Ancient Pottery of the Mississippi Valley: Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1882-83, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1886, pages 361-436Holmes, William Henry
History
Ancient Pottery of the Mississippi Valley: Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1882-83, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1886, pages 361-436
Holmes, William Henry
Indian pottery -- Mississippi River Valley; Mississippi River Valley -- Antiquities
The decided prevalence of curved forms is worthy of remark. With all
their fertility of invention, the inhabitants of this valley seem
never to have achieved the rectangular linked meander, or anything
more nearly approaching it than the current scroll or the angular
guilloche, while other peoples, such as the Pueblos of the Southwest
and the ancient nations of Mexico and Peru found in it a chief
resource. The reasons for this, as well as for other peculiarities of
the decorative art of the mound-builders as embodied in pottery, must
be sought for in the antecedent and coëxistent arts of these tribes.
These peoples were certainly not highly accomplished in the textile
arts, nor had they felt the influence of advanced architecture such
as that of Mexico. The influence of such arts inevitably gives rise
to angular geometric figures. Taken as a whole, the remains of the
mound-builders would seem to point to a hyperborean origin for both
the people and their arts.
The origin of decorative ideas, the processes by which they are
acquired by the various arts, and their subsequent mutations of form
and significance are matters of the greatest interest, and a separate
paper will be devoted to their consideration.
CLASSIFICATION OF FORMS.--Form cannot be made a satisfactory basis
of classification, yet within a given group of products, defined
by general characters, a classification by shape will be found to
facilitate description. In making such a classification we must
distinguish essential from non-essential features, that is to say, for
example, that bowls must be placed with bowls, bottles with bottles,
etc., disregarding the various fanciful modifications given to rims,
necks, and bodies for the sake of embellishment. To recognize these
adventitious features, which are almost infinite in variety, would be
to greatly embarrass form classification.
There is also another difficulty in the employment of form in
classification--the nomenclature is very imperfect. We cannot use
Greek names, as our forms correspond in a very few instances only with
the highly developed forms known to classic art. Our own plain terms,
although defective, are better and far more appropriate. All necessary
correlations of form can readily be made when the comparative study of
the pottery of the world is undertaken.
If we take a full set of these primitive vessels and arrange them in
the order of increasing complexity we have an unbroken series ranging
from the simplest cup to the high-necked bottle with perforated foot
or with tripod. A partial series is shown in the upper line, Fig 361.
A multitude of variations from these outlines are found, a few of
which are suggested in the lower line.
[Illustration: FIG. 361.--Scale of forms.]
Compound, eccentric, and life forms are given elsewhere.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account