX. The head consists of the usual cross element as foundation, but the filling triangles of the cross are curved, extended and emphasized so that a bowknot is formed. The "backbone" consists of two rows of trapezoids with circles at each end. The widened portions of the body are filled with ribbon elements ; only the body is surrounded by sharp teeth. The four claws of this animal are curved and thick. PI. LXXX, 223, a, b is a peculiar twinmonster arrangement of simple elements not very different from the two preceding. But

55

the composition causes an unusual effect. Heads and bodies are as in Pis. LXXIX and LXVII, 203, b but no teeth are used except very sparingly on the snout of one of them. Bodies are connected by the central concentric circles making a single symmetrical design. The development and size of the claws (?) is the most striking feature. They are broadened and end with cross elements such as we might find used for ahead or a tail (cp. PI. LIX, 181). With the exception of two small trademarklike elements at the center of each side of this bowl the pattern on the bottom is the sole decoration. It may be that the artist decided to put his main design on the bottom, a decision which pushed his graceful trademark to the side. The heaviness of the animal design and the daintiness of the trademarks are not compatible. Closely related to PI. LXVII, 203, b are PI. LXXX, 224 and an almost identical design on a bowl in the Field Museum (FM 147250). Indeed these two patterns are so similar as to make one think both were made by the same artist. The center design, however, shows that different hands made them. Altogether the bowl in the Field Museum shows greater care in carving. These "crocodiles" are swallowing something which may be a conventional bird or fish. PI. LXXX, 222 is interesting in comparison with PI. LXXX, 223 and these other "crocodile" figures. It is a double figure, so thoroughly elaborated in the manner of many end designs as to have lost almost all realistic features ; the crocodile shape remains and the "legs" are still legs. The next designs are beautifully conventionalized fish patterns. Pl. XLII, C is realistic although very simple. If compared formally with PI. LXXIX the difference between fish and crocodile may be seen to be merely a difference in proportions of the same elements and a little change in treating the ends. The body is the same even to the toothed bounding line. The concentric circles which are apparently only decorative in PL LXXIX are moved to o n e e n d t o f o r m t h e e y e of P I . XLII, C. T h e

use of the fan instead of tapered tail and the modification of the one end for a mouth,

56

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

instead of the addition of the head, complete the representation. Four curved lines under the mouth realistically indicate the gills. A more highly decorative pattern is PI. Lxxvii which uses the exact elements of PI. x L i i , c but more elegantly. Two elongated curved triangular motives above and a small curved one below suggest the flying fish. Both jaws of the fish are toothed and it is attempting to swallow something composed of a mirror repetition of a cross element ; the latter doubtless is purely decorative. PI. LXXVIII is more highly conventionalized than Pl. XLII, C or PI. LXXVII, as well as more elaborate. The body is treated in the customary Tami fashion but the pointed head is continuous with it. The devices, PI. LXXVIII, a, which indicates the eye, and b, which decorates the tail, suggest strongly a trademark (cp., for example, PI. XLIX, k). The fish-like animal is provided with a pair of wings of the ordinary Tami type filled in with simple rectangular and chevron elements, and bound with outward pointing teeth. Although wings are present in other compositions (in some respects human, in others fish-like) they may represent the fins of the flying fish (cp. PI. LXXXI). But on the other hand, they may be a decorative combination of elements as may also the odd little appendage c. The latter may, however, be an element added to indicate some part of the fish's body which is considered important by the artist. PI. LXXVIII is an anterior view, perhaps, of the same animal which PI. LXXVII shows in profile.

which seduces women and leads them away with resultant death. Epidemics, as well as unusual and unexplained diseases, are ascribed to bwwun. It is represented as a human head with a fish body. Other spirits for which there are descriptions are tago, ancient spirits of the villages. They are family possessions and are represented by certain features, the entire composition serving as a coat-of-arms in the form of a mask.2 Another spirit is kumali. His grandchild, laina, is identified by two rings of mussel shell on the forehead. Some of the spirits, if not exactly beneficent, are nevertheless, not feared, but others are either gruesome or disgusting. The scanty descriptions are of the head only and most of them are distinguished by headdresses which on the highly conventionalized bowl carvings cannot be interpreted by an outsider. Characteristics of eyes and other features of the face suggest only slight clues to the way in which sib ownership is reckoned. Some bowls have a face at one end (viewed as if standing on rim) with a varied type of body, usually tripartite and wing- or tail-like, extending to the center of the bottom. Others have a face at both ends. Pis. xxxix, 109; XLIII; LXIII; LXIX, 204; LXX, 204, c illustrate them. They are undoubtedly carvings of buwun or kumali.

A group of carvings are in high relief and of distinctive design. They cannot be studied without an understanding of some other phases of Tami culture. These decorations are undoubtedly representative of Tami spirits certain of which are possessed by specific families. As is frequently the case, the categories of spirits are not very clearly formulated. The few mentioned here are those which have visualized descriptions. Bamler describes buwun1 as an evil monster (in the class of "gods")

PI. XLIII, b with the peculiar broadened eyes may depict laina. The face is low and flatter than usual (another characteristic of the tago and his grandfather) which also points in the direction of Bamler's interpretation. But behind the head, PI. XLIII, b, is a pair of elements of the PI. XLIX, k type which when doubled in this particular way give the effect of eyes and nose. These might also represent the mussel shell ornamentation. 3 The double face is much used by the Tami ; the occurrence of a face on each end of the bowl may have a religious interpretation. With only Bamler's brief description of the masks, which depend upon color and headdress primarily for identification, it is impossible to correlate interpretation and form. For instance, the decorations at the side of the face of PI. LXVIII, 202, c, d or Pl. LXXXIII, 225,

1

2

2. Realistic designs in high relief

Bamler, in Neuhauss III, 490.

Ibid. 507.

3

Ibid.

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS 226 may represent cassowary feathers, tassels, or some other form of headdress, but with no more intimate acquaintance with the patterns than I have, the chances of error are too great to make interpretations of any value. Bamler states that large wooden dishes are used for taro gruel in the feast to end mourning1 but he does not say whether those having spirit carvings must be used in preference to the others. Until more evidence is available, I incline to the theory that carving patterns imitate the masks, but have become so highly conventionalized that distinguishing characteristics of the particular buwun are known only to the natives themselves. Bamler thinks the Tami got many of their concepts from other places. If this is true, it may well be that the carving is older than the buwun or tago and that the spirit ideas were read into the already well-developed figures. I can do no more than suggest the interrelation between social and religious patterns and ideas ; unfortunately, I cannot show it in detail. The description of the face and figure defines the limitations of the Tami style as used on many objects other than bowls. The face is characterized by conventionalized eyes of the Mongolian type with one or two points extending above and below the orbits. In the case of Pl. XLIII, c a space for the eyes is emphasized by small rectangles. The nose is long and narrow; nostrils may or may not be represented. The treatment of the nose which is, relatively speaking, modest, is in marked contrast to its treatment in other areas, as for example, the much elongated and curved nose of the Sepik River district. It is possible that the points above and below the eyes may be vestigial representations of ears which the artist thought necessary. The mask shown by Fuhrmann, *94, on which the ears are carved in points above and below suggests this conclusion. Since primitives sometimes consider certain portions of the head, face, or body so important that they must be shown even if the space is not suitable, this may be a case in point. It is more likely, however, that they are merely symbols 1

ANGN 19 (1911): 54. 8

57

of the particular spirits they represent. One point above and one below the eye is a tago spirit, two points above and two below indicate a waman, a spirit from Maligep ; some representations are mythological or legendary.2 The mouth is usually a round or bluntly elliptical space bounded by a line or lines. The inner space is commonly filled with inwardpointing teeth (Pis. XLIII, c; LXIV, b; LXVIII, 202, c) or with small trapezoidal elements (PL LXXXIII, 225, a, b; S L1245). There is no difference between this mouth design and those discussed on p. 41 and for this reason I have called them "mouth" patterns. Even on the type of bowl here under discussion these designs may be used without the other constituents of the face, the tripartite fishtail spreading back from it as in PL LXVIII, 202. The same mouth design may be somewhat extended to approach banding as in PL LXXXII, b, or it may be taken quite out of its setting and used as an end or center side design or as a rim pattern. The larger unit formed by combining the eye, nose and mouth elements just described may be used as a face design without further decoration as in Pis. XLIII, c; LXVIII, 202, c and on objects other than bowls as Fuhrmann, *20, *33, *42, *66, *94. But it is far more common to enclose the face used on the bowls in a decorative frame composed of trapezoids, or small rectangles or wide lines (PL LXIII, b), teeth (commonly the bounding element), or a combination of ribbon and lozenge or circle (Pis. XLIII, b ; Lxxxiii, 226). This frame may become very elaborate and may have in addition elements of PL Lii as does PL LXXXIII, 226. PL Lxx, 204, e is exceptionally complex and welldone. These frames are, I believe, peculiar to the bowls and seem to be purely decorative in purpose. They may, however, serve to indicate particular features of headdress or hair. Although the effect produced by these carvings is startling there is nothing elementally new except in PL LXVIII, 202, c, d. The sprawlingfish-like bodies in three parts, whether coarse and of high relief or fine in lower relief, are merely different arrangements of common elements: line or mass, ribbon, lozenge, the ubiquitous toothed bounding line, elements of PL LII. * Bamler, ibid. 508.

58

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

Except for more marked simplicity and less unity in the design the three-part bodies which extend toward the center and side of these bowls do not differ greatly from the lizard or fish bodies of Pis. XLII, C; LXVII, 203, B; L X X V I I I ; L X X I X . Lines, masses, teeth and lozenges form the center spread and it ends in a fishtail as in Pis. x i n i ; L X X I , 210; L X X X I I I , 226. In PI. L X X X I I I , 225 the designs are extended from either end to join in the center. One is provided with clawlike side elements which make it look somewhat like a crocodile. The parts which spread to the side are usually very simple but sometimes show a relationship to the side designs of the bowls described in Section A (Pis. L X X ; L X X I , 210; L X X X I I I , 226). An additional feature of the arrangement is the use of the trademark on some of the patterns. When it is so used it is always welldone and decorative, as it is when used with the fish and lizards (Pis. XLII, c; LXVII, 203, fe; L X X V I I I ; L X X I X ; L X X X , 223). The center of PI. L x i i i , b ends in a trademark instead of in the more usual fishtail. The center "tail" of PI. LXX is split and each part ends in a trademark (Pl. L, e). In this group of bowls, as in every other, exceptions are to be noted. The maker of bowl PI. L X X X I V would have succeeded tolerably well had he been satisfied to stop with the usual carvings. However, he tried to connect his center patterns by narrow bands running from each of the side center patterns and meeting an unskilfully elaborated trademark at the center of the bottom. Furthermore, he extended the band to right and left of this center and finished it at each end with human faces and other elaborations etched on the bowl. The general style of the faces is Tamilike, but belongs rather to the style of the etched bull-roarers, (cp. Lewis 5: Pis. * X L V I I , 2; * XL vin, 4) 1 than to that of the bowls. The essential differences are not great, merely those necessary in adjusting a form to a high relief rather than to a flat technique. Since the bull-roarers are symbolic of the kani spirits2 (equivalent to balum) they perhaps include the least which is considered necessary to represent them. Many of the bull-roarers, 1

PMADS 5.

2

Bamler, in Neuhausa III, 494.

however, although apparently quite as sacred as the others, have only geometric designs. On p. 48 I mentioned the fact that no diagonal banding has been used, that is, bands connecting diagonally opposite ends. PI. L X X X I V is the nearest approach to this3 but the decoration forms a Roman, rather than a St. Andrew's cross, as would the suggested arrangement. Although the bowls carved in high relief are usually large, coarse and barbaric in effect, though nevertheless decorative, one small bowl, Pis. LXVII, 202, a, b; LXVIII, 202, c, d, on which the pattern is laid out according to the same principles is exceedingly fine and one of the most beautifully designed bowls in the entire collection. Its maker combined all his knowledge and skill with great initiative in securing this result. He has used the familiar elements of Pl. LU but has added one of his own invention, PI. LII, u. This element may well be a wider modification of the others suggested by the one he used on the side center, PI. LII, t (PI. LXVII, 202, b). The close relationship of these two elements is apparent. This artist is one of the few who developed the PI. LII element into a spiral; besides, he used hatching which is rare. In other respects he used Tami motives but secured his effect by arrangement and the use of relief in many planes. The center design behind the face is purely decorative and continues in a wavy pattern to join the smaller but elegantly carved design of the other end. The plan of this end design conforms with the Tami style. It does not have as many teeth as many others. The absence of the toothed bounding line on the more elaborate end is also noticeable. The artist found a more graceful substitute. Certain elements which show the stylization of the human figure among the Tami have just been noted. There is, however, another mould into which the same representation has been cast. It looks very much as if this type of representation has grown from a geometric form. In whichever direction the development has been, there is a close formal relationship between the purely geometrical pattern and that used for the human head. End designs and others show the abundant use made of 3

The bars of the cross have been reduced in the illustration.

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS the cross element as forming the fundamental unit of what seem to be fish or crocodile designs. But in PI. xLvii, 181 this same element slightly modified takes on the appearance of an elongated face. That this is not imagination on the part of the writer is shown by Pis. XXX, 81 and LXIX, 204, a where the face is completed by using the usual Tami body in lower relief on the bowl. This body is characterized by limbs bent at the joints — a lozenge frequently indicates the bend — ending in fingers or toes of sharp teeth or small rectangular elements. Another characteristic is the head bent forward between the hunched shoulders. It might be argued that this position is necessary to fit the space as on the neckrests, PI. LXXXVIII, 280, 231, or on the board illustrated by Fuhrmann, *20. The post of Fuhrmann, *66, shows the same peculiarities and there seems to be no technical reason for the position of shoulders and head since the artist could carve the post as he would. PI. XCII, 239 shows an interesting arrangement of the small bent legs at the side of the head. More space could have been utilized if necessary, for the opposite end of the board is under-decorated. I t seems probable that an artist may have detached a formal motive such as occurred in PI. LIN, 141—146, seen in it an eye, nose, or mouth, and modified and adapted it to a conventionalized face. Such a process is quite likely, more probable in this case than the opposite one that the pattern representing a human face should have been worked into a fish design. My reasons for considering this mode of development more likely are psychological and statistical. This entire discussion has shown much variation in playing with formal elements, so much so in fact that an attempt at making even a loose and flexible classification is difficult. It is, in my opinion, strong evidence that the designs and elements are more formal than representative, and that they can be moved about in any combinations from man to fish to crocodile or lizard at will. The overwhelming number of end designs containing the cross element which is used as a face in comparatively few cases is another reason for pointing out the possibility — 8*

59

strong probability — of development from geometric to representative rather than the reverse. Several bowls show that in some cases the bowl may be thought of as an animal, the hollow part serving as the body to which are added decorative elements simulating head and tail. These are by no means as realistic as they are in the Admiralty Islands, being strictly conventionalized. PI. LXIX, 205 shows an exaggeration of the "mouth" element in such high relief as to look like a snout. None of the other face elements are present but the tripartite toothed ornament spreads back from it. Between the center and side part of this motive a simple element forms an eye design. A t the center of what would be the bottom of other bowls is a ridge in openwork high relief carved much like the "braids" sometimes found on spatulas from the Trobriand Islands. This high relief carving is at one end only. A t the back of the bowl an extension with lozenges carved in low relief apparently represents a tail, so that if this bowl be set on its rim and viewed in broadside profile it suggests a boar. Decoration takes precedence over realism to a high degree, however, as is shown by the fineness of the spread design behind the head, of the back ridge and of the tail, not to speak of the unusual design carved on the side which has nothing to do with a boar. I t is more than evident that the maker of this bowl could do what he wanted to do. He wanted to make a bowl representing an animal but in so doing his bent for decoration overcame his desire for realism, and the result is a beautiful bowl decorated with Tami-like elements (with one exception) arranged in a most un-Tamilike fashion. 3. Realistic bowl forms A group of bowls shows that the shape of the vessel was considered by some artists as the body of an animal. However, the representative motive in these cases, as in many others described, is subordinated to the decorative. PI. LXI, 192, b is one of the simplest of this type as it is also one of the crudest technically. This bowl has nothing but a wide protuberant

60

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

bird-like tail at one end to differentiate it from many other bowls. At the opposite end there is a mouth pattern. This bowl may be compared with PI. L x v i i , 203, a which has a mouth at each end, and then with PI. LXXXII which has a mouth at each end, but an additional protuberant bird head projecting from one of them. A variation of a trademark on both sides of the bowl wall at either end is another characteristic feature. PI. Lxxxv, 228 is a further development showing the bowl as body, nicely ornamented with a well carved band, and an additional head and tail, making a realistic form. The bowl of Pl. LXXXVI is rectangular (nearly square) in form and has a conventional, though realistic, head at one end, extending

from a somewhat unusual mouth design. I have never seen this bowl but there seems to be no indication of a tail, nor is there even a mouth pattern at the opposite end. A bowl in the Field Museum (FM 138393) of the usual elongated form and with ordinary center and end patterns has an almost identical pattern at one end. The trademarks on these two bowls are different and in other respects the work does not look as if made by the same artist. The elongation of LXXXV, 227 could be a bird or a tortoise head. The bowl has additional interest because of the unusual banding which recalls a Marquesan style more intimately than any other, and because of the ridge in openwork carving comparable with Pis. xxvin and LXIX, 205.

3 Fig. 18

Pig. 19

Pig. 20

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS The realistic forms show great variety. There may be two mouth designs with no protuberance; there may be tail without head, head without tail, or head and tail, both with ornamentation. And finally, there may be a head at each end, as in PI. LI, 140. In none of these cases could an outsider identify the animal portrayed because of extreme stylization.

61

ÛD E

F. Unification of designs By far the largest number of Tami bowls are decorated by combining a central design (Section C) with two end designs (Section A) or one end design symmetrically repeated with respect to the center on each side of the bowl (Fig. 18). The outstanding characteristic of the decorations arranged in this way is the direction in which these end designs run with respect to the center and to the whole rim seen as a unit. Of the possible arrangements the most frequently used is the same combination of end and center designs on both sides. I have previously emphasized the fact that minor variations are continually found and that statement holds here also, nevertheless, viewed in a broader way, the same combination of designs, and those placed in the same direction, is used often on both sides of the bowl. The most usual arrangement is for the heads of the end patterns to face the center (Figs. 18 and 19). A few of the end designs, however, turn away from the center (Pis. xxx, 80; XXXII, 86; LXVI, 201, b; LXXVI, 220), although in all of these cases they are used with patterns approaching banding (Fig. 20). On one bowl (PI. LXVI, 201, a, b) they face the center on one side of the bowl and turn away from it on the other. The arrangement end designs brought to the center and turned under (Fig. 21) is unique but effective. A treatment as typical as that just described is the use of different end patterns on either side of the center. Viewing the bowl as a whole, the similar ones are diagonally opposite each other. PI. LXXIII illustrates this arrangement ; the three designs must be thought of as a unit repeated on either side of the rim (Fig. 22). Sometimes the essential difference between

the end patterns is not great. It is, however, sufficient to give a pleasing variety, It often consists of using the pattern with elements

MELANESIAN DESIGN

8

Qfl OQ DO DD

of Pl. LU in positive relief at one end and the same design in negative relief at the other, at the same time treating the heads alike. On another bowl (L 1934) one end pattern of the PI. xLiii, a type is used on the same side with Pl. LUI, 145 and the reverse on the opposite side, making the hollow-centered PI. LUI, 145 on one side come diagonally opposite the same pattern on the other (Pig. 23). The artist evidently carved his design as a unit on one side, then turned the bowl and repeated the entire unit. A bowl in the museum at Cologne (K 6919) has only one end design facing the center on either side. This shows the same attitude on the part of the artist, for the end patterns are diagonally opposite on the two sides as are the empty end spaces. The way in which the bowl wall is regarded is evidenced also by the way end designs are arranged where they are the only patterns used on the sides of a bowl. In most cases one of these designs in an extended form is placed along the top of the bowl and, just as where different end designs are used with a center, the bowl is turned and the pattern repeated in the same way so that the direction in which the two run is as in Fig. 24. The same tendency is noticeable in the banded design of PI. xxxiv, 93. Fig. 24 Here the extended and elaborated end pattern is diagonally opposite one of the same sort and the simpler, more compact ends are also diagonally opposite each other although the banding is almost continuous around the upper part of the bowl (Fig. 25). PI. xxxrv, 91 where the extended end designs face at the one end of the bowl, thus decorating it symmetrically from one end as a center, is an exception to the Tami rule of applying these designs. Some artists have chosen another arrangement of patterns. They, like those who made the bowls just described, have used two end designs but two of a kind on each side of the bowl making the effect of the two sides of the bowl different. In Fig. 26 the same center is used on both sides but ends of an entirely

WOODEN BOWLS

Γ\

υ

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS different style are combined with it. The use of this type of composition is not rare but it is not as common as the other type mentioned. I have had occasion to refer to the fact that the Tami artist, while preserving a feeling for balance, does not admire, in fact avoids, absolute symmetry. Another example of the attitude is the combination of three end patterns of one sort with one end pattern which is quite different (Fig. 27). PI. LVI illustrates this composition; PI. LVI, 166 is used three times, and PI. LVI, 167 once. The number of bowls on which this arrangement is used is sufficient to show a general tendency in this direction. Usually the odd design selected for the fourth space is closely related to that repeated three times but is a simpler one or even a non-elaborated combination of the same units used in the other. The combination of various centers and end designs to form the decoration of the entire bowl shows that unity is, relatively speaking, lacking. There appears to be very little relation between the center patterns which are chosen to go with the end designs. To give only one example, both end and center designs may be characterized by the use of elements of PI. LII but there seems to be no feeling that such designs must, or even should, be used together. Of course the combination does occur, but the cases in which ends without these elements are used with centers having them, or the reverse, are quite as numerous, if not more so. There is one example (PI. LVII, 168) which shows a striking unity between end and center patterns. Both centers and three ends have partially hatched surfaces which not only individualize but also unify the composition (Fig. 28). It has been noted that hatching is an unusual decorative device in this locality. It is consequently surprising to find such unity of composition in its use. PI. LXXV, 215 shows considerable unity in the choice of design and none whatever in the composition. On side a a simple center design is used (Fig. 29). On each side of it are end designs which are really 1. c. They are appropriate to the center although they are the only

example where 1. c. of this sort are used by themselves. But side b of this bowl is very peculiar, particularly if considered with side a. A small toothed center medallion is used. This may be looked at as a complete version of the 1. c. of side a which is practically half of the same element. With this simple central pattern there is a concentric circular element at one

O

9

65

C^rpO a \

I

© b Pig. 29

end and a small circle at the other. These last two elements are not the maker's trademark for that is PI. XLIX, C. From the bowl just described, as well as numerous others, we may conclude that many Tami artists not only avoid symmetry but really enjoy irregularity. PI. LXXV, 214 which is one side of the bowl decoration is a further illustration of this fact. The opposite side has the design of PI. XLVIII, 132, b. None of the trademarks used as ornaments on this bowl is the artist's own. On some bowls there is a broadening of the composition. PI. xxxin, 90 shows the design on one of these. There is no unity between the center and end designs, nor are these related to the realistic, though conventionalized, fish pattern on the bottom (PI, LXXVIII). The greatest exuberance of design occurs on bowls which combine center patterns (Section C), end patterns (Section A) and realistic designs in high relief (Section E, 2). PI. XLIIIÌS an example of this type of composition (Fig. 30). There is a face in high relief at each end of the bowl and from one end the three toothed patterns, customarily used with them, spread. A center and one end design are found on each side. On this, as well as in PI. LXXXIII, and on other bowls, the spread designs at either side of the head apparently take the place of the two end designs which, in compositions without the high relief carving, are most common. The same plan holds for bowls with relief

66

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

Fig. 80

(either high or low) extensively used on both ends which have only the center design on the side. A large coarse bowl with the same framed face with three-part backward-spreading design at each end has the center design PI. lxiii, a on one side and on the other the same design without the barred element. A bowl which is quite similar in style, but not so coarse, uses PI. x l i v , 118 on the center of one side and PI. lxiii, a on the other. These two patterns have the same kind of u. c. but the 1. c. and c. e. differ considerably. Neither shows any particular unity with the high relief carving on the ends and bottom of the bowl. Although the bowl pictured in PI. l x v i i i is so unique as to require special consideration its composition nevertheless follows the outlines given above. An exuberant design of the face with tripartite pattern spreading back from it at one end, a much reduced and varied, but in general conforming, design at the other end, and two quite different center patterns, PI. l x v i i , 202, a, b, make up the decoration of this bowl. The spread elements of the end patterns done in high relief take the place of the end designs. This bowl which shows supreme mastery of the technique achieves its great effectiveness by the oddness of the choice of the center designs as well as by the originality (modification of element of PI. lii) of the spiral elements used on the more elaborate end design in high relief. That the end patterns are not felt to be absolutely necessary is shown by a small bowl at Stuttgart (PL l x i v , a) which has the face and three-part high relief pattern at one end and PI. l x i v , α as a center on each side. Three trademarks finish the composition on each side of the ends opposite the face design

(Fig. 31). Although in this type of bowl numerous slight variations occur, there is really no new point of composition resulting from the decoration of a larger surface of the bowl. A bowl in the Field Museum, PL l x x v , 216, has practically the entire surface decorated. There is a face at each end, each with its three-part tail spread. The central parts of these extend to the center bottom and each of the side parts continues in a kind of band ornamentation to the center of each side where a "face" element like the center of PL XLVii, 181 joins them (Fig. 32). The composition of this bowl combines the high relief motives with banding and the effect is unusual. Another bowl in the Field Museum (FM 144088), of which only one design, PL l x v , 198, is illustrated, is similar on one side; on the opposite side, instead of the banding design, PL l x v , 198 is used (Fig. 33). From the mouth design a bird-like head projects. This central design is unlike any so far described. The u. c. is normal, but runs off into a "legclaw" element as a 1. c., and this "leg-claw" element is grasping a conventionalized fish. The bowl illustrated in PL l x v i i , 203, b shows a different trend. A much simplified mouth design is used to decorate the point of each end of the bowl, the center is a slightly elliptical medallion belonging to the "mouth" type and the bottom is entirely covered by a well carved conventionalized lizard (Fig. 34). Several bowls in the collection have end face motives in high relief. One (FM 147272), instead of having the usual tri-partite toothed spread, has an end part of the PL liv, 152 type (though much simpler) running to one side from the " m o u t h " (Fig. 35). At the other side of the mouth is a simple tapered element in

CAEYED WOODEN BOWLS

67

68

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

Fig. 86

mass. An unusual feature of this face is the use of a ribbon element for one of the points above the eye and of a plain surface for the other. The second bowl of this sort is one in the Berlin Museum (Be 81564) which has a face in high relief at each end and the tripartite tail spread. The central part of this is, however, much elaborated, the toothed elements of the side parts are reduced, but the sides themselves are continued in a somewhat unusual end pattern. There is also an unusual central design. Closely related to these compositions formally is PI. LXXXV, 229. Here only the "mouth" design is used, not the entire face. The whole composition of this bowl is done from the point of view of the bowl standing, instead of lying on the rim. Instead then of the toothed tail spread there is an extension on each side into a nicely done end design. This device is used only on one end, making the entire composition on the bowl a symmetrical unit with the "mouth" element of one end as center. A small bowl in Berlin (Be 26535) has a fine mouth pattern from which good end designs extend. This single composition of mouth and two ends seems to be the sole ornament of this bowl.1 Let me here recapitulate what was said in Section Β in order to point out the relationship between designs approaching banding and the center designs. Some of the bowls, Pis. XXX, 8 0 ; XXXII, 8 6 ; XL, 1 1 0 ; LXVI, 2 0 1 , b; LXXVI, 220, have the portion of the banding 1

I have not seen the bowls in the Berlin Museum and can study them only from rubbings and photographs which were sent me.

which includes the usual pattern turning away from the center design (Fig. 20). This arrangement is just the opposite from the most customary combination of end and center designs, but is quite in keeping with the general spreading effect most noticeable in Tami art style. The bowls, PI. LXVI, 199, 200, on which the ends turn toward the center have the most un-Tami-like effect in that they appear stiff and hemmed in (Fig. 19). The spreading of the tails in the ordinary combination of ends and centers prevents such a result. PI. LXVI, 201 combines the outward and inward-spreading composition for it has one on one side, the other on the other (Fig. 36). The spreading effect is one of the general principles of Tami style for it is by all means the most frequent on well-done as well as on cruder carvings. As must always be the case if any individualism is indulged in, there are some bowls which are so unusual that they fall into no category and must therefore be described independently. The extraordinary features of PI. LXIX, 205 have been described on p. 59. The decorative design on the side is most unique. It has no elements in common with other designs on the bowl unless the termination with the cross element at the end be related to the element used in the middle of the pattern immediately behind the snout. In brief, the form of this bowl is unified but the decoration is not.

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS A bowl in the Field Museum (FM 144087) has a peculiar combination of elements. The realistic human figure in high relief is the center design on each side. At one end there is an unusual "spirit face" in high relief, and at the opposite end, a bird head handle. A small design in low relief is used at the handle end on the body of the bowl. Pl. X X V I I I illustrates one of the most excellent of all the specimens as well as one of the most individualistic. The shape of the bowl is peculiar and can best be seen in Pl. χχνιιι, c, d. The end, a, is similar to some other bowls, being treated with a mouth design which spreads to the sides of the bowl in a tapering design. The use of two elements of PL LII at either side of the mouth design is unusual. The opposite end has one of the high relief human figures with a head out of all proportion to the rest of the body. In this, as in most other respects, it follows the usual style of this design. Its position is what makes it unique; it is the only bowl in the collection which has this design on the end. Besides the irregularities just mentioned, all irregularities of composition, there are high reliefs on both sides of the end having the human figure. Pl. L X I X has a row of somewhat similar openwork elements at the center bottom of one end, but it is as unusual as PL xxvni. If PL xxvni represents the acme of conscious irregularity in form and decoration, PL XL, 111 is a close second. This bowl is lower and narrower in proportion to its length than most of the bowls studied. It has a kind of knob at each end as well as a peculiar treatment of the rim at one end. These features would incline one to classify it as not Tami. But the peculiarly placed band of the one side, the bottom design (an elaborated trademark), as well as the more complexly developed design similar to a trademark on one end, indicate Tami influence at least. On the opposite side are two simple designs in high relief irregularly placed. The description of the unusual bowls, which are generally the best technically, shows there is practically no limit to the ways in which elements of Tami style may be combined, or to the effects which may be achieved,

69

although the number of elements themselves is small. The whole question of unity in Tami decoration is exceedingly difficult, because, like much imaginative art, it is intangible. The art as a whole may not truthfully be said to lack unity, but it differs widely in kind from that which is found elsewhere. It is primarily a matter of feeling. G. Habits of the artists

The material used for this study has been so far classified in various ways according to the elements under consideration. If we now look at each bowl as a unit of form and composition we are led by certain specific details to conclude that certain objects are the work of particular artists. On the other hand, many bowls which look similar, when analyzed, show the hand of a different workman. Detailed consideration shows that schools of artists are represented. The working out of technique is one of the best clues to artisanship. Certain designs, though not alike in composition, are obviously the work of the same individual. The same degree of virtuosity may have been attained by two artists, but no two will show it in exactly the same way. Their work will differ because of the way in which details, which ultimately cause the general effect, are handled. Some of these details are, for example, the depth and evenness of the cutting, the length and angle of the teeth, the direction in which they run, the predominance of right and curved lines, etc. In making the comparisons I have tried to give due weight to similarities of virtuosity and technical peculiarities rather than to be guided by the trademarks. They will be mentioned incidentally in this part of the discussion and I shall revert to them in weighing their significance later. School I. This school has exerted the greatest influence of all if the number of specimens in the collection representing it is any indication. Its influence is quite understandable in that the objects carved by its members are the finest of all in design and execution. One reason for this may be that the style

70

MELANESIAN

appeals to the natives; another, that the artists, being adepts, artistically and technically, had a large following as is usual with skilled workers. It may be, however, that more objects from this school than from others are found in the museum collections because the style appealed more strongly to the European collectors. It is more likely that they have taken what they could get. School I, branch t. Within the school some artists are undoubtedly represented more than once. For example, PI. x x i x , 77 and a similar bowl ( K 91) are certainly the work of the same man, let us call him M. Besides similarities in pattern there is virtual agreement in composition, proportions, and in treatment of details, as well as in trademarks which are practically identical (PL XLIX, a). Catalogue numbers show that both were collected at the same time. This is the most obvious example of common artisanship. School I, branch u. The classicists of this school are represented by Pis. x x x , 80; χ χ χ ι , 83 ; XXXII, 86 ; x x x i n , 90 and one other example (S 29275) not illustrated. Pis. x x x , 80; x x x i i , 86; and x x x i n , 90 show their affinity in the treatment of the center pattern. The u. c., with its concentric semi-circles around its graceful center and the tendency to elaborate on the theme of PI. LII elements, is strong evidence of relationship. The 1. c., with its irregular center and use of PI. LII elements in positive and negative relief, shows further similarity. But the carving of the teeth, besides all these characteristics, is, I think, final proof that the same hand guided the knife. Note that the "lean" of the teeth of all three is in the same direction — somewhat toward the left even past the center, then quite regularly to the right — and that the depth and angle of the teeth are practically the same, that is, they are long and very acute-angled. Add to these observations the general style of composition of Pis. x x x , 80 and XXXII, 86 and few would

question that they were made by the same individual ( I shall call him N ) or at least that one was made by a close follower of the carver of the other. PI. x x x i n , 90 belongs here unequivocally also if we may judge by the 1

The details a und b, of the fish, are, I think, variations of the trademark.

DESIGN

details of the center pattern. Otherwise the composition is very different but the virtuosity is such that there can be little doubt of the affiliation. The general impression of PI. χ χ χ ι , 83 would cause one to place it in this same group for the following reasons: treatment of the center of 1. c., lean of teeth and the use of a toothed element of PI. LII for the ends of the u. c. The end patterns of this bowl are so different as hardly to be comparable with the others but the maker of ends of PI. x x x i n , 90 could have made ends like those of PL χ χ χ ι , 83. The proportions of these bowls are as follows. The last column gives either the trademark of the bowl or data as to its variations. No.

L:W

L:H

W:H

PI. x x x , 80 S 29275

5.7 4.2 4.7

2.3 1.7 2.1

P I . XLIX, U

P l . XXXII, 86

2.4 2.4 2.2

Trademark

Pl. χχχιιι, 90

2.3

4.2

1.8

P I . L X X V I I I , A,

Pl. χχχι, 83

2.4

4.8

2.0

P I . XLIX, Ρ

P I . XLIX, Ρ

P l . XLIX, Ρ (piece

broken out) M?)1

School I, branch v. The bowls Pis. x x x i v , 91, 92, 93; XXXV ; x x x v i , 95; x x x v i i , 101 ; Β 2/xi, and S 71026 are typical of another branch of the school and they are likewise classics. Judged by the criterion of the center design, PL x x x v i , 95 may well go with School I, branch u. The end patterns also show detailed similarities with those of PL χ χ χ ι , 83. The composition of Pis. x x x i v , 92, 93; x x x v prevents too rigid a comparison but elements of the banding of the first two are strikingly similar to those of PL χ χ χ ι , 83 in design and execution. The end patterns of PL x x x v and of Β 2/xi, which have become the entire decoration of the sides, are also very like the ends of PL χχχι, 83 and of the banded patterns. PL XXXVII, 101 and S 71026 are in higher relief than the others and the use of a toothed element of PL LII in negative relief individualizes them. A small design (PL XLIX, W) at one end of S 71026 is unique. The proportions of these bowls, with the exceptions of PL x x x i v , 91, 92 and Β 2/xi, are more closely related than those of School I, branch u, L : Η being the most variable.

CAEYED WOODEN BOWLS No. PI. x x x i v , 91 PI. x x x i v , 92 S 71026 Β 2/χι Pl. x x x v Pl. x x x v i , 95 Pl. x x x i v , 93 Pl. χ χ χ ν ι ι , 101

L:W

L:H

W:H

Trademark

3.3 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3

7.5 5.5 4.2 6.3 5.0 4.9 4.5 4.5

2.2 1.7 1.3 2.4 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.9

P L XLIX, 0 PI. XLIX, A PI. XLIX, A PI. XLIX, A —

PI. XLIX, A PI. XLIX, ρ P l . XLIX, ρ

I shall call the carver of PL xxxiv, 92 and 93, 0 ; of PL xxxv, 0 ' ; and of PI. xxxvi, 95, 0". 0"', the carver of PL xxxiv, 91, belongs to this branch of the school also but shows his individuality in his carving of the body of the end motives, in the lengthening of the triangular elements, but more especially in the way he places his designs. His trademark also is different (PL XLIX, O). Instead of carving the design on one side, turning the bowl and repeating it, he looks at the bowl from the end and carves the two patterns symmetrically with the end point as center. The bowl has an unusual shape and the proportions are not like the others of this branch. Other members of the school are P, the carver of PL xxix, 76 (trademark PL XLIX, u), who is quite as skilled but has peculiarities of style; Q, the maker of PL LVII, 168, who distinguishes his work with hatching. R, who carved PL XLI, 113 and 114, has good ideas but does not carry them out so well. Q and E use similar trademarks (Pl. XLIX, g). School I, branch w. Members of this branch combine some features of that preceding with their own individual devices. Objects belonging to this school are bowls illustrated as Pis. XXXVIII, 104 and xxxix, 109. The end patterns are similar to those just described but they have been modified by extension of the pattern, use of toothed elements of PL LU, and more especially by carving in very high relief. The c. e. of one side have a toothed element of PL LII thus unifying it with the end patterns. The 1. c. of PL xxxvin, 104 are "mouth" elements and PL xxxix, 109 shows a strong tendency toward the use of the same type of element and is much further elaborated with carving at the ends in very high relief. I do not believe that these two bowls were made by the same artist but I am convinced that their makers, as well as the

71

men who made Pl. χ χ χ ν ι ι , 101 and S 71026, were exposed to the same influence. School I, branch x. Treatment of centers, use of high relief for ends, originality in the extending of the point of elements of PL LII into a gore, other subtle modifications, and general effect cause me to class the next four bowls together, not perhaps as the work of a single artist, but at least as influenced by the same one. Differences of proportion prevent me from including these bowls in School I, branch w, although for other reasons they might be placed there. No. PI. XXXVI, 9 4 PI. LXXII PI. LXXIII PI. LXXXVII

L :W

L:H

W:H

2.6 2.5 2.7 2.9

5.2 5.5 5.7 5.6

2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9

Trademark PI. XLIX, j —

Pl. XLIX, g Pl. XLIX, g

In many respects Pis. xxxvi, 94 and xxxvi, 95 are similar, but the first of these and PL LXXII are unusual in their treatment of end patterns, in that on both there is an extension of the head into a spreading flower-like element which is distinctive. The center designs of Pl. LXXII are not as similar to those of PL xxxvi, 94 as are those of PL xxxvi, 95. Proportions are, however, very similar. In the distinctive treatment of Pl. LII elements Pis. X X X I I I , 89 ; LXXII, and LXXXVII belong together. In PL LXXXVII, C, d and e, the point is considerably extended, in PL LXXIII, e, it is extended and curved to fit the medallion it is placed on, in PL LXXXVII, C, the extension is filled with a graceful ribbon, and in PL LXXII, d and /, the points are so extended and filled in as to constitute gores. The workmanship of all of these bowls is excellent and the originality of design points to Massim influence. School II. The artists of this school show some influence of School I especially in the way in which they sometimes treat end designs. Their work is characterized by the fan-shape — frequently very graceful — of the 1. c. By its very shape it lends itself well to the use of long, sharp teeth. Many of the specimens belonging to this school seem to have been made by separate artists. A few, however, show the same craftsmanship. School II, branch m. Pis. X X X I I I , 88; xxxix, 107, and Β D 2538 (not illustrated) belong to-

M E L A N E S I A N DESIGN

72

gether. Not only are the teeth directed in the same way, but the 1. c. are very similar. All have the same trademark (Pl. XLIX, g). End designs are so different as not to be comparable. The proportions of these bowls: No. P l . X X X I I I , 88

L:W

L:H

W:H

Trademark

2.7

6.3

2.2

Pl. XLIX, g

Β D2538

2.7

5.8

2.1

Pl. XLIX, g

P l . X X X I X , 107

2.5

5.8

2.2

P l . X L I X , GÌ

No. PI.

XLI,

112

PL

XLII

PL

XLIII

P L X L I V , 115

Pl. X L V , 120 Pl. xxxi, 85 Pl. X L V , 122 P l . L V I I I , 171

L:W

L:H

W:H

2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5

5.1 5.8 4.0 6.4 5.4 5.2 5.0 6.4

1.8 2.0 1.4 2.4 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.5

Trademark — —

PI. XLIX, d Pl. XLIX, 0 Pl. XLIX, η Pl. XLIX, α Pl. XLIX, η Pl. XLIX, a

School I I , branch o. A number of bowls (PI. xxxviii, 103 [which as a center design is The proportions of Pl. x x x i x , 107 and representative of the bowls H 3479, L S K I 59, Β D2538 are almost the same and taken all to- H 26.46:1] ; Pl. XLVI, 126 ; Β 523) show stylistic gether evidence of the same artist is incon- characteristics related to the other branches of trovertible. I shall call the carver of this branch School I I , for example, the fan spread of the of School II, S. 1. c. They have, however, a characteristic which School I I , branch n. Another branch of the would put them in a group by themselves, same school is represented by Pis. XLI, 112 ; XLII ; namely, the fishtail c. e. These bowls are coarseXLV, 120, 122; LVIII, 171. The characteristic ly, but not inexpertly, carved and some of feature is the use of the end patterns, unusual them are apparently very old. PI. XLVI, 126 in the simplicity and grace of the convention- and H 26.46:1 have trademark PL XLIX, J; alization and excellence of carving. The artist the trademarks of the other three are similar uses either the fan-shaped or circular 1. c. but (PL XLIX, a), the difference between these being when choosing the latter never approaches the one of size. The effect of these patterns, together grace or fineness of School I. Here is another with their end designs, is that of bold sweeping development from a decoration restricted in strokes which is effective in a simple way. space to one covering a larger area; in PI. XLI, The proportions of these bowls : 112 the technique is good but the designing is Trademark No. L :W L :H W : H bad, in PI. XLII both are of the best. Since unfortunately there is no chronology for the objects I can only suggest that the artist may have tried PI. XLI, 112 with results not altogether satisfactory. His next attempt was successful technically and' artistically. However, I think it more likely that the maker of PI. XLI, 112 was a student of T, the carver of PI. XLII, and a promising one at that, who had not had sufficient experience to attain the best results. There are no trademarks on these two bowls. Those on PI. XLV, 120 and 122 are identical (PI. XLIX, n). The maker of PL x x x i , 85 belongs to this branch of the school but is not one of its best representatives. His trademark also is different (PI. XLIX, a).

H 3479 Β 523 P l . X X X V I I I , 103

L SK159 H 26.46:1 Pl. X L vi, 126

2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.8

4.7 6.4 4.6 4.1 4.6 5.6

1.7 2.8 1.7 1.5 1.6 2.0

P L XLIX, A P L XLIX, A P L XLIX, a

(d)

Pl. XLIX, a Pl. XLIX, j P L XLIX, j

These are all large bowls and their proportions, while differing considerably from the proportions of the other groups of the school, nevertheless are surprisingly uniform within the branch itself. School I I , branch p. A small group of three bowls (Pl. XL vi, 125; Pl. LUI, 143; H 1650) shows another type of variation of the c. e., namely a fan-shaped instead of a fishtail end.

Belonging to the same school is the maker of

T w o of them, PL XLVI, 125 and P l . LUI, 143,

P I . XLIII ( t r a d e m a r k P I . XLIX, d), a n d P I . XLIV,

are almost undoubtedly the work of the same man as is evidenced not only by the appearance of the centers but also by the treatment of the end patterns with a ribbon body. Only one of these has a trademark (PL L, b). These are all large bowls.

115. He uses long teeth and has a tendency toward blunting them at the point. His is a coarse but by no means uncontrolled technique. The proportions of this branch speak for themselves.

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS No. P L XLVi,

125

H 1650 Pl. u n , 143

L:W

L:H

W:H

2.6 2.8 2.5

5.0 4.4 4.6

1.9 1.4 1.6

Trademark Pl.

L,

b

School III. Several artists, instead of combining the common center design with end patterns, have modified a pattern by using it in the center and arranging wavy lines on both sides. This center has perhaps closer affiliations with end patterns than with centers but is really quite distinctive. Κ 13549 and bowl S L1482/261 show the same workmanship in details and trademarks (PI. X L I X , g). Practically the only difference is that in one case (K 13549) the artist elaborated the design somewhat and used negative relief on one side of the bowl and positive on the other. Bowl S L1482/261 has the same pattern on both sides. Technically P I . X L V I I I , 132 shows many likenesses to S L1482/261 but it has a different trademark ( P I . X L I X , q). The use of P I . L I I with different positions on the two sides is also noteworthy but is found on other bowls. Bowl H 35151 is stylistically the same as the other three bowls in this group, but technically somewhat inferior. Its trademark is like that of P L X L V I I I , 132. The bowl illustrated by P I . XLvu, 129, which is finer in design and carving than any of the others, has the same trademark. It has the same pattern on both sides. Pl. XL vu, 130 uses a common end design as a center. It is turned down at the center and wavy lines radiate on either side as on the other bowls. PI. X L V I I , 128 and 130 were made by the same individual as is evidenced by design, technique, proportions and trademarks. The maker of PI. L X X I X used the same device as that of PL X L V I I , 129 but elongated it considerably and carved two lizards in low relief on the bottom of the bowl omitting the trademark. The proportions of these bowls are: No. Trademark L:W L : H W : H S L1482/261 H 3515 1

P l . XLVII, 1 2 9 Pl. x L v n ,

128

Pl. XLvn,

130

Pl. XLViii, Pl. LXXIX

Κ 13549

10

132

3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4

7.1 4.7 5.2 5.3 4.8 5.4 4.4 5.2

2.3 1.6 1.9 1.9

1.7 2.8 1.7 2.3

Pl. XLIX, g P l . XLIX, q PI. XLIX, q PI. XLIX, A PI. XLIX, A PI. XLIX, q P l . XLIX, g

(C)

73

I have taken considerable pains to point out inhowfar one can infer that the same artist made several bowls from the evidence of the carvings themselves. The discussion of the three schools with their various influences here given does not by any means exhaust the possibilities which the material offers. It does, however, present the most apparent craftsmanship with, I think, a fair degree of certainty. As is to be expected, since the possibilities of combination of elements and patterns are so numerous, no sharp classification can be made on the basis of element or design combination. As is also to be expected, the most unique compositions show the greatest individuality, and influences may be suggested but not definitely spotted. Generally speaking, the better an artist works, the greater are the chances that his results will be original, so that they will stand apart from the average. I shall summarize very briefly the composition, effect and degree of virtuosity of a few such examples and point out inhowfar different schools may be related. PL x x x i i i , 89. This bowl has a 1. c. which is of the style of School II, and u. c. of the most ordinary type of School I ; two end patterns facing this center on one side which belong to School II, branch w, and two end patterns on the opposite side which are unusual modifications of the most common type of end designs. The technique is of the best, and the trademark is PL X L I X , j. PL Lvi and Β D1660 (ends of which are shown in PL LIV, 150 and 151) were almost certainly made by the same artist. The treatment of teeth in center and end patterns, the apparent strain for variety, and the way in which such variation is achieved lead me to this conclusion. The centers of PL LVI are unusual in that end designs are introduced as c. e., and somewhat unusual positions and shapes are given the mouth elements of the 1. c. The one end (PL LVI, 166) is unique in the entire collection but is more closely related to PL X X X I I I , 89, / than to any other. This bowl has no trademark. Bowl Β D1660 is not only unusual in the treatment of these end designs, the composition of which has already been discussed

74

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

(p. 37), but it has another peculiarity that leads to conjecture. It once had center designs which have been shaved off. It lacks a trademark. Did the maker of this bowl try some center design as ultra as his end patterns or more so? If so, was he so displeased with the result that he shaved it off and left only the ends? Questions of this kind are readily put, but may perhaps never be answered. At any rate this artist was not satisfied with the everyday patterns of his group and he strove valiantly — and successfully — for originality. In most respects bowl H 14.2:32 is a product of School II. The carving is quite well-done but the maker was not adept in placing his design and it is askew. But he also had the urge to be different and PI. LIX, 181 shows a peculiar end and PL LXV, 197 the center he made. They draw attention immediately but cannot be called an artistic success. PI. L x x i v , 213 has the same center extended so as to fill the entire side.

carvings, which have the significance of crests, on house beams among the mainlanders and on boats among the islanders. The recognition is no doubt based also upon close acquaintance with the carver's technique whether the observer knows the artist personally or only his work by reputation. And if the man's house or boat carvings are famous, there is no reason why his bowls should not be known. From the fact that the trademarks are few in comparison with the number of bowls we may be quite sure they are family (or sib)3 marks. Bamler4 lists the few sibs of the Tami. There are two old ones : Soapo and Moyongal. Others are: Balelenau, Mayang,

Kalab,

Mba-

The Tami bowls have marks on the bottom which I have been calling trademarks. They perhaps denote possession but are as difficult to interpret with our scanty knowledge as writing to which there is no key. No primary source, as far as I have been able to discover, refers to them directly. The few references are to ownership by the sib-group. Although it is not quite clear what is owned it is almost certainly the patterns. According to Lehner 1 the copying of a pattern leads to a feud. Bamler,2 from the field, expresses his regret that the clue to the patterns was not discovered earlier for he writes (in 1911), "It is too bad that this method of identification was not known earlier, then some traces might have been followed up. Now all the carvings are in museums." Individuals of a given family group in the Tami area can recognize works of their own members at great distances, apparently, by the patterns. Bamler mentions particularly

kawe. Since the sibs of the Tami, as of a large area round about, are matrilineal, a man inherits his trademark from his mother's family. At least he inherits his tago (a kind of spirit) from them and most likely his other possessions. Trademarks are not restricted to schools. Products of different schools may have the same mark, and objects of the same school different ones. These facts are to be understood on the basis of social organization. In a matrilineal society a boy, although he inherits from his maternal uncle, may, nevertheless, learn as much from his father as from the males of his mother's family. It is quite clear then how two men having the same style may use different marks, the one may be the father's, the other the son's. This circumstance accounts, in my opinion, for such lack of coordination between styles and marks which exists. It is likely even that a boy may learn carving from anyone; his teacher need not be a relative. The one essential for encouragement, according to Bamler,5 is the aptitude of the learner. I can find no evidence that craftsmanship must be passed down in a family, even though the pattern must. There are two marks which are used on by far the greatest number of objects in this collection (types of PI. XLIX, α-e, and of PI. XLIX, o-r). There can be no doubt that carvers of the

1

3

TRADEMARKS

2

In Neuhauss III, 428. This holds for the Bukaua. Cp. also Neuhauss I, 321. Bamler, in Neuhauss III, 524.

4 6

Sib and family seem to be used synonymously. In Neuhauss III, 507—509. BANGN X X , 1—24.

75

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS two sibs using them must have had close social relationships. But the amount of variation in composition together with the similarities of technique show that a man may learn from many teachers. When he has finished his carving he scratches his own mark on the bottom as we might inscribe our initials. His mark is, however, not an individual, but a group mark. The question as to whether differences in size or in minor details are of importance can be sifted only in a general way. The lozenge (Pl. XLIX, α-e) may be large or small, wide or narrow; it may be repeated (in only one case), a larger may contain a smaller one (PL XLIX, f-h), or it may have a straight vertical line in the center (PI. XLIX, i, j; L, b). One outstanding difference is that of size. I am inclined to consider the narrower lozenge without further elaboration, whether long or short (PL XLIX, b, β), as a mark of one sib. Among the many bowls having this mark are works of all schools and all degrees of virtuosity. One well-made bowl (PL LI, 136) has two of the lozenges placed side by side. Perhaps belonging to the same family is a mark of the same shape which is long, crude and wide. Only three of the bowls have it and the coarseness of their technique may correspond to the carelessness of the mark. PL XLIX, j shows a variation of the mark which is decidedly distinguishing. Seven bowls have this mark, three of which are large and crude like mark, PL L, b. The patterns of one are so roughened by use that they cannot be analyzed. With this exception all of the bowls having this mark belong to School II, but the carving varies from the worst to the best. Many bowls have the mark, Pl. XLIX, / , g or h, a lozenge within a lozenge. One (PL XLI, 114), previously discussed as a representative object of School I, which is good artistically but not technically, has a trademark of the same sort so crude that the outer lozenge is nearly circular. Some of the others are very good and include some of the best bowls. The marks of PL XLIX, m-r, t-w, based on a circle, are found on a large group of bowls. The 1

In Neuhauss III, 507. 10*

plate shows the trivial differences in marking which may be significant although it may be that the members of the same sib individualize their own marks by adding or omitting a line or two. A number of bowls, many excellently finished, have the mark, PL XLIX, p. They belong to different schools. The marks of Pl. L, a, c are all coarse and too worn to show anything but the general plan of the pattern. The element at the end of the middle (bottom) part of PL L, e may show some connection with this trademark but it is doubtful. Pl. XLIX, o illustrates a mark which occurs on only one bowl which may bear some relationship to the marks of PL XLIX, p-r, t-w. Several bowls (Pis. XLVIII, 133; LXXX, 223 and Κ 6937), all of which are unusual, but good, have the mark PL XLIX, k. In PL LXXX, 223 it is on the center of either side, the bottom being occupied by a low relief of a double monster. I do not know whether or not a trademark may be moved to some place on the bowl other than the bottom and still be considered a trademark; it is likely that in such a position it is considered a pattern. The circle as a mark (PL XLIX, TO) sets apart a few bowls of the highest type of workmanship. Two bowls (PL XLV, 120 and 122), almost certainly made by the same man, have two concentric circles (PL XLIX, ri). The technique is of the best. It is difficult to count the trademarks since there is no way of telling whether size makes as much difference as shape, or whether crudeness is an individual trait .or a family distinction. Bamler 1 has listed only the six sibs which possess tago which is apparently an imported institution. If the finer variations of the trademarks are at all significant there must be more than six sibs. With the scanty information available it is impossible to make a close correlation between the trademarks and families. TAMI ART

In a previous chapter on the bowls of the Admiralty Islands it was shown that a definition of style for one form of art was satisfactory

76

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

in establishing the fundamental principles of the general style, but that it was not complete by any means. The Admiralty Island problem differs considerably from the Tami one in that the decoration of the bowls in the former locality is scanty and, in my opinion, recent, whereas that on the Tami bowls is exuberant and well-developed, in fact, even better technically than the carving on many other objects. The illustrations include a large amount of material taken from bowl carvings only, and at that are only representative of that which exists, for the variety is infinite. Perhaps for this reason the Tami style is more completely defined by the bowl carvings. Many objects of different sizes and shapes, used for different purposes, are decorated. For them all, with the exception of tortoiseshell armbands and cocoanutshell cups, the definition of the style of the bowls is adequate. The high-relief carvings which include the smallest number of bowls are unexpectedly most representative, for the buwun and tago spirits occur most frequently, but in exactly the same way as on the bowls. Only a few Tami objects other than bowls are here illustrated, but the conclusions are based on observations of a great many seen in the various museums visited. PI. LXXXVIII, 280, 231 are typical headrests of the area. In these two examples, as well as in Fuhrmann, *42, the characteristics of the figure described for the bowls (p. 57) are present, the large head with points above and under the eyes, eyes and mouth prominent and elliptical, limbs bent and short in proportion to the head, a decorative motive of PL XLIX, / or η type used at the joint. PI. LXXXVIII shows better than any of the bowl illustrations the use of PI. LXII, X, y elements in openwork carving, which have been referred to (pp. 59, 69, Pis. xxvm, and LXIX, 205) as indicating Massim influence. Unusually simple, but stamped by the same features, are the net sinkers of PI. LXXXIX, 232,238. PL xcii, 239, and Fuhrmann, *20, *33,1 show how the spirit figure is arranged on a flat surface, a board for house or canoe decoration. There is the head used on the bowls, although 1 a

Neu Guinea. Die Kunst der Naturvölker und der Vorzeit.

not framed, as it frequently is on them. The three-part fishtail spreads upward away from it. In each case the artist was satisfied to leave some unfilled space. That the large head and bent limbs are stylistic and not necessary to fit the space, is evidenced by the sculpture of Fuhrmann, *66, and von Sydow, PL *vin 2 , in which cases the artist had freedom in three dimensions and seems to be master of it as well as of low relief carving. It should be noted that these figures are not as phallic as many from the region farther north, the Sepik River district (cp., for example, Fuhrmann, *58, *59, *62, *64). The illustrations of von Sydow, p. *166 and PL *vni, suggest the possibility that the fish-like element represented by many of the bowl end patterns may be considered phallic. The illustration, von Sydow, p. *166, is excellent to show how sculptures in the round are used as house ornaments. They include fish as well as the spirit figures but even these do not differ from the descriptions here given of fish carved in low relief on the bowls. Fish carved in low relief on the house pictured in von Sydow, p. *167, are almost identical with those on the bowls, and the more elaborate and conventionalized figure on the adjoining side has also been met with. The masks figured in PL LXXXIX, 234 and Fuhrmann, *94, represent the acme of simplicity although at the same time retaining the main characteristics of the spirit representations. More highly conventionalized is the flat carving of a bull-roarer in Lewis, Pl. 3 *XLVII, 2, which again shows the outstanding features of the buwun (or tago). Executed in another medium, painting on barkcloth, is the same sort of design PL xc, which shows perhaps the least which is necessary to indicate the spirits. Executed in a still different technique, pyrography on a betel gourd, is the illustration of Finsch, Südseearbeiten, Pl. *χχι, 449, stylistically the same. The adze haftings of PL xci, 235, a, b, 236, a, b show a combination of the spirit representations and the more geometrical motives which I discuss next. They are particularly interesting because of the consummate 3

FM AD S 5.

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS

77

skill with which they are planned and executed, but no new elements are introduced. The adze handle of PI. xci, 285, α is a fine example of a geometrically carved object. It includes many familiar elements, teeth of the usual type, circular and ellipsoid elements tapering in size to fit the gore they fill, rectangles, and a ribbon somewhat more complicated than usual. The composition of this adze handle, although it contains no new elements, is nevertheless new, except as it is remotely related to certain banded designs of the bowls, Pis. xxxn, 86; xxxiv, 92, 93; xlii; li, 138, 140; lxxvi, 218, for example. The relationship is, however, not very close. But on two important articles of Tami manufacture a close compositional relationship is found, namely, on tortoiseshell armbands and cocoanutshell cups. These objects are carved in low relief, a technical necessity since the cocoanutshell is relatively thin and the tortoiseshell is thinner. But this technical requirement cannot account for the outstanding fact that on these objects no vacant space is left ; this is in direct contrast to the laying out of the field in woodcarving. The discussion of these objects is based on the illustrations here reproduced from Lewis,1 and is suggestive rather than exhaustive. Figs. 38—44 illustrate the incising on tortoiseshell bracelets. The most striking feature is

Pig. 87

the fact that all the space is filled, with teeth as previously described, with PI. lii elements, ribbons, mouth designs, rectangles, circles, ellipsoids, chevrons, and the entire gamut of familiar Tami elements. A new element, Fig. 37, found also on the house illustrated by von Sydow, p. *167, is that used as banding on Fig. 39. The lines forming this element conform to Tami style in the inner field of this bracelet in that they are curved rather than straight. Triangles hatched in one direction, just half of the element of Fig. 37, 1

PMADS 4.

Pig. 38

are used sparsely in Fig. 38 and there is a little cross hatching.

78

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

Pig. 40

Pig. 39

The bracelets are long and narrow (5.5 cm. in width and perhaps 23—30 cm. in length). This rectangular surface is divided into fields, more usually into lengthwise fields. Figs. 38, 39, 40 are marked off lengthwise with a wide central field and two narrow bordering ones; the ends consist of several bands composed of geometrical elements. In Fig. 41 this arrangement is doubled, although it lacks the toothed border at one side. Fig. 42, a specimen not especially good, is divided by a band in the center into two lengthwise fields and long bands serve also as borders. Fig. 43 consists of a number of wide and narrow bands arranged widthwise. Fig. 44 is

CABVED WOODEN BOWLS

79

ÜD

e

MELANESIAN DESIGN

80

The eight cocoanutshell cups illustrated by Figs. 47—49, 51—551 show almost as many different kinds of composition. These cups present a peculiar surface for decoration. The top of the shell is cut off, except, in most cases, for a curved band which is left to serve as a handle. The main surface, then, is that of a truncated sphere which may, of course, be divided in various ways. Four of the cups have a circular design at the bottom consisting of masses, bands, and toothed bands. Two center details of these patterns, Figs. 45 and 46, were not found on the bowls.

Fig. 45

Fig. 44

unskilfully done but makes use of designs, concentric circles, labyrinthine arrangements of curved lines, and concentric hollow rectangles, more common to the Sepik Biver district than to the Tami. 1

From Lewis, FMADS

4:

Pis.

XLVIII—LII.

Fig. 46

The surface of the cup of Fig. 47 is divided from the center circular element at the bottom to the rim band into four fields, three of which occupy so much of the space that the ornamentation of the fourth must be crowded. These spaces are again divided into four segments by curved bands and the spaces are filled by circles and curved bands, some of which are toothed. No two of the segments is decorated in exactly the same way. All of the cups seem to have borders; the border of Fig. 47 is relatively wide and consists of a looped ribbon element and a row of teeth at the extreme edge. Fig. 48 has the unusual element Fig. 45 as center and from this the surface seems to be divided into two panels, not at all alike. On one side, Fig. 48, a, two glorified PI. LII elements radiate from the center; the space remaining between them is filled with a circular element glorified in the same way. There is some treatment of mass where the panel narrows. The use of very long, sharp teeth and the repetition of them three times to form the PI. LII element is interesting and so well-done as to be beautiful. The teeth are so exaggerated that they "out-Tami Tami". The opposite half of the cup, Fig. 48, b, has a design which has for its center a fish element with wavy tail, toothed along the waves on

81

CAEVED WOODEN BOWLS

Fig. 47 a

Pig. 47 b

82

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

Pig. 48 a

Fig. 48 b

CAEYED WOODEN BOWLS

83

Pig. 49

both sides. On each side of this fish-like figure is a well carved trademark element, of the Pl. X L I X , u type, but varied somewhat by cross hatching. Two narrow bands of the looped ribbon separate these two patterns on one side, on the other, the long, sharp teeth are sufficient. There is a border consisting of a row of touching ellipsoids and a row of teeth. This cup displays great originality very well carried out. Fig. 49 has a peculiarly elaborated circular design at the bottom and from it extend several panels — perhaps four — which seem not to be very regular. These panels are composed of small elements, toothed bands, ribbons, ellipses, etc., but there are two elements, suggestive.of trademarks, around which they center. The border consists in this case of a plain band at the extreme rim and a looped ribbon, Fig. 50. It is interesting to note that between what appear to be the principal panels the border is widened on one side by the same element toothed, and on the other by a row of teeth. 11*

Fig. 51 is laid out on entirely different lines, concentric bands from the center being the keynote. As if the Tami artist could not tolerate regularity, the third and fourth bands from the bottom center are broken into by a simple curved toothed element. The second band from the center is exceedingly irregular and looks as if the artist were not able to make

Fig. 50

the teeth conform to the space. The sixth, seventh, and eighth bands are interrupted, perhaps on both sides, by a graceful curved design consisting of hollow ellipses, massed lines in the form of a lozenge, and teeth. The other cups display great individuality in composition and must be discussed separately. Fig. 52 is nicely decorated with simple elements. There is principally a band consisting of a looped ribbon and teeth which

Pig. 52

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS

85

Fig. 53

widens considerably from the handles to the center of the bottom and which seems to encircle the cup, narrowing again at the opposite handle. The intervening spaces are filled with secondary patterns which seem not to be alike. The border consists of a plain band at the rim, with a ribbon at one side and teeth at the other. Fig. 53 is unusual in its use of right-lined elements, Fig. 87 especially, and cross hatching, as well as for the way the pattern is laid out. An attempt was made to make a tripartite division from the center of the bottom to the sides. The divisions are not equal, a fact which would doubtless not bother a Tami at all and one which does not really detract from the effect. The plan leaves curved spaces which are filled in with curved bands of ellipses, Fig. 37 elements, and plain bands. The finish of the top cannot be seen.

Fig. 54 is somewhat like Fig. 52 in the way the widening band cuts across the bottom. But it differs considerably in effect because of the wide, elaborate bands which entirely surround the cup. The semi-circular spaces between the bottom band and the border are nicely filled with graceful, hollow ellipsoid elements surrounded by solid banding and a band of unusual teeth. This cup has an added, though familiar, distinction in the fish-like handle. The fields of Fig. 55 are somewhat difficult to define verbally, although they are regularly enough outlined. A widening band extends from under the two-banded border across the bottom, but it is much more irregular than that of Fig. 54, probably because it is not kept entirely distinct from the elaborated design which fills in the intervening segment. This design is composed of two elaborate and con-

MELANE SIAN DESIGN

Fig. 54

Pig. 55

CARVED WOODEN BOWLS joining PL l i i elements, the arrangement of which shows a nearer approach to a scroll than is usual for Tami. Altogether the incising on tortoiseshell and cocoanutshell presents considerable diversity as compared with carving, or even incising, on bowls and other wooden objects. The two techniques show also a contrast in the use of realistic designs for carving in the round and painting (on barkcloth, for example) and in

87

the use of geometrical designs, compactly placed, for incising. Since the bowl designs combine both types of elements they are typical. But since the artists do not consider it necessary to fill all the space on the bowls, and since those who make the bracelets and cocoanutshell cups feel that all the space must be covered, different principles obtain for laying out the fields of these types of objects.

III TORTOISESHELL ORNAMENTS

The distribution of the kapkaps is extensive if we include those forms which are not actually kapkaps but which are so closely related that the omission of their style would leave a serious gap in the total impression a study of this sort should create. The two chief centers of manufacture are in the Admiralty Islands and in New Ireland. The largest number come from these two areas and, according to most tastes, the most beautiful ones are from New Ireland. In describing the respective styles much will be said regarding the relative beauty and fineness of these objects. Although the tortoiseshell carvers of New Ireland do more beautiful work, they do not show as great versatility as the Admiralty Islanders.

Kapkaps from both of these centers are found in museum and private collections with almost any alleged provenience. Except in a few cases their true provenience is as clearly marked by the style as if it were written upon them. Very beautiful, although apparently not very many, kapkaps were made in the western Solomons. Codrington1 considers the art style of the western Solomons related to that of New Britain ; the style of the kapkaps is more nearly like that of New Ireland. Farther east in the Santa Cruz group kapkaps of an entirely different type are found. There is a large gap where none are made and the easternmost occurrence is in the Marquesas. Such is the west-to-east distribution of the kapkaps. Except for their presence in New Guinea the north-to-south distribution is more concerned with the modifications of the kapkap idea than with the kapkap itself. In the Carolines, to the north, beautifully cut rings of tortoiseshell are made. They are never mounted, however, and compare with the tortoiseshell cutting of the kapkap. They may be worn singly on a string of beads, but often they are so carved as to form a chain themselves (Pis. cxxx, 520, 521 ; cxxxi, 522, 523, 524). Such long chains may be worn as ear ornaments (Buschan I I [1] : PI. *ix)2. In Saint Mathias, north of New Ireland, tortoiseshell earrings are made which resemble in many respects the openwork carvings of the kapkap. They are carved in the same way but are split from center to edge so they can be fitted over the earlobe (PI. cxxxni, 532—540). The number of these earrings in the museums from which my collection was made is small but adequate to give an idea of the style. Kapkaps are found sporadically on the island

1

2

The term "kapkap", from a language of New Ireland, will be used for a type of ornament consisting of a mount of white shell upon which a thin plate of tortoiseshell in openwork carving is laid. The two are usually fastened by a knotted string which is drawn through a hole in the center although other fastenings may be used. The following study concerns itself primarily with an analysis of the various styles of these apparently simple ornaments as they are distributed through the South Sea area. They were chosen for this study for the reasons mentioned in the introduction, namely, because they are beautiful, because their occurrence overlaps that of the bowl carvings and gourd decorations, because they have a wide distribution, and because they seemed to be an example of pure decoration, without religious or symbolic significance. In addition to these characteristics, some of which require qualification, the kapkaps present such varying modes of decoration of a restricted and simple surface, a circle, as to make comparison interesting.

The Melanesiana, p. 329.

Völkerkunde.

TORTOISE SHELL ORNAMENTS of New Guinea. They have great social value among the Roro-speaking and Mekeo-speaking peoples of British New Guinea.1 The few specimens available for study in this collection are labelled as coming from various parts of New Guinea, few of which are certain. They have evidently been traded along the coast at least from the southern part of British New Guinea as far as the mouth of the Sepik River. In the Papuan Gulf region shells of Cymbium were worn as far west as the Tugeri district of southeastern Dutch New Guinea. The use of Cymbium was very extensive in the Papuan Gulf region; farther east it was used as a mount for tortoiseshell earrings.2 Among the Roro- and Mekeo-speaking peoples the shell of Melo diadema3 was used for the same purpose. Finsch mentions also specimens of Cymbium from Astrolabe Bay and the Ramu River but it is not clear whether or not they are mounts for tortoiseshell carvings. In some cases (PI. cxxxix, 585—587) the carvings have become so restricted that the shell mount seems to be of greater importance. In other cases they are not mounted but the shells are engraved, and in still others the shell alone is sufficiently ornamental. In districts near the mouths of the Sepik and Ramu Rivers hairpins are worn which must be considered with the kapkaps, not only because of technical similarity, but also because the stylistic relationship to the kapkaps of the Admiralty Islands is unmistakable. The ornamental portion of the hairpins consists of a concave, somewhat narrow, elliptical piece of shell (Cymbium?) on which is mounted a piece of tortoiseshell carving also elongated (Pis. cxxxv, 549—555; cXXXVI, 556—563; cxxxvii, 564-568). The entire composition is then fastened to a wooden pin which may be stuck into the hair. The distribution of these unusual and interesting ornaments is very peculiar; it is by no means regular and the relations of two arts, that of work in shell and that of tortoiseshell work, are so close as to require a discussion of both of these techniques. An exhaustive study of the two arts is impossible in this connection, 1 2

Seligmann, pp. 204, 208, 212, 298, 822, 824, 825. Finsch, Südseearbeiten, 94. 12

89

and only such facts as are available for the most closely related features will be presented. Almost as varied as the type of ornamentation is the way in which the ornaments are worn. As previously stated, the tortoiseshell ring chains of the Carolines are worn as ear pendants. The kapkaps of the Admiralties are worn as breast ornaments, being hung from a string or string of beads, as they are in New Ireland. In the northern part of former Kaiser Wilhelmsland the form has been modified to the elongated hairpin. In the territory between this area and the Papuan Gulf, and even in many parts of the Papuan Gulf region, the shell mount dominates the tortoiseshell ; in many cases there is no additional ornamentation. But in the Roro and Mekeo districts the tortoiseshell carving is again important; the whole composition is worn as ornament but definite restrictions are placed on the wearing of it. Roro men may wear kapkaps only after they have become initiated into the full privileges of the tribe, a status which they can attain only after killing a man. After they have done this and gone through the seclusion ceremony for purification, the kapkap (here called koiyu) is ceremonially fastened to the headdress. PI. *xxxni in Seligmann,' The Melanesiane of British New Guinea, shows how these ornaments are worn. Seligmann4 says only homicides have the privilege of wearing these ornaments but PI. *xxxix of the same work shows four adolescent girls wearing many of them at the puberty ceremony. In this photograph it will be seen that they are merely some of the many ornaments which are used for the purpose of decoration and which are fastened to other ornaments around the neck, breast and waist. Although the statements as to who wears the koiyu are conflicting, it is definitely known that near and more distant relatives lend them to the girls. After five days they are returned, except those contributed by a girl's own people. It is likely that at this ceremonial period they may be lent by fully initiated men, homicides. I can find no evidence that the patterns are different s

4

Seligmann, p. 212. p. 298.

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

90

illustration. Further elaborations of the use of tortoiseshell on white shell and the combination of such ornaments may be seen in Volume II, pp. *176, 177 and in Volume III, pp. *beta U and V of the same work, where rows of what might be called tortoiseshell buttons decorate the band profusely. From them rectangular plates of carved, but unmounted tortoiseshell, alternating with plates of white shell, rise vertically. A knowledge of the two techniques of shell work and tortoiseshell carving includes acquaintance with the materials, the way in which they are procured, as well as the treatment of the materials after they have been secured. As is the case with Admiralty Island and Tami woodcarving, the available information concerning these matters is meager and unsatisfactory. Finsch, Südseearbeiten, gives what little we have. But the purpose of this admirable work is to summarize and point out various techniques as they occur in the entire South Sea area; it is a treatise on distribution rather than an exhaustive study of any particular technique. What we need for a study of this sort are detailed observations on each technique as it is pursued in each locality. Since localization and specialization are features of the South Sea area, and since there are great differences in the style and purpose of the kapkaps in the various places where they are found, there is every reason to suppose that the workers in these different localities have different methods of procedure ; that different motor habits are developed ; and that the work, as well as the completed ornaments, have varied social significance. We can, therefore, only bemoan the fact that these unusual but highly developed and beautiful techniques have died, or are dying, without having been properly observed and recorded. The most usual and beautiful of the materials used for the kapkap mounts is tridacna (Tri-

for one use or another. But the way they are worn is quite different, the men attaching the ornaments to the headdress, the girls wearing them around the body. 1 The patterns used on these ornaments were once considered clan property as are the designs of the Tami woodcarvers. The Mekeo men, near neighbors of the Eoro, have special rights to wear badges or clan emblems and the shell ornaments are among the badges. Special combinations of them and their exact position on the headdress are of great importance. Seligmann, Pl. *XLIII, shows how the style of wearing differs from that of the Eoro. The purpose of the shell ornaments is everywhere for body decoration, but the way in which they are worn differs greatly even in neighboring tribes. Neuhauss2 illustrates a Bukaua man from the Huongulf region who is wearing a large firmly fastened ornament of the Mekeo type as the front part of an elaborate headdress. Eastward from the Bismarck Archipelago in the western Solomons the kapkap is worn as a part of an elaborate coiffure, an ornament placed at the side of the forehead (see frontispiece). There is, however, in the Solomons the use of an incised shell disc, the incisions filled with black, which should also be noted in connection with the kapkap. This engraved ornament is worn on a string around the neck. A specimen from the Leipzig Museum has two of these shells fastened to one string. The peculiar and little-varied kapkaps from Santa Cruz are worn as breast ornaments like those from the Admiralties and New Ireland. The form resembling a kapkap which is found in the Marquesas is a part of an elaborate forehead or head ornament. It may be the usual kapkap fastened to a braided band as in von den Steinen, *ιιι, alpha F 4.3 On the same page is a variation of treatments, two kapkaps surmounted by feathers on a braided band; for example, von den Steinen, Volume II, *Abb. 156, Nr. in (p. 168) shows three of the mounted discs on a band at the ends of which are small three-cornered ornaments in the same technique. A usual type is the band with the disc in the center and the triangular pieces at the end, as in Nr. *v of the same

dous bivalve of which specimens 115 cm. in length weighing thirty-five pounds are known. Animals of such size are difficult to secure with the weapons known to the Melanesiane, although some of the natives of Bor-

1

s

Loc. dt. 212, 265—266.

2

I, Pig. *107 (p. 207).

dacna gigas L. or gigantea).

Die Marquesaner u. ihre Kunst.

This is a tremen-

91

TOETOISESHELL ORNAMENTS

neo are skilful in spearing them. The Melane- seen dealers separating the tridacna and siane are fortunate in that a supply of the tortoiseshell plates and combining them acshell is otherwise available. Most of the tri- cording to their own taste. Since even in dacna used for shell work is a semi-fossilized native life these objects play an important variety which is found embedded in the coral rôle in trade, it is easy to understand how rocks of the atolls and also in the lava strata different, sometimes very peculiar, combinaof the inland regions. The semi-fossilized tions may occur. shells belong to the present day variety. The The second important centers of distribution supply of this material, although localized, is for tridacna plates are New Hannover and rather large and because of its beauty and New Ireland, whence they are traded to the utility forms an important article of trade. Solomons via Nissan. The larger, round ones It is found, for example, in certain mountains used in the Solomons have the tortoiseshell of New Britain and in the Solomons. Objects overlay and are used for head ornaments and made of tridacna are known to be made in the a smaller, more elliptical variety with engravvicinity of Berlinhaven and on Bertram ing is used as a breast ornament, charm or Island.1 amulet. Farther east in the Santa Cruz group The mount used for kapkaps is a smoothly the mount is of well-polished tridacna. polished, thin plate which has been compared The distribution of tridacna plates is much to "white marble" and to alabaster. The more limited than that of kapkaps. Other best mounts are beautiful indeed, the beauty shells are used in the districts where tridacna depending upon the part of the shell they is lacking; none of the substitutes is as beautiare cut from and upon the amount of care ful. Many of them, as, for example, the Cymtaken in polishing them. The handsomest one hiurn and Melo diadema, have a concave, I have ever seen is in the private collection of rather than a plane surface. The latter is used Professor Czeschka of Hamburg. by the Roro and the Mekeo peoples of southern Finsch gives more detail about the manu- British New Guinea, the former by many facture of shell money than about the finishing peoples of New Guinea, particularly by those of shell plates. "The manufacture of the plates in the vicinity of Astrolabe Bay and by those is much simpler than that of the rings and no living near the mouths of the Sepik and Ramu special implements are necessary",2 is the only Rivers. remark I have found about them. Apparently A poor quality of small kapkap from the they are made, as are so many stone and shell Admiralties is mounted on Conus shell. Such implements of primitives, by patiently grind- a mount is thick, although it may be polished. ing the shell on a stone or shell with sand and The tortoiseshell carving is usually of the water. simplest. It is somewhat characteristic in style The use of tridacna for ornament and and often shows lack of virtuosity. A number wealth is more widely distributed than its use of such kapkaps in the collection of Director for the kapkap mounts. The latter are not Hintz are marked as having come from Seemade in New Guinea. They are made very adlerhaven. It is very likely that the natives extensively in the Admiralty Islands and a who made them had somewhere got the characteristic of the tridacna plates made in kapkap idea, but that materials were scarce. this area is the border of engraved triangles Accordingly they utilized what they could get filled in with black. There are several exam- and had not sufficient control of the technique ples of this style of mount with tortoiseshell to make a finished ornament. Or it may be plates of undoubted New Ireland manufacture that the social significance of the kapkap was but the mount and the tortoiseshell as found so undeveloped that there was no particular in collections are not always the ones which incentive to perfect the art. the natives used together. Director Hintz of According to Finsch3 Conus plates were Berlin told me, for example, that he has often made in the Port Moresby district; the small 1

Finsch, Südseearbeiten, 79 ff. 12*

* Loc. cit. 82.

3

Loc. cit. 73.

92

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

islands Warrior (Trid) and Murray (Mer) of the Torres Straits were also centers for the manufacture of Conus plates and armbands. The island of Bilibili in Astrolabe Bay was another center. The use of real mother-of-pearl is much disputed and the only region where it was certainly used for the kapkaps was the Marquesas.1 The kapkap, PI. xcvm, 288, and one other are mounted on some very strange material. It is white and polished on both sides, yellow (doubtless from age or use) on the edge, so hard it can hardly be scratched by a sharp knife, and very light in weight. Dr. Margaret Mead suggests that a part of a button was used. There are several specimens in kapkap collections which show a kind of imitation of the idea in wood. Pis. civ, 340 and cv, 350 are executed in metal, apparently a kind of bronze. PI. civ, 340 is very unusual, it shows ignorance of the properties of metals, but is nevertheless effective in a strange inappropriate way. The style of this "monstrosity" is quite different, doubtless for technical reasons, from that carved in tortoiseshell. Individual pieces of the kapkap collection show great differences in the quality and finish of the tortoiseshell carvings. Some of the rings, particularly those from the Carolines, are light yellow. They are made from the ventral plates of the tortoise. These have, however, a kind of muddy yellowness which is not very attractive. One of the most beautiful kapkaps from New Ireland (in the Czeschka collection) is a very light transparent yellow. I have seen a few others of this color but not many. The usual kapkap is of a dark color, almost black, and very few are made of the handsome transparent yellow shell which has dapplings of dark brown, such as one sees used for combs, armbands and the like. It is likely that these choice pieces are not used for kapkaps since the nature of the fine carving is such that the natural color of the shell could not be retained. Most of the tortoiseshell pieces are nicely smoothed, some seem even to be polished, but the craftsmen from the Admiralties show less interest in this quality and many 1

Finsch, Siidaeearbeiten, 106; von den Steinen, III: 17.

of their carvings are rough and coarse, even though the pattern is good. It is likely that a piece of coral was used to polish the shell, as coral is sometimes used like pumice stone. Finsch2 was disturbed about the paucity of knowledge regarding the tortoiseshell technique. For even in Kubary's time — his report was written in 1888, published in 1892 — the original shell tools had been replaced by metal and the art of manufacture was almost a lost one. According to Kubary 3 a rotating drill made of shark's teeth ("Zirkelbohrer aus Haifischzahn") and a saw consisting of a string of twisted bamboo epidermis ("Säge aus einer aus Bambuhaut gedrehten Schnur") were used in Palau. There tortoiseshell was rendered soft by heating in hot water or by placing it directly on glowing coals. Kubary's description refers to the manufacture of shaped vessels and of armbands and does not apply to the kapkaps. What we should know in this connection is how the original plates of tortoiseshell are split, if they are split, which plates are used, and what tools are used for the fine and regular carving of some from New Ireland and the Solomons. Even the most casual observer will remark the phenomenal fineness of such examples as are shown in Pis. cix, 377, 379; cxxn, 470; cxxiv, 479, 485 from New Ireland and the Solomons. And we, who live in an age when craftsmanship is not respected, can hardly conceive how sufficient skill can be attained to bring about such excellent results. It seems almost impossible that a knife or engraving tool fine enough could be made. The South Sea area is unusually favorable in furnishing materials. But the very fact of its remoteness and the strangeness of the flora and fauna militates against reconstructing a process, now that such delicate techniques have been destroyed by our own so-called civilization. PI. xeni, 241, 243, which are apparently unfinished pieces, as well as the references of Kubary to the "saw" — "file" is perhaps a better description — suggest a possible process. Such a file must needs be very fine, sharp and strong to give the proper control. Tortoiseshell is a soft material, not difficult to mark or cut, but for this very reason presents 2

Südaeearbeiten, 140—141.

3

Beitrag II, 188—196.

TORTOISESHELL

ORNAMENTS

93

difficulties such as those encountered in carv- those from other localities. Almost all features ing soft wood. It is possible that a saw or file which I shall point out are carried out in other might have been used like a jigsaw. The file or mediums, as for example, woodcarving and jigsaw described by Kubary was used for the pyrography on gourds. In other islands the hollowing of the large, coarse rings of the design elements are more closely related to the Carolines, and it seems more likely that the Oceanic area as a whole than to the local art kapkap designs were cut with fine, sharp style in particular, although the composition cutting tools. Those of the type of PI. cxix, is characteristic for its district. It is almost as 458 suggest the use of a V- tool, such as is used if here were a medium which gives vent to for fine woodcarving. The illustrations (Pis. purely independent ornamentation, which xeni, 241; cv, 344, 345, 352) of what seem may have points in common with other art in to be unfinished pieces show that the artisan the same locality, but which need not correworked from the outside toward the center. spond exactly. The discussion of bowls from I can mention in only the most general way the Admiralty Islands has emphasized the the tools which are used for working the shell, ability of the artist to achieve beauty in form. and it may be, for preparing the tortoiseshell. In connection with the bowls it was noted Tridacna, as well as other shells, furnished that great care is spent on form, not only blades of various sizes for axes. Polished stone of the bowl, but also of the handles, but no was used for the same purpose in many parts special pains are taken to make the carvings of Melanesia. Blades for adzes were made of on the bowl wall exact. Other objects, howseveral kinds of sea snails (Terebra maculata ever, such as beds, steps, spear handles, and L. and Mitra episcopalis Lamarck). The fine- lime spatulas, have very excellent carving, ness of the blade depends entirely on the size although it is in no case comparable techof the shells. In 1885 tools made of them were nically to carving from other areas, New unprocurable. In that year Finsch saw a chief Zealand, for example. of a tiny island, Nusalik, at the northwestern In carrying out his ideas on this purely point of New Ireland using such a tool and he ornamental form, the kapkap, the Admiralty absolutely refused to part with it. 1 Imple- Island artist shows considerable ingenuity. ments of this sort were used in the Admiralties, Although the kapkaps are never as fine as as well as in New Ireland, in Saint Mathias, those from New Ireland or the Solomons, they Berlinhaven, to mention only the localities nevertheless show greater fertility of ideas. which concern us in this study. 8 But as is the case with woodcarving, so also The drill is ubiquitous, the sharp, pointed the tortoiseshell technique is coarser and not shells of Terebra and Mitra being used as as beautifully finished as it is in New Ireland points. For boring tridacna rings drills made and other islands. There are several general principles of design of bamboo, coral and pumice stone were made. Cutting tools were made of sharpened shells which set off the kapkaps of the Admiralties of bivalves. The same shells, with notches, from other areas. The tridacna plates are often were used as scraping tools. Many different large compared with the tortoiseshell carving kinds of shells were used for these purposes.3 mounted on them and they almost always So many are found and so ingenious are the have a border of cross hatched triangles crudetools that it would not be at all surprising to ly engraved and filled in with black. The find, even to-day, tools which have hitherto openwork shell carving is usually considered a surface of sectors, rarely of concentric bands, been undescribed. and the decoration is in mass rather than in line. The contrast between use of mass and K A P K A P S PROM THE A D M I R A L T Y ISLANDS line here and in New Ireland is marked. Kapkaps from the Admiralties conform Another characteristic feature is that where more closely to the general art style than do triangles are used they are broad or obtuse, 1

Op. eit. 125.

2

Finsch, 125; see also Pigs. »151, *152.

3

Finsch, 126.

94

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

never acute; teeth are usually blunt, the end point of the triangle often being removed. The edges of the openwork are in two styles, smooth and with blunt teeth. Smooth edges predominate. A few edges are composed of obtuse triangles with irregular blunt teeth (PL cxxxiv, 545; PH 53625). It is possible that a conventionalized form here as on bowls (PI. vi, 13—17) may have derived from the human figure. The elements which compose it may be understood better, however, as decorative motives, the variations of which are an outgrowth of technical and artistic considerations. Even if looked at from this viewpoint the stylistic treatment of the elements is the indispensable basis of the underlying figures. The kapkaps show the relationship more definitely than any of the bowl patterns but there is no evidence to show whether the present form is a conventionalized form of realistic origin, or whether the geometric may have suggested the realistic. There are examples of both forms in the kapkaps. Dr. Margaret Mead, who is acquainted with neighbors of the artists who make these objects, is of the opinion that the natives feel the designs as depicting the human being. The execution of the figures from the most realistic to the most highly conventional is much better on the kapkaps than on the bowls. PI. cxxxiv, 545 is the only example which is incontrovertibly realistic. The kapkap is laid out in a cross with a human figure as each arm of it. Two opposite figures have the bent arms raised, the other two have them hanging with no particular indication of the elbow joint. The former arrangement is more typically Admiralty Island; examples of relaxed arms are very rare. The heads of the figures are round; eyes and mouth are cut into the face, very large ears are appendages cut from the tortoiseshell. The edge of this kapkap, which is quite unusual, consists of a row of rather irregularly joined " h a n d " motives. Pis. xeni, 240, 242, 244; xciv, 246—248; xcv, 257—261; xcvi, 266; PM R5; R13; R31; R45; R74; H 3255 show how parts of the human figure are used conventionally. The most highly exaggerated and most gracefully used portions are the bent "limbs". Where these are greatly exaggerated the "head" is omitted entirely (Pis. xeni, 240, 242, 244; xciv, 247; xcv, 257; PM R5, R31, R45). The "arms" are a widened toothed curve, the completion of which would form an ellipse (Pis. xeni, 240, 242, 244; xcv, 257; FM R5, R13, R31, R45). The tendency is for the curve representing the "legs" to be an arc of a circle, thus being secondary to the " a r m " motive than which it is often much more artistic. The last figures cited are examples of this, whereas in PI. xciv, 247 "arms" and "legs" have dominated the whole scheme in a purely conventional way. Two "arms" joined in a wide curve take the place of the "head" and "arms", the lozenge "body" is reduced to a minimum, and the

"legs", which are nearly pointed, are as exaggerated in their way as the "arms". The entire effect of the kapkap is of toothed scallops of different sizes, arranged in alternating rows, all carefully placed, and not at all suggestive of a realistic design. The "head" seems to be the least important portion of the design. It is either entirely omitted as in the examples previously mentioned, or it is reduced to a round or lozenge form as in Pis. xciv, 246 and xcv, 259. The " b o d y " is a much varied theme. In the outer row of PI. xcrv, 246 which is so highly conventionalized that one can hardly distinguish body parts it is a lozenge or a lozenge with a cross or toothed portions cut out, Fig.56, a, b. If this interpretation were pushed the details of PI. xcv, 259 and 262 would consist of "bodies" of Fig. 56, b type. The former has "head", "body", straight "arms" and no "legs"; the latter, "body", "arms" and no "head" or "legs". The "bodiee" of PI. x c m , 240 and 242 are quite varied and comparisons of this sort make one seriously doubt the validity of the realistic interpretation. In PI. xcm, 242, for example, there are four designs of Fig. 56, f and four of Pig. 56, g, and variations of it. Either could be interpreted as a "body", the chances are that neither is, but that both are purely decorative. The latter supposition is the more likely when the design is looked at from the point of view of the composition as a whole, for the four elements at the center correspond with Fig. 56, /, the difference in effect being due to the arrangement of the " a r m " elements which form a "body". In PI. xcm, 244 the eight " b o d y " elements are nearly the same (Fig. 56, d). As was the case in the attempt at an evolutionary or developmental reconstruction of the designs on bowls, and as is always the case with such reconstructions, the stages through which the patterns appear to develop become absurd. If, however, the elements are looked a t as decorative motives, whose variations may be understood as an outgrowth of technical and artistic considerations, Pis. x c m , 240, 242, 244; xciv, 246, 247, 248; xcv, 257—261; xcvi, 266; cxxxiv, 545 are composed of a few design elements, the most ubiquitous of which are illustrated in Fig. 56, which may be combined in a variety of ways. When they are combined with care the results are good and highly decorative. PI. xcv, 257 is quite carefully planned but the general effect is confusing as nothing stands out definitely at first glance. Pis. xciv, 248; xcv, 260—262; xcvi, 266, which are very simple, are more effective than some of the more complicated, though less well organized, kapkaps.

The element of bowl carvings which I have named fleur-de-lis is conspicuously used also on kapkaps. It is, however, well-done in the tortoiseshell medium. In fact, those kapkaps on which it is used are, in many respects, the best in the Admiralty Island collection. Pis. xciv, 249—253; xcvi, 263—265, 267—271; xcvn, 272—280; cm, 334 form a series illustrating the element. PI. xcvi, 264 (FM R78, R79) shows the simplest use of the fleur-de-lis element. Four of them are merely joined by a center and the whole is framed by a toothed edge. The difference in effect is secured by difference in spacing. If the

95

TORTOISE SHELL ORNAMENTS

0. θ 0. Φ Β

*

I

m

^

j

^

i

9. π ^ ^ ^ μ μ '

Φ . ι>Χ πα 72

outside curves of the motive are extended so as to meet, there is the effect of a flower or rosette as in PI. xcvi, 264. Four of them are joined as simply in FM R78 and R79 but, since the ends do not meet, the style is somewhat different. PI. xcvi, 263 has a five-fold division and a moderate use of holes; the ends of the fleur-de-lis running into the edge make the entire composition unified, smooth and effective, although it is extremely simple. PI. xcrv, 250 which has a somewhat different development of curves is comparable with it. In FM R64 the element is used eight times instead of four. Practically all of these examples are duplicated by other kapkaps of the same pattern.

In some kapkaps there is nothing but the simple fleur-de-lis element for decoration, but the placement, the grace of the curves and the austerity of the smooth border line produce the acme of effectiveness with the simplest devices. Pis. xciv, 249, 250; xcvi, 265, 267, 268, 271 also illustrate the perfection of form of which the Admiralty Island artist is capable. The maker of PI. xcvi, 267 used the same element and composition, but by the use of the ubiquitous toothed motive gave the kapkap a look of frowsiness comparable to Pis. xov, 258 ; cu, 825 ; civ, 339.

The fleur-de-lis may be arranged with alternating radii, four of them as in PL xciv, 252, or five as in PL xciv, 251. Two radii may be joined by curved or broken lines to form an independent sector which alternates with the four fleur-de-lis as in PL xcvn, 273 and 274. PI. xcvn, 273 is interesting in that it is a wooden imitation of an entire kapkap. The triangles around the edge carved in low relief imitate the engraved hatched triangles of the tridacna mount. The carving in low relief illustrates also the point previously made as to relative virtuosity in carving fleur-de-lis in wood and in tortoiseshell. The pattern of PI. xcvn, 273 and of 274 is practically the same but the difference in effect is great in favor of the tortoiseshell. A number of other kapkaps have the saine pattern as PI. xcvn, 274 and are as well-done. The only difference between PL xcvn, 274 and PI. cm, 334 is that in the former the sector decorated with parallel curved or broken-line masses is carried nearer to the edge than the fleur-de-lis, thus dominating it. The effect is of a structure of beautiful curves built out from the center, and is very good. The device used in creating it is exceedingly simple.

96

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

Pl. xciv, 258 illustrates another large series of kapkaps, in the collection of the Field Museum in Chicago. In this type the fleurde-lis alternates with a petal element common to the kapkaps of New Ireland (PI. cv, 847). Most of the specimens — the number is relatively large — have a division into four. The petal element may be varied somewhat as in PI. xciv, 253 by decorated filling elementa. In PL xcvn, 276 the six petals run from center to edge and the fleur-de-lis are subsidiary fill-in elements. Instead of the petal element pointed at both ends, PI. xcvn, 275 has it widened at one end, and instead of a purely formal decorated center it has a realistic, though conventional lizard. This kapkap has another distinction, namely, that the fleur-de-lis is turned toward the center instead of away from it as it is on most of the others.

In placing the elements which compose the New Ireland kapkaps there seems to be no stress on direction. Elements may be placed radially or circularly and there is no particular preference for one direction or the other. In the Admiralties, however, the main stress is on radial placing of the elements. But of the large number of kapkaps on which the fleurde-lis is used several (PL xcvn, 272 and FM E75) have them running circularly in a kind of band. Several kapkaps have the "human figure" element and the fleur-de-lis combined (PL xcvn, 278; FM E19). In PI. xcvn, 278 the four fleur-de-lis alternate with sectors, each of which is filled with a profile view of a human figure placed in a circular direction. One of these is so crowded by the space as to be almost indistinguishable. In FM R19 each sector consists of a fleur-de-lis above which a conventionalized human figure is placed. Pis. xovn, 277—280 ; xcvm, 281, if looked at from center toward edge, consist of fleurde-lis ; looked at from edge toward center the emphasis may be laid on the human figure element. The two are probably formally related.

There is a series of simple kapkaps, none of great excellence, which consist of a cross, the four arms of which end in a widened toothed curve, Fig. 56, i (Pis. xcrv, 255 ; xcvm, 285— 287, 289). The difference in effect between Pis. xciv, 255; xcvm, 286, 289 and Pis. xciv, 254; xcvm, 285, 287 is merely in the fact that the cross is reduced and the curve, Fig. 56, i, enlarged so that the space is occupied in a very different way. In PL xciv, 255, the element Fig. 56, i is opposed by another like it symmetrically arranged and the end of the

bars of the cross has, therefore, become an elongated element, Fig. 56, b.

Pis. xciv, 256; xcvm, 283, 284, 288; xcix, 290 are representative of other simple geometric forms, some of which (PL xcvm, 284 and 288) are well carried out. PL xcvm, 284 consists of a center, Fig. 56, j, common in Admiralty Island kapkaps, and equidistant arcs. It should be noted that the arcs are broad as compared with those of New Ireland, conforming as usual to the Admiralty Island tendency to decorate in mass. The lines meet at a circular mass which is relieved by a hole in the center. Pis. xciv, 256; xcvm, 286; FM R175, R207, R208 depend also upon broad equidistant arcs and holes for their design. In some cases, Pis. xciv, 256; xcvm, 286; FM R208, some of the lines are toothed, but in every case the bounding line is smooth. FM R207 has an unusual bracket-shaped line. FM R175 is unusual in that it is divided into segments instead of sectors, each of which is filled with equidistant arcs.

PL xcvm, 288, 288 and FM E 1 9 4 are reproductions of some kapkaps which have a wheel shape, similar to the tortoiseshell ring of the Carolines (cp. p. 115), but much cruder in cutting, and having certain characteristic features of Admiralty style, blunt teeth for example. The peculiarities — of composition only — of PL en, 322 are obvious. The use of mass is usual, the arrangement of triangles with toothed edges radiating from the center is unique, as is also the breaking up of the triangular mass with holes. Holes are occasionally used by the Admiralty Island carver but they are not an outstanding characteristic of his style. One of the simplest geometric motives used frequently and advantageously is Fig. 56, n. In the center of PL xcix, 290 the element is toothed sporadically and combined with toothed equidistant arcs. A feature of composition noted for carving on Admiralty Island bowls was the use of the smooth edge as against the use of the toothed edge with consequent sprawling effect by the Tami. This same tendency is outstanding for the kapkaps also. Examples like Pis. xcvi, 263, 264, 266, 270, 271 ; xcvn, 272; xcix, 290; c, 299, 300, 302—304; ci, S U SIS; cm, 329 which lack the smooth edge have, nevertheless, the short blunt teeth, characteristic of other Admiralty Island objects.

Use is made of the Fig. 56, o element arranged radially from the center with the aid of zigzag or curved lines to fill out the edge Pl. c, 299; FM E l 5 2 ; B220.

T O B T O I S E S H E L L ORNAMENTS Pl. o, 300 shows a tripling of the line which makes up the elements, four of which are used from the center. Pour others of the same sort alternate with them and carry the pattern to the edge as if it were built up in a kind of perspective, one element originating behind the other two. In the way the design is built up it is comparable with PI. cm, 334. PL c, 299 is composed of the element Pig. 56, o, but in this case four form a center around which a band of eight of the elements is carried, four of them carefully placed above the four of the center, four of them alternating with them. PL c, 301, although very different in appearance, achieves that difference, as is so often the case, by subtlety of arrangement. The inner lines of the elements become more massive; they form a lozenge (Fig. 56, k) and the outer lines are joined. B y such simple variation and combination of line a totally new effect is achieved. Pl. xcix, 291 makes use of larger forms of the element with lines nearer straight than curved. Seven of them extend from center to edge and the built-up effect is secured by a clever use of the outside (or outline) line of one to perform the same function for the adjoining lozenge. PL xcix, 295 gives an impression somewhat like the use of bars in clusters of New Ireland. When analyzed however, it is found to be composed of very different elements. The center has four elements Pig. 56, o, with a bar in the center, each is topped by a good-sized hole, and two elements of Fig. 56, I complete each sector.

Just as the fleur-de-lis is related to, almost indistinguishable from, the human figure, so also it may be closely related to the petal element, Fig. 56, o. PL c, 302 may be viewed as composed of pairs of petals or of four fleur-de-lis the upper bars of which are gracefully extended to meet the ends of the lower curves. PL xcix, 294 is composed of four fleur-de-lis surrounded by an arrangement of equidistant area. In this kapkap the center Fig. 56, j is used. Instead of calling this a fleur-de-lis design it might be described as a triangle with curved lines and two curves extending from the center of the base. FM R192 is likewise composed of fleur-de-lis, this time of five turning toward, rather than away from, the center; the "stems" of the fleurde-lis are connected by graceful, expansive curved masses. Pl. c, 303 is carried out in elaborate, though coarse line work. The center is lozenge-shaped, usual enough in mass, but not common in line, as here. There is a circle around it to mark off a wide band. The combination of center and circular band gives the effect of four petals with ends tangential. The band formed is filled with element Fig. 56,1 repeated four times but instead of parallel bars, three lines spread from a point. Viewed radially the combination elements can be seen as elaborate fleur-de-lis with overlapping parts. In Pl. c, 304, four sectors are marked off by radii, each is filled with an element similar to Fig. 56, o but pointed instead of roundj PL xcix, 292 and FM R155 show a play on the element Fig. 56, j. Each of the four triangular divisions of the element is cut out in teeth, making a line, instead of a mass, effect. A kind of toothed bunch extends from where the points meet 13

97

and they are connected by toothed arcs. FM R155 has a line treatment of element Fig. 56, j. The element is the primary one of the kapkap being extended from center to edge. Each triangle which composes it is then cut into equidistant arcs and a double broken line joins it with the edge. The element does not differ essentially from that used in Pis. xcvii, 274 and cm, 334. As is so frequently the case with Admiralty Island kapkaps, a difference in domination of the motive causes an entirely different result. In this case an exceptional emphasis on line is also very effective.

The diamond element is the keynote of a set of kapkaps (PI. xcix, 293, 296—298) all of which may well have been cut by the same artist. Two others in the Berlin Museum not illustrated here are almost identical with PI. xcix, 296. In PL xcix, 293 and 297 the diamond-shaped elements are ornamented by the cutting out of little, very Admiralty Island-like triangles, in PL xcix, 297 very regularly placed, in PL xoix, 293 of uneven size and position. At the point of each diamond of Pl. xcix, 297 is a much flattened, hollowed diamond which alternates with a broad "hand" motive. PL xcix, 298 is typically Admiralty Island in style in the way the center diamonds and band of triangles are broken into by teeth. The edge arcs with teeth facing a smooth center arc form a device used often on bowls from the same locality. PI. xcix, 296 is exceptionally well done, a kapkap with diamond center, toothed equidistant arcs, and a zigzag band. Long, sharp points extend from the band into the spaces between the center diamonds. This kapkap is a good example of the tendency to preserve the sector division of the field in the Admiralties, for here even though there is a zigzag band it is broken into by irregularities at the points where the diamonds meet it.

A large number of Admiralty Island kapkaps illustrate the versatility and daring of the Admiralty Island carver for, instead of falling into definite classes, they are in some respect "unusual". Pl. ci, 315 is unusual in many respects although the design elements used are found on Admiralty Island bowls. There are twelve sectors. Heretofore there have never been more than eight, consequently the design is finer. The design in this case seems to be the portion that is cut out rather than that which is left. The motive Fig. 56, m, will be remembered as very common as a cut-out portion of bowl handles. The center of this kapkap is an elaborate and interesting variation of the lozenge element. Pl. ci, 319 is a peculiar combination of ordinary curves, the outstanding characteristic being the diamond shape of the whole. Pl. ci, 318 is an interesting arrangement of lines with dominating and secondary motives. Six petals extend rather far from the center, and six curves touch the ends at the

98

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

center of the curve, thus carrying the design to the edge. Painter curved lines of the same sort, by connecting the petals, form a curvilinear hexagon. All intervening spaces are filled with fine lines. The entire effect is within the Admiralty style but the excessive use of line is not ordinary. Pis. c, 305—308, 310; ci, 311—314, 316, 317; en, 320, 322—325, 327; cm, 331—333; oiv, 339, 340 cannot be said to belong to any of the various series previously described, although practically all of them have many points in common with them. Pis. o, 308 and ci, 317, for example, have the feature of stark simplicity in common, as well as the use of holes to break up large masses. PI. c, 308 depends on the cutting out of petal and triangular portions, as well as on holes, for its decoration, and the division of the space is in six and twelve. Pl. ci, 317 is divided into four and is really only an adaptation of four lozenge elements, defined most easily by reading the portion cut out, hence really a negative carving. PL c, 305 is an excellently spaced, well carved kapkap involving purely geometric elements; Pig. 56, h is one we have not met before. PI. era, 329 is notable because of the peculiar combination of equidistant curves and holes.

It is customary for the Admiralty artist to preserve the number of design elements in different rows so that there is a number and its multiple to preserve the radial arrangement, the most usual number being four with its multiples. In PL c, 306 this principle is held to, but the fundamental number is three. Pl. cn, 323 shows half of the space occupied by two dominating segments. Pis. o, 306 and ci, 313 are arrangements of typical Admiralty Island zigzags, scallops and lozenges, marked particularly by the use of teeth. The number of elements used is a bit unusual. Pl. ci, 313 has eight center petals which is common, but there are thirteen points connected by scallops in a wide outer band.

The fleur-de-lis is a favorite and well executed motive of the kapkaps ; it is frequently used on the bowls but is not often well done. On the other hand, the spiral, always on old bowls finely carved, is rarely used on kapkaps and, the few times it occurs, is not highly perfected. These facts lead me to suppose that the fleur-de-lis is a new design in woodcarving, older in tortoiseshell carving. The spiral on kapkaps may be considered as hardly more than an experiment ; it has not taken its place thoroughly in this particular technique. Pis. c, 309 and cu, 321 show the use of a curve which begins as the same curve of the spirals of the bowl handles. It is, however, carried only one turn instead of the two and one-half on the handles. It is likely that the curves on the

kapkaps are extended elements of the fleur-de-lis, as evidenced by their facing direction and the other portions of the design of Pl. en, 321 especially. The curves of PL cn, 326 are even closer to the curve used on the bowl handles. Some are turned one and one-half times. They are arranged in pairs and give the effect of paired plumes extending from the center. Pl. cxxxiv, 546 is the only one in this whole collection on which the bowl spiral is used. There are four spirals, well-placed and exactly like those used on the bowls.

The use of the petal shows a formal relationship to the style of New Ireland (PL xevi, 270; FM E14, E17), as does the use of the zigzag band. The band is somewhat coarser in line, as is to be expected of artists who decorate in mass, and the spacing is not so even in the Admiralties as in New Ireland. Pis. c, 307; ci, 311 and 316 are imitations of certain features of a New Ireland style carried out in a purely Admiralty Island way. It is easy to see what the maker of Pl. c, 307 attempted, a composition based on five, as easy to see wherein he failed. The center petals and the outer hollow circle elements are New Ireland elements rather than Admiralty Island ones. In Pl. ci, 311, 314, 316 the petal elements have been worked over into the Admiralty style and in Pl. ci, 311 and 316 the composition is also according to Admiralty Island principles (the composition of Pl. ci, 314 is too simple to show these). There are four center elements in Pl. ci, 316 and in the outer band one of the same sort touches each of them. Between these are two others with perfect regularity, so that the total is twelve. The same sort of division was attempted for Pl. ci, 311 with not the same degree of success. The center is divided into nine elongated petals one of which is abortive. The outer band is composed of unhollowed elements of type Pig. 56, b, one set at the point of each center petal. The idea was to have two between but in three cases the spacing was misjudged. That the mistakes in the outer band occur with the irregularities of the center shows the radial viewpoint of the artist rather than a circular one. Two petals are wider apart than the others and here three of the little lozenge elements occur instead of two. One center petal became too thin to carve out with teeth, because of a mistake in spacing, and in the corresponding band space there is only one element instead of two. Altogether then there are twenty-seven of the little elements in the band to nine center petals. PL cu, 328 with its zigzag band shows influence from New Ireland. The use of element Pig. 56,TOas a variation of the center is unique.

Eelationships in directions other than from New Ireland are also apparent, for example from the Solomons, St. Mathias and Northern New Guinea. Pl. ci, 312 shows a use of Pig. 56, j element depicted in line instead of mass. This kapkap is especially interesting in

TORTOISE SHELL ORNAMENTS the way it carries the division from center toward edge at the same time using the New Ireland type of band filled with zigzags, making it comparable in this respect with Solomon Island handling of space. PI. en, 320 has the same domination of the center motive but mass is used, as is customary. PI. on, 324 is a particularly massive, not very well carved, kapkap composed of equidistant arcs and a band of parallel broken lines. In general appearance it seems to be a reverse or negative cutting. Its style resembles that of ear ornaments from Saint Mathias (cp. p. 117). Although PI. c, 310 is undoubtedly of Admiralty Island provenience, it has a feature of composition exactly resembling the kapkaps from southern New Guinea. The surface is divided into quarters, but instead of the pattern radiating from the center, parallel broken lines are dropped from a toothed arc equidistant from the edge (cp. p. 122).

PI. cm, 330,331 are executions of the kapkap idea in wood. They present no new features but show the influence of a freer medium in that it is not necessary to connect the different elements as it is in the tortoiseshell. A number of kapkaps I have called amorphous (Pis. on, 325, 327; cm, 332, 333; civ, 339, 340; Parkinson, Pl. *45, Nos. 12 and 13). The real difference between these kapkaps and those I judge as "good" is the arrangement of the spaces left between the elements. They are small and at their worst let the mass, which is not distinctive, dominate the composition. PI. civ, 340 is unbelievably well-done, when we consider it is an attempt to transfer the technique from tortoiseshell to metal. It seems to be of brass or bronze. If this were carved in tortoiseshell it would almost undoubtedly be in the category of the best Admiralty Island kapkaps because of the exactness with which it is planned.

The style of the Admiralty Island kapkaps may be summed up as follows: Stress is laid on mass rather than on line. The surface is divided most commonly into sectors of which the most usual number is four. Five, six, eight, nine, twelve, and thirteen divisions are also found; five and eight are more frequent, divisions into six, nine, twelve and thirteen are exceptional. Since the surface is treated radially there is a close relationship, usually exact correspondence, between the designs of the center and those of the circumference. Direction is much more important in designing Admiralty Island kapkaps than it is for New Ireland. Patterns run most often from center to edge. 13*

99

Subtlety of arrangement of the simplest elements is the reason for many of the best effects. Toothed elements, varying in extent and number of teeth, which may become scallops or zigzags, may have a relation to human limbs. The fleur-de-lis, which is used in all Admiralty Island techniques, is executed on the kapkaps with perfection. For this reason it is suggested that the use of the same design on coated baskets, and on bowls and gourds decorated by burning, is later than its use on kapkaps. It may represent the transference of a pattern to a medium not under as great control, consequently with a result not quite satisfactory. A transference in the opposite direction, namely from woodcarving to tortoiseshell carving, is suggested for the use of the spiral which is rare on kapkaps and greatly inferior to its use on bowl handles. The manufacture of kapkaps seems to be indigenous to the Admiralties. But if it is not, the islands are, nevertheless, a center of the highest development. The artists, although versatile, have accepted ideas foreign to their own style (perhaps because of their versatility). They have used the New Ireland petal and zigzag band. Linework is attempted also in several instances although it is never fine as in New Ireland. One unusual kapkap shows the peculiar composition of the Solomons, the zigzag band of New Ireland, all carried out in coarse linework of the Admiralty style and having the blunt teeth characteristic of that style. Possible relationships from St. Mathias and Northern New Guinea are also suggested. It is possible that the provenience of these few kapkaps is not the Admiralties. Their general appearance belongs more particularly to the Admiralties than to any other locality. K A P K A P S FROM N E W IRELAND

The kapkaps from New Ireland and the immediately adjacent islands are usually mounted on a finely polished plate of tridacna which is in itself highly ornamental because of its intrinsic beauty and because of its beautiful polish. It is not engraved.

100

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

The analysis of the art style concerns itself with the openwork tortoiseshell plates. One example (H 2056:05) is made of metal which has not been identified. It has a bluish glint and may be lead, but seems hardly soft enough. A great many of the kapkaps were measured with the purpose of finding out if the size of the tortoiseshell and the tridacna were regularly proportional. No positive results were obtained. In some cases small pieces of tortoiseshell are mounted on tridacna plates five or six times their size, and in others the tortoiseshell cuttings are nearly as large as the mounts. Generally the New Ireland kapkaps have a wider margin than do those from other islands with the exception of a few in New Guinea. In planning the fields of a circular space the number of possibilities for variation is much limited. The most obvious are dividing the circle into sectors or into bands composed of concentric circles. The latter plan is followed for the New Ireland kapkaps. The tortoiseshell overlay has a central portion designed in sectors, but it is so reduced as to seem merely essential to hold the entire composition together. Around this restricted center the design is marked off in bands. This style achieves its effect generally by line design as compared with the Admiralty Islands where mass is used. In the few cases where mass is used for centers the carving may be unfinished. Such seems to be the case in PL cv, 844 and 345, although PI. cv, 352 may be complete. The centers vary considerably. The simplest is a cross element (Pis. ov, 349 and ovi, 354). Quite frequently this is varied as in PI. cxiv, 415 where more of the shell is left at the center causing a curve instead of an angle where the arms of the cross meet. PI. cix, 377 and 381 show an entirely different effect secured merely by using line instead of mass for the center and cross portions. Some kapkaps, PI. cxii, 401, for example, have a combination of the cross and curved cross elementa.

Each arm of the cross may be widened in a shapely curve making a petal-like element (PI. cviii, 372). If this element is cut out so as to use line instead of mass the center may be like that of Pis. cv, 347; evi, 356; cvin,

375. The planner of PI. cv, 350 had perhaps the same intention but it is so badly done that it almost forms a new design.

Little bars may cross the widest portion of the petal ; this is not an unusual arrangement (PI. cviii, 371 and 376). Instead of cutting out the center of the petal, or of leaving a bar at the greatest width, the maker of PI. cix, 380 cut out small diamonds and attained a very different effect, the difference being due to the fact that much more of the tortoiseshell was left than in the others. In PI. evi, 357 those parts are left which in cix, 380 are cut out. The center is slightly more elaborated and the whole thing is much better done. A specimen in Berlin (Be VII 1273) which is not well done has eight of the solid petal elements at the center, very unevenly arranged. A well-made one in the Hintz collection (2860) has two hollow petals directly opposite each other. Between them on each side are two elements of the same shape but instead of being hollow each has three tiny holes. A further play on the petal-like center theme is shown in Pis. ov, 346 ; evi, 356, 360 where its length is decreased and its width increased; in the case of PL cv, 346 it becomes almost circular. The only difference between PI. evi, 356 and 360 is the use of five of the elements in PI. evi, 360 instead of four. In PI. evi, 355 and 359 two petals are used, one side of each being flattened where they face. Pis. cx, 386; cxv, 423, 427 show an exaggeration of the round-petal motive and in Parkinson, Pig. *45, No. 6 it is so exaggerated as to form a rosette.

PL cvii, 362 is most unusual in that the center is extended beyond the usual limits; the inner band is interrupted at four regular intervals thus setting off four panels by alternating cut-out sectors. By this exceedingly simple device great individuality is given to the carving but no new principle enters in. Centers of trident form are favorites (Pis. cv, 348 and cxin, 409). Pis. cv, 351 and evi, 353 are several of many illustrations of the New Ireland use of line to achieve almost the same effect. Certainly the depiction of this element in line shows much greater virtuosity than that of PL cv, 348 where the artist uses mass. Although Pl. cv, 352 is quite satisfactory as it is, even very effective because of the contrast between mass and line, it is almost certain that if the center carving were completed it would have some such an element as in Pl. cv, 348 or 351. PI. cxrn, 410 uses the same motive rather as an extension of the center design, but it is unusual in that it is fastened to the next band rather than to any part of the center. It has four points instead of three.

TOETOISESHELL ORNAMENTS

101

An unusual center is shown in PI. cxix, 452. Four narrow sectors have been marked off and in each is a little hammer-like ornament. PL cxn, 402 also has a peculiar center. Five wider sectors are filled with rows of bars not very well done. The center of PI. cxm, 408 reminds one of similar centers of kapkaps from the Admiralties but the use of the vertical link motive and the treatment of the edge, as well as the mounting, seem to be of a New Ireland type.

b

As is the case with other styles analyzed in this work, there are comparatively few elements used in these carvings. The centers are varied but the variations hover around a conventional norm. Adjoining the center and extending outward to the edge there are bands consisting of certain elements which are characterizing. As a matter of convenience the kapkaps have been classified according to the occurrence of these elements. It should be borne λ Λ Λ Λ / V V , in mind that the classifications are arbitrary, though based on form, and f that there are, as always, transitional forms which may show great individuality and which defy classification. Fig. 57 shows the usual motives which are used. The most ubiquitous are Fig. 57, a and b. The simplest kapkaps have centers with one or more bands of these elements. Some of the carvings have a smooth band as an edge, Pis. cv, 346,348—351 ; 1 U evi, 353 ; others have the toothed edge, Pis. evi, 354, 356, 357, 359, 360; cvn, 362. The teeth of this style are often very fine and evenly cut, but compared j with the fringe of the edges with triangles seem coarse. The teeth of the New Ireland tortoiseshell work are always dainty and incredibly regular, this in direct contrast to their treatment in the Admiralties. A third favorite finish is an edge of rather deep triangles the bases of Fig. 57 which, very finely fringed, form the outside edge of the carving, Fig. 57, u (PI cvn, The bands are definitely indicated, and 363, 365, 367, 369). where bands of Fig. 57, a and b, or repetitions

102

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

of either, are used, the points of the zigzags of one band are usually placed with respect to those of the adjoining band, sometimes point meets point, sometimes the points of one row come halfway between two points of the other. Pis. evil, 370; cxn, 400 gain an entirely unique effect because of the simple fact that the curved line marking the banding is lacking where the two bands of zigzags are placed point to point. On a kapkap in the Otago Museum the effect is that of a sunburst built up of triangles and diamonds. The use of equidistant arcs of which there may be two, three, four, or more is common (Pis. cvii, 364—370 ; cvm, 371—376 ; cix, 377— 379, 381). The most ordinary type of kapkap in the collection is that of PI. CVII, 366 which has a center, two parallel bands, two rows of Fig. 57, a and a toothed edge. PI. CVII, 367 which is the same in plan but has three parallel bands, and three rows of zigzags, is also typical. It has, however, an additional feature in that the middle row has wavy lines instead of zigzags (see Pig. 57, / for enlargement). A kapkap in Berlin (VI17822) and Parkinson, Pig. *45, No. 4 also have the wavy lines.

During the process of cutting great care must be taken that sufficient support is left to hold the bands together. For this reason it might happen that the plain bands are not particularly useful as motives. They are, nevertheless, extensively used, supporting posts being left at regular intervals; usually there are four. In some cases the posts extend across many bands and form radii which in their turn are decorated.

the circular band at six different places, well spaced, so that a combination of four arcs forms an independent element of design. The effect of PI. cvm, 374 is secured by alternating the concentric band combination with the bands of zigzags. The center of this kapkap is unusual. There was a definite attempt to unify the center and the rest of the composition. The center was accordingly divided into four sectors and each was filled in with equidistant arcs. Alternating with these sectors are four radii each with two barbs on each side turned toward the center. Pis. CVII, 364—370; cvm, 371—376; cix, 377, 381 show how the equidistant-arc motive is used next to the center and also as a banding feature alternating with the zigzags.

A new element, Fig. 57, g, which I shall call the chain element, is introduced in Pis. cxi, 391—397; cxii, 398—400, 404. This element is a great favorite with New Ireland artists ; some of the daintiest kapkaps have it. The band containing the chains is divided into equal parts by parallel bars and one link of the chain is placed in each. The bars are necessary to connect the chain with the rest of the cutting. PI. cxi, 397, with the exception of one row of chains, has no new motive or method of composition. Kapkaps of this style are numerous in the collection. PI. cxi, 393 shows a combination of two centers previously described (Pis. CVII, 368 and cix, 380). Pi. cxi, 392 has a dainty, well-made center composed of links attached to equidistant-arc motives which reminds one of the style of New Hannover (PI. cx, 382, 383, 385, 386, 388—390). The use of the chain motive in the center cuts down the center element to a circle and unifies the entire cutting in a delicate way. Attention may be called to PI. cxi, 391 because of the bad technique. It is a combination of chain motive with links of irregular length and width, of equidistant-arc motives unevenly divided and spaced, of uneven zigzags and a spiderweb center. Although the artist was not successful with his design, he did not do so badly with the triangular toothed edge.

PI. CVII, 370, which is exceedingly fine, shows a subtle and effective treatment of these bands. PI. cix, 379 has a center like a spiderweb ; many concentric lines are joined to a solid center, which is perfectly round, by lines radiating from it.

Pis. cxi, 394, 395; cxii, 398—400, 404 show the use of the chain element, as well as variety in the choice of centers, on plates with a smooth edge.

In the group of kapkaps having circular bands attention should be called to the beauty with which the edges of Pis. cvm, 375, 376; cix, 377 are finished. PI. cvm, 376 has the usual finely toothed triangular edge but each of the delicately shaped acute triangles has a hole at the center.

There is some reason to suppose that the tortoiseshell of PI. cxii, 399 was broken around the edge, for it is such as would be left if a zigzag band had been eliminated. It is conceivable, therefore, that the artist failed absolutely in cutting the outer band or bands and cut it away entirely. It is possible, however, that through use the outer portion wore out and that this part of the cutting was preserved. The irregularities of PI. cxi, 393, for example, are not due to lack of skill but to breakage. But, since there are several kapkaps with this edge and with other similarities of planning and technique, it is more likely that they were all made by the same artist.

PI. cvm, 373 and 374 show two cases where the use of equidistant arcs has been more highly elaborated. The effective variation of PI. cvm, 373 is secured by cutting into

TORTOISESHELL ORNAMENTS Direction is apparently of no technical importance to the cutters of tortoiseshell, although it is important artistically. The elements used to form the chain (Fig. 57, g) may be placed vertically instead of horizontally and when so used give an entirely different effect (Fig. 57, h). The link element — for it may be considered an independent design element when placed vertically — is much better adapted to the rest of the kapkap composition than the chain one, because it is of itself appropriate to join the bands. Although technically more suitable to the medium it is not, in my opinion, as effective as the chain. Pis. CXH, 401—403, 405, 406; cxin, 408, 411 show it used with toothed or triangular toothed edges, Pis. cxra, 407, 409,410, 412—414; cxiv, 415—417 with smooth edges. Pis. cxu, 401, 403; cxin, 408 are simple forms in which it is used. In PI. cxn, 403 the entire composition was unified by carrying the link element in as far as the round center, and by using a band of links not hollowed out next to the edge of the toothed triangles. PI. cxn, 406 has a row of chain and one of link elements in a delicate composition. Besides PI. cxn, 403, Pis. cxm, 411 and 412 show the masses which were apparently the original cuts of the link elements. The effect is heavier only because the centers of the tiny elements were not cut out. In PI. cxm, 411 what is left from the cutting has a diamond rather than a lozenge shape. PI. cxin, 412 was doubtless left as it is because of lack of skill for it is coarse and unevenly cut in every respect.

A number of kapkaps show that instead of leaving the rounded link element, just that shape was cut out (Pis. cxin, 410, 413, 414; cxiv, 416, 417, 419). Where that has been carefully done the results are of exquisite fineness (Pis. c x m , 409, 410; cxiv, 415). It seems as if the design formed by cutting out such a bit of the shell may be closely related to that formed by certain proportions attained in using Fig. 57, b. The band next the center of PI. cxm, 410 consists of two rows of Pig. 57, h cut out, instead of one row of Fig. 57, b. In PI. cxiv, 416 row upon row of this element is cut out giving to the outside part of the plate at least, a net-like effect. PI. cxiv, 419 is an example where no attempt is made to alternate the position of the cut-out Pig. 57, h element, consequently the effect of Pig. 57, b is not achieved.

The use of vertical parallel lines, or bars, may be related to this cutting as is shown in PI. c x m , 414. Examples like this, as well as 1

The kapkaps of Pis. cm, 335—338; civ, 341—343 are not from the Admiralty Islands although the plate is listed under the Admiralty Island caption.

103

PI. c x m , 412 and others, incline me to think they have been cut with a knife or a Y-tool. When the cuts are not carefully edged off the relationship of the cut-out portion to the Fig. 57, h element is obvious. The design composed of a row of triangles; Fig. 57, i, depends on the method of cutting out a portion of the tortoiseshell somewhat as in the illustrations just discussed. The part cut is, however, wider at the top than at the bottom and curved triangular portions like triangles with curved sides are left. PI. cxiv, 420—422 show the use of the triangular design element. It should be noted that in this style of kapkap the graceful effect is secured by the acuteness of the vertical angles of the triangles and by the fact that the sides are subtly curved. In Pis. cxiv, 420—422; cxv, 423, 427 only one row of triangles is used. PI. cxiv, 418 has three rows of them but they are separated by equidistant-arc motives. Generally the bases of the triangles are toward the center and the points turn outward, but PI. cxrv, 421, which is very fine but not even, has the points turned toward the center. The beautiful edge of PI. cix, 377 is a variation of the triangle with curved edges whose apices turn toward the center. PI. cm, 335 uses three rows of the triangles,1 one next to the other, but its effect is sustained because the triangles have curved sides. Pis. cxiv, 418, 421; cxv, 423, 427 have radii from the center almost to the edge. PI. cxv, 423 and 427 have a new center. The latter differs from the former only in that each edge triangle has a hole in it, a device some artists favor. The effect of Pis. cxiv, 418; cxv, 423, 427 and 428 is heavier than is usual for New Ireland kapkaps. It has nevertheless a clear-cut character which is distinctive and which may quite possibly show these kapkaps to be more nearly related to the Nissan style (see p. 106) than to that of New Ireland. Pis. cm, 337, 338; cxv, 424—426, 428, and one in the Hintz collection show quite peculiar uses of the triangle element. PI. cxv, 424 looks as if it were made by an Admiralty Islander not sufficiently adept to copy New Ireland style but nevertheless attempting it. The whole style of PI. cxv, 425, although delicate enough to be from New Ireland, shows possible affiliations with the kapkaps of New Hannover (see p. 105). PI. cm, 337 is so unusual that little can be done about placing it. It seems as though it and PI. cm, 336 might have been made by the same man. Although the outstanding element of PI. cxvn, 439 and 440 is the zigzag, it is so cut that the cut-out triangles appear more dominant, giving the effect of negative cutting. The poor execution and general plan of these two kapkaps suggest that they may possibly have been made in the Admiralties.

104

MELANESIAN DESIGN

At first glance Pl. cxvii, 441 may seem to be a result of bad technique but the finish of the edge is good. It is quite possible that the artist deliberately made the triangles lean instead of making them upright. The result, although not technically perfect, is nevertheless dynamic. The center of PI. cxvui, 444 which is well done shows a successful pinwheel effect which the maker of Pl. cxvn, 441 possibly aimed for. PI. cxvii, 438 introduces a new design element, Fig. 57, k. It is a running band of triangles with curved sides and bases placed with vertex of one at center of base of the next. PI. cxvin, 442 has two rows of the element, one above the other, PI. cxvin, 443—446 have skilful combinations of this sort of band with other elements we have met before. PI. cxvra, 447 shows a not unexceptional use of small holes in the triangles; where they are not perfectly round they mark a transitional stage between the triangular bands of Pis. CXVII, 438; cxvin, 443—446 and those of PI. cxvm, 449 and 450. In these last two figures the curvilinear triangles are cut out so as to make a dainty effect. In these, as in other cases where New Ireland design elements approach the use of mass, there will be some artists who execute them in line. PI. cxvra, 448 and 451 might have been designed by the same carver. Both are laid out in sectors as far as the outer band, which serves as a binder, by two radii which themselves form narrow open sectors. Both use equidistant toothed arcs. In PI. cxvin, 448 the narrow sectors formed by the two radii are filled in with the element of Pig. 57, k, in PI. cxvm, 451 it is used as a finishing band.

In Pis. cix, 378; cxix, 452—459; cxx, 460— 463 a bar element, Fig. 57, m, is a dominant feature. PI. cxix, 452 and 453 are very simple compositions using rows of bars; in Pl. cxix, 454 a row of bars is combined with the equidistant-arc motive. PI. cxix, 458, in which the bars are not so straight and distinct as in some of the others, recalls PI. cxin, 414 and is perhaps closely related to it (cp. also PI. cxxxm, 540). For the portion cut out is the negative of Fig. 57, h. The difference between the bar element and the last mentioned is that the bars are carefully cut out so the result is exact, straight and fine, whereas the cutting of the other style is not so exact and the finished product, while good, is coarser, and leaves an impression of rays rather than of bars. PL cxix, 459 shows the beginning of a good idea, the use of two facing right triangles, but the spacing is so bad that the idea did not quite come off. Pis. cxix, 457 and cxx, 460 are very fine results of consistent use of the bar design.

PI. cxx, 460 has an interesting and welldone center and the modification of the bar

element for the outer band, Fig. 57, o, gives variety to, but at the same time preserves the unity of, the composition. Fig. 57, o and ρ are a combination of the zigzag and bar elements, o has a bar from the point of every zigzag, ρ has one only from alternate points (PI. cxi, 396). In Pis. cxix, 455, 456; cxx, 461 and Parkinson, Fig. *45, Nos. 2 and 7, the equidistant-arc motive has been combined with the bar to achieve good composition. PI. cxix, 455 uses groups of bars separated by a link of the chain motive. In PI. cxix, 456 equidistant arcs and bars alternate in bands from center out, in PI. cxx, 461 and Parkinson, Fig. *45, No. 7 they alternate in the same band. PI. cxx, 462 is unique in that the row of cut-out triangles extends the idea of radiation from the center by connecting their points with the bars which connect the equidistant arcs of the next motive. This kapkap will be discussed again in connection with others having the same effect.

PL cxx, 463 runs counter to all technical principles involved in the carving of kapkaps. The bar-element is the dominating one but the bars do not connect the bands except at infrequent intervals, so rarely that one almost gets the impression that the composition is held together by supernatural means. The first impression one gets from PL cxx, 465 and 466 is that the bars, due to careless manipulation, have become diagonal. Parkinson, Fig. *45, No. 6 is so well done, however, that there can be no doubt that the lines were made slanting for artistic reasons. When they slant in opposite directions, as in PL c x x , 466 and Parkinson, Fig. *45, No. 6, a herring-bone design is the result. The last is unusual in the treatment of the center and in the use of an edge, smooth on the outside, composed -of triangles carved in line in each of which two straight lines run parallel to the base (Fig. 57, q). A kind of reverse or negative herring-bone design (Fig. 57, r) is used in Pis. civ, 341, 342; cxx, 464, of which 341 is the only successful one. It is somewhat doubtful as to whether this element is more closely related to Fig. 57, r, being a negative carving of it, or to Fig. 57, s. If it is an outgrowth of the latter, the two bands of diagonal lines have come together without the separating band line, thus making a row of zigzags which, being arranged horizontally, have no contiguity and

TOETOISESHELL ORNAMENTS therefore give the effect of arrow-points running one behind the other. PL ox, 382—390 shows how the equidistant-arc motive is used to strike the keynote of style of the entire tortoiseshell plate. It is as if a center were extended to make an entire cutting. PI. ox, 384 is a simple variant of the center of PI. cix, 379. It looks almost as if the rest of the carving had been broken away and the center utilized. PL cx, 388 and 389, however, are not centers of the whole cuttings, but complete plates. Pl. cx, 389 is a reversal of the band and toothed band, the latter being used inside the composition and the bounding edge being smooth. In PI. cx, 386 the center of PL evi, 356 has been tripled and the cutting was finished with many equidistant arcs connected by eight radii to the center. The use of the equidistant-arc motive in Pl. cx, 385 is comparable to its use in Pl. cviii, 373, but in this case it is the primary motive of the plate. The way in which four sectors are marked off sets it off with Pl. crv, 343 and recalls the center of Pl. evil, 362. PL cx, 382 has an extended center comparable to the entire cutting of Pl. cx, 385 with two bands of zigzags and a toothed edge added. Pl. cx, 390 has the division into sectors, each of which is filled in with equidistant arcs. The arcs are further varied in that they are toothed. Pl. cx, 383, which is not very well done, is laid out the same way, but variation is secured by connecting alternate pairs of the equidistant arcs with diagonal lines.

Although there are not many examples of the use of the extended equidistant-arc element as a dominating motive they are sufficient to set off the style as unique. It is certainly a local development; according to Parkinson (Fig. *45, Nos. 8 and 9), the locality where this style developed is New Hannover. The relative coarseness of the style and the division into sectors rather than strict use of bands mark a transitional style between the Admiralties and New Ireland, a conclusion which is reasonable on geographic grounds as well as artistic ones. The foregoing detailed description of kapkaps from New Ireland brings out certain general characteristics : 1. Although a few design elements are based on mass (triangles, for example), the tendency is to use line to the exclusion of mass (compare, for example, Fig. 57, j and q, and k and I, and the centers of PI. CVIII, 372 and 375). 2. The elements used in carving the tortoiseshell are very few (Fig. 57, a-v), but, as I have shown in other cases, the composition of the elements is widely varied. 3. There is no technical difference as to which direction designs may run but direction 14

105

plays an important part in achieving aesthetic effects. Thus the effects of the chain and the link are very different although the only real difference is one of direction. The same is true of the Fig. 57, k and I elements (Pl.cxcm,448). 4. Since the design of the kapkap is essentially composed of bands formed of concentric circles, there are certain elements, as, for example, the link or the bar, which are admirably adapted to the composition. Nevertheless, elements and their position are not by any means restricted to such convenience. The chain element, equidistant arcs, and particularly the bars which do not reach the entire distance across the band are examples of elements used in direct opposition to convenience. 5. Variation is dependent on the finest subtleties, the use of curves like Fig. 57, b, instead of straight lines; the curving of the sides of triangles as Fig. 57, i and k compared with Fig. 57, j; using lines instead of mass as in PI. cv, 351 compared with PI. cv, 348 or in Fig. 57, q compared with u; use of bars as in Fig. 57, o or their omission, Fig. 57, p. There is almost infinite variety in composition also, Fig. 57, i having points toward the center in one case, in others, away from it. One of the most subtle uses of composition is in the omission of the bounding line, the simplest kind of device which alters immeasurably the effect of the entire pattern. 6. Some designs which seem to be entirely different are merely the result of negative carving. 7. Since the illustrations run the gamut from the crudest and coarsest to finished products of unbelievable fineness, it is not surprising to find many mistakes. We should expect to find them particularly because of the shape of the carved article and also because of the necessity of anticipating spatial restrictions in laying out the field. Generally speaking, mistakes in detail are more frequent than mistakes of composition. It is not necessary to point out errors in examples of bad technique. A few will be noted on the kapkaps of greatest perfection. PL cix, 377 has almost no irregularities except at one point a slight flattening of the circle which occurred in manip-

106

MELANESIAN DESIGN

ulating the equidistant-arc element. The tangent petal-like elements of the outside band are remarkably accurate in size. But the arc of the circle was not evenly divided into parts of their size and at the point a it was necessary to use an odd number. This is not so much a mistake as a failure to judge tKe space, a shortcoming readily excusable since a large number of divisions was involved. The same kind of discrepancy is seen in PL cxi, 394 which is excellently done. The outer band of zigzags did not come out even and it was necessary to squeeze three in a space too small for three, but too large for two. PL cxvin, 449 is an example of bad spacing in two bands ; it should be compared with Pl. cxvm, 445 and 447 which are much better, although the outer band of 447 is slightly irregular.

8. These kapkaps are ostensibly all from the neighborhood of New Ireland, nevertheless differences in style can be noted which seem in some cases to be local, in others individual. Pis. civ, 343; cx, 382—390 show sufficient differences to be the products of different artists, but so much similarity that the style is definitely localized. According to Parkinson (Pig. *45, Nos. 8 and 9), the locality which produces them is New Hannover. If we may judge by technique, planning and arrangement, PL cix, 377 and 379 were made by the same artist who made also PL cxii, 400 and possibly 404. PL cxi, 394 and Be VI17822 were, by the same token, carved by the same hand. Pis. cxi, 395; cxn, 398—399 were almost undoubtedly made by the same artist. The centers are similar, the edges of Pl. cxn, 398 and 399 are alike, the artist has trouble "getting his circle round". The general style, as well as the execution, point to single and individual origin. Pis. cxni, 409, 410; cxiv, 416 are sufficiently similar in plan and execution to have been made by the same artist. The centers particularly are of the same type. Just as one can read teeth on Tami bowls by direction, depth and width, like handwriting, so here the width and angles of Pig. 57, b are similar indeed. The trident center, although it never is exactly the same, shows, nevertheless, the artist's favoritism. A set which includes Pis. cxrv, 417, 421, and oxx, 462 has also many similarities which set them off as one man's work. Although the kapkaps of the set Pis. cxi, 395 ; cxn, 398, 399, and the next two sets described are not all made by the same individual they do, nevertheless, show common influence. The difference is in virtuosity rather than in design or in ideas. An artist, or perhaps a group of artists, uses a characteristic element, the toothed arc, in a peculiar way. The kapkaps on which it is used are not made by the same individual, but I believe those who used it were subject to the same influence, perhaps of a teacher or someone they emulated. The effect of this element can be seen better than described : PL cx, 389, 390 (these two are very coarse), PL cxn, 405 (the teeth are so close as to make the arcs look fringed), Pis. cxv, 425; cxvin, 448, 451. PL cxv, 425 is unusual in that one band consists of triangles which are not contiguous at the base 1 JSMVL 1: 87.

but look as though each one was hung to the toothed arc independent of the rest. This kapkap, as well as Pl. cxvm, 448 and 451, consists of typically New Ireland elements, except perhaps for the toothed arcs, but the division of the surface into sectors shows a departure from the usual plan of the field. New Ireland style admits of sectors but they do not usually extend as far as the edge of the cutting.

9. There is a marked tendency toward unification of design, although the principle of variation is always at work. The following are only a few examples of unity in position: Pis. cvn, 362; cxi, 392; cxni, 410 (center appropriate to rest of composition); cxvni, 442, 444, cxix, 456; cxx, 460; Parkinson, Pig. *45, Nos. 5,

comvery 450; 6, 7.

KAPKAPS FROM NISSAN

A small series of kapkaps of uniform style is illustrated in Pis. cm, 338; cxvi, 429—437; cxxxix, 582, 583. The given provenience for these is varied : of the total of eighteen, six in the Hintz collection are said to come from Seeadlerhaven (these are mounted on Conus shell); PI. cm, 338 is said to be from the north coast of New Ireland; PL cxvi, 430 from Buka. A satisfactory description with illustrations of three of these (PI. cxvi, 431, 433, 435) is given by Professor Krause in a report on Nissan. He describes the ornaments and continues, "According to Uhlig these plates (polished tridacna) are not made on the island of Nissan, but are traded in from Tanga, via Pinepil and Aneri. Usually the tridacna plates from Tanga are not worn simply, but with openwork tortoiseshell ornamentation. This ornamentation the Nissan Islanders make themselves."1 These remarks give considerable understanding about points formerly vague. Various parts of the ornaments need not be made by the same people. Trade also accounts for much, as has been suggested. But in this case there is definite information regarding the provenience of the tridacna. It is imported from Tanga, via Aneri and Pinepil. We know from Parkinson2 that the populations of Tanga and Aneri are related culturally and linguistically to inhabitants of the coast of New Ireland (district called Siara) and that they constitute the trade route between the mainland of New 2

Dreissig Jahre, p. 132.

TORTOISBSHELL

Ireland and Nissan, thence to Buka and the Solomons. The route of trade from Nissan to the Admiralties is not quite so clear, especially considering that hostile tribes live between the colony founded by the Tanga and Aneri on the east coast of New Ireland and the inhabitants of the Admiralties. That a lively trade existed between the Admiralties and New Ireland is obvious because of the provenience given by museum catalogues and dealers for Admiralty Island objects secured in New Ireland, and the reverse. If materials were traded about there is no reason why ideas should not be. The kapkap idea, therefore, is carried out in a localized style, as is to be expected. The style of the cuttings made on this small island is simple. The circular space is laid out with a simple small center, most frequently of the cross or star variety, and from there in circular bands. There is some use of equidistant arcs but clear-cut triangles are the most commonly used elements. These triangles differ from those of New Ireland in not having sides with the subtle curve and in being more massive. They are, however, much more acute-angled than the triangles used in the Admiralties. Where more than one row is used they are arranged so that the vertices of one row meet the center of the bases of the other, or so that the vertices of one row touch at the meeting point of the base angles of the other. PI. oxvi, 436 has a row of the element Pig. 57, h (but not cut out) which has been greatly elongated (compare the use of this element in the Admiralties, Pis. c, 307; oi, 311 and 313). In PI. cxvi, 429 triangles of the same type are placed base to base with no circle to divide the bands and the result is a kapkap of a novel pattern although no really new design element is introduced. Two kapkaps in the Field Museum are from Nissan. One, PI. cxxxix, 582, though simple, is interesting because the four sectors are set off from each other by four small unfilled sectors. Within the four decorated sectors are two bands of triangles separated by two equidistant arcs. The triangles of the outer row are long and pointed in the Nissan style. The triangles of the inner band are arranged as in Pig. 57, 1c, but the individual triangles have a very wide base and curved sides, similar to those used in New Ireland woodcarving. The other, PI. cxxxix, 583, is comparable to PI. cxvi, 433 in the massive center and use of bands of sharp-angled triangles. 14*

ORNAMENTS

107

PL cxvi, 433, the best of the series, in fact one of the most excellent specimens in the entire collection available for analysis, is more complex in composition and almost perfect in craftsmanship. The extension of the center to the edge in graceful raying curves is due to influence from the Solomons (cp. below). The filling in of the intervening spaces with rows of triangles, the row nearest the center joined in a heavy mass, is characteristically Nissan. This kapkap is nevertheless unique and shows a combination of fine craftsmanship with an excellent idea.

K A P K A P S FROM THE SOLOMON ISLANDS

Kapkaps from the Solomons are used for a different purpose than those from the Admiralties and New Ireland. They are fastened to a braided band and worn on the forehead, sometimes being a part of a very elaborate coiffure, (frontispiece and PL cxxi). There is little variation in the size of the tortoiseshell carving as compared with the tridacna mount, the carving being only slightly smaller in diameter than the mount. Kapkaps from the Admiralties and from New Ireland vary greatly in the virtuosity displayed. Some are crude indeed, others inconceivably fine. Some are well thought out and unified, others are pure imitations or abject failures in design. There are not nearly so many from the Solomons but those available show great control of the technique. Only three of the entire number are badly done and even they are by no means as poor as some from the Admiralties. The Solomon style in kapkaps combines certain features which are Admiralty, others which are typical of New Ireland and still others peculiar to itself. The combination of these characteristics is a result unique for the Solomons. The edges, like some from New Ireland, may be toothed (Pig. 57, t), as in PL cxxii, 468 and 470, or they may be finished with toothed triangles. The latter type is used most. But this edge which shows some similarities to the edge of the Admiralties and some to New Ireland is somewhat different from either. Where triangles are used simply they are more obtuse than the New Ireland ones, but more acute than those of the Admiralties, except for a few which are exceedingly obtuse and have such rounded sides as to give an effect of a succession of arches (PL cxxv, 486).

108

MELANE SIAN DESIGN

C

2

^

S Pl. οχχιν, 479 has a double row of alternating arches; in PL cxxiv, 482 they have become so reduced as to form an edge so fine that the triangle is almost lost.

In another modification of the edge (Fig. 58, j), the bases of the triangles do not touch but a short toothed line connects them (Pis. cxxii, 467; cxxin, 474, 475; cxxiv, 483, 484). Emphasis has been placed on the division of the Admiralty Island kapkaps into sectors for decoration, and into concentric bands for those of New Ireland. A clever combination of both methods has been achieved by the artists of the Solomons. It is as if they saw the surface in bands while at the same time laying a secondary pattern in sectors. The most striking feature of the Solomon style is the use of delicate fretted lines to fill in the bands formed of concentric circles (Fig. 58, a). Different effects are secured by a play on this design;

^

2?2

Pig. 58

these will be discussed later. The arrangement of these fretted lines so that they adjoin in successive bands, and finally so that they meet the vertex of the edge triangle gives an effect of small regular sectors, a radial pattern within a circular one. Another device enhances the decoration in sectors. It is the extension of the center sectors to include one or more of the bands as in Pis. CXXII, 470; cxxm, 474—476; oxxv, 487. Toothed masses and exceedingly graceful, flowing lines are used for this purpose. In PI. cxxiv, 485 the effect is secured by more subtle means. The center radii are interrupted by the band of double zigzags but are taken up again at the same angle by the bars connecting the equidistant arcs even to meeting the edge triangles. There can be no doubt that the bands of both New Ireland and Solomon kap-

TORTOISESHELL ORNAMENTS kaps are placed with definite relationship to one another, but the relationship is verydifferent in the two cases, and is an essential characteristic of each style. The simplest of the centers of the Solomon kapkaps is identical with some of those from New Ireland (PI. cxxn, 467). But this motive is played upon in a manner very like that used in the Admiralties. PI. cxxii, 472 shows each of the four arms of the cross divided in the center by the cutting out of a toothed portion. In PI. cxxm, 474 the arms are longer and thinner, the same sort of cutting is made inside of each and they are toothed on the outside edges. Furthermore, each one is carried into the next band by a very acute triangle toothed on both sides. In PI. CXXII, 470 the same idea is carried further, a large portion of the center is cut out and the toothed line is carried to within two bands of the circumference. Additional toothed lines are added in the third band from the center and in the fifth. It may be that the whole pattern is a conventionalization of some realistic pattern; if so, it has lost its universal significance and is symbolic only to one who knows it. Pis. C X X I I , 469, 470; oxxiv, 479, 480, 484; cxxv, 486 and Réal *xxv, l 1 are variations of the arrangement just described. Pis. c x x n , 469, 473; cxxni, 475; cxxrv, 480, 483 differ in having a secondary cross whose arms alternate with those of the primary cross, dividing the center into eight sectors. There are variations also in the way these cross pieces are carved, PI. cxxii, 469 is perfectly simple, those of Pis. c x x m , 475 and cxxrv, 483 are composed of two lines with opposing frets unifying the secondary cross with the bands. The arms of the cross of PI. cxxn, 473 each have opposing barbs (compare PI. cvm, 374); those of PI. cxxiv, 480 end with a forked form much like the trident (it has four prongs) of New Ireland (compare Pis. cv, 348; cxin, 410). In addition each has opposing curves or rosettes composed of four small circles placed in pairs.

109

The most usual division of the Solomon kapkap is in quarters; Pis. cxxm, 476 and cxxiv, 482 are divided into six sectors, Pi. cxxiv, 481 and 485 into five. An element Fig. 58, k is used to supplement the central design. PI. cxxv, 486 shows it used turning outward in positions alternating with the toothed cross element. In PI. cxxiv, 481 and 482 a similar but reduced element, Fig. 58,1, extends inward from the line which bounds the center; the element alternates with the center petal-like elements. Fig. 58, I is used as a banding element in PI. cxxrv, 479, the element in one band alternating with that in the other. In Pl. cxxiv, 478 an element composed of three or four stripes makes a comblike design. It is as if the rounded end of Fig. 58,1 were cut off.

Three of the kapkaps, Pis. cxxir, 471 ; cxxm, 476, 477 have a favorite Solomon realistic element, a bird. These kapkap elements should be compared with the designs on the engraved breast ornaments of tridacna (p. 111). PI. c x x m , 476 uses six of them with drooping wings, PI. C X X I I I , 477, four with widely extended wings, and on PI. C X X I I , 471 there are four in realistic profile. According to Ivens 2 the first two may be frigate birds, those of PI. cxxn, 471, sandpipers. The heads of Pis. cxxn, 471 and c x x m , 477 are done in line, in PI. c x x m , 476 they are Bolid.

Another realistic figure, a human being (Fig. 58, m), is used on PI. cxxiv, 479. It differs somewhat from the conventional Solomon human figure found on woodcarvings, but since it is very small and delicate, it is not to be expected that it would be exactly like it. In general outline it follows the Solomon convention. The dainty fret (Fig. 58, a) has been mentioned as a characterizing feature of the Solomon Island kapkap style. There are certain variations in the use of this fret ; in some cases, it is a modification of the element itself, in others it is a matter of composition.

Tiny circles of the same sort are used with the band which marks off the center of Pis. cxxn, 467; c x x m , 474, 475; cxxiv, 483, 484. When the central primary cross arms are rounded they become petal-like, in shape they somewhat resemble PI. evi, 356 from New Ireland. The Solomon device of paired toothed masses is used however in Pis. cxxn, 471, 473; cxxni, 477; cxxiv, 478, 481. Réal *xxv, 1 makes use of the petal element but it ends in a fishtail angular form, two opposite ones smooth, the other two toothed. The resulting pattern is much like a conventionalized fish.

Pis. cxxii, 467, 468, 470, 472, 473; C X X I I I , 474—47Ü, and Réal *xxv, 1 use the fret of Fig. 58, a, turned always in the same direction, the various ones of each band adjoining so as to preserve the radial effect. In PI. cxxn, 469 the hooks of the bar tend to become pointed instead of rectangular, they are not in the center of the bar, and although an attempt was made to have the bars of one band meet those of the other, that attempt was not very successful. The hooks

1

2

La Décoration Primitive, Vol. II.

Melanesiane of the Southeast Solomons, pp. 83, *306, b (not quite the same), 394.

110

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

The two kapkaps Pis. cxxn, 472 and cxxv, 487 are interesting from the point of view of Equidistant arcs or bands are used by the distribution. PI. cxxn, 472 is a forehead ornaSolomon Island, as well as by the New Ireland, ment of a Marquesan chief (HamburgMuseum). artists (Pis. cxxn, 471 ; cxxiv, 479—482, 485, It is, however, typically Solomon in all features Réal *xxv, 1). In the latter, one of the arcs of the style of carving and mounting. The peculis varied by a fret placed between each of the iar rim of tortoiseshell is, however, apparently primary and secondary center dividing ele- a new addition. 1 It is fastened to the kapkap ments, making eight in all. This is a variation with fine steel wire run through the holes. of the direction in which the fret is turned, it I believe it was traded into the Marquesas and being revolving rather than radial. there the additional piece of tortoiseshell was One of the simplest variations is the use of added. I have seen no other specimen like it. PI. cxxv, 487 is a puzzle in the opposite two frets close together (Fig. 58, b), so that one seems to be the outline of the other (PI. direction. It is said to have come from Ruvicxxiv, 478, 482). Further modifications of the ana, in the Solomons. Its style is unique, as fret element are : the use of one and one-half far as I know, for all areas. Superficially, frets (Fig. 58, c) as in PI. cxxv, 486, the it resembles certain Marquesan bowls (cp. use of two complete turns (Fig. 58, d) as in for example, von Sydow, Kunst der NaturPI. cxxiv, 480 and 481, and the dropping of völker, *228, specimen from the Museum für a short line from the center of the hook (Fig. Völkerkunde, Leipzig). 58, e) as in PI. cxxiv, 479. To sum up the characteristics of the Solomon Island kapkaps: the size of the tortoiseThe peculiar effect of PI. cxxn, 471 is due to the arrangement of the frets. In the outer band they are run in one shell is nearly the same as that of the tridacna direction for a quarter of the distance, and in the opposite mount, being only slightly smaller; these prodirection in the alternate quarters. In the inner band they run portions are not noticeably variable. counter-clockwise for all but an eighth of the distance where When triangles are used for edges they are they run clockwise. This kapkap, and PI. cxxn, 469 and generally more acute than those used in the 473, are the least skilfully made of the Solomon collection. Admiralties, more obtuse than those of New In PL cxxm, 477 the artist achieves an unusual effect by placing two frets turned in opposite directions to fill each Ireland. eighth of his bands. The center determines four of these, the The radial division of the circle is kept and bird motives which fill the intervening spaces, the other it is supplemented by concentric banding, four. This artist uses parallel bands but varies them with combining the essential feature of Admiralty toothed edges. The composition is somewhat coarse, nevertheless it is well-spaced and effective. Island composition and that characteristic of PL cxxv, 487, a shows how by simple means the fret New Ireland. element could become an element related to Pig. 58,1. In this The fret with numerous modifications as a example instead of a running band of double frets, a line has detail used to fill bands and the double and been used to divide the spaces containing the element Pig. 58, triple zigzag lines used for the same purpose 6. The result is Pig. 58, I with corners, rather than rounded. are distinctive for the Solomons. PI. cxxiv, 488—485 include an element and The bird and human figures which are elemodifications of it commonly used in New ments used in other Solomon Island arts, Ireland, that is, the zigzag. woodcarving for example, are used on kapkaps as well. PL cxxiv, 485 shows a double line, PL cxxiv, 484 a triple line, to form it (Pig. 58, f, g, h). One Solomon Island kapkap, if museum The center of Pl. cxxn, 468 is in a class by itself. It comlabels are correct, somehow got to the Marpares with PL cxv, 423 and 427 from New Ireland. In my quesas, and if we may judge from style alone, opinion it is more closely related to the bird figures (Pl. cxxni, one having a Marquesan style was obtained 476 and 477), which are such favorites in the Solomons, than to the New Ireland parallel which has a similar form. in Ruviana. of one band point in one direction, those of the other in the opposite direction.

1

The white outer circle of the illustration has no significance ; it was used as a mounting to bring out the additional tortoiseshell frame.

TOETOISESHELL ORNAMENTS

111

The art of the Solomon Islands is an almost equal mixture of realistic and geometric design with grace in the use of curves as particularly characteristic. On the kapkaps geometric motives predominate with a little, apparentlyplayful, use of bird and human figures. Although not closely related in style, the engraved ornaments which have a different style are, nevertheless, closely related in function. They are worn as breast ornaments. They are made of clamshell which has been polished, incised and filled in with a black substance. They seem to be more plentiful from the southeast Solomons, most of the specimens here illustrated being from Malaita or farther south, Ulawa and Arosi. They were, however, also used and greatly prized in Bougainville and Buka.1 The style of these shell ornaments is primarily realistic, the most frequent elements being the bird, fish and sea-ghost. Thanks to W. G. Ivens we have the native names of these designs as well as some information regarding the attitudes of the natives toward them. According to Ivens the patterns are not sacred. Even the human being is depicted for purely artistic reasons, only the "big ghost", that of deceased chiefs, would not be put to common use.2 Although Ivens does not discuss art he gives a number of hints regarding it and has taken pains to get native reactions to designs. From various remarks I conclude that the natives of the southeast Solomons have a very strong "naming pattern". That is, they like to name things, often in a most poetic way, but do not necessarily establish thereby an identity. There is a rather well developed shark cult among the Sa'a and Ulawa. Among the latter the shark and man are namesakes, but "there is no idea of any exchange of identity between them, nor is there any talk of the two lives being bound up together."3 Again, paddles are named, ostensibly from their form, for example, dracaena leaf, rattan cane leaf and turtle flipper, although the two

last are identical in shape.4 Floats are set in a line of twelve and each has a name and place in the line. Their tops are carved to represent birds, fishes or other objects, or even a legendary character.6 One more example is that of naming bowls ; they are said to be named from the shape of their handles. One whose handles are carved in the same form as a "canoe" on other objects is called "scorpion"; the motive is repeated in different order on the handle of a differently shaped bowl which is named "squid". Coneshell, prawn's tail and cocoanut sheath are other names for food bowls.® With such a strong tendency to name objects it is not surprising that the people should name designs also, although it is by no means necessary. It is likely that most patterns had some emotional significance although Ivens does not bring out more than the mere fact of naming. An M-element, for example, which figures commonly in Solomon Island decoration is the elbow of the frigate bird, really the conventionalized frigate bird minus head and tail. The frigate bird element is commonly used on the engraved ornaments. In some cases it is highly conventionalized, in others, very realistic. One of the technical necessities of tortoiseshell carvings is to keep the cuttings continuous. This need has been pointed out in discussing kapkaps from various localities, as well as the fact that the connecting carving was reduced to a minimum in certain places. With the technique of engraving on shell there is relative freedom in placing the design. Nevertheless there are only three of these ornaments whose designs could not be directly transferred to openwork tortoiseshell carving successfully. The two center birds and "canoe" pattern of PI. cxxv, 488 would be unconnected, as would the lower bird and two "canoe" motives of PI. cxxvii, 500. PI. cxxvii, 502 which is geometrical and composed of unconnected elements would not "hang together" in openwork carving. These facts are important to show that design may be independent of technique, or that tradition may control virtuosity.

1

4

ENGRAVINGS ON SHELL FROM THE SOLOMONS

2 3

Parkinson, p. 289. Melanesiana of the Southeast Solomons, p. 34. Ivens, p. 239.

Ivens, p. »136. Ivens, p. 384, and drawing p. *385. * Ivens, p. *164.

6

112

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

It is interesting to note that in laying out the field for decoration of the engraved ornaments, principles altogether different from those used for the tortoiseshell carvings are used. The discs are not always perfectly round but somewhat elliptical, and may even take on peculiar elongated forms (PI. c x x v i , 497 and 498). The edges have a formal decoration in line, as Pis. c x x v i , 497, 498; c x x v i i , 499—501, 503, 505, or a variation of the "ribbon" motive. At its simplest this element consists only of fringed lines, the fringes being turned inward and those of the two lines alternating, PI. c x x v i , 494 and 495. Much of the engraving is done with this kind of a line and it gives the effect, on the edge, of the toothed edge of a kapkap. When used in the center it reminds us of the finely wrought center of kapkaps such as Pis. c x x n , 469, 472; c x x i i i , 474, 475, and of some of the more coarsely executed elements of the Admiralty Islands, Fig. 56, b, c. The use of the device here is, however, a special treatment of line which shows much extension of the kapkap use of teeth, and is very characteristic. The variety in the effects of the "ribbon" bounding lines is secured by variations in the use of the points of the lines. If the points become triangles we get results like Pis. oxxv, 488; cxxvi, 491, 493, 496, the appearance of the ribbon depending on the acuteness or obtuseness of the triangles. If the triangles are not filled in with black a pattern composed of parallel zigzags as in PL cxxvi, 492 results.

Two of the discs have circles engraved at the edge. PI. c x x v i i , 504 has a row of simple circles, PI. c x x v i i , 502 has a row of elements composed of three concentric circles, some of which tend to become "hairy". Within the circular or nearly circular space included by the ribbon or concentric circular edge decorations several plans are used. One plan uses frigate birds with spread wings, as if they were hanging by one wing from the top of the ornament.

remains a center zone which is filled in various ways. In PI. cxxvi, 491—494 the feet extending to elliptical elements fill in the top, the bottom is filled with a third bird whose feet connect in a graceful "fishtail" curve with the birds at the sides. In PI. cxxvi, 494, 495 and on a similar ornament in the Otago Museum the third bird is highly conventionalized. PI. cxxvi, 491 uses two realistic birds in the lower part of the central zone. In PI. cxxvi, 496 the "feet" of the vertical birds are arranged in graceful hooks which turn away from each other to help fill the upper part of the central zone. Two corresponding elements fill in the rest of the space. Patterns somewhat similar, although not identical, when used as a canoe decoration are called "clouds" 1 . Prom a study of the designs and their names in Ivens' account it seems likely that the slightest variation in a pattern will cause it to have a different name ; even the same forms may have different names. It is possible, too, that the names vary according to the objects the patterns decorated. Since Ivens has not analyzed the designs on the engraved ornaments the names here given are mere suggestions based an designs similar to those he gives. In PL cxxv, 488 two frigate birds fill in each half of the longitudinal space in a parallel and symmetrical way. There remain small spaces above and below the two central birds. The top space is filled with a small curved element, which if depicted with a sea-ghost represents his canoe 8 . The lower space is filled by two graceful and simply executed birds which may be sandpipers. 3 Réal, Pl. *xxv, 377 has its surface divided in the same way. The frigate birds, however, turn inward and are done in parallel lines instead of with the "ribbon" motive. The upper part of the center is filled with an inverted "canoe" form, each end of which has a kind of "face". The lower part of the central zone has a sea spirit, with a gracefully up-curving fish-body for a head. This is quite typical of the sea spirits which are amusing designs (see Ivens, *33, *201, *204; Codrington, *197, *259). PI. cxxvi, 497 is a simple example of the surface plan represented by the foregoing examples. It has several points of uniqueness. It is elongated and pointed at one end. The edge and the longitudinally arranged frigate birds are done in line, not in the ribbon pattern. More space is left unfilled than on any of the ornaments so far described. An element like a fishtail, partly engraved in hatching, runs from the point toward the center of the shell.

A second method of dividing the central space is into two, not always equal, parts. The upper zone may be somewhat larger than the lower, occupying about two-thirds of the space as in Pis. c x x v i , 492; CXXVII, 499, 501, 503 ; about half of it in PI. CXXVII, 500.

PI. cxxvi, 493 is the simplest of these arrangements. The feet extend in a graceful curve toward three peculiar elliptical elements at the top. Each bird thus marks off a somewhat irregular segment which is filled by its head in profile and conventional extensions of its wings. There

PL cxxvi, 492 is the most beautiful of all these engravings. The frigate bird of the style previously mentioned is placed head downward in the lower third of the central space. Two smaller birds of the same pattern occupy two segments at the top. All are connected by two birds in

1

3

Ivens, p. *315, b.

2

Ivens, p. »33, a.

Ivens, p. *306, b.

TORTOISESHELL ORNAMENTS profile placed feet to feet in the center. This piece is remarkable for the linework as well as for composition. The edge composed of zigzags instead of the ribbon has been noted. The treatment of the bird bodies in nearly parallel lines matches the edge nicely. The inner lines of the bodies do, however, tend to be "ribboned", so small and so finely as to be a subtle relief, but quite sufficiently to show the hold the style has on the artist. The shell of PI. cxxvu, 499 was imperfect or has suffered much from use, the latter possibility is more likely. The engraving, as well as the epacing, is excellent. The reversed frigate bird composed of many parallel lines (seven on the left, eight on the right, to be exact) occupies the lower third of the space precisely as in PI. cxxvi, 492. Two birds, facing away from each other, and having elongated tails, which are feathered as are their necks, fill the upper two-thirds of the space. The artist apparently did not like the vacant spaces above them and introduced two triangles on each side. PI. cxxvu, 501 is composed on the same plan, but curves which may be conventionalized bird or fish bodies fill the upper space in much the same way as it is filled in PI. cxxvu, 499. The maker of this ornament did not object to the empty spaces above the curves. PL cxxvn, 503, though not as well done, has practically the same composition as PI. cxxvu, 499 and 501, but is interesting in that two fishes fill the upper space and peculiar lines which may be modified birds, or merely connecting lines, join all the figures of the surface. The central space of PI. cxxvn, 500 is almost evenly divided. The ubiquitous bird, this time with a fish in its mouth, fills most of the lower half. Two simple spirals and four triangles take up the remaining space. These triangles are also introduced on the sides between the two major spaces, five on the left, four on the right. The upper half of the space is filled with long curved figures, somewhat fish-like, with bird heads. A peculiarity of the engraving on this ornament is the use of a zigzag element placed vertically to fill in the designs. At almost exact positions on each fish-like curve are extensions of these zigzags which look like legs of a centipede or some other insect. Réal, Pl. *xxv, 376 is a conservative, somewhat stiff, rendition of the bird and curve motives in "ribbon" technique which presents nothing new except the use of these motives in spaces of almost equal size. PI. cxxvi, 498 is very simple with a bird in the lower third, but unique in that the upper two-thirds are left almost free of ornament. A small tail-like element extends a short distance from the point toward the center and has a circle within a circle element on each side.

A third plan of composition is used on three of the ornaments and seems to have no relationship to either of the others. This is the use of very simple geometric designs to form a cross pattern (PI. cxxvn, 502, 504 and 505). PI. cxxvn, 504 and 505 are quite similar except for the edges, and not particularly well done. PI. cxxvn, 502 is beautifully done and perhaps should not be classed with the other two. The cross which is a unit 15

IIB

of design does not extend to the edges of the disc on which it is carved. Each arm spreads from the center in a series of small squares each with a dot in the center. Semi-circles of parallel lines are placed not far from the center on each side of each arm. Bach arm is finished off with a series of graceful curves which form an element looking much like a highly conventionalized profile view of a bird body.

The outstanding feature of the engraved ornaments is the use of realistic figures, chief of which is the bird. This is a prominent characteristic of Solomon Island style in general, but one which has been used very modestly in the tortoiseshell carvings of the kapkaps. The use of the fringed line and ribbon is another general characteristic of Solomon style. Altogether the artistry displayed in the ornamentation of these simple pieces of shell gives a good idea of the taste of the Solomon Island artists. The composition is excellent and the unity of design is marked. Almost any of the illustrations will show this, but Pis. cxxvi, 492, 493, and cxxvn, 500 are especially noteworthy. Where the edge is of simple parallel lines, the center pattern is carried out by the same sort of outline process; where the "ribbon" edge is present, the "ribboning" technique is used for the central design. The Solomon Island artist lays out his fields in such a way as to show his liking for symmetry. All the specimens show this fact. The symmetry is predominatingly a left and right symmetry, never an up and down one. The composition belonging to the first plan shows perfect left and right symmetry of the side zones, but no symmetry at all in the central zone, the top part of it never being decorated like the bottom. In the second type of composition the frigate bird with the exception of the head retains right and left symmetry. The upper field is always divided into symmetrical halves. The few examples of purely geometrical design show symmetry in all directions, up and down, right and left. A description of the kapkaps made in the Solomons can hardly fail to convince of the fact that the tortoiseshell carver is more than able to carry out purely decorative designs no matter how fine they may be. But an anal-

114

MELANESIAN DESIGN

ysis of a small series of ornamented shells such as this just given serves to present an entirely new side of the psychology of the Solomon artist. The fondness for realism has departed from pure realism and developed into something truly imaginative. Observations of the objects alone could not point out these qualities to the utmost, but the elucidation contributed by Ivens who got his information on the spot from the natives takes the analysis from the realm of the formal and places it with the imaginative. The reader is referred to Ivens' work for more extensive examples of the beauty of Solomon Island realistic and symbolic style (pp. *83, *85, *143, *201, *202, *204, PI. *ix, p. *306, for example). We can only lament the fact that he did not work out the art style, for it is unusual to find one more intriguing. But at the same time we must thank him for such explanations as he has given, all of which are most useful in "understanding Solomon Island art.

KAPKAPS FROM SANTA CRUZ

With the exception of the Marquesas, Santa Cruz is the most easterly locality where the kapkap occurs. The idea has been worked out in Santa Cruz in a way even more striking and unexpected than any previously discussed. The ornament is a true kapkap with great stress laid on the shape and polishing of the tridacna plate mount. The mount is large in proportion to the tortoiseshell carving on it. The latter has a shape in no way related to a circle and generally occupies less than a third of the space on the mount. The carving is well done, but much coarser than on any other style of kapkap. The method of mounting is also unique and is doubtless considered beautiful by the natives. There is a hole in the center of the tridacna plate and in the tortoiseshell immediately over it. Several well-twisted strings are taken through these holes, carried from center to circumference on both sides of the ornament, and tied at the edge. This tie which runs almost the entire length of the 1 2

Völkerkunde der Santa-Cruz Inseln. Die Ornamentik yon Santa Cruz. A. f. A. 18 (1915): 828.

tortoiseshell plate fastens it securely and is in a way decorative. The design of the tortoiseshell carvings is the least varied and most conservative of any area. It consists almost entirely of arrangements of triangular elements, the little variety there is being achieved by slight modifications in position and shape. Pis. cxxvni, 506—508; cxxix, 517 show the simplest arrangement. A long central portion with acute triangles on each side (the mounting cords run over this part) extends from circumference to approximately the center of the mount. Just above the hole there may be a slight variation in the design — in PI. cxxvin, 507 there is a pair of bracing lines, in Pis. cxxvm, 506, 508 and cxxix, 517 the triangles are extended and provided with spreading points.

Below the hole the widest portion of the carving spreads. It consists of an inverted triangle, usually wide and obtuse, with points extending from the sides as well as from the base angles. Variations are made on the upper elongated portion by varying the size of the side triangles (Gräbner, Fig. *8, No. 2)1 so that the ornament tapers from center to circumference. The apices of the side triangles may be joined by a line as in PL cxxix, 512 and 515. The triangles may be hollowed as in PI. cxxix, 516. The sides may be extended beyond the vertical angle as in PI. cxxix, 514 and Speiser, Fig. *17,2 an arrangement which really repeats the element above the broad main element. The last two devices, hollowing and extension of side lines, may be combined as in PL cxxvni, 509. PI. cxxvm, 510 has a combination of hollowed triangles with extended sides, but a small triangular mass is left inside the larger triangle, making the latter appear as an outline. Speiser, Fig. *16 has practically the same pattern except that the lowest of these patterns is solid as in PI. cxxix, 514. On the ornament illustrated by Gräbner3 the extended side lines of the triangles are executed in fine lines and their vertices are connected by a straight line. PI. cxxvni, 511 shows the final variation in the treatment of the triangle motive ; the sides are extended beyond the apex and then turned back forming a sort of hook. PI. cxxxv, 548 has no unusual elements but is peculiar in form. It consists of a cross with one arm much longer and wider than the other and each arm ending in one of the "hooks" as in PI. cxxvin, 511. Two lines on each side of the long arm form a lozenge in the center. The unique aspect of the ornament is the fact that the tortoiseshell carving is longer than the shell mount. 8

Loc. dt. p. *78.

TOETOISESHELL

ORNAMENTS

115

A regular feature of the arrangement of these simple elements is the enlargement (in all but a few cases) of the design immediately above the hole. If triangles are used along the axis, the lowest is one with extended sides. If triangles with extended sides are used in the same position, the lowest one is larger than the others. All other variations in effect are achieved by a play on the triangle and lines forming the wide design beneath the hole. They may be wide and clumsy as in Pis. cxxvin, 506, 507 ; cxxix, 512, or narrow, extended and graceful as in Pis. cxxvm, 511 ; cxxix, 514—517. Gräbner1 speaks quite casually of the main element of the tortoiseshell carving as a "frigate bird". Speiser2 who writes six years later than Gräbner derives simple conventionalized forms, similar to the one here, from bird forms. The triangle with extended sides is said to be a fish. Although Speiser had, I believe, the opportunity of investigating the meaning or naming of the designs with the natives of Santa Cruz, there is not a trace in his article to show that he did so. This means, of course, that his interpretations and reconstructions are his own. Speaking of a particular design he says, "If one had asked the artist about the meaning of the drawing, one would without doubt have received the answer that it represented a net, whereas it really derives from a bird". 3 Numerous experiences with natives prove that there is no reason to believe that a native interpretation must be the same as ours. Even if it were, the lines Speiser refers to as deriving from a bird may still be considered birds by the natives since they used floats with birds carved on the top. But almost any other interpretation might have been given, as "clouds" or "water-spouts", for example. In the southeast Solomons where a few names are known, one is by no means restricted to the same design, nor does a given formal pattern always have the same name.

A European, who has been in the South Seas, but never in Santa Cruz, immediately called the pattern Gräbner and Speiser call "frigate bird", a "flying dog". Preuss, likewise, calls practically the same design "the hanging Pteropus".4 If the form is a "flying dog" in New Guinea, for example, and a "frigate bird" in the southeastern Solomons there is no necessity that it be either in Santa Cruz. An interpretation similar to that of the nearest neighbors is likely but not necessary. An entirely different name or interpretation is possible; it is even probable that there might be none at all. Formal affiliations with designs in other areas can be shown but the ultimate origin and development must remain a matter of speculation.

1

4 Z. f. E. 29 (1897): 132, Pig. »153; 30 (1898): 91, Pig. *68. • The Carolines include a large number of small islands between 131° and 162° west longitude and about 4° and 11° north latitude,- those islands of Micronesia immediately north of New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago. β Personal information.

2 3

Loc. cit. p. 79. Loc. cit. p. 324ff. Loc. cit. Of Fig. *1, viia, p. 324 "Hätte man jenen Künstler nach dem Sinn der Zeichnung gefragt, so hätte man zweifellos die Antwort erhalten, sie stelle ein Netz dar, während sie sich tatsächlich vom Vogel ableitet". 15*

T O B T O I S E S H E L L R I N G S PROM T H E C A R O L I N E S 6

Certain openwork cuttings from outlying regions, the Carolines, and from one nearer the center of kapkap dispersion, the island of St. Mathias, have close technical and even some artistic affiliations with the kapkaps which have been described. These ornaments differ, however, in character and use. Those from the Carolines may be worn separately as breast ornaments, but most of them are carved in chains, some of the rings being decorated, others being perfectly plain. They are sometimes very long, that of PI. cxxxn, 530 is 132 cm. long and has many subsidiary chains hanging from it. Some of the chains are worn around the neck, others are suspended from the ears. The material used is often from the light yellow ventral plates of the tortoise. Professor Hambruch8 of Hamburg is of the opinion that these rings are imitations of watchwheels. The natives wear watchwheels in the same way when they can get them. But because of the close relationship of the design with other areas of the South Seas, and because only one style is like a watchwheel,

116

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

I am inclined to consider them as much older than could be possible were they watchwheel imitations. It is more than likely that the natives seized upon watchwheels with avidity because they resembled the ornaments already familiar to them and highly valued. The Caroline Island rings have certain resemblances to other styles of tortoiseshell openwork carving while at the same time preserving a style peculiarly their own. Although some show the use of a cross-element in the center and concentric bands around it, features which remind us of New Ireland kapkaps, this plan is used for only about a third of the decorated rings available for analysis. An outstanding characteristic of all the rings

». I h

Pig. 59

is the cutting out of a large hole at the center, a hole sometimes so large that in the more simple carvings only the toothed circumference is left (PI. cxxxii, 529, 531). Where a central design is dominant it also has the large hole as a center (Pis. cxxx, 520, c, 521, a, 6, c, d, f; cxxxi, 523, c, 527; cxxxn, 531, b, c). Pi. cxxxi, 525, e is an exception.

to centers from New Ireland (compare, for example, PI. cxxx, 521, b with PI. cxi, 394), and those from the Admiralty Islands (compare PI. cxxx, 520, c with PL xcvn, 272; PI. oxxxii, 531, b with PI. xciv, 253). The differences are caused by minor and subtle variations of carving. The artists of the Carolines tend to use rectilinear rather than curvilinear elements, although the latter are not absolutely lacking. The centers of Pis. cxxx, 521, c; cxxxi, 523, c and 525, b which are formed by cutting out straight lines can be understood best in connection with the next category of decoration of these rings. The obvious method of dividing a circular surface, that of circular banding, is used in the Carolines as well as elsewhere. But a peculiar and far from obvious division of the surface is also characteristic. It is the use of a decorated band which cuts across the center of the circle (Fig. 59, b). Pis. cxxx, 521, e; cxxxi, 522, b, c, 523, a-d, 524, b; cxxxn, 529 are examples of this. In each case where these bands are used a regular row of diamonds is cut out of the band. This band may be the only decoration except for the toothed circumference as in Pis. cxxxi, 524, b and cxxxn, 529. More commonly, however, supporting lines connect the band with the edge; in PI. cxxx, 521, e, there is a broken line on each side of the band; in PI. cxxxi, 522, 6, 524, a, a single element of type Fig. 57, v, the petal element of the New Ireland centers, but with the Caroline tendency to angularity, connects each side of the center of the band with the edge or with the surrounding circular band. PL cxxxi, 523, 6 has a band composed of more irregular elements resembling elements from Santa Cruz (cp. PI. cxxix, 514). One supporting bar connects this band on one side with the circumference, two on the other side. PL cxxxi, 525, b has the same arrangement but as the ring is small and the band wide, there is space for only one cut-out diamond. Two of the bands cross exactly at the center of PI. cxxxi, 526. It is interesting to compare Pl. en, 328 with this ring. It has a center involving the same idea, but less extended and carried out in negative cutting so that the cut-out portions are triangles instead of the shell which is left as in PI. cxxxi, 526. PL cxxx, 521, c has the same plan as PL cxxxi, 526 but the portions of tortoiseshell which would have left two diamond cut-outs were cut away leaving a space at the center closely approximated by certain centers in the Admiralties though in reverse cutting. The center of Pl. cxxx, 521, f is comparable with elements used in the outer portions of the Admiralty Island kapkap, Pl. xcix, 297.

A development of this kind can be easily understood on the basis of function. The kapkaps must be mounted, the fastening is thoroughly subordinated when restricted to a small hole in the center of the tortoiseshell and shell mounting. The rings from the Carolines are not mounted, they are joined in chains, therefore they are more effective if much of the space is cut out. The third category into which the Caroline Most of the centers (Fig. 59,a) used are related rings fall is characterized by rows of bands com-

TORTOISE SHELL ORNAMENTS posed of concentric circles. These may have massive centers, as in Pl.cxxxi, 527, but more commonly the ring consists of these concentric bands (Pis. c x x x , 520, a, b ; cxxxi, 522, a, b, 528, d, 524, a, 525,a,c, d, 528; c x x x n , 529, 531, c). Very few elements are used to fill these bands, by far the most common are rows of acuteangled triangles, Pig. 59, d. Another element, Fig. 59, c, is occasionally used (Pis. c x x x , 521, b; cxxxx, 524, a, 525, o, d; c x x x n , 531, c). Zigzags, Fig. 57, a, are used in one case (PI. c x x x i , 525, d) and a band of curved lines once (PI. cxxxi, 528). The use of more than one row of triangles as in PI. c x x x i , 525, c, 526, and 527 invites comparison with the kapkaps from Nissan, Pis. cm, 338; cxvi. The stylistic similarity is outstanding, as is that of Pis. c x x x n , 529 and cxvi, 429. A word about the treatment of the edge remains to be said. A peculiar and not very common edge is that of one element of Fig. 59, a placed at opposite ends of two diameters (Pis. c x x x , 520, a; c x x x i , 524, c; c x x x n , 530, upper left). Pl. ci, 819, an Admiralty Island kapkap, has the same device, but it is crudely carried out. Smooth edges may be used for the rings as they may in the Admiralties or in New Ireland (PI. cxxxi, 523, d, 524, b, 527). Most common, however, is the use of the edge with fine, evenly cut teeth, resembling in fineness, style and evenness many edges on New Ireland kapkaps. Several rings have alternating portions smooth and toothed (Pis. c x x x , 520, d; c x x x i , 525, b). These portions of the edges are too regular to be accidental. The edges of PI. cxxxi, 527 and 528 are unusual in that a small portion of each is different from the dominating part. In PI. cxxxi, 528 which has a toothed edge, about an eighth of it is left smooth, in PI. cxxxi, 527 where the edge is smooth, three fine teeth are cut out. Both of these rings are so well done that these irregularities seem to be intentional rather than accidental or erroneous. There may be some reason for leaving such an irregularity.

Altogether the tortoiseshell rings from the Carolines have much in common stylistically with the kapkaps in the localities where they are most highly developed. The rings have,

117

in fact, no new design elements. The use of a decorated band cutting through the center of the circle is an unusual compositional feature. The tendency toward use of angles instead of curves and to reverse the cutting so as to make a negative are the distinguishing characteristics of the Caroline rings. The emphasis on mass is about midway between that in the Admiralties and in New Ireland. Although they are dainty the Caroline rings are executed in masses, but they are never as heavy as in the Admiralties. Where line is used, it is never as fine as in New Ireland or the Solomons.

E A R ORNAMENTS FROM S T . MATHIAS

A collection of openwork tortoiseshell ear ornaments is available from St. Mathias. Although small it is nevertheless large enough to point out the probable relationship between Micronesian and New Ireland design, as well as affiliations with the Admiralties and the more easterly islands. In every locality there is an individual style but that style is made up of elements which have an infinite capacity for migration and adaptability. The ear ornaments of St. Mathias consist of a thin cut-out portion of tortoiseshell. The circular cutting is, however, not finished but ends in a smooth edge around a slit extending froih center to circumference (PI. cxxxni). The purpose of the slit is to allow the ornament to be slipped over the lobe of the ear. Edges are always smooth. A rather large hole is left in the center. The rest of the ornament is laid out in concentric bands carried much closer to the center than is the case in the Carolines. The way in which the bands are treated is, however, identical with rings from the Carolines and with certain kapkaps from New Ireland (cp., for example, PI. C X X X I I I , 532 and 533 with PI. cxxxi, 525, c and 527). The uniqueness of PI. c x x x m , 533 consists in the widening of the arc forming the band, which makes the effect massive. Obvious comparisons in a southerly direction are with Pis. cm, 338; cxvi, 431, 434, 435, 437, kapkaps from Nissan. Pi. cxxxni, 535 and 536 consist of the rows of triangles alternating with equidistant arcs and compare with Pis. cxiv, 418 and cxv, 423 from New Ireland. The objects from St. Mathias have of course no central pattern.

118

MELANESIAN

Pl. exxxm, 536, a dainty composition which in conception as well as in execution is comparable with excellent work from New Ireland, shows a combination of the sharp toothed elements, Pig. 59, d, in central and edge rows, with two bands of zigzags, the limits of which are not marked out by a circle. The treatment and effect are similar to those of Pis. cvn, 370; cxn, 400. The only thing which identifies PI. cxxxin, 537 as from St. Mathias instead of from New Ireland is the fact that it is an ear ornament instead of a kapkap (cp. Pis. cxvn, 439; cxxxiv, 547). The difference in effect between these and the more common New Ireland ornaments is secured by leaving heavier lines than usual. The pattern may be looked at as the part cut out —- triangles placed point to base — a reverse as compared with the more frequent positives. Kapkap, Pl. en, 324, which I have put doubtfully with those from the Admiralty Islands shows a close relationship to PI. oxxxm, 538 and 540, ear ornaments from St. Mathias. It is unfortunate that its provenience is so uncertain, but, in my opinion, the treatment of the center stamps it as more Admiralty Island than New Ireland. The use of parallel broken lines with resulting portions massive is the distinguishing feature. PI. exxxm, 539 is unique in composition although the center and elements used are similar to some from New Ireland. Compare the central elements of Pis. cxi, 391, 394; cxn, 400 and 404 which are almost exactly the same as the six elements used to fill the six truncated sectors of PI. exxxm, 539. The divisions are not well spaced, but they are decorated as if tiny kapkaps with spiderweb centers and a row of surrounding triangles were adapted to a flattened circular space. While not perfect technically the design is nevertheless interesting.

PI. e x x x m , 541 and 542, which are ear pendants, do not perhaps belong in the same category as the slit ornaments. But since they are cut from tortoiseshell they are illustrated here. Their composition is also interesting from the point of view of our problem. Although shaped like a lozenge, the design is formed of equidistant arcs which surround a center, in the case of PI. e x x x m , 541 composed of a central line flanked by zigzags, in PI. e x x x m , 542 composed of a solid central portion surrounded by bars. PI. e x x x m , 542 has an additional element in the form of a tail-like appendage which suggests the possibility that the form may be a conventionalized fish. It is the only approximation to a realistic design in this collection. K A P K A P S OF U N K N O W N

PROVENIENCE

Pis. cxxxiv, 543, 544; cxxxix, 584 show kapkaps which are almost impossible of iden-

DESIGN

tification on the basis of style. All of them are almost perfect technically. PI. cxxxiv, 543 is said to come from New Ireland. It is composed of the simplest elements and belongs perhaps to the series PL cx, 382—390 which is characterized by a division into segments and the use of equidistant arcs. In this one the three-fold division is made by arcs intersecting the circumference. Each space so divided is crossed by equidistant arcs, the central one of which is elaborated by fine spherical triangles which turn anti-clockwise and do not meet the next band. The fine teeth of the edge are curved in a clockwise direction. The unusual and outstanding characteristic of this piece is the fact that it has motion, and is the only one of the eight hundred examined which has motion carried out uniformly in the whole ornament. Certain portions of Pis. cxvn, 438, 441 ; cxvm, 442— 447, 449—451, for example, show motion achieved in a different way. It is often the case that when a circular surface has a dynamic decoration it is unpleasant, difficult for the eye. The defect is not present in this kapkap for it is counterbalanced by the use of opposing motions. The nearest relatives it has are: PI. cm, 337, which is coarse, but uses triangles which do not touch the outer circumference of the band; and PI. exx, 463, which has bars most of which do not touch the bounding line of the band they fill.

PI. cxxxix, 584 in the Berlin Museum is said to come from "Taui, Admiralty Islands". The shape of the center is typically Admiralty, but the way it is cut out and filled with zigzag lines is novel. The use of long acute-angled triangles on both sides of the surrounding band is not Admiralty Island-like, nor is the decoration of the band with parallel broken lines. The coarseness of the workmanship points to the Admiralties rather than in any other direction. PI. cxxxiv, 544 is not as enigmatical as the other three. It is said to have come from New Britain. A few other kapkaps have the same supposed provenience but their style is that of New Ireland. Very few kapkaps, if any, are made in New Britain and those which are found there are doubtless traded in. This

TORTOISESHELL ORNAMENTS one, I believe, was made in the Solomons. The nine central petal-like elements are Solomon, as is the termination of each in a curve which may or may not represent a fish's tail (cp. Pis. c x x n , 469; c x x m , 475; cxxiv, 483 and especially Réal, Pl. *xxv, 19809). The small designs which fill in the intervening spaces resemble a conventionalized fleur-de-lis. The execution seems to me to be thoroughly Solomon. HAIRPINS FROM NORTHERN N E W GUINEA

Features of Admiralty Island kapkaps point to relationships in various directions. Simple wheel-like kapkaps (PI. xcvin, 283, 288) point to influence from the Carolines in Micronesia. The unusual kapkap, PI. on, 328, which purports to be from the Admiralties has a center identical with certain of those from the Carolines and an edge strongly imitative of New Ireland. In PL xciv, 253 the New Ireland influence is unmistakable. Pl. cxxxiv, 545 which seems to have been made in the Admiralties 1 is a close relative indeed of the series of tortoiseshell ornaments to be discussed in this section from Northern New Guinea in the vicinity between the mouth of the Sepik and that of the Ramu River. The relationship in this direction gives us a definite clue to the development of the conventionalized forms which quite possibly have to do with the human figure. The close relationship of form and style was first deduced from the objects. The complicated interrelationships are corroborated by features other than art style. "The population of these islands (Admiralties) is no pure race. There is much to indicate mixture with a light-colored people, although Papuan peculiarities predominate. Even today there is lively trade between these islands and the coast of New Guinea." 2 The trade route was by way of the Schouten and Roissy Islands. 3 Within the confínes of this section in speaking of Northern New Guinea I include approximately the area between Hatzfeldhaven in the east and the mouth of the Sepik River 1

This illustration is from a copy of a kapkap owned by a dealer in the South Seas, from Thilenius, Ethnographische Ergebnisse, Theil II, Pig. 25.

119

in the west. It is impossible to definitely delimit this district because of the lack of particular evidence. The available reference is merely to a general area. Although the idea of tortoiseshell openwork carving is common to this Northern New Guinea region and the Admiralties, the way in which it is carried out is quite different. In the locality of Northern New Guinea here under discussion the openwork carving is an elongated ellipse about twelve to fourteen centimeters in long axis mounted on a concave piece of shell (Cymbium) sufficiently larger to leave a neat but narrow margin all around. The two pieces are fastened together by running a string through a hole in the center of each and fastening with a knot, bead, or cowry shell. The fastening is identical in principle with that used in the Admiralties and New Ireland. But to the back of the shell a long straight hairpin is attached making the combination a hair ornament. Ordinarily the pin (of wood) is along the length of the shell (PL c x x x v , 549—552) but two in the Berlin Museum (PL c x x x v n , 564, 568) have it crosswise. From the ornamentation used on them, apparently a human figure, it is possible they served some purpose other than that of pure ornament but information about them is completely lacking. PI. cxxxv, 549 is a somewhat reduced form of the figure which predominates in this style, but this might be interpreted as lizard quite as well as human. PI. cxxxv, 549—555 have as central pattern what appears to be a human figure in a sitting position. If this design is a human figure it has been carved to fit the space in a well-balanced, almost symmetrical way. The central hole where the tortoiseshell is fastened to the Cymbium is in the middle of the body. The head and bent arms form one side of the pattern, the buttocks and legs the other. The arms bent in one direction, the legs in the opposite direction, make for near symmetry. There seems to be no definite feeling that heads should stand up, for the carvings are mounted with them in either direction (up, PI. cxxxv, 551, 554; down, PL cxxxv, 550, 552, 553, 555).

The treatment of the edge of these carvings is unique. They resemble large, widely extended hands. There is no difference between hands and feet, and the elements extend 2 3

Parkinson, 1926, p. 174—175. Personal information from Professor Thilenius.

120

MELANE SIAN DESIGN

around the entire composition forming its edge. There is no consistency regarding the number of teeth (digits ?) these elements have ; they vary from three to seven. Frequently an element of this sort is extended with additional curves (PI. cxxxv, 550, 555) and it is not rare to find it a broadened, perhaps purely decorative element (PI. cxxxv, 554, 555). When it has been so used it is almost identical with the element Fig. 56, b or i, so common in the Admiralties. The way in which the teeth are carved, with obtuse angles, and often blunted, is also exactly as in the Admiralties. If the central pattern which in some ways resembles a human being is the original design from which the others are derived there is a constant tendency to change from the realistic to the decorative. A curve is used above and below the figure in PI. cxxxv, 550, three of them are used in PI. cxxxv, 552. In PI. cxxxvi, 556 there is scarce a trace of the human and in PI. cxxxvi, 557 and 558 the curves have become the dominating motive. The ellipse of PI. cxxxvi, 563 is divided into four sectors, each elaborated with curved lines. Pis. cxxxv, 553—555; cxxxvi, 560; cxxxvn, 564 have a cross in the center which is developed in divers ways. In PI. cxxxv, 553 the "body" forms the vertical piece and a wide crosspiece attaches the figure to the edges. The treatment of the "elbows" and "knees" with knobs resembling the "head" itself makes a design which should be considered a decorative motive far more accurately perhaps than a conventionalized figure. The edge elements of this object are unusual in that triangles have been cut out of them.

The interior portions of PI. cxxxv, 555, including parts of the center figure, have been carved with teeth, instead of being left smooth as in the other cases, and because of this treatment look much like some kapkaps from the Admiralties. PI. cxxxvi, 560 is a bulky simple arrangement with a lozenge center and two curves extending from each side of its point to half the length of the carving and bent back to end in the " h a n d " or "foot" motive which meets a widened motive of the sort at each end. Peculiar square pieces with toothed edges meet the obtuse angles of the lozenge. PI. cxxxvn, 567 is a further and more graceful extension of this arrangement, the difference being in the delicacy of the portions of tortoiseshell left after cutting rather than in any other feature. PI. cxxxvn, 568 is remarkable for its simplicity; all edges inside and out are left smooth. No teeth are used at 1

Z. f. E. 30 (1898): 80, Pig. *6 "Durchbrochen gearbeitetes Schildpatt aus einer Cymbium-Muschel an einem Brusttäschchen."

all although essentially the pattern is that of Pis. cxxxvi, 560 and cxxxvn, 567.

Preuss1 figures a design from Eoissy Island, which, although said to be on a breast ornament, is certainly formally related to the series under discussion. This design is highly formalized with no use of teeth and compares with PI. c x x x v n , 566 and 568 in its simplicity. The "limbs" extend in graceful curves which meet above the "head" and below the "body", the same curves are repeated twice in a purely formal way. There is left a rudiment of the head, a tiny knob, and the slit between the "leg" curves. The total effect of the design is similar to others from the Melanesian area which may have derived from other sources. In PI. c x x x v n , 564, instead of a single figure whose parts are arranged symmetrically, two figures are used. The change is a simple one, involving merely the use of a knob to indicate a head instead of the slit portion of the other figures. Otherwise PI. c x x x v n , 564 compares with PI. c x x x v , 553; there is a slight difference in the treatment of the ends of the long axis, a representation of the conventionalized "head" element rather than a variation of the "hand" element. In PI. c x x x v n , 565 the central element which is also symmetrically designed practically loses its human characteristics. The influence of repetition in this case has, it seems to me, made not only for conventionalization but also for a purely geometrical treatment of the curves which perhaps could once have been called head and limbs. PI. c x x x v i , 559 and 562 have the center much elongated to meet the edge elements and use no cross bar. I t is difficult to see any relationship to a realistic figure in these. PI. c x x x v i , 561 is interesting in that it shows how such an element as the fleur-de-lis may develop. Each half of the design of this hairpin, looked at for development from realistic design, shows a symmetrical repetition of the entire human figure in each half. The "limbs" are exaggerated as is the cut between the "legs", a point on each side of the "body" indicates the "waist", but the design taken altogether is a crude form of the fleur-de-lis pattern so prevalent in Admiralty Island art. In a discussion of Admiralty Island style it was noted that this pattern and the "human figure" design might be related; here the relationship is undeniable. Of the twenty-four specimens available for analysis (this includes four from Preuss, Z. f. E. 1898, Pigs. *1, *3, *4 and *6), twelve, or just half, may, with the most generous interpretation, be considered as depicting the human figure. The other twelve, or half of the collection, show a strict use of formal curves and geometric elements. On the basis of this numerical division it is folly to consider the derivation from human to geometric as more potent than the opposite development. It has been frequently shown that a geometric treatment may suggest eome feature which may be representative of a more realistic idea. This may be exaggerated

TOETOISESHELL ORNAMENTS until a conventionalized representation results. If such a representative design does develop it will be made to fit into the geometric style already extant within the culture whence we have a cycle so commonly found in the development of cultural phenomena; the original style if geometric may suggest a representative design the details of which will be determined by the style into which it enters. If, on the other hand, geometric designs grow out of representative ones, a likely development, their form will be limited by the earlier style of representation.

The collection of ornaments from Northern New Guinea cannot settle the matter of development by chronology or typology, since there is no chronology and since the two types are equally divided. However, as linking up the art style of this locality with that of the Admiralties, this small collection is exceedingly valuable. Since this is qualitatively and quantitatively a less highly developed style than that of the Admiralties, it may well be that the people making these objects secured an idea from the Admiralty Islanders and imitated it according to their lights. Or, it may be that some individuals from the Admiralties got the idea from these crude objects and because of greater skill, interest and ability achieved the exceedingly elaborate development found in the material today. I have stressed the notion of the "human figure" more particularly in this case because it is one of the few instances where we have personal acquaintance with the natives, namely, Dr. Mead's opinion that the natives of the Admiralties see the human figure in the conventional designs. Dr. Reo Fortune, on the other hand, thinks the natives regard the patterns in a purely formal way. But even though some natives may see it today, there is no proof that the designs originated in this realistic form. There are too many cases of reinterpretation to allow the comfort of such a dogmatic determination of origin. K A P K A P S FROM N E W G U I N E A

Except for the Papuan Gulf region the development of kapkaps in New Guinea is weak, or if they occur they are not well represented in the museums whose collections were studied. The illustrations Pis. c x x x , 518, 519; oxxxxx, 585—587 show a few ornaments, 16

121

presumably worn on the breast, whose composition approaches the kapkap. In all of these cases the shell (Cymbium?) mount is large and beautiful and the openwork carving proportionately small. It is usually made of cocoanutshell. The number of these ornaments is too small and their provenience too doubtful to warrant any satisfactory definition of their style. Few as they are, they are nevertheless interesting in that they show some attempt at using realistic patterns for this peculiar form of ornamentation. PI. c x x x , 518 which depicts a lizard or crocodile is said to come from Hänisch Harbor in Huongulf. No provenience is given for Pis. c x x x , 519 and c x x x i x , 585 but their general style marks them as coming from the vicinity of the Tami, that is from Tami Island (Cretin) or the near coast of New Guinea around Huongulf. The general form of PI. c x x x i x , 585 posits this provenience, and the details of PI. c x x x , 519 — arrangement and form of teeth, and use of PI. LII element — suggest it. PI. c x x x i x , 585 is especially interesting in that the main design element is typically Admiralty Island (cp. PI. vi, 13—17). Each end, however, has a pair of the Tami Island elements, PI. LH. This ornament is said to come from Dreyerhaven. The peculiar combination of Tami and Admiralty Island elements may be purely fortuitous. PI. c x x x i x , 587 is from Long Island. It is a simple decorative pattern, certain elements of which remind one of the Tami element, Pl. LU. Tami influence in this locality would not be difficult to explain since trade was carried on between the Tami and their relatives in New Britain, via Siassi, Rook and Tupinier Islands. A kapkap (Be VI 10319b) from Bagili Lager, in the region of the Sepik River, and Fig.*304 of Edge Partington said to be from Brumer Island (southeastern part of New Guinea) are such simple patterns that they may be considered ornamental, but are not really art. Finsch (PI. *ix, Fig. 247) shows an ornament of almost the same style from Kerama, New Guinea (freshwater Bay, Papuan Gulf). Two buttons of cocoanutshell ( ?) form the decoration of another object in the Berlin Museum (Be VI 30987b) which is said to come from the Kai territory (Huongulf).

The next area in which a true kapkap is found is the Papuan Gulf district where the style is again purely geometrical. The fields and arrangement are vastly different, however, from the other areas where geometric design is found, in New Ireland, for example, and in the Carolines. There are sufficient examples from the Papuan Gulf region to define its style definitely. For, although only fourteen of these objects are illustrated, eight more are avail-

122

MELANESIAN DESIGN

able but duplicate the style which is not at all versatile. The openwork carvings of tortoiseshell are mounted on a concave, polished shell — called Cymbium by Haddon1, Melo diadema by Seligmann.2 There is almost no doubt that they were made within a restricted district, for trade in the Papuan Gulf region, while not lively, is nevertheless sufficiently active to account for considerable distribution of these ornaments which must be cherished by most natives who are particularly partial to a variety of ornamentation. ? The Roro-speaking tribes (although not great traders) have learned from the Motu to carry on a kind of trading expedition peculiar to the region.3 The Eoro of Yule Island thus have trading relations with the Toaripi who live on the coast to the north. "Furthermore, Waima, a village on the mainland north of Yule Island, has for a long time done a small coastal trade with the Papuan Gulf taking especially shell ornaments, which come from further east, and the locally made fretted turtle shell ornaments called koiyu."4 PI. cxxxvm, 573, 574, 578 are buttons worn on belts from the Elema District but the rest are described as "head or forehead ornaments". Seligmann has satisfactory illustrations (Pis. *XXXIII, *xxxix, and *XLIII) showing the way they are worn, as part of a very elaborate headdress by fully initiated males, around the neck and waist by girls at the feast proclaiming their marriageability (see p. 89).

In carving the kapkaps of South New Guinea a new division of the field is made. It is as if the objects were viewed as a circumference from which broken lines are dropped. In some cases the border consists of two circumferences which make a band in which some bars connect the two circumferences. Another way of describing the central and outstanding portion is to consider it divided into four parts by means of parallel lines which form a St. Andrew's cross. The space between the arms of the cross is then filled in with broken lines dropped from the circumference and repeated so that they are parallel. 1 2 3

Decorative Art, p. 151. The Melanesiane of British New Guinea, p. 204. Compare the Kula ring of the islands east of New Guinea (Malinowski, B., Argonauts of the Western Pacific) which, although highly institutionalized, does not seem to be unique

PI. cxxxvm, 573 is a simple example having the central cross and the bands formed of concentric circles. PI. cxxxvm, 574 and 575 show the simplest pattern without the banda. PI. *vni, 126 in Haddon" is comparable but has holes as a decoration for the edge, and the number of parallel broken lines in each division of the center is larger. PI. cxxxvm, 576 shows the same sort of plan as PI. cxxxvm, 577 except that there is a three-fold division, and that the center is somewhat crudely connected with the circumference without the use of bars.

The outer edge of these kapkaps has coarse, blunt teeth, resembling the Admiralty style but usually more regular. Tn PI. cxxxvm, 581 the teeth are used on the inner circle as well as on the outer. PI. cxxxvm, 580 has the usual center and edge but the space between the center and outer band is filled with a broken band which appears like a flowing continuation of the smallest broken lines. The effect is good but unique.

Instead of a cross formed by parallel lines PI. cxxxvii, 571 has one formed of chains, similar to, but coarser than, the chain design which is used circularly on New Ireland kapkaps. The outer band of this ornament consists of zigzags and the teeth are much longer than is usual. PI. cxxxvm, 579 secures its peculiar effect by the division of the center into three parts, thus making the angle formed by the meeting lines much larger, by the treatment of these divisions as complete designs which are bound in, and by the use of three rows of irregular zigzags around the unusual center. In all of these kapkaps the bars seem to be more utilitarian than decorative for they serve merely to connect the various portions of tortoiseshell, a necessary requirement. In PI. CXXXVII, 572 and a similar but simpler one illustrated by Pinsch" the center is formed of a cross. The entire kapkap, Finsch, PI. *ix, 245, is a carrying out of this idea, for double lines outline the form and finally, lines are dropped from the circumference forming small sharp gores which serve to emphasize the outline of the cross. In PI. CXXXVII, 572 the gores cut deeper into the center from the circumference and arcs in the gores equidistant from the circumference have teeth pointing inward.

PI. CXXXVII, 569 and 570 are illustrated merely for the purpose of completeness. They are rather coarse and neither is like anything I have found elsewhere. PI. CXXXVII, 570 is said to come from the Jabim of Huongulf for

4 6 β

but rather one phase of a much more general pattern. See also Seligmann, The Melanesiane, p. 96ff. Seligmann, C. G., The Melanesiane, p. 204. Decorative Art. Südseearbeiten, Pl. *ιχ, 245.

TORTOISESHELL ORNAMENTS which people I have no other specimens. No provenience is given for PI. c x x x v n , 569. The analysis of kapkap styles has shown an unexpected fertility of ideas in arrangement and treatment of the simplest and most restricted kind of surface. The mount, ordinarily a polished tridacna plate which gives the finished effect desired of any mount, may be varied. The variety of this portion of the kapkap may be due to presence or scarcity of material. But 'the tortoiseshell carving itself presents every possible sort of variation. The Admiralty Island carver divides his circle from the center making sectors which he treats in mass. The use of mass is a general characteristic of his art. Not only is he adept in its use but he is versatile as well, more so than the carver of tortoiseshell in any other locality. The worker of New Ireland views his surface circularly, and therefore divides it into concentric bands which he fills with the finest kind of decorative motives. Whenever possible — even when it seems to us impossible — he treats these motives in line. His results are the most beautiful of the entire collection, although they are so highly conventionalized as to lack the variety found in the Admiralties. Kapkaps from the Solomon Islands show a combination of Admiralty Island and New Ireland styles, particularly in arrangement. The Solomon Island artist has preserved the radial division of the circular surface. At the same time he has considered the circular possibilities of his surface so that he uses concentric bands either to fill in spaces between radii or to occupy the space beyond the extension of the radial lines. All this he accomplishes with excellent judgment of space and control of line. The use of the elements Fig. 58, a—e contributes to the further distinction of the Solomon Island kapkaps. Except for the fundamental underlying idea of the kapkap itself there is no formal relationship between those of the Bismarck Archipelago and those of Santa Cruz where the fields are drawn with no relation to a circle and carried out in a fashion different from that of any other locality. 1

Haddon, Torree Straits, Vol. IV, 46. 16»

123

The summary of other kapkaps and objects resembling kapkaps is a discussion of the diffusion of an idea. Those from Nissan show unmistakable influence from Micronesia as do the earrings from St. Mathias. These must both be correlated with the ring chains from the Carolines. The correlation holds for composition, choice and execution of elements. The concentric band is the unit of composition. The most common choice of elements is the acute-angled triangle which is carved with the precise neatness characteristic of Micronesia. The hairpins of Northern New Guinea point to a different kind of influence, one from, or to, the Admiralties which is explainable on the basis of direct contacts between the peoples. The kapkaps of the more southerly parts of New Guinea are so few and their exact provenience is so doubtful that it is impossible to determine the influences which may have been at work. At this point I can merely point out parallels and pose problems ; the material is too scanty to solve them. It is, however, much too suggestive to be ignored entirely. For this reason I have reproduced in PL CXL, 588—590, with Professor Haddon's kind permission, three pearl-shell ornaments which are strikingly similar to, yet tantalizingly different from, some of the kapkaps I have analyzed. These Professor Haddon knows to be from the island of Mer, one of the Murray Islands in Torres Straits, and they are the only three known to him. They are somewhat comparable in style to PL cxvii, 439, 440; the latter is said to be from the Solomons. But the technique is one of perforation and it must necessarily have been different for hard pearl-shell than for the softer tortoiseshell of the more northern and eastern regions. The general effect is, however, strikingly similar to that of the kapkaps. The ornaments were the distinctive badge of one of the Mer fraternities, 1 made for a purpose paralleling that of the koiyu, or kapkaps of the Papuan Gulf district which are worn at initiation ceremonies.2 In the discussion of these pearl-shell ornaments Haddon mentions incidentally the existence of a single piece of tortoiseshell * See p. 89 of this work.

124

MELANESIAN DESIGN

fretwork on a mask, said fretwork being the only example of the use of the trident figure in the Mer locality. I reproduce this as Fig. 60 with the suggestion that the design suggests Marquesan influence (cp., for example, von den Steinen, Vol.11, Abb. »155, *156, *161 particularly b, n-r, *179,9).1 The trident which Haddon considers significant is not found, but the use of holes and the cut-out portions extending from the holes to the edge are very similar. The fact that this object was used on the side

of a human face on a crocodile mask also parallels the use of similar pieces of tortoiseshell in the Marquesas. It is easy for me to suggest Marquesan influence, how it came here I cannot even guess. PI. cxL, 591 is another enigma. This kapkap is said to be from Australia. It is unlike anything I have encountered anywhere. The center is similar to the pearl-shell ornament from Mer, the spaces between the points of the central diamond are filled with motives similar to an earring from St. Mathias (Pl. cxxxiii, 539), the edge is a genuine New Ireland one (PI. cxv, 426). PI. CXL, 592, 593 have been shown here to suggest a possible influence on the Solomon Island kapkaps. They are details from paintings on barkcloth from New Britain. There is no record of kapkap manufacture in New Britain although a few are marked as coming from there. The fringed bar of PI. CXL, 592, c, and the treatment of triangles of PI. CXL, 593 are familiar from kapkaps of New Ireland and Nissan. All these questions of relationship are apparent, their answers are not. But even these problems are simple as compared with several others which confront us. In an easterly direction the last outpost of the continuous distribution of kapkaps is Santa Cruz. They

reappear in the Marquesas, not in a feeble, marginal form, but elaborate, numerous and well-done. True, the function is somewhat different, but the idea is exactly the same. Here are headbands along which kapkaps are arranged (von den Steinen, Vol. II, Abb. *156). The notion of mounting carved tortoiseshell on a white shell has been carried further and small triangular pieces of tortoiseshell are carved and mounted along the headband so as to make an elaborate ornament indeed. I have not analyzed the Marquesan kapkaps in this paper because von den Steinen has already done so. I may note that they are carved in a typically Marquesan style; few of their elements seem related to those from the localities I have discussed. There is a little evidence (see p. 110) to show that there may have been some intercourse between the Marquesas and the Solomons but it is so far too scanty for final conclusions. I believe that very little contact is sufficient for the. communication of a basic idea from, or to, such clever artisans as the Marquesans or the Solomon Islanders, given the condition that the idea appeals. The sporadic occurrence of the kapkap idea to the east is paralleled by its presence in the west. Scherman who made a collection from the Borduria-Naga of Assam has noted the similarity between two pairs of earrings and the kapkaps of the Admiralty Islands.2 These earrings consist of carved pieces of horn mounted on some sort of musselshell. The carvings and mount are tied together by a string carried through a central hole in both. The difference between this form and the kapkap is merely a more elaborate tassel of beads and string which hangs from the obverse side of the earring, and the shorter length of the string on the reverse, by means of which the ornament is suspended from the ear. These earrings are illustrated by Heine-Geldern3 and their resemblance to Admiralty Island kapkaps of simpler style is uncanny. I can offer no explanation of their appearance in this place and include them, as the one whose pseudo-provenience is Australia, because of the problem they pose.

1

3

m e n i l i iHM^HHm ΤΙΤΤΠΠΠΤΠΗΙ Pig. 60

2

Die Marquesaner und ihre Kunst. Quoted b y Heine-Geldern MA GW 47 (1926): 119.

Loc. cit. Pig. *3.

IV GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF MELANESIAN ART In the foregoing chapters I have analyzed in which may also give special satisfaction to the great detail the art style of woodcarving in two analyst since he feels a personal interest in, and restricted localities, each of which is distinc- understanding of, the artists who made the tive. By the analysis of woodcarving and objects he has studied. tortoiseshell carving in the Admiralties certain The analysis here given is satisfactory in artistic principles fundamental to the style of only the most limited sense, namely, for the that region have been determined. The bowl techniques in the special areas it treats. Since carvings of the Tami and their friendly neigh- the inception of this study several occurrences bors have shown a unity which is fundamental. have shown that detailed analyses are fruitful. But in both of these localities it has been One of these circumstances is as follows: shown, too, that an analysis of a single, or even Quite accidentally I learned that the same of several, techniques may not completely sort of detailed study of the various arts of the define the art forms. Consequently, the study Marquesas had been made by Mrs. Willowdean points to the fact that the patterns of each C. Handy. I regret that delay in publishing technique should be studied in detail, first, to prevents me from using the results of her determine what they are of themselves; sec- work here for definite reference. She has, ond, inhowfar they are related to the patterns however, been kind enough to give me her of other techniques used by the same natives ; results orally. On comparing the material we and third, to determine the relationship of all find that, although the regions treated are the patterns of a given locality to those of other remote, each work nevertheless gives evidence adjacent and more remote regions. which is enlightening to the other. I shall allow myself only one example to The time is past when broad generalizations can legitimately be used as determining such show this. Mrs. Handy finds1 that there are relationships. It will not do to state that geo- three definite strata of art style in the Marmetric elements or composition of straight quesas, one she cannot explain on the basis lines are characteristic of two areas and there- of Polynesian styles, one influenced by an old fore point out the line of migration. We must ancestor-worshipping group of inhabitants, and now know what these geometric elements are a third, influenced by a later influx of animal in detail; if they are teeth or zigzags, what worshippers.The stratum not explained by kinds of teeth and zigzags are affected by Polynesian material is the one of particular certain communities in a given technique, how interest in this connection. they are combined, and, if possible, the signifiThere are a few designs, carried out in cance of the choice of the elements and their painting on barkcloth, in pecked pictographs2 combinations. The latter is, however, more and in tortoiseshell carving, which fit into no important in satisfying a particular need of the Marquesan, or even Polynesian, scheme of investigator than in determining the migration classification. Furthermore, the first two are of ideas and influences. In rare cases, partic- techniques no longer practised by the Marular styles may even be assigned to the indi- quesans, and the third is undoubtedly a Melviduals who make them. This is a matter anesian introduction. The designs are almost 1

Marquesan Arts, Van Oest, Paris. In press.

2

Linton, Pl. *xv, C.

126

MELANE SI AN D E S I G N

identical with some known in Melanesia.1 When I add to this my own findings, such as a kapkap closely resembling Marquesan style in woodcarving (PL cxxv, 487) found in the Solomons and another, unmistakably Solomon in style, found worked into the crown of a Marquesan chief (Pl. c x x i i , 472), the evidence for Melanesian influence in the Marquesas is good. The recognition of Melanesian influence itself is not original, for Mr. Handy has called attention to it in his analysis of Polynesian religion,2 attributing to the Melanesians war dancing and group dancing by men, cannibalism, dirge singing, and Tongan memorial festivals. But if we could discover, by further analyses of western Polynesian art and eastern Melanesian art, similar and other details of art and technique, we might reasonably expect, by correlating them with details from other phases of culture, to determine the route by which they entered the Marquesas or other places to which they are apparent strangers. Suggested relationships within Melanesia itself are also strengthened by detailed analysis of the art style. Dr. Eeo Fortune has pointed out the relationship between Manus (one of the Admiralties), Tikopia, Samoa and Tonga evidenced by peculiarities in the social organization of these localities. 3 1 have in this analysis shown relationships in the art styles of the Admiralty Islands and the Solomons from a purely formal point of view. Different artistic traits link the Carolines with St. Mathias, Nissan, Samoa and the Cooks. Relationships in these two distinctive fields along the same route convince me that the method pursued is the proper one. Since we know that originality is the rarest of phenomena, that stability is almost as rare, and that ideas travel with unbelievable rapidity, it is impossible to confine observations to the tribes in which they were made. The attempt to find ultimate origins is futile for the possible changes in form and content are infinite in number and can rarely be determined. But suggestions as to formal relationships of certain elements, common to the larger 1

Similar, for example, to one figured by Stephan, PL *ii, No. 22.

area to which the tiny localities treated belong, may be made and the origin of decorative motives due to formal considerations may be noted. These suggestions will be made by a general survey of certain oft-repeated motives — and of their absence — of the localities from which the objects have come. I have chosen for these conclusions a discussion of the geometric motives, triangles, teeth, zigzags and ribbon, the scroll and spiral and their components; of the realistic motives, human figure, bird, crocodile or lizard, fish; and of compositional devices, the band, the gore, and the use of symmetry and rhythm. THIANGLES, T E E T H , ZIGZAGS

Triangles, teeth, and zigzags are such simple elements that it is not surprising to find them used anywhere on the earth's surface. I have chosen these elements for discussion, not because they are unique, but rather to show inhowfar such simple elements may be given distinction by those who use them, and also how fixed this distinction may become, so fixed in fact, that any departure from it becomes almost impossible. This fact is illustrated by the contrast between the Admiralty Island and Tami use of triangles which, arranged in rows with base angles touching, become teeth. The Admiralty Island triangle is obtuse or at most equiangular, never sharply acute. The Tami triangle, not often used independently but rather in rows as teeth, is always sharply acute with long sides. There is a strong tendency in the Admiralties, not common in Tami, to truncate the triangle, or at least to blunt alternate ones. A third distinguishing characteristic of the Admiralty Island use of triangles as teeth is that they are made to turn inward, the smooth base-connecting line being outside. This is another feature in contrast to Tami where the teeth point outward with a disturbing rather than a restful effect. The combination of triangles may lead to a number of other motives several of which will be analyzed here in order to show how form 2 3

Bull. BM 34: 328. Personal information.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES may of itself originate. PI. h i is but one of many examples showing how the Admiralty Islanders combine such simple elements as the triangle to form their characteristic motives. The zigzag patterns of the border and handles bring out this feature. In this case small typical triangles are cut out leaving zigzags in rows. The ubiquitous zigzag motives are welldone and effective, being used even as ornamentation of realistic figures. The Tami treat the zigzag quite differently. In few cases is it actually a zigzag, although it is closely related to one. If, instead of cutting out triangles only and placing them alternately, a slight cut is made along the bounding line also, the remaining line is one closely approaching what I shall call a streamer. This is more strikingly ribbonlike in the art of those people who, like the Tami, use it to fill a gore, Fig. 61, a, d, thus causing it to taper toward the end (Pis. xxxi, 83, /; liii, 142, 143, 144; lvii, 169; LXiii, a; lxvi, 201). In very few cases have I found this motive used among the Tami as a simple zigzag as it is by the Admiralty Islanders. Figs. 41, 47, b and PI. l x x v , 217 are the nearest approach to the zigzag, but these, as well as a few other bowl designs not published, are all badly done. In no case have I found an Admiralty Island zigzag become a streamer or ribbon element. The streamer may have developed from an even simpler beginning. In many areas two parallel lines have tiny vertical lines dropped from them at regular intervals making a fringe pattern. This is a characteristic pattern of bamboo incising in the Solomons (Frizzi,1 Fig. *41). If the vertical lines are not too close together they frequently become alternating (Fig. 61, b). If each is spread a little where it meets the base line it forms a tiny triangle and the remaining space is shaped like the streamer (Fig. 61, c). This is not a different development of the motive but a development from a simpler form. The distribution of the streamer pattern is very wide throughout the South Sea Island area. It is found throughout Indonesia; PI. cxli, 594, 595 illustrate two combs from Sumba. The ribbon is the chief decoration of PI. 1

Baes. Arch. Beiheft 6 (1914).

127

cxli, 594. It is especially prevalent on the islands of Flores and Java also. It seems not to be used in the Carolines (possibly not in Micronesia) where the austerity of the sharp triangle is preserved. But it is one of the most common elements used on spears (Bossert I, p. *315, 1—12; Lewis 4: *xxn), dance sticks (Parkinson, PI. *47, Fig. *23, no. 18) and gourds (PI. cxli, 596—598) from St. Mathias. Here it seems to be a development of the fringed line which is highly characteristic (cp. PI. cxli, 596 and 597). The streamer is found in most of the intervening regions southward as far as the Massim District where it is a dominating element. It is likely that in parts of New Guinea and even

Fig. 61

in restricted localities like the Admiralties it is missing. In the Massim District it is used on woodcarvings (Lewis 4: *xxxvni). The variations of the motive in this area are numerous. It appears as a zigzag (Lewis 4 : *xxxvi, 1 and 2). The most common form is that shown in Fig. 61, j, k, I where the corners are rounded and the streamer runs in scallops instead of points. A device especially favored in the Massim area is a single line of scallops (Fig. 61, m), just half of the ribbon which runs in curves. A more elaborate rendering of the streamer design is that where it runs in loops as in designs from the north coast of New Guinea (Fig. 61, n) and on the Tami cocoanutshell cups (Fig. 61, o). It is possible that the formal

128

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

relationship between fringed line, streamer, and looped streamer is more remote than that to the simple ribbon or even that there is none. The use of the looped streamer on Tami cocoanutshell cups I believe to have been influenced by -western New Guinea. The pattern is used, with both broken and curved lines, on canoes in the Solomons, where the arrangement is of loops tapering into a point; the design flows to the point of the gracefully shaped prow. The loops of the ribbon may be round or angular. The simpler unlooped streamer motive is an essential feature of certain Maori carvings, being one of the principal means of filling the bands which compose the coils (von Sydow, *208, *213, *214). The zigzag is used for banding in New Caledonia (von Sydow, *207), in Fiji (von Sydow, *205), in Samoa {id. *222), in the Cooks (Hervey) (Stolpe, Figs. *16, *17, *22, *25) and perhaps also farther east, but it does not develop into the streamer in the eastern section. The next motive to be discussed is a combination of triangles, Fig. 62, which seems to me distinctive. Of the objects analyzed in this paper it appears only on a limited number of kapkaps. They are from New Ireland in which locality the motive is thoroughly at home. It consists of a string of triangles placed vertex to base, and a distinguishing characteristic is that the triangles usually have curved sides: Since pig- 62 they are used on kapkaps (Pis. cxvn, 438; cxviii, 442—451) the curve of the lines might be ascribed to technical reasons. The motive is used in curved bands in woodcarving and painting (Krämer, 1 *48 and *86). But it is used also to fill bands formed of straight lines, as the kapkap PI. CXVIII, 448 shows. One type of carved human figure (Krämer, *24—33) has a straight band of this type also, it being apparently a necessary convention to use this band down the front of the figure. The distribution of the motive Fig. 62 is quite wide. I do not know it for Micronesia but it is a favorite in St. Mathias: on gourds (PL OXLIV, 1 Die Malanggane von Tombára.

607); on spears (Lewis 4: *xxii, 2); on combs (Parkinson, Pl. *51). It is used in parts of New Guinea in the decoration of bamboo spears on the north coast (for instance, Lewis 4: *ni, 1; *ix). Von Sydow, *182 illustrates barkcloth on which the design is used and gives German New Guinea as its provenience. The design of the tortoiseshell armband of Fig. 38 is the only example I know of its occurrence among the Tami. One example (Lewis 4 : *xxxvi, 5) shows it is not altogether lacking in the Massim District. In a westerly direction it is found on woodcarving from Podena (von Sydow, *178; Fuhrmann, *26 and *32) and at least as far west as Timor (Bossert I, *363 and *365). From Timor it is found in an easterly direction in parts of New Guinea, in New Ireland, in the Solomons (Finsch, Pl. *xxvi, 538)2 where it is used as a decorative motive on a realistic figure. Frizzi, Fig. *38, b, d shows it used on house beams in the Solomons. It finishes off a graceful ribbon design on the prow of a canoe from the Solomons in the Bremen Museum. East of the Solomons the motive appears again on combs from Samoa (von Sydow, *222). Certain illustrations in Stolpe (Figs.*12, *14, *25, *26, *27) suggest an origin for the pattern in the Cook Islands. It is a result of the widening of two curved lines where they meet Fi (Fig. 63), and it is uns· 63 likely that the natives of the Cooks consider this a pattern by itself. It is used independently, however, as a decoration for an axeshaft from Mangaia (Stolpe, Fig.*41). Still farther east the motive is used in Hawaii (von Sydow, *219) as an element in relief carving. Numerous are the ways in which a design like this may arise. One has already been suggested for the Cooks. It seems that the pattern on the one object from Tami is caused by the fact that two rows of teeth were placed base to base, and since this is the case, the Tami occurrence may not be genetically related to the Northern New Guinea and New Ireland ones, although formally they are the same. * Südseearbeiten.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

129

A great deal more may be said about the curved as in New Ireland. This neat use of the conventionalization of such a simple element triangle is paralleled in Samoa (von Sydow, as the triangle in different localities. A con- *222) and in the Cooks (von Sydow, »224, sideration of the arrangement of triangles of *225; Stolpe, Figs. *13—17, *22—33). Indeed Fig. 64 prompts me to call attention to another a favorite design on carved paddles from the peculiar use of the triangle, perhaps the most Cooks could well be kapkap designs (cp., for artistic of them all. I previously noted the fact example, Stolpe, Fig. *16) of the Nissan type. that kapkaps Pis. cxvn, 441 and cxvin, 444 Several other elements of Cook style, such as have motion. The reason for this is that the the use of rows of obtuse triangles alternating with blunted teeth (Stolpe, Figs. *46, *47 triangles which fill the and Fig. 64, a), show affiliations with northern bands have curved sides Melanesia, especially with the Admiralties. and are elongated and acute-angled, Pig. 64, d. The few there are are apparently from New IreTHE SPIRAL land. But the use of such triangles to fill in curved The spiral is perhaps the most characbands is by no means teristic element of South Sea Island art. rare in New Ireland for Nevertheless its distribution is peculiarly limthe motive is skilfully and ited and its form is interestingly varied. The gracefully used on any grace and beauty of the Admiralty Island number of carved pieces, openwork bowl handles which inspired the whether it be in openwork choice of objects for this analysis are examples carving or painting (Kräof achievement in the Melanesian area, which, LUáÁiil Fig. 64 mer, *42, *46, *47, *48, however, are not typical. In every case where *53, *59, *63, *68 (comb familiarity with the art style allows comof bird), *70, *71, *72, *80 (comb and breast parison the form of the spiral is unique. The of bird), *81, and many others). This use of Admiralty Island bowl handle has been describthe triangle is unique and is one of the secrets ed (p. 17ff.) as a coil having usually two and of the appeal of the New Ireland style, making one-half turns with a graceful spread where the it dynamic instead of static. end of the handle is fastened to the bowl (Fig. Another element ubiquitous in New Ireland 65, a). The surface of this scrollwork is further art is the chevron (Fig. 64, e). The New Ireland decorated with openwork and low relief carving artist is a master of line and his curves are en- which do not concern us here (Pis. iv; x, 34; hanced and elaborated by the use of such simple XIV, 41; XX, 59, 60; xxi, 62; xxii, 64). motives as triangles in rows, curved triangles, Pl. XXIII, 67 and 68 (Fig. 65, b) are examples and chevrons. Pis. civ, 341 and cxx, 464 of a development of a double coil according to show the use of the chevron on kapkaps; both the Admiralty Island convention. The handles are effective but neither shows the skill pos- on these two bowls seem to show the influence of sessed by the New Ireland woodcarver. Al- the island of Luf, west of the Admiralties (cp., most all of the illustrations in Krämer show for example, IAE YII (1894) : PI. *xiv), where how he combines the three elements into a a double spiral, more carefully carved and unified but complicated and sometimes dis- composed than the Admiralty ones, is the rule. turbing whole. Two bowls in the Field Museum, which I am The kapkaps from Nissan (Pis. cxvi, 430, unfortunately not able to illustrate here, have 431, 433—437; cxxxix, 582, 583) illustrate large, handsomely carved handles with two a clean-cut use of the triangle typical of facing coils. In both cases the lower coil serves Nissan, St. Mathias, and parts of Micronesia. the purpose of support commonly assumed by The triangle is sharp and long (Fig. 64, f) but a variation of the lozenge element as in Pis. iv never sprawling as in Tami and but rarely or XIV, 41, 42 , for example. 17

MELANESIAN DESIGN

130

affi Pig. 65

There may be variation of this sort in the spirals used in a given technique although the essential principle, the use of two and one-half turns, is preserved. There are, however, spirals used on other objects, one of which, that used on gourds (Fig. 65, d), is doubtless an adaptation of the double spiral here described to an awkward surface. Fig. 65, e illustrates a second type of curve used by Admiralty Island woodcarvers. It resembles the bowl spiral in having a gracefully narrowed tip, but differs from it in having only one turn. This type of woodcarving is used on canoe decorations and on supports of wooden beds and house steps. The one illustration here given shows an entirely new composition of familiar Admiralty Island elements with a new type of spiral. Fig. 65, d illustrates the adaptation of the typical Admiralty Island two and one-half turn spiral to the surface of an hourglassshaped gourd. Gourds so decorated are used as chalk containers. The decoration is carried out by a system of pyrography, the design being burnt into the gourd. I have space here merely to call attention to the use of the spiral on this peculiar surface. The two double spirals on the bottom of PI. cxLiv, 608 are almost the same as the double spirals of the bowl handles. The

artists have almost invariably felt it necessary to flatten out the curve as it is carried from one of the opposing coils to the other. This convention is in complete harmony with the use of the double coil on bowl handles, and if the canoe decorations are viewed as interrupted double coils, with them also. Pis. cxLiv, 609—612, 614; CXLV, 618, 620, 621 show numerous other variations of the use of the spiral. The most noticeable feature is the fact that the inner turns of the spiral have been much straightened to accommodate the design to the surface. The number of turns has also frequently been reduced. PI. CXLIV, 613 is especially interesting in that small subsidiary coils of the conventional type have been used to end the larger spiral which is much flattened. There can be little doubt that some of the variations of the spiral on the gourds are due to technical causes and others, such as the branches of the spirals of PI. CXLV, 619, to play with the design. PI. CXLVII, 629 shows how the usual spiral has been accommodated to a different form of gourd. PI. CXLVI, 622—624 show the same sort of adaptation to a less difficult surface, the bamboo container. These are quite rare in the Admiralties but PI. CXLVI, 622 is well done.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES Pl. c XLvu, 627, 628, 630, 631 are gourds from Luf which illustrate the Luf influence on Pl. X X I I I , 67 and 68. By using more subdivisions in filling their spaces, by using the bulge of the gourd for the bulge of the line connecting the opposing coils of the spirals, that is, by placing them widthwise instead of lengthwise of the gourd, and by abandoning the convention that the connecting line must approach flatness instead of a curve, the Luf artists have done much better by their gourd spirals than the Admiralty Islanders. PL on, 326 illustrates an unusual attempt to decorate a kapkap with a spiral. Four pairs of spirals are placed back to back and their edges are toothed. In this as well as in Pl. o, 309; PL cu, 321, the other examples where spirals are attempted, there is only one turn or a little more to the spiral. Pl. en, 321 is representative of a small group of kapkaps in the Field Museum on which the spiral is used. Pl. c x x x i v , 546 has the typical Admiralty Island scroll applied to a kapkap. A wooden comb from the Admiralties, not very well done, is illustrated by Bossert I, * x x i v , 8. This comb has two of the double facing spirals of the type used on bowls and gourds, but with coils having only one and onehalf turns each. PL C X L V I , 625 is of a penis shell on which two of the conventionalized spirals are incised in cross hatching. In this study the negative features are as interesting, if not more so, than the positive. In the midst of a large area where the spiral is at home, the Tami do not use it in a highly developed art. And this in spite of the fact that the most distinctive element used by the Tami is most suggestive of it. I have previously pointed out how easy it would be to turn the element of PL LII into a spiral (p. 50). But Pl. LV, 161, a, b, excellently done designs on the same bowl, and Pis. L X V I I , 202, a ; L X X I I , 211, e are the only cases I have seen of the spiral in the examination of several hundreds of Tami bowls. The cocoanutshell cups Figs. 48, a and 55 furnish two examples in a technique other than woodcarving of successfully executed spirals. But if Fig. 48, a is carefully analyzed it will be seen that, although the effect is that of a spiral, 17*

131

the design is really the PL LII element composed of several wide toothed bands, but the line is not continuous as required for a true spiral (Fig. 66). One coil of the spiral of Fig. 55 is a continuous line and looks as if it has become so by the accident of cutting the tooth in to the circular center. The opposite coil is not so done. But here is the very circumstance which has been pointed out. The variation is one of form and there is no limit to the causes which may suggest the change. There may be other cocoanutshell cups on which the spiral is suggested ; I have seen only a few. Nevertheless, it is surprising that, from this, to us highly

Pig. 66 suggestive, motive, a spiral did not develop, especially surprising since it occurs in an area where the spiral is well known to natives on objects constantly seen in trading and in visiting neighboring localities. Another reason why we should expect the development of the spiral among the Tami is the influence from the Massim District to the south. In the analysis of Tami style frequent references to possible influence from this locality were made. I may recapitulate by calling attention once more to the subtly irregular treatment of the center pattern of PL x x x n , 86; to the incipient tendency to elongate the point of the PL LII element into a gore as in Pis. Lxvi, 200; L X X I I I , e; L X X X V I I , d; its actual use as a gore in Pis. L V I I I , 171 ; L X , 189; L X X I I , d, / ; L X X X V I I , b, c ; and to the use of the ribbon element. I have not had the opportunity to analyze in detail the art of the Massim District. Nevertheless, certain features of the woodcarving and gourd decoration stand out as significant, for example, the preference for curves expressed in various spirals and indescribable forms, the relative avoidance of right

132

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

lines and frequent avoidance of symmetry, the use of the gore, of the dot and of dotted lines, as well as of the dot and circle motive, of the streamer, most frequently composed of curved or slightly rounded lines instead of angles. The element of the Massim District of interest here is the spiral and its variations. Although the natives of Huongulf, whose art

Œ>

Pig. 67

shows a certain relationship, have not developed the spiral as an art motive, the natives of the Massim District have developed not only one spiral but a great many different forms of it. There is the approach to the coil, a hook pattern, Fig. 61,TO,similar to one of the Admiralty Island spirals, Pig. 65, e; the coil with one and one-half turns, Pig. 67, a, and with two and one-half turns, Fig. 67, b. The spiral with facing 1

Pig. 67, a-j are details from Massim objects illustrated by Lewis 4 : x x x i — X L I V .

2

Decorative Art.

coils of equal size, Fig. 67, c; double spiral with facing coils of unequal size, Fig. 67, d ; arrangements of coils placed back to back, Fig. 67, a; interlocking spirals, Fig. 67, e ; reverse spirals with equal coils, Fig. 67, /; reverse spirals with unequal coils, Fig. 67, g; the two latter repeated by linework so as to form looped spirals, Fig. 67, h; looped spirals incomplete because of lack of space making a gore filled with arcs, Fig. 67, i ; these are some of the variations of the coil and spiral used by the artist of the Massim District. 1 The incipient spiral of the Tami PL LII element is likewise used here, Fig. 67, j. It is possible that a detailed examination of a large mass of material with accurate provenience — an almost impossible condition •— might restrict certain of these forms to'particular localities of the Massim District. The versatile development in the larger area is sufficient in this place to illustrate the point. It is as if most of the possibilities of spiral development had been met in this spot and had been avidly adopted or adapted. It is likely even that some have originated here. I believe a deeper understanding of the Massim, as of other styles, can be obtained by a study of the numerous and peculiar curved forms through the modifications due to fertility of ideas in the use of the spiral, for example, and perhaps also to the fact that the natives have been subject to influences from different localities. The coil, for example, is used in the Papuan Gulf region (Haddon, PL *vi) 2 , theElema, (Lewis 5: *xii), the Kerema (Lewis 5 : * x i x , * x x , * x x i , *xxiv), and the Purari Delta (Lewis 5 : * x m , *xvi, 8,10) districts being differentiated; among the natives of southern Dutch New Guinea (Wirz, Figs. *2, *3, *4, *7, *8, *12, *19) 3 ; and in the Fly Eiver district (Haddon, PI. *v) 2 . In these 3

Die Ornamentile und insbesondere die Darstellung menschlicher Formen.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

188

regions there seems to be a close relationship between the coil with numerous turns and the concentric circles with center circle motives. It is not difficult to see how such a pattern may have developed into a coil by merely continuing the circular lines. Wirz1 discusses this matter and points out how the design may come about because of formal considerations. The coil has a wide distribution in other parts of New Guinea. It is common in some districts along the Sepik River (Bossert I, PI. *xxv, 6; *323, 6) in which area the interlocking spiral is also brought to the acme of perfection (Bossert I, *321, 3; *323, 5). It is likely that the "bird head" element of Haddon, the Pl. LU element of the Tami, gave rise to wider and wider modifications due to play with the technique. Such modifications are not surprising considering the Massim predilection for curves. It is the predilection which cannot so easily be explained. In order to point out the possible wider influences on the spiral, it may be considered in its broadest aspect as used farther west in Dutch New Guinea. The spiral as it has developed in this region is the only one of fundamental importance which is not used in the Massim area. The general effect of the spiral in the vicinity of Geelvink Bay is that of curved lines with many branches. The effect is, however, one achieved by composition rather than by the elements themselves. The coil is not as frequently used as the branched spiral but often enough to be well rendered. An analysis of Fig. 682 shows that the single-turn spiral with a pointed end like that of the Admiralties — it might better be called a hook — is dominant. The distinction between the Admiralty hook and that of Geelvink Bay is that the latter is continued in a wavy line instead of a straight one, sometimes running into a reverse spiral (spiral with coils in opposite directions), or into a wavy snakelike line not really a spiral at all. The line may also end in two of these hooks, not always of equal size, turning in opposite directions like a dolphin's tail. Fuhrmann, Fig. *30, *Orn. 2,3,10,11,17,18,28—32 show that one usual effect is attained by arranging these hooks in order along the curved

line. In Orn. *2 their direction alternates, in Orn. *9 (top) there is a double spiral with facing hooks — even one of these is branched. An essential difference between this treatment and that of the Admiralty Islands is the fact that this one achieves grace in the repetitious use of the curved line which at times is highly successful, but Fig. 68 which, some times becomes disturbing, whereas the use of the hook on Admiralty canoe and bed ornaments, though stiff, is always dignified and restful. The origin of this spiral and curve may be looked for farther west in Indonesia (perhaps even in India or China) where the branched spiral has attained a high, though somewhat different development. Compare, for example, the branched (though coiled) spiral of Borneo, Bossert I, *345, 4; *351, 2; von Sydow, *248, *249; and that from Sumatra, id*Ul, *258, second bamboo from left. It is not impossible that the use of the branched spiral, either in Dutch New Guinea, or even in Indonesia, may have been suggested by a natural form. Some tortoiseshell has a shadowlike pattern (PI. CXLVIII, 632) very much like the arrangement of spirals just discussed for Geelvink Bay. We may notice such subtleties and conclude that the natives must also, when in fact they often do not. But in the Bremen Museum there is a piece of tortoiseshell (provenience not given) which shows the natural curves outlined with chalk (PI. CXLVIII, 633) and gives certain proof that the shadow pattern was noticed by the natives. It is quite as likely that it was observed and outlined because of the fact that the native was ac-' customed to the branched spiral arrangement and liked it, as that it suggested the original motive. To return to historical connections, the Indonesian influence of the interlocking spiral in the Sepik River district, where it is highly perfected, as perhaps an offshoot from Borneo or the intervening islands with readaptation,

1

2

Die Marmd-Anim, Vol. II, Part IV, p. 70.

From Fuhrmann, Neu-Guinea, Fig. 23.

MELANE SI AN DESIGN

134

may be noted (cp. Bossert I, *321,3 for approach to interlocking spiral in Sepik district ; *345, 1, 6, for interlocking spiral of Borneo). This relationship, although quite distant, is nevertheless not far-fetched when other unique features of the two areas are considered, for examples, the use of the spiral as a point of departure for inverted symmetrical arrangements (Fig. 69) and the use of feather mosaics on shields (Bossert I, *321, 1), even though the Sepik ones are carried out Pig. 69 in designs different from the Borneo ones. The chief similarity is the method of fastening the feathers in New Guinea to imitate the attachment of bunches of hair in Borneo. The discussion of the spiral would be incomplete without a consideration of its use in New Zealand. There can be no doubt that the art of New Zealand was affected by at least two different influences (not including tattooing). One of these is manifest in the rafter paintings, the spiral elements of which are built on a theoretical ellipse, the other, in the spirals used in woodcarving built on a circle. The rafter paintings (Pig. 70) are of curves with branched spirals reminiscent of Dutch

Pig. 70

New Guinea — some are identical though executed much more simply. The coiled spiral of New Zealand (Fig. 71) is carried out with variations of the lines which form it although it is most often an interlocking many-turned spiral (at least two turns or more appearing double because of the interlock) executed in bands. Among the Maori attention is focussed on regularity and on the elements which compose the bands of the spiral (Fig. 71).

The band is rarely in a single plane. The coil filled with a ribbon element (Fig. 71, a) has the ribbon much higher than the band which separates the turns. The apparently plain line which composes other coils, as in Fig. 71, b, is really composed of two planes meeting at an angle in the center of the band. Another coil (Fig. 71, c) has the same basic outline but

Fig. 71

between the plain bands (formed of the two planes) there are groups of tiny arrangements of the same sort, that is, two planes meeting at an angle and placed vertically in groups of from three to eight or nine (apparently this number is not regular) at intervals. Still another treatment is that in which the main bands (cut as all plain bands described above) are broken into irregular curved lengths, the space between them being filled by the same sort of vertical carving as that described for Fig. 71, c, but used to fill the entire space instead of in groups. The spiral of Fig. 71, d differs from a similar one from the Massim District in that it is interlocking. The intervening space which forms a gore is filled with curved lines just as in one type in the Massim District. The coiled spiral is most common in New Zealand but in some cases other types are used to fill a given space. In the case of von Sydow, *209, lower figure, for example, there is a

GENERAL

parallelogram filled with a large coil with a branched coil, the main one running into a smaller facing coil. In the lower corner of the upper parallelogram a small coil is used with apparently no relation to the others. The two lower trapezoidal spaces are filled with a succession of the conventional spirals so arranged that, because of the end of one interlocking with the beginning of the new one, the effect is that of looped or reverse spirals. In every case the spaces not actually filled by the lines of the spiral are filled by curves which outline the theoretical path the curve would describe if continued indefinitely. The elongated interlocking spiral with the single turn (von Sydow, *209, upperfigure, and PI. cxLix, 635) is strikingly similar to patterns of the Massim area. Boas states, "The great freedom of the New Zealand forms, the delicate accuracy of the constituent elements, and the multiplicity of forms connected with the spiral, are absent (in eastern New Guinea)".1 I have demonstrated the freedom and variety of the Massim forms which are more numerous perhaps than in any locality where the spiral is used. The perfection of technique is not as great in any of the Melanesian localities as in New Zealand, but fertility of ideas, and perfection of design are more highly developed in the Massim area. This statement will depend, however, on the taste of the observer. If he is accustomed to rigid regularity, or if he considers perfection of technique more impressive than originality, the Maori carvings will indeed take first place. Since the same facts prevail in both the Massim District and New Zealand it is possible, in fact likely, that the relationship between the two areas is much closer than has ordinarily been supposed. The question involves more than a study of the spiral and will be taken up again after other features of the style have been discussed. REALISTIC

DESIGNS

T H E HUMAN F I G U R E

The human figure as a design is even more common in the South Sea Islands than the 1 2

Primitive Art, 162. Emory, K. P., Bull. BM 12: Pigs. »16, *17. Linton, R. L.,

PRINCIPLES

135

spiral, and, like it, is highly conventionalized for each locality in which it is found. There are, however, certain characteristics common to the design in the whole region. These are: the large proportion of the head as compared with the rest of the body, exaggeration of headdress, coiffure, hat, mask, or net, prominence of eyes and sometimes of mouth, the stooping position of the body due to the bent knee, frequently bent arms, lack of uniformity (of interest?) in number of digits, and comparative absence of modelling. There are, of course, exceptions but these features can be noted from the Philippines (von Sydow, *273) to Hawaii (von Sydow, *219). Particularly widespread is the bent limb, a feature which seems old not only because of its wide distribution, but also because it has been found in archaeological material.2 It is with modifications of the features enumerated that we have to deal in defining the human figure for each locality. An entire monograph would be required to do justice to this subject and I can call attention here to only a few samples of the treatment of the human figure, choosing those which more particularly concern the art styles I have defined. Handles of bowls are sometimes carved as human figures in the Admiralty Islands. In such cases they are apparently the Admiralty Island idea of the human figure stripped of all but the most necessary conventions. Most characteristic are the bent limbs whether on an upright or reclining figure (Pis. i, 1, 2; h, 3, 4; χ, 33; xxvi, 75). The head is relatively large in proportion to the rest of the body but this feature is less exaggerated than among many of the South Sea Island peoples. Admiralty Island figures differ from many others of the region also in that sex, although indicated, is not exaggerated (there are of course exceptions to this rule). The treatment of the head and the face, and the use of zigzag or triangular bands as a decorative device are the differentiating features of the human figure from the Admiralties. PI. xxvi, 74, 75 and von Sydow, *192 and *193 illustrate these points. Eyes are quite Archaeology of the Marquesas Islands, Bull. BM 23: Pis. *iv, *VII, * x , *XJII, * x v .

136

MELANE SIAN DESIGN

prominent, varying from round (PI. x x v i , 74) to narrowly almond-shaped (von Sydow, *193). The nose is well defined although not unduly prominent. The mouth is elliptical and proportionately large, lips are indicated, but there are no teeth or chin. Ears are large and prominent although on the bowls they are considerably reduced.

important part of the figure in this comparison, although whole bodies may be indicated. As compared with the Admiralty Islands the human faces, and even figures, carved on Tami bowls are not only numerous but they are typical, too, of all Tami art. The spirit representations on the ends of

The forehead is high having the effect of a cowl drawn over it, even where a realistic headdress is indicated (PI. x x v i , 75; von Sydow, *192, *193). Frequently this cowl is marked off by the conventional zigzag band which may be used also on cheeks (PI. x x v i , 75; von Sydow, *192, left, *193, right) and on other parts of the body, as breast, abdomen, arms, legs, and down the sides of the body. The general expression of the face is that of earnest surprise.

Lxxxiii, 226) are typical of the face conventions. To summarize them : the eyes are large and ellipsoid, sometimes pointed toward the outside ; the nose is long and narrow, nostrils may or may not be indicated; the mouth is large, either round or ellipsoid; teeth are usually prominent, the tongue is never shown. The most outstanding characteristic, one which stamps a face as peculiarly Tami, is the use of points, one, two, or three above and below the eyes, used to indicate the particular spirit represented.

The bent arms usually hang down at the sides with hands resting on the hips. Five (or less) fingers and toes may be carved out, but they seem not to be necessary. Modelling of the shoulder, arm, and leg muscles is more pronounced than in many localities, rounded contours being the rule. The realistic human figure is used on many wood-carved decorations of the Admiralties. I have had the opportunity to observe only a relatively few objects of this sort, but the figure here described is found on parts of houses, such as steps, pillars, beams, and boards, on bowls and on spatulas, and even on cup handles. In this description of the human figure I have deliberately included only the realistic figures since the derivation of PL vi, 13—17 is very doubtful. There are many localities in which human figures, or modifications of them in the form of spirits, are used realistically and I limit the discussion to these. Except for the features general in the Melanesian (Oceania) area there could hardly be a greater contrast than the human figure of the Admiralties and Tami. The design among the Tami can be termed human only to a degree, for it is really representative of spirits which are usually monsters, combinations, for example, of human heads with fish bodies and the like. Consequently the head is the most

b o w l s ( P i s . XLIII; LXIII, A; L X I V ; LXVIII, 2 0 2 ;

Faces of this description may be combined with human bodies, as they are on headrests, (Pl. LXXXVIII, 230, 231; Fuhrmann, *42), on

hooks, (PL LXXXIX, 232, 233 ; Fuhrmann, *68), and on houseboards, (Pl. xcii, 239 ; Fuhrmann, *20). In such cases the face occupies a large portion of the surface. The neckrest, PL LXXXVIII, 230, has no legs, the face taking up the entire length of the carving. Arms, however, bent arms, form the support of the neckrest and extend from behind the top of the head. In other cases, PL LXXXVIII, 231, for example, some portion of the length may be left for the legs, in this case and in others, the figure is kneeling. On the hooks, (PL LXXXIX, 233; Fuhrmann, *68), arms and legs are indicated, stiffly but realistically, and with one exception they are bent, even in this case (Fuhrmann, *68, left) the carving is widened at the knee to indicate a very slight bend. When fingers or toes are indicated they are four or five in number. One other peculiarity should be noted, namely, the use of a somewhat crude " e y e " motive at knees and shoulders. This motive varies from a circle to an arrangement of two concentric curved lines much like some Tami trademarks (Pl. XLIX, m, r). It may be used at places other than the joints as, for example, in PL LXXXIX, 233, where it indicates breasts and navel.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES Sex is shown in Tami figures more prominently than in the Admiralties but it is not unusually exaggerated as in the Sepik district and in New Ireland. The fish-like design typical of Tami takes the place of sex organs in the ancestor spirit illustrated by von Sydow, P I . *VIII.

There can be no doubt that there were two developments of the human figure among the Tami. The one just described is more probably a spirit conception. The other, slightly more realistic, is perhaps the Tami's true representation of the way a man should be drawn. PL XXX, 81 illustrates this type but PL xxx, 82 shows how formal this conception has become where, except for the feet and hands, it has very little resemblance to a person. The eyes of human and spirit figures show different treatment. Those of humans are indicated by two double triangular elements, used commonly as crocodile, fish or lizard heads also. They lack the points above and below. The rest of the figure is the same as that previously described. Pis. xxvm, and LXIX, 204, a are other typical examples of this figure carved on bowls and it is used on many other objects. Preuss1 calls attention to the fact that the human figure has a high cap or headdress. Finsch ascribes this to the fact that chiefs wear a cap. But even the common people wore barkcloth strips around the head. The carved figures of women are, however, shaped the same as those of men. I do not find in my examples the cap as an outstanding feature, but I think where it does occur it may be accounted for more accurately as a Tami localization of an older and more widespread convention since the cap or headdress is found to be exaggerated throughout the whole South Sea area. Since the Tami art seems to be closely related to that of the Massim District we may next look at the modifications of the human figure as it is carved there. Pl. CXLIII, 601—606 illustrate certain of these, most noticeable being the round face with little contour, the indication of all features but the nose by linework, slight modelling of chin, the forehead 1

Z. f. E . 29 (1897): 86.

18

187

cut so as to definitely indicate some sort of headdress or a cap actually represented. The mouth, shown by a single line, curves up and gives the figure a jolly expression. The head here is not unduly large in proportion to the rest of the body. Arms and legs are bent, in certain cases the fingers and toes are realistically carved (PL CXLIII, 604 and 606), in others they are merely a part of the decorative curve terminated by a spiral (Pl. CXLIII, 601, 603). A noteworthy feature is the fact that the hands are raised, meeting over the breast or under the chin (Pig. 72, /). The hands of Tami figures when realistic usually rest on the abdomen or pelvis, or they may be stretched out away from the body (Pig. 72, d, j). Breasts and navel are represented by circles as they are among the Tami. In PL CXLIII, 602 the navel is indicated by a spiral. Sex is almost indistinguishable. The use of body ornamentation, such as the line (Fig. 73) on the cheeks W ' and the many spirals on the body Pig 73 (PL CXLIII, 601-603; Lewis 4: ' *XLI, 2 and 3), is characteristic. These observations are based on a regrettably small number of spatulas ; the features of these are nevertheless remarkably uniform. Although geographically the Sepik River should come next I shall leave the discussion of the human figure in that region until a little later since I feel that the stylistic relationships of the motive in New Zealand are closer. The human figure has been highly conventionalized here but it remains realistic also in many examples. I shall describe the more realistic type. Again there is the large head, bent limbs, arms on abdomen (Pig. 72, e). Although spirals and other Maori relief conventions are used, there is nevertheless considerable modelling (PL CXLIX, 634; Hamilton, Pis. *χχ; *xxi, 1; *xxv, 2, 3; *LII, 2). The eyes, if actually present, are deepset, or of inlaid abalone ; if not definitely indicated, they are simulated by a plane running diagonally from the high forehead to meet the cheek, leaving a sharp angle at the brow ridge. There is no cap or headdress. The mouth is large, open, but does not usually show teeth (Hamilton,*xx ; *xxi) ; in a particular category of figures more

MELANESIAN DESIGN

m

Pig. 72

GENERAL PRINCIPLES highly conventionalized a protruding tongue is important (Hamilton, * x x , 2; * x x r v , 2), as is the one-sided distortion of the tiki. The surface of all figures is highly decorated, tattoo being indicated, but very striking is the use of an elaborate spiral at shoulder and knee. A curious feature of the Maori figure is the large proportion of the hands with three widespread fingers. When only one figure is represented the hands rest on the stomach, but frequently if two or more figures are shown they cross hands (Hamilton, Pis. * x x ; * x x i n , 4). No perspective is used and consequently very amusing effects are achieved as, for example, that of Hamilton, PI. * x x v , 8. The figure holds a club in its right hand. In order to accommodate it to the space the right hand with the club is greatly reduced in size, the left hand meanwhile being normal in size and position. PI. cxLix, 634 is a Maori version of the Madonna. The right hand of the Madonna is even larger than usual and the left, though somewhat reduced, is nevertheless about a third the length of the child. This is probably done to increase the size so as to preserve the balance of the left side into which space child and hand must be fitted. The hands of the child, this time two-fingered but conventionally placed, and its huge gaping mouth are the salient, and not aesthetic features. The analysis of the Maori figure shows that the resemblance to that of the Massim District is purely superficial. It consists, not in the similarity of features, but rather in the decoration of the surface of the figure in line, the spiral and gore filled with curves being outstanding just as they are in the treatment of plain surfaces of the Massim. It is impossible for me to analyze a large number of objects from Dutch New Guinea in this place. I wish, however, to point out several characteristics of the human figure carried out in an etching or burning technique in the Geelvink B a y region which are so outstanding as to posit relationship between this region, Northern New Guinea where the tortoiseshell hairpins are found, and the Admiralty Islands. The etched human figure of Geelvink Bay is done in silhouette and may be shown in front (back ?) 18*

189

or profile (Pig. 72, ra). No features are given to the face when it is shown in front view. The features which are similar to certain patterns of Admiralty Island kapkaps are those which give rise to the suggestion that the Admiralty Island patterns (Pis. vi, 13—17; x x v , 73 and discussion p. 13) grew out of a portrayal of the human figure. Once more the bent limbs, and arms reaching upward above the head appear (Fuhrmann, Orn. *8, *9, *10, *11). The style presents a parallel to that of the Massim District in that hands and (or) feet run off into the curve or spiral of the locality (Fuhrmann, Orn. *7, *9, *12, *13, *15). As among the Admiralty Islanders, the Tami, and the Massim, there is no regularity in the number of digits indicated. The etchings of this region show them to be primarily decorative. I have used the preceding order in discussing the human figure advisedly. For, although it is not geographically continuous, it seems to point out relationships between the areas here discussed more accurately. It is likely, too, that influences and effects were not regular; each locality doubtless took an idea from here for one technique, from there for another, originated a new one for still another. I have left out one large and very important region of New Guinea, namely, the Sepik Eiver district. There can be little doubt that in this region there are localized styles. Unfortunately, however, the provenience of most of the museum specimens has not been specifically noted and I can refer only to the most outstanding characteristics of the larger district. Human figures, or monstrous forms based on the human, are common on carved masks and various other woodcarvings (Fig. 72, g). The large head and stooping body are again in evidence. Two distinctive characteristics are the elongation of face and nose emphasized by long pointed features, and the emphasis on sex. The nose is sometimes so long as to reach to the breast where it may be curved back (Fuhrmann, *59, *60, *91). There may be no difference between nose and mouth, the two fusing in a beak which may extend to the breast (Fuhrmann, *62), or even to the pelvis (Fuhrmann, *63 ; Bossert, I, *307, 5) in which

140

MELANESIAN DESIGN

case it may be connected with the penis. The general effect is that of a human body surmounted with the head of a much distorted and evil-looking bird. The eyes are often long and diagonally placed spreading upward from the root of the nose. The headdress is indicated; it is long and pointed but not nearly as stereotyped as, for example, the headdress of the Admiralty Islands or the Solomons. There is more variety in the way the hands are placed than in the other regions. The figures of the neckrest of Fuhrmann, *37 are clasping hands; in Fuhrmann, *48 the arms are upraised, the hands run into (or support) other heads of the same monster-sort as the main figure. Two positions of the arms are common, arms raised above head (Fuhrmann, *49, *62), and hands on hips (Fuhrmann, *60, *63, *64, left, *104; Bossert, I, *307, 5) or brought forward to clasp the genitalia (Fuhrmann, *59, *64, right, *73, *97, *98). In one case the hands are under the chin (Fuhrmann, *74), occasionally they are on the stomach (ibid. *75). I have no data whatever regarding these figures but it seems to me that the dignified masks with upturned narrow eyes, prominent, but quite realistic noses and upturning slit mouths (Fuhrmann, *88, *89, *90 ; von Sydow, *176; Bossert I, *309, 1) are either localized in a different region from the beaked sexexhibitionistic figures (Fuhrmann, *58, *59, *62, *64, *73, *74), or they serve an entirely different purpose. The style of New Ireland is exceedingly complicated and localized. Nevertheless, even a casual glance at some of the objects made there discerns affiliations with other localities. In one part of New Ireland (Namatanai) chalk figures are used. They have certain features similar to those of the Sepik River. In most figures from New Ireland sex is much emphasized but this is especially true of the limestone figures (Krämer, *21x; von Sydow, *190; Parkinson, Fig. *112). They are carved in the round and are not nearly as ornate as are the woodcarvings which are elaborated

with line drawing, painting, and openwork carving. The New Ireland human head is reasonably large and broad as compared with that of the Sepik River (Fig. 72, h). Eyes, nose, and mouth are treated somewhat similarly but the narrowed eyes turn down instead of up, the nose is high and broad, two lips are indicated for the mouth — it is not merely a slit. A rounded extension of forehead and head seems to indicate a cap or headdress. Although greatly varied the general underlying characteristics of the woodcarvings are the same but features are varied and executed in greater detail by means of carving and of painting. The characteristic New Ireland helmet is almost always present. The mouth is large and resembles the mouth of Tami more than any, sharp triangular teeth being often shown (Krämer, *24ff.)1. The New Ireland figures are more realistic than the beaked ones of the Sepik Eiver. Even a cursory glimpse of Solomon Island art shows there must be two definitions of the human figure according as it is done in low relief carving or in sculpture. The published illustrations of low relief carvings on canoe and dance paddles, on canoes, and on cocoanut scrapers are more numerous than the sculptures. The paddles from Buka illustrated by Frizzi2 are typical (Fig. 72, T). In defining the little figure which is highly decorative we are reminded once more of Admiralty Island treatment of the same design, or of that of Geelvink Bay. The Solomon figure is most often sitting (Frizzi [Fig. *37, g, and p. 33] found it once standing and then it had straight legs); it is sometimes depicted in front view (PI. CLI, 638, a), sometimes in profile (PI. CLI, 638, b). The body is short compared with the head, joints of limbs are rounded, arms are raised at the sides to the level of mouth or ears. Digits are often indicated, their number varies. The most important part of the body used for decoration is the head. The high headdress, round at the sides and coming to a point at the center, is the most noticeable feature of

1

2

Die Malanggane von Tombára.

Baes. Arch. Beiheft 6, Pigs. *36, *37.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES the head. Eyes and nose are the most marked features of the face, the mouth often being omitted. The eyes are round and may be outlined, thus recalling conventionalized figures from the Fly River district. Points above the eyes make us think of Tami, although these are handled differently and are not as ubiquitous. What seem to be ear ornaments are indicated by tassels (PI. CLI, 638, a; Parkinson, Fig. *83, 1 ; Frizzi, Fig. *37, a, o) ; spirals (Frizzi, Fig. *37, d, e) ; or arrow-shaped appendages (Frizzi, Fig. *37, g, m, p, q). There is a tendency for other parts of the body, limbs, for example, (Frizzi, Fig. *37, d, e), to run into spirals, or spirals may run from the chin and take the place of the body (Bossert, I, *325, 10; Parkinson, Fig. *83,1). PI. OLI, 638, b shows the profile of the figure of PI. CLI, 638, a. The design is much smaller but it is otherwise consistent and fitting in every way. Except that the cap or headdress is omitted this is the figure depicted on the kapkap of PI. cxxiv, 479. A few examples of Solomon Island sculpture (Bossert, I, *307, 9; Frizzi, *39) indicate an important feature, namely, the use of planes meeting at a sharp angle. These carvings are used as canoe figureheads and in this respect are similar to carving in the Marquesas. In the Solomons, however, the device is used only for the face. The rest of the sitting figure is carved in the round, more contour being expressed than in most other localities. The contours are better done, too, than elsewhere, for example, in New Zealand. Another outstanding characteristic is the elongation of the face diagonally front and downward, the chin resting on the two fists. In these figures the nearly spherical pandanus headdress commonly seen in Solomon Island illustrations is depicted (Fig. 72, k). The style of the human figure of New Caledonia, Fig. 72, i, somewhat remote from the Solomons, may be dismissed with few remarks. It is as if the human figure of the Sepik had been pressed from top to bottom, changing it from a long to a wide figure. The nose has more contour and nostrils are perhaps more prominent (PI. CLI, 639, 640), otherwise the features are the same. PI. CLI, 639 illustrates a roof

141

ornament common in New Caledonia (cp. also von Sydow, *169, *207). The figure on masks and other carvings is not pressed quite so flat. The mask depicted by von Sydow, *206 has the features mentioned but the head is egg-shaped. The head of PI. CLI, 640 is rounder than those of the roof ornaments. A long beard-like appendage is shown, doubtless it represents some part of a mask. The round cap-like top of this figure looks more utilitarian than ornamental, like a knob intended for the fastening of a string or rope. The headdress of the roof ornaments is conventionalized in widened lozenges or in combinations of flattened lozenges (PI. CLI, 639 ; von Sydow, *207), points and zigzags (von Sydow, *207). It is not surprising that the Melanesiane should expend much interest and attention on the head in depicting the human figure if we consider several other phases of their culture. A characteristic development in the area is the society or association, most kinds of which feature the mask or an elaborate costume. In New Guinea, New Britain, and New Ireland the societies, as well as the costumes, have their most complicated development. There can be little doubt that the costumes at least, if not other fundamental principles of the societies, have their origin farther west in Indonesia. In a great many cases in Melanesia costumes for the ceremonies of the societies have a very large head, worn eit'her on the head or held above or in front of it, with the rest of the body disguised by barkcloth or some kind of drapery of barkcloth or shredded fiber (cp. von Sydow, *175, *206; Parkinson, Figs. *90, *91, *92, *101, *102, *113, *116). Where the costumes are of this style the head is of paramount interest, in many cases even the legs do not show. Another even more general reason for the emphasis is the widespread custom of wearing a head ornament. Many means are devised for variety in headdress, some having to do with elaborating the coiffure, others with ornamental head coverings for ceremonial or secular occasions, and still others with customs, varying from tribe to tribe, of wearing coverings of some kind or other in daily life. The convention

142

MELANESIAN DESIGN

whereby status is indicated by the headdress suppose any close connection between the may be an explanation also for the frequent function of the objects on which these patterns depiction of headgear on the carved or painted are carved — bowls, spoons, spatulas, house figures. decorations — and mourning or death, and I Nothing is more certain than that very few do not believe there is any. of the figures are portraits, and it is impossible Another example will show the inconsistency to determine from its art objects the kind of and apparent arbitrariness of the stylization. headdress worn by a given tribe, not to speak The Buka inhabit the islands of Nissan, Buka of its function. Certain correlations may be and Bougainville, the northern Solomons. In made, however, between the convention a dopt- these islands married women wear a kind of ed by the tribe in treating this part of the hood made of pandanus leaves (Parkinson, figure and their customs. I have tried to dis- Pigs. *80 and *81). They never take off the cover the type of headdress used in each of the hoods unless they are sure they are alone and localities whose treatment of the human figure put them on as soon as there is any indication I have defined, but unfortunately ethnological of someone approaching. 3 details are scanty and unsatisfactory. Young boys of ten to twelve years may be Suggestions from two of the regions may, chosen by patrons for initiation in the rukruk however, be made. It is likely that more society. They are taken to a place in the woods certain correlations are possible also in other where a hut has been erected in which peculiar localities but it is impossible to predict, if balloon-shaped hats made of pandanus leaves several choices are possible, which will be are kept. Each boy is given one of these and is made, and it is not improbable that the head- required to stay in the secret place until his dress of a neighboring tribe may be depicted hair grows long enough to hold it on. When this has happened he may visit his relatives instead of the one used by the artist. I have remarked (p. 25) the cowl-like effect and his village (Parkinson, Pig. *121 ; Frizzi, of the Admiralty Island figure. The young Figs. *7, *8, *30). A woman sees a novice men of the Matankor tribe of the Admiralties, without his hat only on penalty of death ; the the tribe which produces the most and best same punishment is meted out for entering the of the art objects of the islands, take great secret enclosure. pains with their coiffure. The hair is carefully A youth wears the hat until his hair is long combed, parted and dressed and the whole enough to fill the hat, whereupon it is burnt fastened and decorated with an elaborate ceremonially with much feasting and exchange comb. 1 This is not, however, the headdress of gifts.4 Frizzi is of the opinion that the figures designated by the carved figures. depicted in low relief carving or in painting As a sign of mourning men and women wear on paddles (canoe and ceremonial), cocoanut a peculiar head covering of barkcloth, so con- scrapers, clubs and houseboards represent the structed that it may be fastened around the ceremonial headdress of the initiates. There neck. Many of the women have the head can be no doubt that this headdress is realistishaved and this custom might account for the cally portrayed on the sculptures used for canoe convention of the carvings but not for the prow decoration (Frizzi, *39; Bossert, I, *307, line which is usually present on the forehead. 9). But if we are to judge by form it seems to The mourning band gives the effect of a me the human figure pictured on the objects mentioned by Frizzi takes the shape of the cylinder and the carved figures never do.2 It is difficult to understand why the carvers head covering from the pointed hood of the should have chosen to conventionalize the married women. Some figures (Frizzi, Fig.*37, c) indication of mourning even if the upper part are shown with round heads, apparently without of the head were considered important. I can coverings, but most of them are pointed. There find no information that might lead one to is no indication of the sex on the figures. 1 2

Parkinson, 181, 183. Ibid. 183, Pig. *63.

3 4

Parkinson, 239. Parkinson, 300, 301 ; Frizzi, 18—19.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES If they do represent the women's hood, it is surprising that it should have been chosen for the most ubiquitous and most decorative of the human figures, whereas the young men's hats should be depicted in sculpture. If, on the other hand, the figures all represent the balloon hats of male novitiates, it may be considered equally surprising that hats worn only temporarily should be made the basis for the artistic stylization of the human figure (Pig. 72, k). The fact is more readily understandable, however, since the secret societies are considered of the utmost importance in the life of these tribes. At any rate, the problem as to why one tribe should choose one type out of all the possibilities in its experience, and another, some other, remains unsolved. Besides the importance of masks or maskcostumes in Melanesian societies and the relation of either or both to headdress, the great importance of the skull cult may be suggested for the importance and exaggeration of the human head when entire human figures are drawn or carved. Many of these natives are head-hunters, even those who do not make special expeditions for head trophies preserve the heads of their dead and keep them about the dwellings or clubhouses. The preservation of skulls, the drying of heads, the building up of facial muscles of clay have become highly developed, if gruesome, arts. This fact alone seems to me sufficient to explain the relative size of the head in the area. It may be remarked here that the heads of animals as well as humans may be disproportionately large. Two examples of crocodile prow ornaments from the Sepik district illustrate this point (von Luschan, Fig. *21).x The crocodiles are quite realistic but the head of one occupies at least half of the available space and the head of the other somewhat more than one-third. The analysis of the human figure in the localities chosen as pivotal shows the following tendencies in the treatment of details: The position of the arms is raised and outside the space occupied by the body itself in the Admiralties, Solomons, Massim and Geelvink Bay regions. Another characteristic of the last 1

Baes. Arch. 1.

143

three localities is the fact that the arms very frequently run into spirals and become purely decorative. In the same regions very little interest is displayed in depicting features. The Admiralty artist uses sculpture to indicate eyes, nose, and mouth but does with very little; the Solomon painter indicates eyes, nose, and mouth emphatically but with no detail; the Massim carver uses line, but sparingly also ; the etcher of Geelvink Bay has no interest in portraying features except when he shows his figure in profile and then only roughly. In all of these localities there is little interest in sex distinction ; the Admiralties indicate it, like the facial features, roughly; the Solomon, Massim, and Geelvink Bay figures could as well be male as female. The primary interest in depicting the human figure in these four localities is decoration, and naturalism continually gives way to this interest. In the Admiralties the decoration is stiffly rectilinear — Micronesian, we may say — in the other three regions it is curvilinear with emphasis on the spiral. The emphasis on sex, which is doubtless the expression of phallic cults to a large extent, makes an entirely different division in the area under consideration, for it is found in the Sepik River district and in New Ireland. Another distinction allies these two regions, although it includes also a number of others where sex is not always apparent. This is the indication of the eye, or of the eye socket, by the use of a plane which meets the forehead at an angular ridge. This treatment is used in the Sepik River district, in New Ireland, in the Solomons, and in New Zealand. A more frequent variation on this thçme is the preservation of the angle formed by the meeting of the eyebrow and eye-socket ridge and the addition of a more or less realistic eye. This treatment is used as well as the more simple ones in the Sepik region and in New Ireland; the Maori and Solomon Islanders may use a shell inlay instead of carving out the details of the eye. One device or the other is used in regions farther east; in the New Hebrides, in New Caledonia, in Fiji, and in the Marquesas.

144

MELANESIAN DESIGN

When the final conclusions, based on a satisfactory amount of material with accurate provenience, are drawn, the use of planes meeting at an angle as a sculptural device will be found to be of great significance. The relationships of the art styles using them will then be more accurately determined and perhaps the occurrence of the device will be shown to be more continuous geographically. At present it is known to be used extensively to represent all parts of the human body in the Geelvink Bay region and in the Marquesas ; to represent the head and parts of the face in the Sepik River region, in New Ireland, in the Solomons, in the New Hebrides, in New Caledonia, in Fiji, and even in Hawaii and Easter Island. This peculiar distribution does not allow a determination of the device as purely Melanesian or Polynesian, but this fact should not disturb us since other motives have also proved to be distributed from west to east rather than suddenly disappearing at a particular north-south line on the map. It is more than likely that this sculptural device, although in the Sepik region and in New Ireland found in connection with it, has no close relationship to the exaggerated depiction of sex. CROCODILE, LIZARD, FISH

The somewhat lengthy discussion of the spiral and human figure is suggestive of the method I should pursue had I the opportunity of making an exhaustive study of these two subjects. Such a study would show the relationship between representation and decoration in localities other than those here analyzed in detail, between the spiral and crocodile motives in the Massim area, for example. With the same limitations, namely, that the motives be essentially realistic, I shall discuss very briefly three designs which are used in the Admiralties and in Tami, the crocodile or (and) lizard — they are often so highly conventionalized as to be indistinguishable — and the fish. PI. vii, 18 and 20 show clearly two different conventions in treatment of the Admiralty Island lizard. Either of these could be a croc-

odile, but it is possible that Pl. vu, 18 represents a lizard and Pl. vu, 20, a crocodile. Smooth, curved masses with no details are used for the former. There is no indication of toes. The elongated, pointed head of Pl. vu, 20, the representation of what seem to be scales by means of small squares, and the differentiated toes may show this figure to be a crocodile rather than a lizard. The real obstacle to the definition of the Admiralty Island crocodile is the fact that it is used very seldom on bowls, so infrequently as to make any general remarks conclusive. The artists do, however, use the motive frequently on other objects, as for example, on the drum of PI. xxiv, 69, for sculptures like PL xxiv, 70 which seems to be carved for purely aesthetic reasons, and for canoe prows. Several features may be noted: the prominent (often long) head, exaggeration of snout and of teeth, the accurate smallness of the eye, the use of typically Admiralty Island decorative elements on various parts of the body. The head is often the only part of the crocodile used on canoe carvings, but when more of the body is shown as in PL xxiv, 70, no details of the feet are carved. The leg is bent as is the human leg. An interesting circular design composed of "arm" elements is used where the legs join the body. Scales of the animal are represented by dark-colored diamonds outlined in white. The same details are used on the canoe prows I have seen from the same region, but the ornamentation is much more pretentious and the scales are represented by relief carving rather than by painting, and that carving is excellent. It is even more difficult to differentiate the lizard and crocodile (or even fish) of the Tami since these designs have become so highly decorative as to have eclipsed interest in representation. I have previously noted (pp. 36 ff.) the fact that end patterns of bowls may be conventionalizations of lizard or crocodile patterns. If this is so, they have become primarily decorative by development in various ways. The end patterns of PL LIV, 158 are the most realistic of these and at that cannot be said to be very highly so. In the discussion of

G E N E R A L

P R I N C I P L E S

145

Tami bowl patterns the fact was noted that the same elements, by a process of recombination and variation of proportions, may be used to form crocodile or fish. When these head, rectangular, toothed, ribbon and lozenge elements are arranged as elongated masses, the stylized crocodiles of P I S . L X V I I , 203, b; L X X I X ; Lxxx, 222—224 result. In the last two examples the feet are much reduced and P I . L X X X , 224 shows a tendency toward decoration. Feet are treated the same way in PI. L X X X , 223 but the double-headed figure has only the most remote resemblance to a crocodile, if indeed there is any. The pattern running from one side to the other of PI. x x x v is another example which shows that apparently a crocodile was being depicted. PI. L X X X , 223, b is neither flesh, fowl, nor good red herring. It is simply a double-headed monster made up of exactly the same elements constantly, used, with enlargement of the legs and claws and general distortion. The comparison of lizard and crocodile designs is exceedingly meager for although they are sufficiently common in the Tami area to be readily defined I do not know enough of them in other areas. I call attention to one from New Zealand, PI. C X L I X , 635, a carving on a coffin. 1 Besides being realistic in form it is also highly decorative, every inch of surface being covered with the curved designs based on a spiral included in gores. Seligmann, Fig. *22 and PI. *xxxvn 2 illustrate two more from South Papua but since it is futile to generalize from so few examples this subject must be left for some future opportunity. Pis. X X X I I I , 90 ; X L I I , C ; L X X V I I ; L X X V I I I show the Tami conception of fish motives on the bowls. They are composed of the usual elements but the masses are broader and shorter than those used for crocodiles and monsters, the head is kept within the body mass, eyes and gills being represented by curves similar to trademarks, and tails being broad though fish-like. Wings (fins) and a peculiar appendage are characteristic of Pis. L X X V I I and L X X V I I I and suggest that they represent a flying fish.

My knowledge of the fish motive in the surrounding area is as scanty as that regarding the crocodile, but there are two regions where it has become as highly stylized as among the Tami and where it is primarily decorative, even if it has close relationships to religion and ceremonial. One of the localities is the Geelvink Bay district. A design commonly used — ^ΤϊΤ-^) in this region is one which, though not as Pig. 74 realistic as has been demanded for this comparison, is suggestive of a fish. It is illustrated in Fig. 74 (from Fuhrmann) and is one of the few massive elements in the pyrographical composition of this district. An element which is almost identical with this is the "body" of the "bird" design of the dance stick illustrated by Lewis 4: PI. * X X X I I I from the Trobriands. Lest we fall into the pitfall of speculation, let us turn to a region where there can be no doubt as to the meaning of the representation, namely, the Solomons. The best available illustrations are from Sa'a and Ulawa, the southeast islands of the group. In these islands there is much ceremonial related to fishing. It is a great temptation to analyze the art of the region, especially as Ivens 3 has given many first-hand interpretations of the elements. I shall limit myself, however, to noting the artistic way in which fish are used as parts of the body of sea spirits, head, back, feet, hands, etc. (Ivens, pp. *33, *201, *204, PI. *ix, b), and the variation in the drawing of fish, each kind though conventionalized being nevertheless recognizable (Ivens, p. *306, porpoise and "Watch for the Fish Hawk" ; p. •811, sick fish; pp. *136, *315, swordfish; p. *138, shark, [rare]; p. *136, bonito). The use of graceful fish curves is certainly a local convention, for sea spirits may be represented as well by birds placed in the same positions (Ivens, p. *202); birds may be used also as decorative elements where fish might be used and their names and conventionalizations are kept distinct (Ivens, p. *306, sandpipers; p. *315, birds of flotsam; p. *308,

1

3

2

Courtesy of the Bishop Museum, Honolulu. The Melanesiane of British New Guinea.

19

Melanesiane of the Southeast Solomons.

M E L A N E SI A N D E S I G N

146

diving booby). The Solomon Island bird has been discussed (p. 112ff.) in connection with the etchings on shell used as breast ornaments. BIRD

The discussion has been led quite logically, because of a compositional device of the southeast Solomons, from a discussion of the fish motives to that of the bird. In the Admiralties the bird is used as a sculptural motive only, no bird design being used in low relief or etching. Pl. x x i n , 66 is typical of the bowl form (another example is Parkinson, Pig. *58). The bowl has its usual round, or nearly round, shape. The head of the bird is shaped, with little regard for features, at one end and a spreading tail at the other. A unique feature is the wings spread on each side by a clumsy extension of the bowl. The wing and tail extensions are decorated in typical Admiralty zigzag, triangular, lozenge, or "arm" elements. Another use of a bird, so highly conventionalized and devoid of details as to be hardly recognizable as such, is a little carving extending down into the bowl in front of the handles of Pl. iv, b, c. Pl. x x v , 72 shows the position of four similar figures although it is not clear enough to show their form. Several bowls have a tiny figure perched on top of the well-carved spiral handles like that of Pl. XX, 60. The bird is very simple, no details are shown, but a circular geometric motive is used where the wings should be, comparable to that used where the legs meet the body of the crocodile of PL x x i v , 70. The Tami have a category of bowls, to which a relatively few belong, carved in the form of birds. Heads and tails are extensions of the body which is usually elongated like the form of an ordinary bowl. The Tami feel no need for representing wings. Indeed, were it not for the few examples where there is a tail (PL LXXXV, 228), it would be possible to consider some of the heads as turtle, rather than bird, h e a d s ( P i s . LI, 1 4 0 ; LXXXVI).

The body of the bird (bowl) is decorated with ordinary Tami elements, banding, and 1

Die Malanggane von Tombára.

"mouth" designs, (for example, Pis. LI, 140; LXXXV, 227, 228), and triangular gores (PL LXXXVI). The arrangement of head and tail is comparable with that from the Admiralties, but here the head has more decorative, even realistic, detail, and the tail is very much narrower. Uniquely Tami-like is the chain motive used as comb and breast of the bird (PL LXXXV, 227, 228). Bossert, I, *323 illustrates stern and prow carvings of a Tami canoe. The carving is done in more planes than the bowls, it is more highly decorated but falls, nevertheless, quite within the limits of the style defined. The bird (or turtle) has the same pessimistic expression, the chain motive as comb, and larger and more numerous — because of the elongation — "mouth" patterns along the neck. It seems likely that the end of the canoe represents a mouth which is swallowing the bird, a not uncommon Tami composition. I t is probable that both Admiralty Island and Tami bird sculptures show relationship with the elaborate and complicated bird forms carved in the round in New Ireland (Krämer, *61, *63, *66, *67, *68, *71).1 In this island there is a tremendous development of realistic art together with highly decorative forms achieved by painting and openwork carving. Its affiliations can only be hinted at since the style is so complicated as to demand its own definition, a task beyond the scope of this work. Another region where bird forms are comparable is Podena, an island northwest of New Guinea (von Sydow, *178), but the available material from this region is far too scanty. I feel that no useful comparison can be made with the so-called bird motives of the Massim District and the actual bird motive of the Solomons for several good reasons. The Massim material is exceedingly complex, relatively little has been published, furthermore, it is done in low relief or incising, a different technique from the sculpture of our area. Although some of the Massim elements are considerably more realistic than those of PL LII from the Tami region which are comparable, it is, I think, somewhat questionable

GENERAL PRINCIPLES whether all the conventionalizations which seem to us bird-like are so to the natives. This question arises because the Tami who use the identical element, and that frequently and characteristically, never see it as a bird. It is not unlikely that the Tami may have taken the idea from the Massim and reinterpreted it in their own way, or even that they use it with no interpretation. On the other hand, it seems to me just as possible that the Massim artists may have seen in the form the possibility of development into a bird head and have drawn it in that position, later giving it a body. Certainly there are many forms other than birds which might have suggested it. These natives were constantly grinding shells whose cross section was suggestive of these forms (cp. Pig. 75)1. Furthermore, boar's

147

from the Carolines, von Sydow, *236) and it is possible that the form is also. I must leave, therefore, the comparison of forms with these few suggestions, their validity must depend upon careful and detailed analysis of other complicated styles. COMPOSITION

The analysis of the use, treatment, and distribution of art elements explains a number of things not possible of explanation if each art be taken as a whole. It shows, for example, how a single element of one technique may be taken over in a different locality in the same technique, or how a pattern may be used in an entirely different one. In other cases whole designs may be copied but generally they are revamped to fit the taste of the natives who adopt them. The readaptation may be evident in the designs themselves, but it shows itself more clearly in composition. I have discussed at length the composition of woodcarvings on bowls of the Admiralty Islands and Tami, and the composition of the very simple and restricted surface treated in the tortoiseshell carvings of the kapkaps. The particulars of each of these techniques are interesting and they show also that a style of composition holding for one type of decoration teeth of abnormal growth had approximately does not necessarily apply to other types made the same curve. The numerous possibilities for by the same tribe. There are characteristics, observation of the forms in nature, and the however, which seem to be fundamental and fact that all these arts discussed are highly which are found in. more than one craft, sophisticated, showing that the natives had although it is never possible to predict how not only skill, but also imagination, all these stable they will remain. The woodcarver of the Admiralties is intercomplicated factors restrain me from a dogested primarily in form and in carrying out his matic assumption of origin. One of the same reasons prevents a com- decoration in mass. Both of these biases carry parison with birds from the Solomons, namely, over to the tortoiseshell carvings where the use lack of acquaintance with the material and of line might be more effective. They are again the fact that Ivens' illustrations, for example, displayed in the decoration of the hourglassare in line, painting or incising rather than in shaped gourds whose surface presents insculpture. More comparable surely, are the numerable problems to the decorator (Pis. elaborate inlaid bird bowls from the Solomons CXLIV, 608—614; CXLV, 615-621). Although (von Sydow, *196; Bossert, I, *327, 6) or bird the carver was content with a small amount sculpture (Bossert, I, Pl. *xxv, 1). The inlaid of decorated surface on his bowls, the tordecorations of shell are in form and technique toiseshell carver, perhaps because of his mealmost certainly Micronesian (compare bowls dium, must fill the whole space with detail, 1

From Finsch, Südseearbeiten, Pl. χιιι, 298. 19*

148

MELANESIAN DESIGN

and the pyrographer, to a certain extent, split the difference. As long as the gourd decorator stuck to depicting masses on his surface, even though a difficult one, he was successful. But he is not content with leaving large unfilled spaces, as is the bowl carver, and insists on filling them in with line decorations. In the use of line he is not a total failure but it is his weakest point. In no case are the gourd surfaces entirely filled with minute details as they are in New Ireland, in the Massim District, or in New Zealand, for example. The same remarks hold for bamboo lime containers (PL CXLVI, 622—624) and for etchings on shell (PL CXLVI, 625). One reason which may account for the difference in the amount of free space left on bowls and on gourds is the fact that the bowl is an artificial form, the gourd a natural one. The Admiralty Island artist, no matter what he may be decorating, lays out for himself no elaborate panels or peculiarly shaped surfaces. The most complicated ones, such as the gourds and the canoe ornaments (Pl. XXII, 65), the drum (PL xxiv, 69), crocodile (PL xxiv, 70), the table (PL xxiv, 71), the houseboard (PL xxvi, 74), the steps (PL xxvi, 75), he merely fills with the few simple designs at his command. His attention to mass lets him allow plenty of space between his simple patterns (PL xxvi, 74 is an exception) and it is more than likely he sees this space as an intrinsic part of his larger composition. He has a sense for simple rhythms and for the most part arranges patterns symmetrically. In those cases where symmetry is lacking, it is due to poor technique rather than to the artist's taste. When a number of different kinds of patterns are used on a bowl surface, except for a very general feeling for symmetry, there is little evidence that the artist sees the designs as a part of a unified whole. Banding (with one exception) is a decorative device unrelated to reliefs on the bowl wall, although these reliefs are well spaced with relation to handles. Tami art, with strong emphasis on woodcarving, is much richer than that of the Admiralty Islands. The artist is primarily a designer and a successful one. He achieves his

effects by the use of line and mass in about equal proportions, line being used slightly more than mass. He, like the Admiralty Islander, has a few primary elements from which he compounds his patterns, but unlike the Admiralty Islander, there is hardly any limit to the effects he can achieve by varying the shape of his design, the proportions of his elements, and their position. Not only does he secure variety by changing these features, but he dares to combine his designs, making finely unified bands by connecting center and end patterns, connecting end designs by nicely executed bands ; he even combines the fundamental center and end patterns with realistic sculpture, using the end of the bowl as a profile for the face of a spirit. And finally he combines end or mouth patterns, or banding with realistic sculpture in the form of birds, the bowl being the body. In another respect his surfaces resemble those of the Admiralties in that designs are not crowded so that every inch of space is covered, but many of the woodcarvings have ample unfilled space between which the carving shows up to its best effect. Canoes which are carved and painted are an exception to this rule as are the low reliefs on cocoanutshell cups and tortoiseshell bracelets. It is impossible to say why there should be these diverse fundamental principles in the different techniques. There is no technical evidence that this type of art is later than the woodcarving for the objects are well made and decorated. But the style of composition on canoes and incised objects seems to be an intrusion from the Massim District where the tendency is to cover every inch of surface with decoration. The details of the composition as well as its general character substantiate this impression. The use of PL LII elements, frequently in pairs, is common to both regions, as is the use of the ribbon design. More strictly compositional is the development of the gore among the Tami, successful and graceful as far as it has gone, but so far not by any means as prominent as in Massim art. A more general and fundamental similarity is the avoidance of symmetry. This trait is

GENERAL PRINCIPLES different from that in the Admiralties where asymmetry is undoubtedly due to mistakes in judging space. Among the Tami and, as far as I can judge, in the Massim District also, the better a composition is conceived and the more carefully it is carried out, the more likely it is to be asymmetrical, and this always with the preservation of perfect balance. Although carried out very differently in the two localities another fundamental likeness is apparent, that is, the tendency in both areas away from realism toward decoration. In Tami this is achieved by combining fine lines and adding decorative elements so as to leave merely the suggestion — sometimes not even that — of the apparently realistic forms. In doing this, elements of PI. LII, Fig. 14, and the elongated curved triangle are most frequently used by the Tami, some form of the spiral, on the human figure, for example, by the Massim. Like the Tami, the Massim use line and mass extensively in carving as well as in painting and pyrography (Pis. CXLII and CXLIII). In depicting the human figure the Massim use line in the form of circles to represent what they consider important details of the human body, navel, breasts and eyes (PI. CXLIII, 601, a, 604, 606). An additional element, Fig. 78, is used with the circle for the eye. This figure is one of the most familiar decorative Tami devices; it is never used as an eye by them, but rather as line ornamentation of designs (fish, for example) or as a trademark. It does not seem to me impossible, or even unlikely, that the Massim have taken this element from the Tami. A somewhat similar element is an interesting compositional device of the Tami, especially when we consider its occurrence in other parts of the world. The Massim consider it important to depict the navel and breasts of a human being. The Tami neglect these, indeed leave no place where they might be indicated. But they do consider it important to represent joints and they do so with a kind of eye motive, Fig. 72, d, j, which they consistently place at knee, shoulder, elbow, and wrist (Pis. xxvin; X X X , 8 1 ; LXIX, 2 0 4 ) . I n P I . LXIX, 2 0 4 , a, t h e

element used at the shoulder is identical with the Massim eye (cp. also Fuhrmann, *20, *42). The importance of indicating the joint,

149

even though in Tami it is obvious because the bend is indicated, is interesting as a stylistic device since some such device is considered necessary in other regions of the world, in the Marquesas, for example, where the element signifies a joint, socket, or cavity, and is always used where such a part of the body is to be shown. Although it may be by transference, it seems to me very likely that the spiral used at the joints by the Maori has the same function. The same idea is found most highly developed on the Northwest Coast of America where eye motives, exquisite in line execution, are used customarily at joints. The correspondence of general principles of taste, of detailed elements, and of composition between Tami and the Massim seem to my mind adequate proof of influence in both directions, if not intimate, then indirect. It is impossible that such features, and so many of them, as well as their combination, could have grown up absolutely independently especially when the regions are so close. Repeatedly we are brought face to face with the enigma of New Guinea, that is, the question of similarities of cultures belonging to non-contiguous, inimical tribes. We know that in other regions there are few if any geographical barriers to the spread of culture, that language is none, and we must add here, I think, that convention and permanent animosity are likewise not necessarily barriers. Southward along the coast of New Guinea preference for curved patterns becomes more marked in the Massim District and continues at least as far as New Zealand. Considering the details, as well as the composition of the art of the two districts, it is impossible not to note certain similarities. The use of the curve and rarely a straight line is one outstanding likeness. Even where straight lines would be technically more convenient and artistically more appropriate, the Maori carver uses curves. Of a very fine collection of Maori carved and painted objects pictured by Hamilton, PI. *xxvii, Fig. 2, / stands out as unique because it is decorated by straight lines in fields laid out by straight lines. I have previously pointed out the similarities between the Massim and New Zealand

150

MELANESIAN DESIGN

spirals and their differences. It is certain that the Maori derived their spirals from at least two different sources, one of which, the circular double interlocked spiral (Fig. 71), may have been indigenous. The ellipsoid branched spiral (Fig. 70) seems to me to have too many similarities, both general and specific, to the Geelvink Bay curvilinear art to be accidental. The Maori are known to be late comers in New Zealand. They may not have been the first inhabitants of the islands. As Haddon suggests,1 it is possible that they were preceded by a Melanesian population. There is no art in Polynesia from which a close relationship in details and composition can be derived. The patterns of Samoa and Tahiti, from which islands the Maori are supposed to have come, are radically different, and even the Marquesans who have a versatile art style have little use for spirals or scrolls. Nor do they favor large connected patterns as do the Maori. It seems to me probable that the painting designs of the Maori — on rafters mainly, but occasionally on other objects (paddle, Hamilton, p. *324) — are to be assigned to the older pre-Maori population which were doubtless taken over willingly by the Polynesians during the period when they were developing their art. Although I concede the possibility of origin with regard to the much-used circular spiral, I nevertheless emphasize once more the possibility of influence from the Massim District. The fact that the Maori used two techniques in tattooing, one a cutting, the other a carving technique 2 , also points to the fact that it was not original with them. Mrs. Handy 3 believes that they were in contact with the Tahitians sufficiently long to learn the art of tattooing but not intimately enough, or perhaps long enough, to learn the technique. They therefore used their carving technique on the human body, carving out the flesh, so to speak. In doing so they transferred the designs of the wood to the flesh. Nothing is more apparent, however, than the fact that by the time the best tattooing was done, the carving and painting arts were equally developed. For, practically all tattoo patterns are 1

Evolution in Art, 1895, p. 71.

a skilful combination of the spirals used in both. I shall briefly summarize the likenesses between New Zealand and Massim art, many of which are the same as those between Massim and Tami. The gore is a favorite device of the Maori artist. It is executed in practically the same way as in the Massim District making allowance for the differences in the spiral, that of the Maori being most often double and interlocking. In this connection it is instructive to point out a great difference between the Maori and the Massim ways of laying out fields. A strong tendency of the Massim artist is to lay out his field inlongnarrowpanels(Lewis4:Pls.*xxxv— X L I V ) . Gourds (PI. CXLII) are divided also into primary and secondary panels, although they are not narrow. Other Massim objects (as well as the subdivisions of the gourd panels) are laid out in the most peculiar and indescribable forms. With the exception of the rafter patterns, which are naturally well suited to this device, the Maori does not usually subdivide his original field into panels. If he does so he does it subtly by introducing massive curved portions (the masses in their turn are ornamented) which leave unusual shapes for openwork decoration (Hamilton, PI. * v n ; von Sydow, *209). Surfaces as definite as those of the boxes illustrated by Hamilton, PI. *LX would certainly have been decorated in elongated panels by the Massim artist. Instead the Maori carver has treated each surface as an entity and distributed his ornamentation evenly over the entire surface. The lid of the trinket box of Hamilton, PL *LXI, Fig. 2 is divided lengthwise and that of the same plate, Fig. *1 is divided lengthwise and crosswise but these are only specific examples of a great variety of methods of laying out the decorative field. Hamilton, PI. *LXI, Fig. 2 shows a more common device of the Maori than the panels, the division of the surface by the arc of an ellipse. The paintings of the door and window of the house illustrated by Hamilton, PL *xii, Fig. 2 are other examples, in this case carried out in painting. But the fascination of Maori art is leading 2

Robley, p. 55.

3

Personal information.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES me into an analysis which it well deserves but which is not within the scope of this study. The last-mentioned illustration from Hamilton which intrigued me brings out another similarity with the Massim District. This particular painting is asymmetrical. I was going to say that, whereas the Massim artist prefers asymmetry, the Maori always arranges his patterns symmetrically and remains consistent also in his arrangement of details. I believe a careful analysis of available material might show more examples of asymmetry, but generally the Maori strives for regularity and symmetry. The Tami, Massim, and Maori belong to a single group of artists whose tendency it is to discount naturalism in their liking for, and development of, ornamentation. But whereas the Tami and Massim make almost equal use of mass and line, the Maori pays stricter attention to line. He may break up his decorated area by the use of masses, but even then insists on line decoration of those masses. Incised lines and openwork carving are the means he uses to attain his ends. In this connection I cannot refrain from pointing out a detail which is identical with Massim procedure. Hamilton, PI. *Lxrv, Fig. 2 illustrates a feather box. On the sides of it are highly conventionalized human figures with eyes of incised lines identical with Massim and Tami details, Fig. 73, their position, however, differing. Although on the lid of the same box inlaid shell is used for the eyes of the figure, additional pointed cuts are made above and below the eyes. Like the Massim, and unlike the Tami, the Maori covers his entire surface with decoration. When plain surfaces are left one may be reasonably sure that the carving is unfinished. Among the Tami joints are represented by an eye motive. In the face of the fact that tattooing is exceedingly important to the Maori and that it is represented on the carvings, it seems to me more than possible that the spirals often used on the human figures may emphasize the joints. This seems to me plainly evident from figures which are not fully carved, the spirals are carved first at shoulders, elbows, and knees (Hamilton, p. *131). An important difference between the Maori

151

and Massim art is found in the human figure. It has the general features of the area in common, but details which seem significant are not the same in the two regions. I am keenly aware of the fact that our next locality, the Geelvink Bay region of Dutch New Guinea, is a long way from eastern New Guinea and western Polynesia whose possible relationships have just been discussed. Geographically the region most reasonable for western relationships would be the various localities of the Sepik and Fly Rivers. But culture does not follow reasonable laws, and the little art known from these regions, while having certain resemblances to the art here discussed, can be seen without much analysis to have a style peculiar to itself. There are general similarities, of course, and a final analysis of the whole region will doubtless show peculiar dove-tailing of one detail and another, but the fact remains that these regions must be set apart. The purpose of this chapter is to make tentative suggestions as to relationships and I therefore, admitting my temerity in doing so, call attention to the fact that many of the characteristics of the southeastern New Guinea regions (including Tami) and New Zealand are found in the region of Geelvink Bay. The features to which I draw attention are shown in the flat work (pyrography or incising on bamboo). They are: the use of the hook and branched spirals which are closely related to the painted patterns of New Zealand, the differences being not in form but in arrangement (cp., for example, Fuhrmann, *ιιι, Orn. 8 with Hamilton, rafter patterns, *3, *5-10, *15-18, *21, *22, *25, *26, *29). The entire surface of the object is covered, usually in bands or panels, the interest being primarily in masses, which, however, are delicate, rarely heavy. Emphasis is on decoration again, rather than on naturalism, in those cases where realistic figures are employed. The entire field is divided into wide or narrow bands and there is skilful representation of pattern. Fuhrmann, Orn. *4 and *5 show the exact division of the bands by the arc of an ellipse, a feature noted in Maori rafter and house paintings and also on carved boxes.

152

MELANESIAN DESIGN

The material available for the cursory glance I can give it leads me to the tentative conclusion that there is considerable interest in symmetrical arrangement and regular rhythm, although there may be skilful variation of small details, and that one band is placed independently of other bands on the same object (Fuhrmann, 0. *iv, *v, Orn. 11; 0. *vn, Orn. 19, 21). Although diagonal placement of elements has given ample opportunity for the development of the gore, it is nevertheless absent. The human figure treated in this flat technique is similar to that of the Admiralty Islands, Solomons, and Massim District in the following characteristics: arms upraised outside the body mass, usually above the head; facial features not detailed; sex weakly indicated ; and ornamentation dominating naturalism. It is similar to the Solomon and Massim localities in that the limbs frequently become spirals or curved lines which are purely decorative. A characteristic which allies the sculptures of this region with the Solomons is the use of planes meeting at an angle, a very pronounced feature of the Geelvink Bay region (Fuhrmann, *80—83). That many of these characteristics are to be ascribed to Indonesian sources is perhaps inevitable (cp. Kühn, 1 Fig. *67); indeed the ultimate sources of many designs will doubtless be traced to India and China. So

far it is difficult to see how a complicated combination of ideas could have travelled from Geelvink Bay to New Zealand. But it is also difficult to understand how earrings of shell and horn found in Assam2 can be almost identical with a kapkap from Nissan (PI. cxvi, 437). The ways of culture are devious. This analysis has shown, if nothing else, that there is nothing in ethnology more to be expected than the unexpected, that facts inherent in objects may give a clue to relationships which have been much obscured by the vicissitudes of race, language, and legend. If I could carry out this study to its ultimate conclusion I should carefully analyze the art of the following localities in the order given: Massim District, New Zealand, Sepik River (with special attention to local differences within the region), Fly River (preferably the upper reaches), then the Geelvink Bay Region, and later the more southerly districts of Dutch New Guinea. I should then devote particular attention to New Ireland 3 and the Solomons and finally to New Britain, the art of which I believe to be as distinctive in comparison with those I have here touched upon as the Sepik River. In each of these localities I should study each technique for itself, but the final correlations will have to be made across techniques, for ideas, like interpretations, are exceedingly unstable.

1

interpretations of them, but he has taken only a few examples from each technique and has done nothing with the composition.

2 3

Die Kunst der Primitiven. MA GW LVI (1926): 117. Stephan, in Südseekunst, has made a beginning of the analysis of elements and patterns, and gives also sane

APPENDIX Since the region under consideration has been, since its earliest discovery, subject to extreme nationalism, the effect is seen in the use of place names. The Germans have given German names to many localities, the English have given English names to the same localities. At the same time both may use the native names for the same places. But native names are not always in agreement, for an explorer in asking a native the name of a place may have in mind the whole island. The native gives the name of a mountain, No. on Map 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

English Cretin Gazelle Peninsula —

Humboldt Bay Tupinier Island In Admiralty Islands —

Duke of York Island Finschhaven Berlinhaven Territory of the Bukaua Territory of the Jabim Territory of the Kai Territory of the Logauleng Brumer Island Freshwater Bay (Kerama District) Milne Bay Port Moresby Yule Island Bartle Bay Mekeo District Elema District Territory of Roro —

In Southeastern Dutch New Guinea Anchorite Islands Hermit Islands Sepik River Big Mala Little Mala German New Guinea

20

inlet, or village near the place discussed. Later someone else gets another name for the same place and blithely uses that. Consequently it is most confusing and difficult to read Melanesian references with any degree of satisfaction. In order to make the geographical terms used more intelligible to the reader, I append a short glossary giving English, German, and native names admitting as I do so, that it is far from satisfactory. If a native name is consistently used by all writers it is not included in the glossary. German

Tami Gazelle Halbinsel Hatzfeldhaven Humboldt Bai

Native Tami many local names

Seeadlerhaven Häniechhaven Neu Lauenburg Finschhaven Berlinhaven

Toaripi and Motumotu Bilibili Insel Anchoriten Luf Kaiserin-Augusta-Fluss

Kaiser Wilhelmsland

Bilibili Tugeri District Kaniet Luf Sepik Malaita (Spanish) Mala

MELANESIAN DESIGN

154 No. on Map

English

German

(Papuan Mandated Territory) New Britain Neu Pommern Rook Island Rook Island French Islands Französische Inseln New Ireland Neu Mecklenburg Astrolabe Bay Astrolabe Bai Ramu River Ramufluss Bismarck Archipelago Bismarck Archipel Caroline Islands Carolinen Northeast of New Ireland East of New Ireland Southeast of Aneri New Georgia In Southeast Solomon Group San Cristoval Bougainville Northern New Guinea near mouth of Sepik River Roissy Island Huon Gulf Long Island Small island between Rook and north coast of New Britain

Bougainville

Native

Umboi

Ramu (River) Palau (is one of them) Tanga Aneri Pinepil Ruviana |Sa'a 1 Ulawa Arosi

Schouten Islands Roissy Island Huongolf (Hüongolf) Maligep

BIBLIOGRAPHY A B B R E V I A T I O N S U S E D IN B I B L I O G R A P H Y A. f. A. Archiv für Anthropologie. ABKZAMD Abhandlungen und Berichte des Königlichen Zoologischen und Anthropologisch-Ethnologischen Museum zu Dresden. ANGN Abhandlungen der Naturhistorischen Gesellschaft zu Nürnberg. Anthrop. Anthropos. BANGN Beilage zu den Abhandlungen der Naturhistorischen Gesellschaft zu Nürnberg. Baes. Arch. Baessler Archiv. Bull. AMNH Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. Bull. BM Bulletin B . P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. FMADS Field Museum Anthropological Design Series. IAE Internationales Archiv für Ethnologie. JAFL Journal of American Folk-Lore. JAI Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

JSMVL Jahrbuch des städtischen Museums für Völkerkunde zu Leipzig. MAGW Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft zu Wien. Mem. BM Memoir Β . P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Occ. PBM Occasional Papers B. P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. PaAM Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History. PEMD Publicationen aus dem EthnographischenMuseum zu Dresden. RBAE Report Bureau of American Ethnology. UCal University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Z. f. E . Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. * refers to illustrations not in this work.

In the following bibliography I have listed only those books and articles which are used directly in this paper. A much greater amount of literature has been looked over, even read, but I feel it is unnecessary to list it if I have not used it directly. An excellent bibliography of South Sea literature may be found in Otto Finsch, Südseearbeiten, and I shall not repeat it all, but I have added the newer articles and books which seem pertinent. H E N R Y . The Evolution of Decorative Art. London. 1893. B A M L E R , G . Pädagogik der Tami. B A N G N X X : 1—24. Notizen zu einer ethnographischen Sammlung von den Tami-Inseln. ANGN 19 (1911): 47—65. Tami. In Neuhauss. Deutsch Neu-Guinea, Bd. I I I , 489—566. B I R O , L U D W I G . See Jankó. BLUM, H. Neu-Guinea und der Bismarck Archipel. Berlin. 1910. B O A S , F R A N Z . Primitive Art. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. 1927. B O S S E R T . See Hambruch. B U N Z E L , R U T H L. The Pueblo Potter. Columbia University Press. New York. 1929. BUSCHAN, G E O R G . Völkerkunde II. Strecker. Stuttgart. 1922—1926. C H A U V E T , S T E P H E N . Les Arts Indigènes en Nouvelle Guinée. Société d'Editions Géographiques, Maritimes et Coloniales. Paris. 1930. C O D R I N G T O N , R. H. The Melanesians. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1891. C O O T E , W A L T E R . The Western Pacific. London. 1 8 8 3 . E D G E - P A R T I N G T O N , J . Ethnographical Atlas of the Pacific Islands. E I C H H O R N , A. Die Herstellung von Muschelperlen aus Conus an der Insel Ponam. Baes. Arch. 5 (1915—1916): 279. 20» BALFOUR,

EMORY, Κ . P. The Island of Lanai. Bull. BM 12. F I N S C H , O T T O . Carolinen und Marianen. Sammlung gemeinverständlicher wissenschaftlicher Vorträge N. F . X I V serie, Heft 331—332: 1—600. Ethnologische Erfahrungen und Belegstücke aus der Südsee. Annalen des Κ . K. Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien. Wien. 1893. Samoafahrten. Ethnologischer Atlas. Leipzig. 1888. Südseearbeiten. Friederichsen. Hamburg. 1914. Über Bekleidung, Schmuck und Tätowirung der Papuas der Südostküste von Neu-Guinea. MAGW X V (1885): 12—33. F I S C H E R , H. W. Ethnographica von den Pësëchëm und aus Südwest Neu-Guinea. Nova Guinea V I I Nachtrag. F o x , C. E . The Threshold of the Pacific. Alfred Knopf. New York. 1925. F R I Z Z I - M Ü N C H E N , E R N S T . Ein Beitrag zur Ethnologie von Bougainville und Buka. Baes. Arch. Beiheft 6 : 1—56. F R O B E N I U S , L E O . Über Oceanische Masken. IAE X (1897): 207. F U H R M A N N , E R N S T . Neu-Guinea. Folkwang Verlag. Hagen i. W. 1922. Die Ethnologische Ausstellung der Neu-Guinea Companie. Original Mitteilungen aus der Ethnologischen Abteilung des Königlichen Museums zu Berlin. 1885. G R Ä B N E R , F . Völkerkunde der Santa Cruz Inseln. Etimologica I.

156

MELANE SIAN DESIGN

P. Die Melanesische Bogenkultur. Anthrop. 4 (1909): 726—780, 998—1032. G R A B O W S K Y , F. Grundtypus und Endresultat. IAE VII (1894): 103. G R E I N E R , R U T H . Polynesian Decorative Dssigns. Bull. BM7. G U P P Y , H. B. The Solomon Islands and their Natives. London. 1887. H A D D O N , A. C. The Decorative Art of British New Guinea. Academy House. Dublin. 1894. Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits. Vol. IV. Evolution iñ Art. London. 1895, 1902. The Secular and Ceremonial Dances of Torres Straits. IAE VI (1893): 157. and L A Y A R D , J . W. Report made by the Wollaston Expedition on the Ethnographical Collections from the Utakwa River, Dutch New Guinea. Reports on the Collections of the British Ornithologists Union Expedition and the Wollaston Expedition in Dutch New Guinea, 1910—1913. Vol. II. London. 1916. H A D D O N , E. B. The Dog-Motive in Bornean Art. J A I 35 (1905): 113—125. H A E B E R L I N , H. K. Coiled Basketry in British Columbia. RBAE 41. H A L E , H O R A T I O . United States Exploring Expedition under Command of Charles Wilkes, 1846. Ethnology and Philology. Vol. VI. H A M B R U C H , P A U L . Das Kunstgewerbe in Australien, in der Südsee und Indonesien. In Bossert, H. Th. Geschichte des Kunstgewerbes, Bd. I. Berlin. 1928. H A M I L T O N , A U G U S T U S . The Art Workmanship of the Maori Race in New Zealand. The New Zealand Institute. Wellington, N. Z. 1901. H A N D Y , E. S. C. Native Culture in the Marquesas. Bull. BM 9. H A N D Y , W . C . Marquesan Arts. Van Oest. Paris. In press. Tattooing in the Marquesas. Bull. BM 1. H E I N E - G E L D E R N , R O B E R T . Die Sammlungen aus Hinterindien und Assam im Besitze des Museums für Völkerkunde in München. MA GW LVI (1926): 114—125. I V E N S , W. G. The Melanesiane of the Southeast Solomons. Keagan Paul. London. 1927. Dictionary and Grammar of the Language of Sa'a and Ulawa, Solomon Islands. Carnegie Institution of Washington. 1918. The Island Builders of the Pacific. Seeley Service Company. London. 1930. J A N K Ó , J O H A N N . Beschreibender Katalog der Ethnographischen Sammlungen Ludwig Biró's aus Deutsch NeuGuinea (Astrolabe Bai). Ethnographische Sammlungen des Ungarischen Nationalmuseums III. Budapest. 1901. Budapest (Berlinhafen). Ibid. I. J E N N E S S , D. and B A L L A N T Y N E , A . The Northern D'Entrecasteaux. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1920. K L E I N T I T S C H E N , P. A. Die Küstenbewohner der GazelleHalbinsel. Herz-Jesu-Missionhaus, Hiltrup bei Münster (in Westfalen). 1906. K R Ä M E R , A U G U S T I N . Beiträge zu einer Monographie der Hermit-Inseln. Forschungsreise S. M. S. Planet 1906 bis 1907. Vol. V. Berlin. 1909. GRÄBNER,

Die Malanggane von Tombára. Georg Müller. München. 1925. K R Ä M E R , E L I Z A B E T H . Bei Kunstsinnigen Kannibalen der Südsee. Berlin. 1916. K R A U S E , F R I T Z . Zur Ethnographie der Insel Nissan. JSMVL Band 1: 4 4 ^ 1 5 9 . • See Schmaltz. K R I E G E R , M A X M I L I A N . Neu-Guinea. Bibliothek der Länderkunde. Berlin. Alfred Schall. K R O E B E R , A. L. The Arapaho. Bull. AMNH 18. K U B A R Y , J. Ethnographische Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Karolinen-Archipel. Leiden. 1892. KÜHN, H. Die Kunst der Primitiven. Delphin Verlag. München. 1923. L E H M A N N , J. Die Ornamentik der Natur und Halbnaturvölker. Frankfurt. 1920. L E W I S , A L B E R T B. Carved and Painted Designs from New Guinea. FMADS No. 5. Decorative Art of New Guinea Incised Designs. FMADS No. 4. L I N T O N , R A L P H . Archaeology of the Marquesas Islands. Bull. BM 23. L O W I E , R. H. Crow Indian Art. PaAM X X I (1922) : 275—322. Primitive Society. Boni and Liveright. New York. • 1925. VON L U S C H A N , F E L I X . Beiträge zur Ethnographie von NeuGuinea. In Krieger. Neu-Guinea. Berlin. Alfred Schall. 1899. Brandmalerei im Bismarck Archipel. Verhandlungen zur Völkerkunde der deutschen Schutzgebiete. Berlin. 1897. Zur Ethnographie des Kaiserin-Augusta-Flusses.Baes. Arch. 1 (1911): 103—117. M A C C U R D Y , G. G. A Study in Chiriquian Antiquities. New Haven. 1911. M A C G R E G O R , W I L L I A M . British New Guinea. John Murray. London. 1897. M A L I N O W S K I , B. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. George Routledge and Sons. London. 1922. M E I E R , P. J. Mythen und Sagen der Admiralitäts Insulaner. Anthrop. 2 (1907): 646—667; 933—941; 3 (1908): 193—206; 651—671. M E Y E R , A. B. Holz und Bambusgeräte aus nordwest NeuGuinea. PEMD VI (1886). Masken von Neu-Guinea und dem Bismarck Archipel. Ibid. VII (1886). and P A R K I N S O N . Schnitzereien und Masken vom Bismarck Archipel und Neu-Guinea. Ibid. X (1895). M E Y E R , P. O. Die Schiffahrt bei den Bewohnern von Vuatom (Neu-Pomm?rn). Baes. Arch. 1 (1911): 257—268. N E U H A U S S , R. Deutsch Neu-Guinea. Bd. I, I I I . Dietrich Reimer. Berlin. 1911. N O R D E N , H E R M A N N . Byways of the Tropic Seas. H . F. and G. Witherby. London. 1926. VAN N O U H U Y S , J. W. Der Bergstamm Pësëgëm im Innern von Niederländisch Neu-Guinea. Nova Guinea VII. N U O F F E R , O S K A R . Quetschkolben von Berlinhafen. ABKZAMD Bd. XV (1917) Nr. 1. O L D M A N , W. O . Illustrated Catalogue of Ethnographical Specimens, No. 43.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers. UCal 3 2 . Die Berlinhafen-Section Kaiserwilhelmslandes. IAE X I I I (1900): 18—54. Dreissig Jahre in der Südsee. Strecker and Schroeder. Stuttgart. 1907 ; abridged edition, 1926. P E E K E L , P . G. Religion und Zauberei auf dem Mittleren Neu-Mecklenburg. Münster. 1910. P F E I L , G R A F J. Studien und Beobachtungen aus der Südsee. Braunschweig. 1899. P L I S C H K E , H . Geistertrompeten und Geisterflöten aus Bambus vom Sepik, Neu-Guinea. JSMVL 8 (1918—1921): 57—62. P R E U S S , Κ . T H . Künstlerische Darstellungen aus KaiserWilhelmsland in ihrer Bedeutung f ü r die Ethnographie. Z. f. E. 29 (1897): 77—139 ; 30 (1898): 74—120. Künstlerische Darstellungen aus dem Deutsch-Holländischen Grenzgebiet in Neu-Guinea. IAE X X X I (1899): 161—185. Über einige Ornamente vom Kaiserin-Augusta-Fluss in Neu-Guinea. Ibid. I I (1898): 145. READ, C. H. On the Origin and Sacred Character of Certain Ornaments of the Southeastern Pacific. J A I 21 (1891): 139—154. R É A L , D A N I E L . La Décoration Primitive. Vol. II. Océanie. R E C H E , O . Der Kaiserin-Augusta-Fluss. Hamburger SüdseeExpedition. 1909—1910. II. Report of British Ornithologists Union Expedition and the Wollaston Expedition in Dutch New Guinea, 1910— 1913. Francis Edwards. London. 1916. R I B B E , C. Zwei Jahre unter den Kannibalen der SalomoInseln. Dresden. 1903. R I E G L , A L O I S . Stilfragen. Berlin. 1 9 2 3 . R O B L E Y , H O R A T I O G. Moko; or Maori Tattooing. Chapman and Hall. London. 1896. R O M I L L Y , H . H . From my Verandah in New Guinea. David Nutt. London. 1889. VAN D E R S A N D E , G. A. J. Nuova Guinea. III. E. J. Brill. Leyden. 1907. S A R A S I N , F R I T Z . Neu-Caledonien und die Loyalty-Inseln, von George and Company. Basel. 1917. and R o u x , JEAN. Nova Caledonia. Ethnologie. C. W. Kreidel. München. 1929. S A R F E R T , E . Zwei Bainingsmasken. J S M V L 2 ( 1 9 0 7 ) : 3 2 . and D A M M , H . Luanguia und Nukumanu. Friederichsen. Hamburg. 1929. S A V I L L E , W . J . V . In Unknown New Guinea. Seeley Service and Co., Ltd. London. 1926. S C H E L L O N G , O . Das Barlumfest der Gegend Finschhafens. IAE II (1889): 145—162. Notizeri über das Zeichnen der Melanesier. Ibid. VIII (1895): 57—58. Herstellung einiger Ethnographica der Gegend Finschhafens. Ibid. I (1888): 222. S C H L A G I N H A U F E N , O . Eine Ethnographische Sammlung vom Kaiserin-Augusta-Fluss in Neu-Guinea. ABKZAMD Bd. X I I I (1910—1911) Nr. 2. Reisen in Kaiser Wilhelmsland. Ibid. Nr. 1. S C H M E L Z , J . D . E. Beiträge zur Ethnographie von NeuO'NEALE, LILA M.

PARKINSON,

RICHARD.

157

Guinea. IAE VIII (1895): 153—243; I X (1896): 113— 129; XVI (1904): 194—244; XVII (1905): 194—220. and K R A U S E , F. Die Ethnographisch-Anthropologische Abteilung des Museums Godeffroy in Hamburg. Friederichsen and Co. Hamburg. 1881. S C H N E E , H. Bilder aus der Südsee. Dietrich Reimer. Berlin. 1904. S C H U R T Z , H E I N R I C H . Das Augenornament und verwandte Probleme. S. Hirzel. Leipzig. 1895. S E L I G M A N N , C. G. A Classification of the Natives of British New Guinea. J A I 39 (1909): 246—275; 314—333. The Melanesiane of British New Guinea. Cambridge University Press. 1910. S K I N N E R , H. D. Evolution in Maori Art. JAI 46 (1916): 184—196; 309—321. Two-Handed Clubs of the Maori. J A I 48 (1918): 198— 213. S P E I S E R , F E L I X . Ethnographische Materialien aus den Neuen Hebriden und den Banks-Inseln. Kreidel. Berlin. 1923. Die Ornamentik von Santa Cruz. A. f. A. X I I I (XLI) 1914—1915: 323—334. S P I E R , L E S L I E . The Sun Dance of the Plains Indians. PaAM XVI (1920) : 451—527. VON D E N S T E I N E N , K A R L . Die Marquesaner und Ihre Kunst. 3 volumes. Dietrich Reimer. Berlin. 1928. S T E P H A N , E M I L . Südseekunst. Berlin. 1907. and G R Ä B N E R . Neu-Mecklenburg. 1907. S T O L P E , 0 . Collected Essays in Ornamental Art. Stockholm. 1927. S T R A U C H , H. Allgemeine Bemerkungen über Neu-Guinea. Z. f. E. 9 (1877) : 9, 83. VON S Y D O W , E. Die Kunst der Naturvölker und der Vorzeit. Im Propyläen-Verlag. Berlin. 1923. T H I L E N I U S , G E O R G . Ethnographische Ergebnisse aus Melanesien. Abhandlung der Kaiserlichen Leopold-Carol deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher L X X X , II. Teil. Halle. 1903. T H U R N W A L D , R I C H A R D . Forschungen auf den Salomoinseln und dem Bismarckarchipel. Dietrich Reimer. Berlin. 1912. Im Bismarckarchipel und auf den Salomoinseln 1906—1909. Z. f. E. 42 (1910): 98—147. Über Forschungen im Innern von Deutsch Neu- Guinea in den Jahren 1913—1915. Z. f. E. 49 (1917): 147—179. U H L E , M A X . Holz- und Bambusgeräte aus Nordwest NeuGuinea. PEMD. Leipzig. 1886. V O G E L - H A M B U R G , H A N S . Eine Forschungsreise im BismarckArchipel. Friederichsen and Co. Hamburg. 1911. W A T E R M A N , T. T. The Explanatory Element in the FolkTales of North American Indians. JAFL 27: 1—54. W E B S T E R , W . D. Illustrated Catalogues 1—31. Oxford House. Bicester, England. WiRz, P. Die Marind-Anim von Holländisch Süd-Neu-Guinea. Bd. 1,1922 ; Bd. II, 1925. Friederichsen and Co. Hamburg. Die Ornamentik und insbesondere die Darstellung menschlicher Form in der Kunst von Holländisch SüdNeu-Guinea. Tijdschrift voor Indische Tali-, Land- en Volkenkunde. Deel L X (1921): 115—131.

INDEX Abdomen, 136, 137, 139 Accident, 45 Adaptability, 117 Admiralty Islands, 2, 3, 7, 9—27, 35, 75, 76, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93—99, 103, 105, 107, 109, 112, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 136, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147 Adze, 93 Affiliation, 70, 73, 103, 129 artistic, 115 formal, 115 Amur River, 17 Analysis, 151 technique of, 8 Anchorites, 3 Angle, 29, 117 base, 114 obtuse, 120 Animal, 4, 10, 25, 46, 55, 59 Arcs, equidistant, 96, 97, 99, 102, 104, 108, 110, 117, 118, 122 of a circle, 94, 106 of an ellipse, 150 toothed, 97, 104, 106 Armband, 92 tortoiseshell, 27, 76, 77 Arms, 13, 94, 119, 136, 137, 139, 140, 144, 146, 152 Arrangement, 15, 52, 97, 99, 106, 108, 114, 115 of triangles, 129 Art, 126, 148 decorative, 5 representative, 6 Artist (see carver, craftsman, designer, maker, technician, worker), 34, 43, 48, 50, 51, 55, 58, 59, 69, 70, 71, 73, 76, 93, 94, 99, 103, 106, 110, 113, 125, 142, 144 Admiralty, 98 Caroline, 116 individual, 44 Maori, 150, 151 Massim, 147, 151 New Ireland, 102, 110, 129 Solomon, 113, 114, 123 Tami, 4, 65 Art style, 3, 88, 100, 114, 121, 135, 150 general, 93 local, 93 Assam, 124, 152 Association (see society, fraternity) Astrolabe Bay, 8, 27, 89, 91, 92 Asymmetry, 4, 7, 22, 25, 45, 47, 149, 151 Attitude of native, 111

Auger, 28 Australia, 124 Awl, 28 Ax, 28, 93 Background, 12 Badge, 90 Balance, 15, 18, 45, 47, 53, 65, 139, 149 Balfour, 6 Bamboo, 1, 2, 28, 92 Bands, 17, 18, 22, 48, 58, 60, 78, 83, 85, 96, 97, 99, 100, 102, 103,104,105,109,110,116,118,122,126,128,129,134, 151, 152 bounding, 16 braided, 90, 107 circular, 37, 102, 107 concentric, 83, 93, 102, 108, 116, 117, 123 curved, 24, 47, 80, 85, 128, 129 decorated, 116, 117 extension, 47 inner, 100 outer, 98 parallel, 102, 110 plain, 102 smooth, 101 toothed, 14, 80, 83, 105, 131 zigzag, 97, 99, 102, 106, 118, 135, 136 Banding, 42, 51, 52, 54, 57, 60, 61, 66, 68, 70, 77, 146, 148 concentric, 110 diagonal, 58 Bar, 97,100, 104, 105, 109, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124 parallel, 97, 102, 103 Barb, 109 Barkcloth, 1, 3, 76, 124, 125, 128, 141, 142 Barriers, culture, 149 Beading, 17 Beak, 139 Beauty, 88, 91, 93, 99 Berlinhaven, 91 Bertram Island, 91 Betel, 1 Bird, 18, 25, 26, 34, 55, 109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 126, 145, 146, 147 frigate, 109, 111, 112, 115 Bismarck Archipelago, 3, 90, 123 Boar, 25, 59 Body, 13, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 94, 120, 140, 144 bird, 146 fish, 56, 58 hollow, 38, 44

INDEX lizard, 58 smooth, 38 tail-like, 54 wavy, 38, 44 Bone, 28 Border, 12,15,16,17,20, 22, 23,24, 26,78,80, 83, 85, 95,127 Borneo, 133, 134 Bougainville, 111, 142 Bounding line, 105, 118 broken, 50 smooth, 18, 96 toothed, 53, 55, 57, 58 unbroken, 41 Bowl, 9, 14, 15, 18, 27, 35, 49, 111, 146, 148 ceremonial, 43 elliptical, 10 elongated, 25 in animal form, 10 in realistic form, 59—61 long, 27 round, 9, 10, 19, 24, 25,. 146 square, 34 wooden, 2, 7 Bracelet, 77, 148 Braid, 59 Breast, 136, 137, 139, 149 Brumer Island, 121 Buka, 106, 107, 111, 140, 142 Bukaua, 27 Bunzel, 6 Burning (see pyrography), 18, 139 Button, tortdiseshell, 90 Canoe, 1, 111 Cap (see coiffure, cowl, hat, headdress, hood), 137, 140, 141 Carelessness, 32 Carolines, 3, 30, 88, 89, 92, 96, 115, 119, 121, 123, 126, 127, 147 Carver (see artist, craftsman, designer, maker, technician, worker), 4, 22, 28, 35, 74, 104, 142, 148 Admiralty Island, 96, 97, 123, 147 Maori, 149 Tami, 37, 45, 49, 53, 90 tortoiseshell, 88, 113 Carving, 35, 74, 75, 122, 136, 141, 146 bowl, 56, 88 negative, 98, 105 openwork, 2, 15, 17, 18, 19, 29, 53, 60, 76, 88, 93, 111, 116, 119, 121, 129, 140, 146, 151 realistic, 25 relief, 9, 12—17, 24, 43, 128, 140, 142, 144 spirit, 57 tortoiseshell, 7, 92, 93, 98, 105, 107, 114, 125, 147 wall, 51 Center, 52, 58, 61, 62, 101, 102, 104, 105, 114, 116 massive, 117 of kapkap, 109 primary, 110 secondary, 110 trident, 106

159

Chain, 88, 103, 105, 115, 122 Chalk, 29 Characteristics, of Admiralty Island bowls, 26 of human figure, 25 Character of design, 43 Cheek, 136, 137 Chevron, 6, 18, 44, 45, 77, 129 Chin, 136, 137, 141 China, 133, 152 Choice of elements, 123 Chronology, 5, 72, 121 Circle, 13, 15, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 55, 57, 65, 75, 77, 88, 97, 102, 109, 112, 118, 136, 137 concentric, 16, 40, 46, 55, 75, 80, 100, 105, 112, 117, 133 hollow, 39, 98 Coat-of-arms, 56 Cocoanutshell, 1, 87, 121 Codrington, 30, 88 Coiffure (see cap, cowl, hat, headdress, hood), 90 Coil, 42, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135 double, 18 facing, 16 Comb, 131 Composition, 2, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19—25, 27, 38, 39, 42—74, 75, 77, 80, 83, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104,105,107,109,110,113,117,118,120,121,123,125, 130, 133, 145, 146, 147—152 of banded designs, 43, 53, 54 of center designs, 43, 48—53 of end designs, 43—47 of end designs approaching banding, 43, 47, 48 of more realistic designs, 43, 54—61 of trademarks, 35 Consistency, 32 Contact, 27 Contour, 137, 141 Conus shell, 91 Conventionalization, 109, 120, 129, 147, 149 of crocodile, 144 of lizard, 144 Cook Islands, 6, 126, 128, 129 Coral, 92 Correlation, 33, 142 Cowl (see cap, coiffure, hat, headdress, hood), 25, 136 Craftsman (see artist, carver, designer, maker, technician, worker), 92 Craftsmanship, 17, 107 Crest, 74 Cretin, 2 CrocodUe, 13, 14, 25, 26, 36, 46, 48, 53, 54, 58, 59, 121, 124, 126, 137, 143, 144, 145 Cross, 40, 51, 96, 113 primary, 109 Roman, 58 secondary, 109 St. Andrew's, 37, 58 Cult, shark, 111 skull, 143

160

INDEX

Culture area, 8 Cup, cocoanutsheU, 47, 76, 77, 80, 127, 128, 131, 148 Curve, 7, 29, 43, 113, 117, 119, 120, 139, 145, 147 toothed, 94, 96 Cymbium, 89, 119, 121 Decoration, 1, 7, 22, 29, 34, 35, 42, 69, 76, 95, 112, 116, 118, 130, 143, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151 body, 90 canoe, 76, 112 head, 140 house, 76 openwork, 150 Degeneration, 5, 6, 28 Derivation, 136 of a design, 5 Design, 14, 17, 73, 106, 107, 111, 114, 115,118, 130 complexity of, 21 in line, 100 perfection of, 135 Designer (see artist, carver, craftsman, maker, technician, worker), 148 Designs (see patterns), 16, 19, 23, 25 , 36, 51, 69, 80, 115, 119,125 allover, 18, 19 banded, 53 body, 41 border, 19, 21, 24 carved, 35 center, 35, 42, 46, 47, 48, 51, 53, 65, 66, 70, 73, 74 central, 42, 48, 51, 61, 68, 109, 116 choice of, 4 circular, 16, 80 complex, 45 conventional, 121 curved, 145 curvilinear, 4, 7, 13 decorative, 45 end, 35, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 54, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 72 fish-like, 137 geometric, 4, 5, 29, 87, 111, 113, 120 head, 41, 44 intervening, 18 mouth, 41, 46, 61, 66, 69, 77, 146 negative herring-bone, 104 realistic, 5, 36, 54—59, 87, 111, 135—147 rectilinear, 7 representative, 4, 29, 120 rim, 39 side, 35 simple, 45 tail, 41 toothed, 14 tripartite, 42 Development, 120 of ribbon design, 39 Diamond, 1 3 , 1 6 , 19, 24, 26, 100, 102, 103, 116, 144 Diffusion, 123 Direction, 69, 96, 98, 99, 103, 105, 106, 110

Distortion, 145 Distribution, 2, 4, 89, 9 0 , 1 1 0 , 122, 128, 129, 133, 135 center of, 91 of kapkaps, 88 Divergence, 47 in style, 27 Division, 99 five-fold, 95 into four, 96 Dog, 25 Dot, 132 Dreyerhaven, 121 Drill, 92, 93 Ear pendant, 89, 118 Earring, 27, 89, 124, 152 Ears, 94, 136 Easter Island, 144 Edge, 95, 9 7 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 3 , 1 0 4 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 6 , 1 1 7 , 1 1 8 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 , 122, 124 curved, 103 smooth, 94, 104, 117 toothed, 96, 101, 102, 107, 112, 131 toothed triangular, 102 with blunt teeth, 94 Elaboration, 38, 41, 44, 52, 58, 90 of pattern, 43 Elbow, 25, 120, 151 Elements, 7 banding, 109 bar, 66, 104 border, 21 center, 49, 5 2 , 1 1 0 , 118 chain, 102 chevron, 56 circular, 53, 77, 80 claw, 58 coil, 50 cross, 43, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 59, 68, 100 curved triangular, 49 curvilinear, 116 decorative, 120, 144, 145, 149 design, 4, 14, 27, 36, 93, 117 diamond, 18, 97 double triangular, 137 ellipsoid, 77, 112 end, 52 eye, 57 fan, 48, 49, 51 fish, 51, 76, 80 flower-like, 71 formal, 54, 55, 59 fret, 110 geometric, 78, 98, 125 head, 51 leg-claw, 66 link, 103 mouth, 52, 54, 57, 59 nose, 57 openwork, 69

INDEX petal, 96, 106, 109, 116, 119 primary, 20 radial placing of, 96 realistic, 54, 109 rectangular, 55, 56, 59 rectilinear, 116 ribbon, 47, 49, 53, 55, 68, 80, 127, 131, 134, 145 rim, 45, 52, 53 scroll, 50 secondary, 20 simple, 115 spiral, 66, 134 spread, 66 toothed, 53, 68, 71, 99 trapezoidal, 57 triangular, 71, 114 used in center patterns, 39 used in end patterns, 36 Ellipse, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 55, 77, 83, 85, 94, 119, 134 flat, 38 hollow, 39, 83 Elongation, of face, 139, 141 of nose, 139 Engravings on shell, 111—114 Etching, 28, 139, 146, 148 Evaluation, 5 Evolution, 45 Execution, 106 Experimentation, 7 Extension, of end design, 48, 53 of head, 44, 45 of pattern, 44, 53 of tail, 146 of wing, 146 Exuberance of design, 43, 65 Eyebrows, 52 Eyes, 4, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 76, 94, 135, 136, 140, 141, 144, 145, 149 Eye socket, 143 Pace, 42, 51, 52, 56, 57, 59, 65, 66, 68, 112, 135, 136, 139, 141, 144 double, 56 human, 25, 41, 54, 58, 59, 94, 124 spirit, 69, 148 Feet, 26, 38, 54, 120, 137, 144, 145 Field, 7, 46, 78, 85, 122, 123 inner, 45 laying out, 4, 42, 105, 112, 150 upper, 113 Figure, 141 double-headed, 145 human (see Hujnan figure) portrait, 5, 142 realistic, 113, 120, 127, 140, 151 spirit (see spirit) Fiji, 143, 144 21

161

File, 93 Fin, 4, 56 Fineness, 88, 92, 93, 103, 105, 117 Fingers, 13, 59, 136, 137, 139 Finsch, 90, 91, 92 Finschhaven, 27 Fish, 55, 58, 59, 65, 66, 76,109, 111, 113, 115,118, 126, 137, 144, 145 Fishtail, 42,119 tripartite, 57, 76 Fleur-de-lis, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 119, 120 Flores, 127 Flying dog, 16, 115 Flying fish, 56, 145 Fly River, 132, 141, 151, 152 Forehead, 56, 90, 107, 136, 137 Form (see shape), 6, 10,12, 13,18, 19, 25, 27, 29—34, 69, 95 of bowl, 35, 93 of handle, 35, 93 Forms, 112, 125 animal, 46 bird, 34 complex realistic, 13 contemporaneous, 5 conventionalized, 119 geometric, 58, 96 realistic, 46, 60,121, 149 representative, 96 symbolic, 13 transitional, 101 trident, 100 Frame, 15, 57 Framework, of medallion, 47 Fraternity (see society), 123 French Islands, 27 Fretwork, 109, 123 Frizzi, 140 Function, 116 Geelvink Bay, 133, 139, 140, 143, 144, 145, 150, 151, 152 General principles, 125—152 of design, 93 of style, 68 Güls, 4, 56, 145 Gore (see panel, surface, zone), 44, 47, 71, 77, 122, 126, 127, 131, 132, 134, 139, 145, 146, 148, 150, 152 Gourd, 1, 2, 3, 7, 16, 76, 88, 99, 147 Grabner, 114, 115 Habits, motor, 39, 90 of artists, 43, 69—74 Haddon, 5, 6, 150 Haeberlin, 6 Hairpin, 89, 119, 123, 139 from Northern New Guinea, 119—121 Hambruch, 115 Handle, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 21, 52, 69, 80, 85, 98, 111, 127, 146, 148

162

INDEX

bowl, 97, 99, 129, 135 in animal shape, 25 in human shape, 25 openwork, 15, 16, 26 position of, 21 realistic, 25 Hands, 94, 120, 137, 139, 140 Handy, Willowdean C., 125,150 H a t (see cap, coiffure, cowl, headdress, hood), 142, 143 Hatching, 42, 44, 58, 71, 77, 83, 85, 112, 131 Hatzfeldhaven, 119 Hawaii, 128,135, 144 Head, 26, 37, 38, 43, 44, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 71, 76, 94, 111, 119, 120, 135,137,140, 141, 143,144, 145,146, 152 bird, 5, 36, 60, 66, 69, 112, 133, 140, 146, 147 human, 25, 56, 58, 69, 140, 143 tortoise, 60 Headband, 124 Headdress (see cap, coiffure, cowl, hat, hood), 56, 57, 89, 90, 122, 135, 137, 140, 141, 142 ceremonial, 142 realistic, 136 Head-hunter, 143 Headrest, 76 Hermit Islands, 3, 18 Hervey Islands, 6 Hexagon, 98 Historical connections, 133 Hognet, 27 Hole, 96, 97, 102, 104 as decoration, 98, 122 use of, 95, 124 Hollowing, 30 by burning, 9, 28, 29, 30, 35 by hand, 28 Hood (see cap, coiffure, cowl, hat, headdress), 142, 143 Hook, 112, 114, 132, 133, 151 Human figure, 3, 4, 10, 13, 14, 56, 58, 94, 96, 97, 109, 110, 111, 119, 120, 126, 128, 135—144, 149, 151 realistic, 69, 136, 137 Huongulf, 27, 90, 121 Idea, 7, 8 Imagination, 114, 147 Imitation, of watchwheel, 115, 116 wooden, of kapkap, 95 Incising, 1, 19, 146, 147,151 shell, 18, 87, 90 Inconsistency, 41, 142 India, 133, 152 Individuality, 4, 5, 8, 51, 71, 73, 74, 83, 100, 101 Indonesia, 127, 133 Influence, 47, 48, 73, 106, 125, 150 Ingenuity, 93 Initiative, 58 Interpretation, 5, 6, 7, 13, 36, 56, 57, 115, 147 realistic, 14, 94 Interrelation between patterns and ideas, 57

Irregularity, 25, 69, 98,102 Ivens, 111, 114, 145, 147 Jabim, 27 Java, 127 Jaw, 56 Joint, 137, 149, 151 Kaiser Wilhelmsland, 2, 6, 89 Kapkap, 2, 3, 7, 88, 93—124, 147, 152 Knee, 25, 120, 135, 139, 151 Knife, 28 Krause, 106 Legs, 13, 46, 55, 59, 94, 119, 136, 137, 141, 144, 146 of bowl, 9 Lehner, 5, 28, 36 Limb, 59, 76, 120, 139, 140, 141, 152 Limitation of style, 57 Line, 52, 57, 58, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 105, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 123, 129, 132, 137, 139, 140, 143, 147, 148, 149, 151 bracing, 114 bracket-shaped, 96 broken, 95, 128 concentric, 102 curved, 37, 80, 95, 96, 102, 117, 128, 152 diagonal, 104 dotted, 132 etched, 51 fretted, 108 fringed, 112, 113, 128 incised, 151 parallel, 44, 46, 113, 118, 122, 127 radiating, 102 right, 37 straight, 37, 149 toothed, 15, 96 wavy, 51, 52, 73, 102 Link, 101, 102, 105 Lips, 136 Lizard, 15, 16, 22, 23, 36, 58, 59, 66, 73, 119, 121, 126, 137, 144, 145 realistic, 13, 96 Locality, 111, 114, 117, 119, 121, 125, 126, 127, 129, 131, 135,136,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,147,151,152 Localization, 1, 8, 27, 90, 137 Logaueng, 29 Long Island, 121 Loop, 127 Lower center, 40 fan-shaped, 41, 48 Lozenge, 3, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 26, 40, 42, 43, 47, 57, 58, 59, 75, 83, 94, 97, 98, 103, 114, 118, 120, 129, 141, 145, 146 Luf, 129, 131 MacCurdy, 6 Maker (see artist, carver, craftsman, designer, technician, worker), 46, 54, 59 Malaita, 8, 111

INDEX Manufacture, center of, 88, 92 Manus, 126 Maori, 128, 137, 143, 149, 150 Marquesas, 3, 60, 88, 90, 92, 110, 114, 124, 125, 141, 143, 144, 149, 150 Mask, 1, 2, 56, 57, 76, 135, 141 Mass, 38, 42, 52, 53, 57, 58, 68, 80, 93, 96, 98, 99, 100, 104, 105, 107, 117, 123, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 curved, 95, 97, 144 toothed, 108, 109 triangular, 96, 114 Massim District, 2, 5, 36, 37, 38, 41, 44, 48, 53, 71, 76, 127, 128, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 139, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 Measure, 30 Medallion, 16, 19, 21, 24, 35, 46, 47, 53, 65, 66, 71 Mer, 123 Method, 7 Micronesia, 3, 117, 123, 128, 129, 147 Migration, 4, 117, 125 Mistake, 98, 105, 106 Modelling, 25, 135, 136, 137 Modification, 4, 14, 26, 55, 71, 88, 114, 132, 133, 135 of designs, 73 of edge, 108 of element, 36, 58, 104, 109, 110 of human figure, 136, 137 of patterns, 44 Monster, 145 Mother-of-pearl, 92 Motion, 118, 129 Motives, 52 bird, 110 chain, 104, 146 decorative, 35, 123 dot and circle, 132 equidistant-arc, 103, 105 eye, 4, 41, 149, 151 feather, 4 fish, 145, 146 foot, 120 geometric, 111, 126, 146 hand, 94, 120 hatched, 40 leaf, 42 link, 101 realistic, 126, 144 ribbon, 112 streamer, 128 Tami, 58 toothed,3 triangular, 56, 114 Mount, kapkap, 89, 91 tridacna, 95, 107, 110, 114, 122 Mounting, method of, 114, 116 Mouth, 4,56,57,59,68,76,94,135,136,137,139,140,141,143 Murray, 92 Naming designs, 16, 111 Naturalism, 143, 151,152 22

163

Navel, 137, 149 Negative, 104, 116, 117, 131 Neuhausa, 28, 90 New Britain, 2, 27, 88, 91, 118, 121, 124, 141 New Caledonia, 128, 141, 143, 144 New Guinea, 89, 91, 100, 115, 121, 127, 128, 133, 134, 141, 146, 149 British, 89, 91 Dutch, 89, 132, 133, 134, 139, 151 Northern, 98, 99, 119, 139 northern coast of, 19 southeastern, 151 southern, 99 western, 128 New Hannover, 91, 102, 103, 105, 106 New Hebrides, 30, 143, 144 New Ireland, 8, 19, 29, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 105, 106, 107, 109, 116, 117, 118, 122, 124, 128, 129, 137, 140, 141, 143, 144, 146, 148 New Zealand, 3, 17, 93, 134, 135, 137, 141, 143, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 Ninigo, 3 Nissan, 91, 103, 106, 117, 123, 124, 126, 129, 142, 152 Northwest Coast of America, 149 Nose, 56, 57, 59,136, 137, 140,141,143 O'Neale, 6 Origin, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 121, 126, 147, 150 geometric, 94 individual, 106 realistic, 94 Originality, 7, 8, 38, 71, 74, 83, 126, 135 Ornamentation, 6, 9, 12—19, 22, 26, 34—42, 43, 106, 113, 122, 144, 150, 151, 152 banded, 23 body, 1, 137 triangular, 15 Ornaments, 7, 36, 47, 112, 113, 114, 116, 121, 124 breast, 2, 89, 111, 115, 120, 146 canoe, 18, 26 ear, 88, 117, 118, 141 engraved breast, 109 forehead, 90, 110 hair, 119 head, 2, 90, 91, 141 neck, 89 rim, 40 tripartite, 59 waist, 89 Ownership (see property), 56, 74 Paint, red, 29 Painting, 125, 129, 140, 142, 144, 146, 147, 149, 150 Panel (see gore, surface, zone), 83, 100, 148, 150, 151 Papuan Gulf, 89, 121, 132 Parallel line, 44, 46, 113, 118, 122, 127 Parallelogram, 135 Parkinson, 9, 10, 25, 105, 106 Pattern, 133, 151 naming, 111

164

INDEX

Patterns (see designs), 17, 25, 37, 50, 52, 53, 57, 74, 92, 111, 114,125,139, 148 allover, 25 bottom, 55 bowl, 145 carving, 57 center, 39, 58, 65, 70, 113, 148 central, 117, 120 curved, 149 end, 36, 46, 47, 65, 70, 73, 144, 148 fan-shaped, 41 fringe, 127 herring-bone, 18 mouth, 52, 60, 148 realistic, 109, 121, 144 rim, 57 secondary, 108 side, 54 wall, 21 Pearl-shell ornaments, 123 Perforation (see hole), 123 Perspective, 4 Philippines, 135 Pictograph, 125 Pig, 25 Pinepil, 106 Pinwheel, 104 Planes meeting at angle, 141, 144, 152 Planning, 102, 106 Plate, 91, 93, 99, 100, 114, 122 Pleasure in technique, 6 Points, 141 above and below eyes, 57, 76, 136, 137 Polish, 28 Polynesia, 3 Port Moresby, 91 Portrait figure, 5, 142 Position, of body, 135 of limbs, 25 Post, supporting, 17, 102 Pottery, 19, 27 Preference, 7 Preuss, 5, 6, 36, 115, 120, 137 Principles of art, 1, 4, 13, 27, 68, 93, 98, 104, 125, 148 Profile, 56, 109, 112, 113, 139, 140, 143 Progression, 5 Property (see ownership), 90 Proportion, 10—12, 15, 18, 19, 27, 29—34, 46, 52, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 103, 114, 145, 148 change of, 36 difference in, 41, 43, 55 of hands, 139 of head, 135 Provenience, 8, 88, 118 Pyrography, 1, 7, 76, 93, 130, 149, 151 Radii, 95, 97, 104 Ramu River, 89, 91, 119 Readaptation, 147

Realism, 59, 114, 149 Realistic designs, 5, 36, 54—59, 87, 111, 135—147 in high relief, 54, 56, 65 in low relief, 54 Recombination, 145 Reconstruction of artistic development, 5, 94 Rectangle, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 48, 57, 77, 80 Regularity, 7, 33, 34, 44, 83, 134, 151 Reinterpretation, 7, 121 Relations (see relationship), 4, 65 Relationship, 70, 75, 77, 94, 98, 103, 109,119, 125, 126, 133, 134, 135,139, 144, 146, 150, 151, 152 between designs, 19, 68, 99 between representation and decoration, 144 formal, 54, 127 of designs, 17, 58 stylistic, 89 to ceremonial, 145 Relief, 148 clawlike, 49 high, 28, 29, 35, 39, 42, 52, 54, 56—59, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71 low, 9 , 1 2 , 1 7 , 24, 29, 39, 54—56, 57, 59, 73, 75, 76, 77, 95, 140, 142, 146 negative, 12, 36, 49, 53, 62, 70, 73 positive, 12, 49, 51, 62, 70, 73 Repetition, 16, 21, 24, 44, 47, 53, 80, 101 irregular, 22 mirror, 46, 56 of lines, 40 rhythmic, 7 Representation, 55, 56, 57, 58, 136, 144, 145 Resistance, cultural, 27 Rhomboid, 15 Rhythm, 4, 19, 24, 126, 148, 152 Ribbon design, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48, 53, 55, 57, 71, 72, 77, 83, 85, 113, 126, 128, 148 looped, 80, 83 Rim, 13, 39, 40, 42, 51, 53, 56, 59, 61, 68, 80, 85, 110 Ring, 115 Roissy Island, 119, 120 Rook, 27, 29, 121 Saint Mathias, 88, 93, 98, 99, 115, 117, 123, 126, 127,128, 129 Samoa, 126, 128, 129, 150 Sandpiper, 109, 112 Santa Cruz, 6, 88, 90, 114, 123, 124 Saw, 92, 93 Scallop, 94, 98, 99, 127 School, 7, 33, 69, 70, 74 Schouten Islands, 119 Scorpion, 111 Scraper, 28 Scroll, 87, 126, 150 Sculpture, 5, 6, 140, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148 Sea-ghost, 111, 112 Sector, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 118, 120, 123 Segment, 112, 118 Semi-circle, 41, 70

INDEX Separator, 13 Sepik River, 5, 57, 76, 80, 89, 91, 119, 121, 133, 134, 137, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 151, 152 Sex, 135, 137, 139, 142, 143, 144, 152 Shape (see form), 29, 54, 59, 69, 75, 76, 96, 103, 114 Shell, 1, 87, 88, 92, 99, 100, 110, 111, 115, 121, 122 armband, 27, 76, 77 bracelet, 148 button, 90 cup, 47, 76, 77, 80, 127, 128, 131, 148 disc, 90 earring, 27, 89, 152 engraving on, 111—114 hairpin, 139 money, 91 ornaments, 2, 13, 16, 88—124 plate, 91, 100 ring, 115—117 tool, 92 Shellwork, 3, 7 Shoulder, 139, 151 Siassi, 27, 121 Significance, 6, 55, 109, 125, 144 emotional, 2, 5, 111 religious, 88 representative, 4, 41, 45, 47 social, 90, 91 symbolio, 2, 88 Silhouette, 139 Simplicity, 18, 58, 98, 120 Size, 75, 76, 90, 93, 100 Skill of execution, 41 lack of, 102, 103 Snout, 55, 144 Society (see fraternity), 141, 143 Solomon Islands, 8, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 98, 99, 107, 111, 115, 119, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 152 South Papua, 145 Space, 4, 40, 43, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 57, 59, 72, 77, 80, 87, 98, 99,112,114,116,119,122,123,131,134,135,139,143,149 circular, 107, 112 curved, 85 intervening, 14, 85 rectangular, 48 unfilled, 4, 42, 55, 62, 76, 113, 148 Space filler, 53 Spacing, 20, 21, 24, 41, 94 error in, 20, 98 Spatula, 1, 3, 26, 93 Spear, 27 Specialization, 27, 90 Speiser, 6, 114, 115 Spiral, 2, 3, 4, 9,17,18, 24, 26, 42, 66, 98, 99,126,129—135, 137, 139, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 152 branched, 133, 150, 151 branches of, 130 coiled, 134 double, 16, 18, 130, 132, 133 double interlocking, 150 n*

165

facing, 17 interlocking, 132, 133, 134 looped, 132, 135 reverse, 132, 133, 135 simple, 6, 17, 113 Spirit, 56, 57, 58, 69, 74, 76, 137 sea, 112, 145 Square, 55 Stability, 126 Stain for teeth, 29 Standards, 6 Stolpe, 6 Stomach (see abdomen) Streamer, 127, 128, 132 Stretching wood, 35 Style, 6, 7, 58, 65, 75, 76, 88, 90, 95, 103, 125, 147, 148 geometric, 120, 121 individual, 42 limitation of, 57 of Admiralty Island kapkaps, 99 of bowl, 44 of New Ireland, 140 Polynesian, 125 principles of, 27 realistic, 114 symbolic, 114 Tami, 51 traditional, 15 Stylization, 58, 61, 142, 143 Success, 17 Sumatra, 133 Sumba, 127 Surface (see gore, panel, zone), 22, 24, 29, 42, 54, 66, 76, 80, 93, 99, 108, 112, 122, 130, 136, 139, 147, 148, 150, 151 circular, 116, 118, 123 covered, 42, 145 hatched, 65 rectangular, 78 Symbol, 16, 57 Symbolism, 4, 6 Symmetry, 4, 7, 19, 21, 22, 49, 55, 113, 119, 126, 148, 151 avoidance of, 45, 53, 65, 132, 148 inverted, 134 left and right, 113 twofold, 24 up and down, 113 Tahiti, 150 Tail, 4, 26, 37, 38, 39, 44, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 68, 111, 113, 145, 146 fan-shaped, 39 three-part, 66 Tami, 2, 10, 11, 19, 27—87, 121, 126, 127, 128, 131,136, 137, 139, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151 Tanga, 106 Tassel, 57 Taste, 6, 91, 148 Tattoo, 3, 139, 150, 151 Technician (see artist, carver, craftsman, designer, maker, worker), 52

166

INDEX

Technique, 29, 34, 37, 40, 45, 52, 53, 58, 61, 66, 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 87, 89, 90, 98, 99, 102, 104, 105, 106, 111, 123, 125, 126,130, 131, 135, 147, 148, 150 control of, 6, 51, 91, 107 engraving, 111 free, 7 of bowl manufacture, 28 play with, 133 tortoiseshell, 92, 93 Teeth, 4, 14, 18, 24, 26, 41, 46, 48, 53, 56, 57, 58, 69, 70, 77, 80, 83, 101, 118, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 136, 144 blunt, 15, 43, 72, 94, 96, 99 long, 72 long, acute-angled, 37 long, sharp, 52, 71, 80 of tree-bear, 28 sharp, 55 sharp-angled, 55, 140 Tendency, general, 34 Tikopia, 126 Timor, 128 Toes, 13, 59, 136, 137, 144 Tonga, 126 Tongue, 136, 139 Tools, 7, 9, 17, 28, 92, 93 Torres Straits, 92, 123 Tortoiseshell, 1, 87, 88, 92, 99, 100, 110, 115, 122, 139 Trade, 7, 8, 12, 27, 91, 106, 121 Trademark, 35, 36, 42, 43, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 83, 136, 145, 149 Tradition, 8 Transference of pattern, 99 Transition, 38, 51, 54 formal, 49 Trapezoid, 41, 46, 48, 55, 57 Triangles, 6, 12,13, 15, 41, 45, 55, 95, 97, 102, 103,104,105, 107, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 126—129 acute, 109, 110, 114, 117, 118, 123, 126 base of, 108 cross hatched, 93 engraved, 91 hatched, 77, 95 hollowed, 114 inverted, 114 isosceles, 15, 17 obtuse, 93, 94, 107, 110, 114, 126, 129 obtuse-angled, 15 right-angled, 45 rows of, 15, 117 spherical, 118 toothed, 103, 107 with curved sides, 37, 38, 51, 104, 105, 129, 149 Tridacna, 90, 91, 93, 100, 106, 109 Trident, 109

Trobriand Islands, 1, 28, 59 Tupinier, 121 Typology, 121 Ulawa, 111 Unification, 54 of bases, 25 of border and wall reliefs, 25 of designs, 43, 61—69, 106 Uniformity, 32, 33, 34, 42, 135 Unity, 17, 48, 50, 58, 65, 66, 69, 113, 125 Unrest, 48 Upper center, 40 Utility, 91 Variation, 11, 15, 21, 32, 36, 37, 38, 44, 46, 48, 49, 52, 59, 61, 94, 97, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 123, 127, 130, 134, 143, 145 in combination, 41 of coil, 132 of depth, 10 of details, 43, 152 of form, 131 of proportion, 145 of size, 107 of spiral, 130, 132 of trademark, 75 Variety, 14, 44, 61, 73, 123, 141, 148 Versatility, 88, 97, 99 Viewpoint, 43 Virtuosity, 10, 12, 17, 21, 24, 28, 43, 51, 53, 69, 75, 91, 95, 100, 107,111 von den Steinen, 90, 124 Waist, 120 War charm, 26 Warrior Island, 92 Wing, 26, 56, 109, 112, 145, 146 Woodcarving, 1, 2, 7, 18, 25, 26, 27, 77, 93, 109, 110, 125, 126, 128, 131, 134, 140, 147, 148 Worker (see artist, carver, craftsman, designer, maker, technician), 30, 51 Workmanship, 17 Yule Island, 122 Zigzag, 6 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 15,16,18, 26, 37, 42, 44, 46, 96, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104, 106, 110, 113, 118, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 135, 136, 141, 146 double, 26, 108 parallel, 112 single, 26 Zone (see gore, panel, surface), 7, 112

REFERENCES TO ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE

Frontispiece — 90, 107 Pig. 1 — 9 2 — 9, 17 3 — 12 4 — 12, 14 5 — 14 6 — 14 7 — 14 8 — 22 9 — 15, 18 10 — 17 11 — 17 12 — 23 13 — 29 14 — 38, 44, 46, 51, 52, 149 15 — 38 16 — 49 17 — 50 18 — 61 19 — 61, 68 20 — 61, 68 21 — 61 22 — 61 23 — 62 24 — 62 25 — 62 26 — 62 27 — 65 28 — 65 29 — 65 30 — 65 31 — 66 32 — 66 33 — 66 34 — 66 35 — 66 36 — 68 37 — 77, 85

Pl. I, Pl. II, Pl. I I I Pl. IV Pl. V,

Pl. VI,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ —

10, 19, 25, 135 10, 25, 135 10, 25, 135 10, 25, 135 12, 13, 15, 22, 23, 25, 26, 127 12—14, 16—18, 21, 26, 129, 146 12, 13 12, 13 12—14 12—14, 26 12—14, 21, 26 12—14, 26 12—14, 23, 24, 26 12—15, 23 12—14, 20, 94, 121, 136, 139 12—14, 94, 121, 136, 139

Pl. VI, Pl. VII, Pl. VIII,

Pl. IX,

PAGE

Pig. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

77, 78, 128 77, 78 77, 78 77, 78, 127 77, 78 77, 78 77, 78 80 80 47, 80, 127 47, 80, 131 47, 80, 83 83 47, 80, 83 47, 80, 83, 85 47, 80, 85 47, 80, 85 47, 80, 85, 131 94, 96—98, 112, 120 101—107, 116, 117 108—110, 123 116—118 123 127, 132 128 128 129 129, 130, 132 131 132 133 134 134, 150 134, 150 137, 139—141, 143, : 137, 149, 151 145 147

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

12—14, 94, 121, 136, 139 12—14, 22, 26, 94, 121, 136, 139 12—14, 94, 121, 136, 139 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 144 12, 15—17, 21, 23 12, 16, 17, 144 12—14 12—15 12—14, 22 12—14 12—14 12—14 12, 13, 23 12—14 12—14 7, 12, 14

REFERENCES TO ILLUSTRATIONS

168 Pl. I X , Pl. X , Pl. X I ,

Pl. X I I , Pl. X I I I , Pl. XIV, Pl. XV,

Pl. XVI, Pl. XVII, Pl. X V I I I ,

Pl. X I X , Pl. X X , Pl. X X I , PL X X I I , Pl. X X I I I , PL X X I V , Pl. X X V , PL X X V I , Pl. X X V I I PL X X V I I I Pl. X X I X , PL X X X ,

Pl. X X X I , Pl. X X X I I ,

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

PAGE

12, 14, 17, 20, 22 12, 14, 16, 20 12, 13, 15, 25, 135 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 129 12, 14, 21 12, 15, 19 12, 15, 16, 22 12 12, 14 12, 15 12, 15 12, 15, 16, 22, 24, 26 15, 16, 18, 129 16—18, 21, 129 15 15 15, 16, 24 16 16, 24 16, 24 16, 24 16 16 16 18 17, 18 17, 18 17, 18 17, 18 17, 18 17, 18, 129 18, 21, 129, 146 18 17—19, 129 18 18, 129 18, 26, 148 10, 19, 25, 26, 146 18, 129, 131 18, 129, 131 144, 148 25, 144, 146, 148 148 22, 26, 146 26, 139 136, 148 26, 135, 136, 148 26 29, 34, 53, 60, 69, 76, 137, 149 38, 39, 49, 50, 71 33, 40, 49, 70 41, 51 41, 51 33, 46—48, 50, 61, 68, 70 59, 137, 149 137 33, 3 7 ^ 0 , 44, 46, 49, 50, 52, 70, 127 37, 38, 44, 52 34, 38—40, 45, 49, 50, 72 33, 4 1 ^ 3 , 46—51,61,68,70,77,131

Pl. X X X I I , Pl. X X X I I I ,

PAGE

87 — 49, 50 30, 34, 37—41, 43, 44, 47—i9, 52, 71, 72 89 — 30, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 71, 73 90 — 30, 33, 37, 38, 43, 44, 49, 50, 65, 70, 145 PL X X X I V , 91 — 33, 54, 62, 70, 71 92 — 33, 42, 53, 70, 71, 77 93 — 33, 42, 43, 53, 62, 70, 71, 77 Pl. X X X V 33, 54, 70, 71, 145 94 — 34, 41, 42, 44, 45, 49, 51, 53, 71 PL X X X V I , 95 — 33, 40, 42, 49, 50, 52, 70, 71 Pl. X X X V I I , 96 — 46 97 — 46 98 — 35 99 — 39, 46, 53 101 — 33, 42, 51, 53, 70, 71 PL X X X V I I I , 103 — 34, 40, 48, 72 104 — 33, 49, 71 105 53 106 35, 40, 41, 49, 50 34, 39—41, 46, 48, 71, 72 Pl. X X X I X , 107 108 40, 41 109 33, 37, 42, 56, 71 PL XL·, 110 48, 68 111 69 112 Pl. X L I , 34, 51, 72 52, 71 113 52, 71, 75 114 Pl. X L I I 34, 42, 53, 55, 56, 58, 72, 77, 145 34, 37, 42, 43, 45, 47, 56—58, 62, Pl. X L I I I 65, 72, 136 Pl. XLIV, 34, 41, 48, 72 115 40, 41 116 117 40, 48 118 41, 48, 66 119 41, 48, 49, 51 PL XLV, 120 30, 34, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45, 72, 75 121 35, 39, 42, 46 122 30, 34, 38, 39, 42, 45, 49, 50, 72, 75 Pl. XLVI, 123 49 124 41 34, 40, 41, 48, 72, 73 125 34, 48, 72 126 40 127 34, 51, 73 Pl. X L VII, 128 34, 52, 73 129 34, 51, 73 130 51, 52, 59, 66 131 PL XLVIII, 34, 52, 65, 73 132 52, 75 133 Pl. X L I X 35, 36, 53, 56, 65, 70—76, 83, 136 Pl. L 35, 36, 58, 72, 73, 75 PL LI, 135 35 136 54, 75 137 54 54, 77 138 39, 41, 46, 47, 49, 53 139 34, 61, 77, 146 140

169

REFERENCES TO ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE

PAGE

Pl. L U

Pl. L U I ,

Pl. LIV,

Pl. LV,

Pl. LVI,

Pl. LVII, Pl. LVIII,

Pl. LIX,

Pl. LX,

Pl. L X I ,

Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl.

LXII LXIII LXIV LXV,

141 142 143 144 • 145 146 147 • 148 · 149 • 150 151 • 152 • 153 154 155 156 157 • 159 160 161 162 • 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 188 189 190 191 192 193 194

195 196

5, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 46—53, 57, 58, 62, 65, 66, 69—71, 73, 77, 80, 87, 121, 131—133, 146, 148, 149 37—39, 43, 46, 59 37, 39, 43, 46, 47, 59, 127 34, 37—39, 43, 44, 47, 59, 72,73, 127 37, 43, 59, 127 37, 38, 43, 45, 59, 62 37—39, 43, 59 38, 46 37, 39, 43, 47 37—39, 43, 47 37, 38, 43, 73 37, 38, 43, 73 37, 38, 44, 66 37, 39, 43, 46, 54, 144 37, 39, 43, 47 37, 39, 43, 47, 51 37, 39, 43, 47 37, 39, 43, 47 46 46 41, 50, 131 46 46 41, 52, 65, 73 41, 52, 65, 73 38, 39, 52, 65, 73 38, 39, 44, 52, 65, 73 37, 38, 40—42, 44, 49, 50, 52, 65, 71 • 37, 38, 42, 44, 52, 127 38, 45 34, 38, 45, 72, 131 38, 44, 52 47 38, 45 38, 39, 45 38, 39, 44, 45 38, 39, 45 38, 39, 45 39, 45 38, 45 39, 45, 55, 74 38, 45 35, 38, 45 40, 41, 48 • 40, 41, 48 • 40, 48 41, 49, 131 51 39, 51 • 40, 41, 49, 50, 59 • 39, 46 • 40, 41, 48 39, 45, 46, 51, 53, 76 • 40—42, 48, 49, 56—58, 66, 127,136 40, 42, 49, 50, 57, 66, 136 • 48 41, 49, 50

197 — 50, 74 198 •— 6 6 Pl. LXVI, 199 — 40, 42, 47—50, 68 2 0 0 ·— 42, 47—49, 51, 68, 131 201 — 40, 42, 47—49, 51, 61, 68,127 202 — 41, 50, 53, 58, 66, 131 Pl. LXVII, 203 — 41, 46, 53, 55, 58, 60, 66, 145 Pl. LXVIII, 202 — 56--58, 66, 136 204 — 42, 56, 59, 69, 137, 149 Pl. L X I X , 205 — 42, 47, 59, 60, 68, 69, 76 204 — 42, 43, 56—58 Pl. LXX, Pl. L X X I , 206 — 46 208 — 42, 52 209 — 46, 52 210 — 42, 58 Pl. L X X I I , 211 — 34, 44,'71, 131 Pl. L X X I I I — 34, 44, 46, 47, 61, 71, 131 212 Pl. LXXIV, 41, 46, 48 213 74 214 Pl. LXXV, 65 215 65 216 66 217 51, 127 54, 77 Pl. LXXVI, 218 34 219 47, 61, 68 220 56, 145 Pl. L X X Y I I Pl. L X X V I I I 33, 56, 58, 65, 70, 145 34, 54, 55, 58, 73, 145 Pl. L X X I X 222 Pl. L X X X , 55, 145 223 35, 55, 58, 75, 145 55, 145 224 56 Pl. L X X X I 34, 57, 60 Pl. L X X X I I 56- -58, 65 Pl. L X X X I I I , 225 226 33, 57, 58, 65, 136 Pl. L X X X I V 58 34, 60, 146 227 Pl. LXXXV, 34, 60,146 228 68 229 34, 60,146 Pl. L X X X V I 34, 71,131 Pl. L X X X V I I 59, 76, 136 Pl. L X X X V I I I , 230 59, 76, 136 231 76, 136 Pl. L X X X I X , 232 76, 136, 137 233 76 234 Pl. XC — 76 235 — 76, 77 Pl. XCI, 236 — 76 Pl. XCII, 239 — 59, 76, 136 Pl. XCIII, 240 — 9 4 241 - 92, 93 242 — 94 243 — 92 244 — 94 Pl. XCIV, 246 — 94 247 — 94 248 — 94 249 — 94, 95

Pl. LXV,

170 PI. XCIV,

PI. xcv,

PI. XCVI,

PI. XCVII,

PI. XCVIII,

Pl. X C I X ,

Pl. c,

REFERENCES TO ILLUSTRATIONS 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

PAGE 94, 95 94, 95 94, 95 94, 96, 116, 119 96 96 96 94 94, 95 94 94 94 94 94—96 94—96 94, 95 94, 96 94, 95 94, 95 94 94, 96, 98 94—96 94, 96, 116 94, 95 94, 95, 97 94, 96 94, 96 94, 96 94, 96 94, 96 94, 96 96 96,119 96 96 96 96 92, 96, 119 96 96 97 97 97 97 97 97 97, 116 97 96, 97 96, 97 97 96, 97 96, 97 96, 97 98 98 98, 107 98 98, 131 98, 99

PI. CI,

Pl. CII,

Pl. CIII,

PL CIV,

Pl. CV,

Pl. e v i ,

Pl. CVII,

PL CVIII,

311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 359 360 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

PAGE 96, 98, 107 96, 98 96, 98, 107 98 97 98 98 97 97, 117 98, 99 98, 131 96, 98 98 98, 99, 118 95, 98, 99 98, 131 98, 99 98, 116, 119 96, 98 99 98, 99 98, 99 98, 99 94, 95, 97 103 103 103,118 103, 106, 117 95, 98, 99 92, 98, 99 103, 104, 129 103, 104 103, 105, 106 93, 100 93, 100 100, 101 96, 100 100, 101, 105, 109 100, 101 92, 100, 101 100, 101, 105 93, 100 100, 101 100, 101 100 100, 101, 105, 109 100, 101 100, 101 100, 101 100, 101, 105, 106 101 102 101, 102 102 101, 102 102 101, 102 102,118 100, 102 100, 102, 105

REFERENCES TO ILLUSTRATIONS PI. CVIII,

PI. CIX,

PI. cx,

PI. CXI,

PI. CXII,

Pl. C X I I I ,

PI. CXIV,

PI. cxv,

PI. CXVI,

373 374 375 · 376 377 378 379 · 380 381 382 383 • 384 · 385 · 386 · 387 · 388 • 389 · 390 · 391 392 393 · 394 395 • 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432

PAGE

102, 105 102 109 100 102, 105 100 102 92, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106 102 104 92, 102, 105, 106 100 102 100 102 102 105, 106, 118 102 105, 106, 118 105 106, 118 102 105, 106,118 100 102, 105, 106, 118 105 106,118 102 105, 106, 118 102 105, 106, 118 102 105, 106,118 102 118 102 106 102 102 106, 116, 118 102 106 102 104 102 102 106 102 106 102 106,118 100 103 101 103 103 102 106,118 103 106 103 103 101, 103 100, 103, 106 100, 103, 106, 109 103 103 103 103, 104 100, 103 103, 106 103, 106 103, 117 103 103 103, 106 103 100, 103, 110, 117 • 103 103, 106 103, 124 100, 103, 110 • 103 • 106, 107, 117 106, 117, 129 106, 117, 129 106, 117

PI. CXVI,

PI. CXVII,

PI. CXVIII,

PI. C X I X ,

PI. cxx,

PI. cxxi PI. C X X I I ,

PI. C X X I I I ,

PI. CXXIV,

PI. cxxv,

PI. C X X V I ,

PAGE

- 106, 107, 117, 129 - 106, 117, 129 - 106, 117, 129 - 106, 107, 117, 129 - 106, 117, 129, 152 - 104, 118, 128 - 103, 118, 123 - 103, 123 - 104, 118, 129 - 104, 106, 118, 128 - 104,118, 128 - 104, 106, 118, 128, 129 - 104, 106, 118, 128 - 104, 118, 128 - 104,106, 118, 128 - 104—106, 128 - 104, 106, 118, 128 - 104, 106, 118, 128 - 104, 106, 118, 128 - 101, 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - 104, 106 - 104 - 93, 104 - 104 - 104, 106 - 104 - 104, 106 - 104,118 - 104, 129 - 104 - 104 • 107 467 - 108, 109 468 - 107, 109, 110 469 - 109, 110, 112, 119 470 - 92, 107—109 471 - 109,110 472 - • 109, 110, 112, 126 473 - 109,110 474 - 108, 109, 112 475 - • 108, 109, 112, 119 476 - • 1 0 8 — 1 1 0 477 - • 109,110 478 - 109,110 479 - • 92, 108—110, 141 480 - 109, 110 481 - • 109, 110 482 - • 1 0 8 — 1 1 0 483 - • 108—110, 119 484 - 108—110 485 - • 92, 108—110 486 - - 107, 109,110 487 - • 1 0 8 , 1 1 0 , 1 2 6 487 a - 110 488 - • 111, 112 491 - - 1 1 2 492 - 112, 113

433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466

172 PI. C X X V I ,

PI. C X X V I I ,

PI. C X X V I I I ,

PI. C X X I X ,

PI. cxxx,

PI. C X X X I ,

PI. C X X X I I ,

PI. C X X X I I I ,

PI. C X X X I V ,

REFERENCES TO ILLUSTRATIONS PI. cxxxv,

PAGE 5 5 4 — 89, 1 1 9 , 1 2 0

112

PI. cxxxvi,

( 5 5 6 — 5 6 3 ) — 89, 1 2 0

—

112

PI. C X X X V I I ,

—

112

498

—

112, 1 1 3

5 6 6 — 89, 1 2 0

499

—

112, 113

5 6 7 — 89, 1 2 0

500

—

111—113

5 6 8 — 89, 1 1 9 , 1 2 0

501

—

112,113

569 —

502

—

111—113

570 —

122

503

—

112, 113

571 —

122

504

—

112, 113

572 —

122

505

—

112,113

493

—

494

—

112

495

—

496 497

5 5 5 — 89, 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 5 6 4 — 89, 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 5 6 5 — 89, 1 2 0

122

506

—

114, 1 1 5

PI. C X X X V I 1 I ( 5 7 3 — 5 8 1 ) — 122 PI. C X X X I X , 5 8 2 — 1 0 6 , 107, 129

507

—

114, 1 1 5

5 8 3 — 1 0 6 , 107, 129

508

—

114

584 —

509

—

114

5 8 5 — 89, 121

510

—

114

5 8 6 — 89, 121

511

—

114,115

512

—

114, 1 1 5

588 —

123

514

—

114—116

589 —

123

515

—

114,115

590 —

123

516

—

114,115

591 —

124

517

—

114, 115

592 —

124

518

—

121

593 —

124

519

—

121

Pl. C X L I ,

520

—

88, 1 1 6 , 117

Pl. C X L I I ,

521

—

88, 1 1 6 , 117

522

—

88, 1 1 6 , 117

Pl. C X L I I I , Pl. C X L I V ,

118

587 — 89, 121 Pl. C X L ,

(594—598) —

127

599 — 149, 150 6 0 0 — 1 4 9 , 150 ( 6 0 1 — 6 0 6 ) — 1 3 7 , 149 607 —

128

523

—

88, 1 1 6 , 117

524

—

8 8 , 1 1 6 , 117

6 0 8 — 1 3 0 , 147

525

—

116,117

6 0 9 — 1 3 0 , 147

526

—

1 1 6 , 117

6 1 0 — 1 3 0 , 147

527

—

1 1 6 , 117

611 — 1 3 0 , 147

528

—

117

6 1 2 — 1 3 0 , 147

529

—

116,117

6 1 3 — 1 3 0 , 147

530

—

115,117

531

—

116,117

615 —

147

532

—

88, 117

616 —

147

533

—

88,117

617 —

147

534

—

88, 117

6 1 8 — 1 3 0 , 147

535

—

88, 117

6 1 9 — 1 3 0 , 147

536

—

88, 1 1 7 , 118

6 2 0 — 1 3 0 , 147

537

—

88, 1 1 7 , 1 1 8

538

—

8 8 , 1 1 7 , 118

539

—

8 8 , 1 1 7 , 118, 124

540

—

88, 1 0 4 , 1 1 7 , 1 1 8

624 — 130, 148 625 — 131, 148

6 1 4 — 1 3 0 , 147 Pl. C X L V ,

621 — 1 3 0 , 147 PI. C X L V I ,

622 — 130, 148 623 — 130, 148

541 542

—

117, 118

—

117,118

627 —

131

543

—

118

628 —

131

544

—

118 94, 1 1 9

629 —

130

—

630 —

131

—

98, 131

631 —

131

547

—

118

632 —

133

548

—

114

633 —

133

549

—

89, 1 1 9

550

—

89, 1 1 9 , 1 2 0

551

—

89, 1 1 9

552

—

89, 1 1 9 , 120

639 —

141

553

—

89, 1 1 9 , 120

640 —

141

545 546

PI. cxxxv,

PAGE 112,113

Pl. C X L V I I ,

Pl. C X L V I I I , PI. C X L I X ,

6 3 4 — 1 3 7 , 139 6 3 5 — 1 3 5 , 145

Pl. C L I ,

6 3 8 — 1 4 0 , 141

LEGEND 2. Tami (Cretin) 3. Gazelle Peninsula 4. Hatzfeldhaven 5. Humboldt Bay 6. Tupinier Island 7. Seeadlerhaven 8. Hänischhaven 9. Duke of York Island 10. Finschhaven 11. Berlinhaven 12. Territory inhabited by Bukaua 13. Territory inhabited by Jabim 14. Territory inhabited by Kai 15. Territory inhabited by Logauleng 16. Brumer Island 17. Freshwater Bay (Kerama Districi ) 18. Milne Bay 19. Port Moresby 20. Yule Island 21. Bartle Bay 22. Mekeo District 23. Elema District (Toaripi and Motumotu: 24. Territory inhabited by Roro 25. Bilibili Island

^ ^

Long bowls 142

^^

Round bowls

^ ^

Kapkaps

^L·

Variations of the kapkap idea

14-0

h

c. A

ERRATA VOLUME I : p. xi, Pig. 43:

for 78 read 7!)

p. 61, line 38, column 1:

for "arrangement end designs" read

p. 105, line 5, column 2:

for (PI. cxcra, 448) read (PL cxvin, 448)

p. 112, line 20, column 2:

for " a n " read "on"

"arrangement of end designs"

p. 184, line

8, column 1 : for "examples" read "example"

p. 161, under Feet:

for 120 read 119

p. 161, under Fretwork: p. 162, under Hands:

for 123 read 124

for 120 read 119

p. 162: under Joint:

for 137 read 136

p. 164: under Plate:

for 122 read 123

p. 165. under Surface: ]». 167. Fig. 60: p. 169, PL

for 122 read 123

for 123 read 124

LXXXIX,

233:

omit 137

VOLUME I I : p. 5, line 7, column 1:

for " B " read " B r " (meaning Brussels)