Page:The American Indian.djvu/139

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
SYMBOLISM
95

has everywhere strong individualities which tend to obscure the common elements, thus making every thorough survey of even a small area extremely exacting. The work of Kroeber[1] in California demonstrates that often the large areas we have designated can be resolved into many small geographical sub-areas, which can, in some cases, be further differentiated into tribal types. However, all this is too intricate for discussion here.


SYMBOLISM

No discussion of our subject, however brief, can disregard symbolism. Though an old subject, it seems to have been given new life by Von den Steinen's observations in Brazil[2] and Haddon's[3] vigorous exposition of the realistic origin theory. Following this, with Boas[4] as leader, a number of American anthropologists began an intensive study of designs in the basketry and bead work areas we have discussed. It was found that all tribes have names for many of their designs and in some cases, at least, employ these names to express ideas. Since these are almost always derived from familiar objects, as bird, feather, tree, etc., we are confronted with the possibility that the names were given at a time when the design was truly pictographic. This theory must be considered notwithstanding that we found certain objections to such origins in the influence of the technique. Accordingly, we have this problem: When a design is called by a definite name, is that name a clue to its historic origin?

The study of design names shows that this nomenclature develops according to the practical needs of the workers, for among the Pomo[5] and Dakota,[6] who lead in their respective centers, designs have been analyzed into their structural elements and names given to the same. Further, when definite composite designs have been established, the names of the separate design elements in the complex are compounded into a single term. In other words, we have an intense systematization of design composition, with a corresponding terminology. When we turn to less specialized decorations like the Maidu[7] and Arapaho[8] we find that they have a much longer

  1. Kroeber, 1905. I.
  2. Von den Steinen, 1897. I.
  3. Haddon, 1902. I.
  4. Boas, 1903. I.
  5. Barrett, 1908. I.
  6. Wissler, 1904. I.
  7. Dixon, 1902. I.
  8. Kroeber, 1902. I.