'^°No.°74f^^' IROQUOIS MASKS AT ONONDAGA — HENDRY 397 



from a study of museum collections.^^ Some deviation from these 

 types is evident, but it results from the modification or exaggeration 

 of the old forms rather than from the invention of new ones. The 

 spoon-lipped masks of Kenneth Thomas on which, in contrast to 

 older specimens of this type, the spoons are smaller and the lower lip 

 is elongated to form the chin (pis. 94, a, and 94, c), or the unusually 

 enlarged and flared mouth on the blowing mask carved by Elijah Hill 

 (pi. 98, a) are examples of such changes. The use of white paint to 

 accentuate the eyes, the brows, the cheekbones, and the teeth may 

 be considered another minor innovation since the ancient masks 

 were painted a solid color. Yet this too is an elaboration, not an 

 alteration, of the features and is quite consistent with the traditional 

 treatment of the carvings which aimed at achieving a dramatic and 

 striking effect. 



Only two masks seem to me to be approaching the limits of Iroquois 

 style. One of these, shaped like a skull with large, round eyes and 

 bared teeth, resembles a death's head and has no precedent that I 

 know of (pi. 98, c). The other is crudely executed with no detail or 

 refinement of the forms, which suggests that its un-Iroquois appear- 

 ance is due more to a lack of sldll on the part of the artist than to a 

 deliberate attempt to deviate from the conventional patterns (pi. 99, 

 top). 



Within the limitations imposed by the standard of traditionalism, 

 there is considerable variation. Because each mask is made up of a 

 number of independent elements — the shape of the face, the eyes, 

 the nose, and the mouth, the proportioning of these features, and the 

 treatment of details — different effects can be produced through 

 different combinations of the same basic forms. Thus two masks 

 with identical mouths may be quite dissimilar owing to the variations 

 in the other features (cf. pi. 95, 6, with pi. 95, c), while a difference in 

 the mouth type and the amount of surface embellishments may serve to 

 differentiate carvings which in other respects are essentially similar, 

 (cf. pi. 94, c, with pi. 95, h, in which the outline of the face, the eyes, and 

 the nose forms are much the same). These differences, taken in con- 

 junction with the statements of the carvers that they like to follow 

 their own ideas, indicate the presence of another standard: that of 

 uniqueness or individuality. In the majority of carvings this 

 second standard is subordinated to the first, since individuality is 

 achieved by the use of the old forms and remains within the limits of 

 the established style. 



The fact that in some of the masks the formal elements are de- 

 veloped beyond the requirements of traditionalism and individual- 



22 Although I was told by several carvers that the Onondaga do not classify theii' masks at all, I have 

 used Fenton's criteria and distinguished them according to mouth types. 

 682-611—64 31 



