MALLERY. j BATTLES. 555 
When I say that he draws his portrait, it will be understood that he is not skillful 
enough to delineate all the features of his face in such a manner that it would be 
recognized. They have, indeed, no other way of painting than that monogrammatic 
or linear painting, which consists of little more than the mere outlines of the shadow 
of the body rather than of the body itself—a picture so imperfect that it was often 
necessary to add below the name of the object which was intended to be represented 
in order to make it known. 
The Indian then, to represent his portrait, draws a simple outline in the form of a 
head, adding scarcely any marks to indicate the eyes, nose, ears, or other features 
of the face. In place of these he draws the designs which are tattoed upon his own 
face, as well as those upon his breast, and which are peculiar to him and render him 
recognizable not only to those who have seen him, but even to all who, knowing 
him only by reputation, are acquainted with his hieroglyphic symbol, as formerly 
in Europe an individul was distinguished by his device and as we to-day know a 
family by its armorial bearings. About his head he paints the object which ex- 
presses his name; the Indian, for example, called the Sun paints a sun; at the right 
he traces the animals which are the symbols of the nation and family to which he 
belongs. That of the nation is above the one representing the family, and the beak 
or muzzle of the former is so placed that it corresponds to the place of his right ear, 
as if this symbolic figure of his nation represented its spirit, which inspires him. If 
this Indian is returning from war, he represents beneath his portrait the number of 
warriors composing the party which he leads, and beneath the warriors the number 
of prisoners made and those whom he has killed by his own hand. At the left side 
are indicated his expeditions and the prisoners or scalps taken by those of his party. 
The warriors are represented with their weapons or simply by lines; the prisoners 
by the stick decorated with feathers and by the chichikone or tortoise-shell rattle, 
which are the marks of their slavery; the scalps or the dead by the figures of men, 
women, or children without heads. The number of expeditions is designated by 
mats. He distinguishes those which he has accompanied from those which he has 
commanded by adding strings [of wampum] to the latter. If the Indian goes as an 
ambassador of peace all the symbols are of a pacific nature. He is represented be- 
low his portrait with the calumet in his hand; at the left is seen an enlarged figure 
of the calumet, the symbolic figure of the nation with which he goes to treat, and 
the number of those who accompany him on the embassy. 
The same author, on page 194 of the same volume, explains how the 
mat or mattress came to mean war: 
The Iroquois and the Hurons call war n’ondoutagette and gaskenrhagette. The 
final verb gagetton, which is found in the composition of these two words, and which 
signifies to bear or to carry, shows, verily, that heretofore something was borne to 
it [i. e., to war], which was a symbol of it [i. e., of war] to such a degree that it 
{war] had assumed its [the symbol’s] designation. The term ondouta signifies the 
down [the wool-like substance] which is taken from the ear [cat-tails] of marsh 
reeds, and it also denotes the entire plant, which they use in making the mattresses 
{nattes] upon which they le; so that it appears that they appled this term to war 
because every warrior in this kind of expeditions carried with him his own mattress; 
in fact, the mattress is still to-day the symbol employed in their hieroglyphic pic- 
ture-writing to denote the number of their campaigns. 
Mr. J. N. B. Hewitt, in Science, April 1, 1892, has gone deeper into 
the etymology of the words quoted, but coincides generally with Father 
Lafitau in the explanation that they were denotive of the custom of the 
Troquoian warrior to carry his mattress when on the warpath. 
Figs. 782 and 783 are reproductions of Lafitau’s (c) illustrations, 
which were explained as follows by him: 
