680 REroRT— 1898. 



On halibut hooks we find very often decorations representing the 

 squid. The reason for selecting this motive must be looked for in the 

 fact that the squid is used for baiting the hooks. 



I am not quite certain if the decoration of armour and weapons is 

 totemistic or symbolic. Remarkably many helmets represent the sea- 

 lion, many daggers the bear, eagle, wolf, and raven, while I have not seen 

 one that represents the killer-whale, although it is one of the ornaments 

 that are most frequently shown on totemistic designs. 



I presume this phenomenon may be accounted for by a consideration 

 of the ease with which the conventionalised forms lend themselves to 

 decorating certain parts of implements. It is difficult to imagine how 

 the killer-whale could be represented on the handle of a dagger without 

 impairing its usefulness. On the other hand, the long thin handles 

 of ladles made of the horn of the big horn sheep generally terminate with 

 the head of a ia\ en or of a crane, the beak being the end of the handle. 

 This form was evidently suggested by the slender tip of the horn, which 

 is easily carved in this shape. The same seems to be true in the cases of 

 lances or knives, the blades of which are represented as the long, pro- 

 truding tongues of animals ; but it may be that in this case there is a 

 complex action of a belief in the supernatural power of the tongue, and in 

 the suggestions which the decorator received from the shape of the object 

 he desired to decorate. 



To sum up, it seems that there are a great number of cases of decoration 

 which cannot be considered totemistic, but which are either symbolic or 

 suggested by the shape of the object to be decorated. It seems likely 

 that totemism was the most powerful incentive in developing the art of 

 the natives of the North Pacific coast ; but the desire to decorate in 

 certain con^ entional forms once established, these forms were applied in 

 cases in which there was no reason and no intention of using the 

 totemistic mark. The thoughts of the artists were influenced by 

 considerations foreign to the idea of totemism. This is one of the 

 numerous ethnological phenomena which, although apparently simple, 

 cannot be explained psychologically from a single cause, but are due to 

 several factors. 



The treatment of the animal design is very peculiar. We may 

 distinguish two principles which govern the form of representation : 

 First, the animal is characterised by a number of symbols ; secondly, 

 the artist does not endeavour to render a perspective view of the animal, 

 but rather to show the whole animal. 



The first of these principles is jjrobably founded largely on the difficulty 

 encountered in designing realistic representations of various animals which 

 would be clearly recognised as specific animals. For this reason the most 

 characteristic peculiarities of each species become the symbols by which it 

 is recognised. Thus the beaver is always symbolised by two large incisors 

 and a scaly tail ; the dog-fish, by an elongated forehead, a mouth with 

 depressed corners, and five curved lines (the gills) on each cheek ; the 

 killer-whale, by its tail, flippers, and its large dorsal fin ; the sculpin, by 

 two spines which rise over the forehead ; the hawk, by a large beak, 

 which is turned backward so that it touches the chin. Probably all 

 these symbols were originally applied to characterise a portion of a 

 quadruped, bird, or fish ; but in course of time they came to be considered 

 as sufficient to call to mind the form of the whole animal. We find, 

 therefore, that gradually the symbols Mere to a great extent substituted 



