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 — John Shaqi
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
It will be difficult to determine the origin of this curious practice.
We shall not be able to say that it came from the elaboration of
handles, simply to please fancy, for the reason that vessels of
this class are rarely known to have had simple handles; nor from the
modification of simple ornaments, as such were but little used. It
is still less probable that animal forms were first modeled
independently, and afterwards changed in such a way as to serve as
vessels. There are no examples of animal forms in clay independent
of vessels. It would not be consistent with primitive methods
of procedure to copy nature direct, at least until some mystic
significance had become attached to the form employed. It is possible,
however, that the origin of this practice is not to be found
within the plastic art itself, but in the shapes of antecedent and
co-existent vessels of other materials in which life forms had been
employed; or in the use of natural objects themselves as utensils,
the original forms not having been lost sight of and having in time
suggested the employment of other natural forms. Examples of the
latter class may be cited.
Shells were primitive vessels. The hard cases of seeds and fruits were
also much used. These were doubtless antecedent to vessels of clay.
They were the natural models for the potter, the carver in wood or
stone, and their employment as such served to lead up gradually to a
more realistic and general use of natural shapes in works of art to
which they were not essential features. The importance of the various
animal forms was increased by their association with religious ideas.
Nearly all the vessels of this class presented in the following
illustrations come from the vicinity of Pecan Point, Arkansas.
Clay vessels imitating both marine and fresh-water shells are
occasionally obtained from the mounds and graves of the Mississippi
Valley. The conch shell appears to have been a favorite model,
especially in its modified form, Fig. 374, _a_ and _b_. The clam shell
is also imitated in _c_ and _d_. The more conventional forms of these
vessels are exceedingly interesting, as they point out the tendencies
and possibilities of modification. An instructive example illustrated
in _e_ has four groups of nodes, each, consisting of a large central
node with four or five smaller ones, surrounding it, set about the
rim, the conception being that of four shells joined in one vessel,
with the noded apexes turned outward and the bases inward.
A still more highly conventionalized form is shown in _f_. The cup
is unsymmetrical in outline, and has a few imperfect nodes near one
corner, but its resemblance to a shell would hardly be recognized by
one unacquainted with more realistic renderings of like subjects. In
_g_ we have an imitation of a shell cup placed within a plain cup.
[Illustrations: FIG. 374.--Clay vessels imitating shells.]
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