294  SMITHSONIAN    MISCELLANEOUS    COLLECTIONS  VOL.    96 
Eurasia.  Rows  of  triangles  play  an  important  part  in  this  northern 
style  but  they  may  to  some  extent  represent  a  secondary  development, 
for  as  de  Laguna  has  observed  (1932,  1933,  p.  96)  ",  .  .  .  in  some 
cases,  under  the  influence  of  the  gouged  triangular  ornamentation  so 
popular  in  Siberia,  the  spurs  are  enlarged  until  they  almost  become 
little  triangles."  The  transition  from  spurs  to  triangles  is  so  easily 
effected  that  in  this  particular  case  one  might  be  inclined  to  believe 
that  there  had  existed  here  an  earlier  art  style  based  on  the  more  ex- 
tensive use  of  the  spurred  line  and  rows  of  alternating  spurs. 
Though  we  have  no  archeological  data  for  northern  Siberia,  there  is 
ample  evidence  of  the  antiquity  of  both  of  these  designs  in  Europe. 
The  alternating  spur,  the  more  developed  of  the  two  designs,  occurs 
at  Maglemose,  Megalithic,  and  late  Iron  Age  sites  (de  Laguna,  1932, 
1933.  P-  96)  and  although  rare  in  Paleolithic  art,  it  is  found  in  a  few 
instances  and  in  forms  which  are  distinctly  suggestive  of  Eskimo  art 
(Piette,  1907,  pi.  7,  fig.  3).  The  single  line  with  spurs  attached  is  much 
more  common,  and  in  Scandinavia,  in  medieval  times,  it  assumed  forms 
very  similar  to  those  of  the  Eskimo  (Holmquist,  1935,  figs.  2-4).  It 
occurs  also  in  the  Maglemose  and  Neolithic  and  is  one  of  the  most  com- 
mon geometric  designs  of  Paleolithic  art.  In  Paleolithic  and  Magle- 
mose art,  however,  the  spurred  line  is  a  highly  variable  element,  occur- 
ring in  a  number  of  different  forms,  whereas  in  modern  Eskimo  art  it 
is  very  uniform  and  is  most  often  employed  as  a  border  design. 
A  number  of  writers  have  attempted  to  point  out  resemblances  be- 
tween Eskimo  and  Paleolithic  art.  As  a  rule  the  comparison  has  been 
drawn  on  the  basis  of  realistic  rather  than  geometric  art,  even  though 
Hoffman,  Sollas,  and  others  have  pointed  out  the  obvious  dissimilarity 
between  the  spirited  and  artistic  creations  of  the  Paleolithic  artists 
and  the  simple  pictographic  art  of  the  Eskimo.  Since  it  now  appears 
that  pictographic  art  was  unknown  to  the  Old  Bering  Sea  and  Dorset 
cultures,  this  theory  would  seem  to  require  no  further  consideration. 
Comparisons  must  be  drawn,  if  at  all,  on  the  basis  of  geometric  art. 
An  important  contribution  in  this  direction  has  recently  been  made 
by  Dr.  Frederica  de  Laguna,  whose  scholarly  paper  constitutes  the 
first  really  critical  or  analytical  comparison  of  Eskimo  and  Paleolithic 
art.  Her  conclusions,  conservatively  expressed,  emphasize  the  essential 
differences  between  these  two  art  styles  though  at  the  same  time  ad- 
mitting the  possibility  of  a  remote  connection : 
It  remains  to  be  investigated  whether  both  arts  have  the  same  underlying 
principles  of  style,  that  is,  the  same  principles  of  combining  decorative  motifs 
and  applying  them  to  objects.  We  are  struck,  even  from  the  first,  however,  by 
very  great  differences.    Palaeolithic  style  is  fluid :   the  creation  and  arrangement 
