MCGEE] FUNCTIONS OF THE DESIGNS l(i7* 



these only with some uucertaiuty, viz, the Turtle clan,' denoted by the 

 symbols of Juana Maria (plate xviii) and Caudelaria (plate xxiv and 

 the upper left figure in phxte xxvi); the Pelican clan, denoted by the 

 designs of two typical matrons (plates xx and xxii) and a typical 

 maiden (plate xxv), and probably also by those of the mediolateral 

 figures in plate xxvi; and (still less certainly) the JRattlesnake clan, 

 denoted by the symbol of the lower left tigure in this plate. The 

 s[)ecial sematic values of the colors also are esoteric, and were not 

 ascertained; even in the case of the simple pelican design, the differ- 

 ence in meaning between the solid red pattern of one group and the 

 similar pattern of white in another grouj) was successfully concealed. 

 • So, too, the siguiflcance of the various subordinate or supplementary 

 devices — the distinct border line shown in plate xx, the lower cheek 

 devices in plate xxiv, the separate chin mark in plate xxv, the fetish- 

 like symbols on the lower cheeks in the lower left figure of plate xxvi, 

 etc — eluded inquiry ; while some of the minor features of both form and 

 color were sufficiently variable in the devices borne by different faces 

 of the same family, and even in successive paintings of the same face, 

 to suggest some individual freedom in carrying out the detail of the 

 generally uniform designs. 



The telic functions, or ultimate purposes, of the face-painting are 

 also esoteric, though not beyond the reach of inference from the sematic 

 functions, coupled with general facts of zoic and primitive human cus- 

 toms. Even at first sight the painted devices bring to mind the 

 directive markings of lower animals defined by Professor Todd- and 

 interpreted by Ernest Setou-Thompson;^ and in view of the implacably 

 militant habit of the Seri it would seem evident that the artifieial 

 devices are, at least in their primary aspect, analogous to the natural 

 markings. On analyzing the directive markings of animals, it is conve- 

 nient to divide them into two classes, distinguished by special function, 

 usual placement, an<l general relation to animal economy: the first 

 class serve primarily to guide flight in such manner as to permit ready 

 reassembling of the flock; they are usually posterior, as in rabbit, 

 white-tail deer, antelope, and various birds; and they primarily signify 

 inimical relations to alien organisms, with functional exercise under 

 stress of fear. The second class of markings serve primarily for 

 mutual identification of api)roaching individuals; as comports with 

 tins function, they are usually facial, or at least anterior; and their 

 functional exercise is normally connected with peaceful association — 

 though the strongly emphasized facial symbols of the males doubtless 



' This tutelary may be the shark ; it was described as a water monster iqstrumental in the creation 

 and good Ibrfood, but the identilication is not beyond doubt. Cf. p. 278. 



'American XaturalisI, vol xxil, 1888, pp. 201-207. 



= Wild Animala I Have Known, 1898, p. 119; Century Magazine, vol. Ll.x, 1900, pp. 636-660. In bis lei-- 

 tures, Mr Seton-Thonipson exteutls lii.s interpretations lo anterior as well as to posterior markings, 

 especially the conspicuous and persistent facial features of deer, antelope, mongrel (or ancestral) dog, 

 etc. Sncb facial markings seem especially characteristic of gregarious animals: and they are 

 peculiarly significant as social symbols rather tban as mere beacons fur guidance in tligbt. 



