NO.    I  ARCHIiOLOGY    OF    ST.    LAWRENCE    ISLAND — COLLINS  295 
of  motifs  appears  to  be  a  matter  of  individual  taste,  and  we  often  seem  to  catch 
a  particular  pattern  in  the  process  of  formation.  The  cases  in  which  the  decora- 
tion appears  to  be  imperfectly  achieved  and  but  poorly  adapted  to  the  shape  of 
the  object,  are  due,  I  feel,  to  the  fact  that  the  artist  has  not  really  thought  out 
his  design.  He  has  not  thoroughly  mastered  his  technique ;  he  is  learning  through 
experimentation 
Eskimo  art,  however,  is  different.  One  feels  that  the  patterns  and  the  principles 
governing  their  arrangement,  and  even  the  choice  of  objects  to  which  they  are 
applied,  were  developed  and  fixed  long  ago.  The  clumsiness  which  we  so  often 
encounter  is  the  result  only  of  slovenly  workmanship.  In  some  cases  the  aesthetic 
appreciation  of  the  design  has  atrophied  to  such  an  extent  that  it  is  apparently 
no  longer  necessary  to  execute  the  design  neatly;  it  is  enough  if  it  is  incised 
in  the  conventional  manner.  This,  however,  is  an  extreme  case  of  the  degenera- 
tion which  has  taken  place  in  Eskimo  art.  The  chief  differences  between  Eskimo 
and  Palaeolithic  art  are  those  between  age  and  youth,  and  are  perhaps  what 
we  should  have  expected,  were  Eskimo  art  derived  from  that  of  the  Palaeolithic, 
[de  Laguna,  1932-33,  PP-  99-ioo.] 
These  considerations  seem  to  show  that  a  fundamental  difference  separates 
the  art  of  the  Eskimo  from  that  of  Upper  Palaeolithic  Europe.  On  the  basis 
of  the  material  at  present  available  it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  Eskimo  art 
is  more  closely  related  to  that  of  the  Palaeolithic  than  are  other  arts  of  com- 
paratively simple  content.  Yet  I  am  not  sure  that  this  negative  conclusion  is 
final.  The  differences  in  style  upon  which  we  have  laid  so  much  emphasis,  may 
be  only  those  which  we  should  expect  to  find  between  an  old  and  a  young  art ; 
they  are  not  differences  in  fundamental  principles.  Indeed,  we  may  be  demand- 
ing too  great  a  uniformity  and  stability  of  tradition  over  such  an  enormous 
lapse  of  time.  In  view  of  the  great  changes  in  Alaskan  art  style  from  the  Old 
Bering  Sea  period  into  modern  times,  is  it  surprising  that  Eskimo  and  Palaeo- 
lithic art  have  so  little  in  common?   [Pp.  102-103.! 
The  question  now  arises  as  to  what  bearing  the  Old  Bering  Sea  art 
may  have  on  this  problem.  Does  this  ancient  Eskimo  art  show  a  closer 
approach  to  Paleolithic  art  than  does  that  of  the  modern  Eskimo? 
Certainly  not  in  its  most  highly  developed  form,  for  the  curvilinear 
patterns  of  Old  Bering  Sea  styles  2  and  3  are  very  different  from 
anything  in  Paleolithic  art.  This  is  not  altogether  true,  however,  of 
style  I.  Even  though  specific  resemblances  are  also  lacking  here,  it 
is  to  be  observed  that  the  rather  "  scratchy  "  ornamentation  on  some 
of  the  style  I  objects  (and  also  on  some  of  the  Dorset  specimens)  re- 
sembles in  a  general  way  the  equally  variable  line  and  spur  designs 
of  the  Paleolithic.  The  distinction  between  the  line  and  spur  orna- 
mentation of  the  Paleolithic  (and  Maglemose)  and  that  characteristic 
of  Neolithic  and  later  horizons  in  Europe  is  very  much  the  same  as 
that  observed  in  the  Eskimo  area  between  the  Old  Bering  Sea  style  i 
form  of  the  design  and  that  characteristic  of  the  later  Punuk  and 
modern  ornamentation :  in  both  cases  the  older  style  is  more  general- 
ized, more  variable,  whereas  the  later  style  has  become  fixed  and 
