The method of the following outline treatment will be to deduct from the object under consideration those symmetrical elements which seem to be directly traceable to non-æsthetic influences; such elements as are not thus to be accounted for must be taken as evidence of a direct pleasure in, and desire for symmetry on the part of primitive man. These possible non-æsthetic influences may be provisionally suggested to be the technical conditions of construction, the greater convenience and hence desirability of symmetrical objects for practical use, and the symmetrical character of natural forms which were imitated.
The first great group of objects is given in primitive architecture. Here is found almost complete unanimity of design, the conical, hemispherical or beehive form being well-nigh universal. The hut of the Hottentots, a cattle-herding, half-nomadic people, is a good type of this. A circle of flexible staves is stuck into the ground, bent together and fastened at the top, and covered with skins. But this is the form of shelter constructed with the greatest ease, suitable to the demands of elastic materials, boughs, twigs, reeds, etc., and giving the greatest amount of space with the least material. There are, indeed, a few examples of the rectangular form of dwelling among various primitive races, but these seem to be more or less open to explanation by the theory advanced by Mr. V. Mendeleff, of the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology. "In his opinion the rectangular form of architecture which succeeds the type under discussion, must have resulted from the circular form by the bringing together within a limited area of many houses.... This partition would naturally be built straight as a two-fold measure of economy."[2] This opinion is confirmed by Mr. Cushing's observations among the Zuñi villages, where the pueblos have circular forms on the outskirts. Thus the shape of the typical primitive dwelling is seen to be fully accounted for as the product of practical considerations alone. It may therefore be dismissed as offering no especial points of interest for this inquiry.
Next in the order of primitive development are the arts of binding and weaving. The stone axe or arrow-head, for example, was bound to a wooden staff, and had to be lashed with perfect evenness,[3] and when in time the material and method of fastening changed, the geometrical forms of this careful binding continued to be engraved at the juncture of blade and handle of various implements. It should be noted, however, that these binding-patterns, in spite of their superfluous character, remained symmetrical.
On the great topic of symmetry in weaving, monographs could be written. Here it is sufficient to recall[4] that the absolutely necessary technique of weaving in all its various forms of interlacing, plaiting, netting, embroidering, etc., implies order, uniformity, and symmetry. The chance introduction of a thread or withe of a different color, brings out at once an ordered pattern in the result; the crowding together or pressing apart of elements, a different alternation of the woof, a change in the order of intersection, all introduce changes by the natural necessities of construction which have the effect of purpose. So far, then, as the simple weaving is concerned, the æsthetic demand for symmetry may be discounted. While it may be operative, the forms can be explained by the necessities of construction, and we have no right to assume an æsthetic motive.
The treatment of human and animal forms in weaving is, however, indicative of a direct pleasure in symmetry. The human form appears almost exclusively (much schematized) en face. When in profile, as for instance in Mexican and South American work, it is doubled—that is, two figures are seen face to face. Animal figures, on the other hand, are much used as row-ornaments in profile.[5] It would seem that only the linear conception of the row or band with its suggestions of movement in one direction, justified the use of profile (e.g., in Peruvian woven stuffs), since it is almost always seen under those conditions, indicating that a limited rectangular space is felt as satisfactorily filled only by a symmetrical figure.[6] Moreover, and still more confirmatory of this theory, even these row-pattern profiles are immensely distorted toward symmetry, and every 'degradation' of form, to use Professor Haddon's term, is in the direction of symmetry. (See Fig. 1.)
The shape of primitive pottery is conditioned by the following influences: The shapes of utensils preceding clay, such as skins, gourds, shells, etc., which have been imitated, the forms of basket models, and the conditions of construction (formation by the hands). For all these reasons, most of these shapes are circular. The only (in the strict sense) symmetrical shapes found are of unmistakably animal origin, and it is interesting to notice the gradual return of these to the eurhythmic form; puma, bird, frog, etc., gradually changing into head, tail and leg excrescences, and then handles and nodes (rectangular panels), upon a round bowl or jar L, as shown in the figures. In fact, in ancient American pottery,[7] at least, all the symmetrical ornamentations can be traced to the opposition of head and tail, and the sides between them, of these animal forms. But beyond this there is no degradation of the broad outline of the design. The head and tail, and sides, become respectively handles and nodes—but the symmetry becomes only more and more emphasized. And as in the case of textiles, the ornaments of the rectangular spaces given by the nodes are strikingly symmetrical. Many of these are from animal motives, and nearly always heads are turned back over the body, tails exaggerated, or either or both doubled, to get a symmetrical effect. Although much of the symmetrical ornament, again, is manifestly from textile models, its symmetrical character is so carefully preserved against the suggestions of the circular form that a direct pleasure in its symmetry may be inferred. (See Figs. 2-7.)
Fig. 2.
