1902.] Dixon, Basketry Designs of California Indians. 27 



one of these designs on a basket is almost sufficient evidence 

 as to the stock, and even, in some cases, the part of the 

 stock, whence it came. In addition to this body of strictly 

 characteristic designs, there are some, generally only a few, 

 however, which the stock in question shares with some other 

 stock or stocks, usually those with which it is in contact. That 

 in such cases the fact of the common possession of designs is 

 to be explained as due to borrowing or copying of the designs 

 of one stock by basket-makers of the other, is most probable, 

 and any other explanation seems unnecessary. In the case 

 of tribes which may show other evidences of close relation 

 ship, such instances may be due to inheritance from a common 

 ancestor; but, until good evidence of this close relationship is 

 forthcoming, such community of design can easiest be ex 

 plained by borrowing. That the Indians themselves recognize 

 the existence of such borrowing is shown by cases similar to 

 the design on Plate XIV, Fig. i, where it was expressly stated 

 that the design had been taken from a type of basket common 

 to the south. In this case, no attempt seems to have been 

 made to explain the design, or invent a meaning for it. 



As a rule, borrowed designs do not spread far, and are often 

 confined to that part of the borrowing stock which lies directly 

 along the line of contact. There are a few designs, however, 

 which are of wider distribution, common not only to adja- 

 cent stocks or portions of stocks, but occurring here and 

 there from Southern California to Washington and British 

 Columbia. A design of this sort would be the arrow-point, for 

 instance. Must we. in such cases, regard the wide distribu 

 tion of the design as due to dissemination or to borrowing? As 

 a rule, designs thus widely spread are extremely simple, and, 

 owing to this, receive different explanations in different places, 

 although sometimes, as in the case of the arrow-point, the 

 same explanation is given at points widely separated. In 

 view of the very simple nature, as a rule, of these widely 

 spread designs, it would seem more probable that they have 

 been invented locally and independently, and that in such 

 cases we have no need to call in the hypothesis of contact or 

 dissemination. That widely separated members of the same 



