Читать книгу Evolution in Art: As Illustrated by the Life-histories of Designs - Alfred C. Haddon - Страница 8

Fig. 6.—Series of arrows from Torres Straits, collected and sketched by the author, and presented by him to the Cambridge Museum; one-third natural size.

On comparing a number of crocodile-arrows with the animal itself, one is struck with the numerous realistic details which have survived the decorative treatment of the design. It must be remembered that one is dealing with a work of decorative art, and not an attempt at realistic carving. In one arrow several anatomical characteristics of the crocodile will be suggestively rendered; in a second other details will be more accurately carved; but in the great majority of arrows belonging to this series, variation has occurred to such an extent that the crocodile becomes almost unrecognisable as such.

A very typical crocodile arrow is to be seen in Fig. 6, A; the chief variation in this is the placing of one nostril behind the other.

In Fig. 6, B, the nostrils are side by side, and the teeth of the upper jaw are represented by a zigzag line. The hind-limbs and the tail are entirely absent.

Fig. 6, C, is important in several respects. The nostril is single, the mouth is partially closed; but the teeth have not, as yet, entirely disappeared from the hinder closed moiety. The eye is oval, a rare feature, and the dorsal scales of the neck are represented; this is also rare. The fore-limbs have been converted into a raised zigzag band, which encircles the arrow. The hind-limbs do the same, except that the pattern is interrupted in the median dorsal line by a double row of tubercles, which represent the prominent dorsal scutes of this region in the living animal. The thigh is carved with a curved upper border and a straight lower border.

There is rather a gap in the series between Fig. 6, C and D; but it is easy to see that the hinder part of the mouth is closed, and the teeth of both jaws are represented by different patterns; the front part of the mouth is widely open, but edentulous. The nostril is single. The eye has become enormously enlarged, and constitutes what I propose to term an eye-panel; it extends backwardly to the fore-limb. The plain upper surface of the head and neck has become much reduced, owing to the encroachment of a double row of spots on each side. The artist mistook the upper for the lower surface when he carved the fore-limbs, for it will be seen that the toes are above and the dorsal scutes are placed below. Another point of interest is the replacing of the central row of caudal scutes by a plain ridge; so far as I am aware this is unique.

Fig. 6, E, is a type of a large number of arrows. The front open part of the mouth is quite small, and the surfaces of the jaws are scored by oblique lines. The median dorsal plain band of the snout is no wider than the lateral bands which indicate the closed hinder part of the mouth. In the gape of the mouth an elongated triangle is very generally present; this is doubtless intended to represent a tongue. Sometimes it is notched. The eye-panels are elongated and narrow, and the dorsal median band of the head and neck extremely reduced. The rest of the body in this arrow calls for no special mention. Sometimes eyes are carved on the dorsal surface of the gaping end of the upper jaw.

In the last arrow (Fig. 6, F) of the series which I figure, the front part of the mouth has disappeared; but the hinder part of the head is much the same as in the last arrow. The fore-limbs and body are absent. The hind-limbs are narrow, but retain their characteristic forward bend; the dorsal caudal scutes are replaced by numerous parallel transverse lines.

Fig. 7.

Snake-arrow from Torres Straits (cf. Fig. 6).

Two features of the innumerable modifications of this design are worthy of special allusion, the one is the remarkable retention of the projecting nostril, which may often be found as a slight prominence in very degraded arrows; and the other is the still greater persistence of the tail and hindquarters of the crocodile. I suspect that the striking decorative effect of the concentrically marked cloacal plate has led not only to the retention of that part, but also to that of the neighbouring organs.

(b.) The Snake Variety.—We now pass on to a small group in which the open front part of the mouth of such an arrow as Fig. 6, E, has suggested a complete head, and so eyes are added (Fig. 7); the rest of the snout, the head and fore-limbs are omitted; the body is much elongated, but the hind legs and tail are usually quite normal, or subject to merely minor variations; the patterns may run transversely as in the figure, or longitudinally. Such a carving irresistibly calls to mind a snake; the natives themselves told me it was a snake.

The tail and hindquarters, however, proclaim the crocodilian original. In this group of arrows we have a very interesting example of the transition from one kind of animal into another; but hitherto I have not seen a snake-arrow which has lost all trace of its saurian ancestry.

(c.) The Lizard Variety.—A few arrows are known to me which pretty closely resemble Fig. 6, E, except that the hind-limbs are elongated and slender, and the tail is not crocodilian. The body is depressed and lozenge-shaped in section. In other words, the body, hind legs, and tail are lacertilian in character. In these arrows, the crocodile has been confounded with a lizard.

Other illustrations of the decorative art of these people will be found in Figs. 44, 66; but as these examples illustrate other aspects of the subject, I have described them in the relating sections of this book and refrain from repeating them here.