Boas] SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 387 
baskets leaves us with the impression that certain standard forms 
are attempted that might have been formulated in definite numerical 
relations. The tabulations given on pages 416 et seq. and sum- 
marized by Miss Roberts on pages 212-223 show that this is true in a 
very general way only. We might say that the form is felt, rather 
than obtained by deliberate measurements. It is interesting to note 
that other attempts to determine characteristic forms metrically have 
led to the same results. I have measured a large number of wcoden 
boxes of the north Pacific coast which gave a definite impression of 
uniformity of proportions. I have not been able to find any pro- 
portion that could be designated as the standard. Dr. Ruth Bunzel 
has found the same in the pottery of the Zufi Indians and Dr. Gladys 
A. Reichard has made the same observation in regard to the dishes of 
the Admiralty Islands. 
Designs which are claimed by the makers as their own inventions 
are generally slight modifications of current forms. This is even true 
of the so-called “‘dream designs.’’ I presume when the Indians use 
the term “dream design,’’ which is found not only on the western 
plateaus but also among the Indians of the Plains, they mean that 
the design appears to them as an original invention. Whether it 
_actually appeared in a dream or whether it is a visual image is not 
certain. It is certainly striking that none of the designs of the 
Thompson Indians resemble those of the Klickitat and that none of 
the new inventions follow Klickitat lines. The power of invention 
of the artist is obviously under the control of tradition. 
In the long series of design names collected by Mr. Teit and 
brought together in Plates 78-94, we may recognize that a large 
number are merely descriptions, while others may be considered as 
loose designations of forms. The great variety of names applied to 
the same form indicate clearly that we are not dealing with designs 
which could in any way be interpreted as conventionalized repre- 
sentations, but that we are merely dealing with descriptions based 
on a comparison between the geometric form and some object. 
This, of course, applies only to the true geometrical designs, not to 
the obvious representations of animals and of plants. 
The general tendency of the natives is well illustrated by the 
design on a soft bag represented by Farrand,’ which was pur- 
chased by a Thompson woman from one of the southeastern tribes. 
The series of connected diamonds appealed to her, according to the 
interpretative tendencies of the Thompson people, as a series of 
lakes. In order to bring out the idea more clearly she added small 
embroideries representing birds flying toward the lakes. 
The general tendency of the Thompson is similar to that found 
among the California Indians. They have a large number of design 
names without, however, attaching to a definite form a single term. 
78 Livingston Farrand, Basketry Designs of the Salish Indians, Jesup Expedition, Vol. I, pl. 23, fig. 1. 
