34^ Philip Ainsworth Means, 



complexity, it is not enough for us to content ourselves with 

 this general sort of statement. We mvist look further with a 

 view to establishing various sub-types of Proto-Nasca art, for 

 it must necessarily be assumed that the people who produced the 

 art flourished for at least two or three centuries and that they 

 developed in that time a number of modifications which appear 

 in their productions. Before we do this, however, we must 

 definitely assure ourselves as to whether we have been correct in 

 assuming that Proto-Nasca art was indeed related to or descended 

 from Proto-Chimu art. For the present we shall content our- 

 selves with examining into the relationship of the two without 

 attempting to prove the descent of one from the other. The 

 Plates in this article, those in Joyce's article on the Clan-Ancestor 

 (Joyce, 1913b), those in Berthon (1911), and in the articles by 

 H. R. H. Prinzessin Therese von Bayern (1907), and Uhle 

 (1914), afford ample material for a comparison. An exami- 

 nation of the two arts brings out the following points of con- 

 tact: (i) The use of eye-painting and masking; (2) The presence 

 of feather-like ornaments; (3) The use, in connection with the 

 costume, of various appendages and adornments derived from 

 or suggested by animals or parts of animals (i. e. such ele- 

 ments as the centipede girdles) ; (4) The gradual transition from 

 realistic, modelled, five-fingered Proto-Chimu art to partly real- 

 istic, modelled five-fingered or four-fingered Proto-Nasca art, 

 together with the apparently contemporaneous rise of non-mod- 

 elled, constantly more conventionalized forms of vase-painting. 



From the foregoing it will be seen that a very real underlying 

 similarity of subject-matter binds Proto-Chimu art to Proto- 

 Nasca. 



Reserving for another place the critical consideration as to 

 the descent of Proto-Nasca art, we will now present a tentative 

 classification into sub-types on a combined basis of form and 

 decoration. ^^ 



^ The author wishes to call attention to the very able study of Nasca 

 pottery by Edward K. Putnam (1914), and to say that he departs from 

 the classification of Proto-Nasca pottery offered by Mr. Putnam only 

 because it is too detailed for his present purposes and because it does not 

 emphasize the points he wishes to bring out. 



