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.)

   [7] Cushing, F.H.:  op. cit.; Holmes, W.H.:  three articles on
   pottery, Rep. of Bur. of Ethnol., 1882-83, p. 265, p. 367, and
   p. 443.

[Illustration:  Fig. 2]

[Illustration:  Fig. 3]

[Illustration:  Fig. 4]

The subject of drawing can be here only touched upon, but the results of study go to show, in general, two main directions of primitive expression:  pictorial representation, aiming at truth of life, and symbolic ornament.  The drawings of Australians, Hottentots and Bushmen, and the carvings of the Esquimaux and of the prehistoric men of the reindeer period show remarkable vigor and naturalness; while the ornamentation of such tribes as the South Sea Islanders has a richness and formal beauty that compare favorably with the decoration of civilized contemporaries.  But these two types of art do not always keep pace with each other.  The petroglyphs of the North American Indians[8] exhibit the greatest irregularity, while their tattooing is extremely regular and symmetrical.  The Brazilian savage [9] draws freehand in a very lively and grotesque manner, but his patterns are regular and carefully developed.  Again, not all have artistic talents in the same direction.  Dr. Schurtz, in his ’Ornamentik der Aino,’[10] says:  “There are people who show a decided impulse for the direct imitation of nature, and especially for the representation of events of daily life, as dancing, hunting, fishing, etc.  It is, however, remarkable that a real system of ornamentation is scarcely ever developed from pictorial representations of this kind; that, in fact, the people who carry out these copies of everyday scenes with especial preference, are in general less given to covering their utensils with a rich ornamentive decoration."[11] Drawing and ornament, as the products of different tendencies, may therefore be considered separately.

   [8] Mallery, Garrick:  ’Pictographs of the North American
   Indians,’ Rep. of Bur. of Ethnol., 1882-3, p. 13.