{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_70555/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_70555","id":"gutenberg_70555","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/70555","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Art","Category: History - Other","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Feathers in art","Hopi Indians -- Antiquities","Hopi Indians -- Religion","Hopi Indians -- Rites and ceremonies","Hopi art"],"text":"THE FEATHER SYMBOL IN ANCIENT HOPI DESIGNS\n\n                           J. WALTER FEWKES\n\n\nAlthough the prehistoric Indians of Tusayan have left no written\nrecords in the forms of books, documents, or codices, there survives\nfrom their time a most elaborate paleography which has been preserved\non imperishable material in the dry soil of Arizona for several\ncenturies. This paleography is a picture writing, often highly symbolic\nand complicated, but from it the student can obtain an idea of Hopi\nthought and its expression at that remote time. It reveals phases\nof ancient life which have been modified or lost in the subsequent\ndevelopment of the race.\n\nThe most abundant of all objects found in the ruins scattered over the\nSouthwest are fragments of pottery, and if the cemeteries of these\nancient habitations are excavated large collections of decorated\nbowls, vases, and jars may be had from any ruin of considerable size.\nThe majority of these fragments of pottery from Tusayan are richly\ndecorated with designs, some of which are very complicated. The figures\nrepresented in this ornamentation are often realistic, but many are\nhighly symbolic and conventionalized. It is an object of the present\narticle to discuss one symbol of the latter group, and for this purpose\nI have chosen the feather, which, through its metamorphosis in form, is\none of the more difficult to recognize.\n\nBefore passing to a consideration of the feather in ancient Hopi\nsymbolism, it may be interesting to note that very few of the\nfigures with which pottery from pueblo ruins is decorated have been\ninterpreted, and we may say that the study is as yet in its infancy.\nThe ancient Tusayan ware bears several designs of a simple, geometric\nshape, which are widely distributed over the whole Pueblo area of\nthe Southwest. So far, however, as my knowledge of ancient Pueblo\npaleography goes, the symbols of the feather as here indicated are\nconfined to ruins of villages which are purely Hopi in origin, although\nthey may later be found elsewhere in Arizona or New Mexico.\n\nI have shown in several previous publications on the ceremonials of\nthe Hopi ritual the significant part which the figure of the feather\nplays in the decoration of altars and ceremonial paraphernalia, but I\nam unaware that any one has yet called attention to the very important\nuse of the feather symbols in the decoration of ancient Hopi ceramics.\nA pottery ornamentation has a religious intent, and, since from its\npresence as a decorative element there is every reason to believe that\nthe feather in ancient times held much the same position in the ritual\nas at present, it is instructive to trace its many variations as a\nsymbol.\n\nWhile what is here written is drawn more especially from the\npaleography of Sikyatki,[1] it is true, likewise, of that represented\nin all the Tusayan ruins where yellow ware is abundant. I might\ninstance examples from old Cu\u00f1opavi, Kisakobi or Old Walpi, and\nOld Mico\u00f1inovi. It does not, however, hold in all particulars when\nwe study the red ware characteristic of the ruins along the Little\nColorado river, where the feather takes another symbolic form not fully\ndiscussed in the present article. It applies to representations of\nthe feather as depicted on altars now in use in Tusayan, symbols of\nfeathers on dolls and ceremonial paraphernalia used by people who are\nlineal descendants of the inhabitants of the ruined pueblos mentioned\nabove. The ruins of Sikyatki lie about three miles east of Walpi, and\nthe pueblo of which they are the remains was destroyed previously to\nthe middle of the sixteenth century.\n\nI have grouped all the striking modifications in bird and feather\nsymbols in close approximation in an installation of the more\ninstructive pieces of pottery from Sikyatki in the National Museum, at\nWashington, and the reader may there find a larger series illustrating\nancient Hopi paleography than has ever before been displayed. A\nforthcoming report[2] of the Bureau of American Ethnology, under\nthe auspices of which institution these objects were collected, will\ndescribe these variations in detail, and as this report is elaborately\nillustrated, the reader will soon have abundant published material from\nwhich to study modifications of the feather symbol in ancient Tusayan.\n\nWe have no difficulty in recognizing among the many figures of animals\nwhich the ancient Hopi potter depicted on her wares the great group\nto which any one belongs. Four-legged animals of two kinds, frogs\nand lizards, are readily separated from mammals; apodal reptiles or\nsnakes are easily distinguished from both, and there is no difficulty\nin separating the moth or butterfly from the spider or dragon-fly.\nThe great group to which the animal depicted belongs is not difficult\nto discover, and from a large series of related designs one may trace\nquite readily the changes in form which have resulted in highly\nconventionalized modifications.\n\nThe most constant group of animals chosen for realistic or symbolic\nrepresentation on ancient Tusayan ceramic ware is that of birds.\nMore than two-thirds of all the pictographs on ancient pottery where\nanimals are intended represent avian forms. The modifications which\nthese figures pass through as they become conventionalized likewise\nexceed in number and variety those of any other animals, and a\ncomprehensive study of the different symbols representing birds would\nbe a most interesting and instructive one. This study is important as\na ground-work for the following conclusions, for in no other way can\nwe identify as feathers some of the highly modified symbols which are\nhere considered. An adequate discussion of different forms of birds in\nancient designs would necessitate more pages of text and illustrations\nthan could here be devoted to it. If my conclusions seem hasty, I\nmust ask the reader not to reject them without examining collateral\nevidences which I have elsewhere presented.\n\nThe ancient Hopi decorator not only represented birds in many more\ndifferent shapes than she did other animals, but even decorated other\nanimals with feathers in accordance with ancient traditions. Nor did\nshe stop with animals; symbolic figures of the sun or the lightning\nor the rainbow have symbols of feathers attached to them, and this,\nto us incongruous, association is often essential to indicate the\nsymbol. This predominance in the number of pictures of feathered\ngods is a faithful reproduction of denizens of their ancient\nPantheon. The majority of the gods were avian in character, even when\nanthropomorphic.[3] Several animals, as mythic lizards, snakes, and\neven mammalian forms, are represented in ancient pictography, furnished\nwith crests of feathers on their heads. These are drawn in this way\nin conformance with ancient legends, and, with traditions to guide\nus, we have little difficulty in determining some of the symbolic\nforms which the feather takes in pictography. This method is used by\nme as corroboratory evidence in determining the prescribed symbols\nof feathers which have been previously identified by their relative\npositions on the bodies of birds.\n\nIt is plain, I think, that having determined from an avian figure\nthe form of the organs and appendages of the bird in their different\nmodifications, due to conventionalism, we are able to recognize the\nsymbolic forms adopted by ancient artists to represent the feathers of\nwing, tail, or body. If figures of feathers were so well drawn that we\ncould identify them as such, we would have no difficulty in recognizing\na feather when drawn on a fragment of pottery, where no other part\nof a bird was represented. An accurately drawn feather in such cases\nwould be easily recognized; but the feathers made by the ancient\nHopi decorators of pottery were not accurate representations\u2014they\nwere symbolic. The only way we can identify them is by association.\nHaving determined the head, body, legs, tail, and wings of an animal\nwhich must be a bird, we examine the separate components which form\nthe tail and conclude what part represents a tail feather. We use, in\nother words, the morphological method of determining the homologies of\norgans and appendages which we borrow from naturalists and apply to\npictographs.\n\nHaving thus determined the symbol of a tail or wing feather from their\npositions in representations of birds and fixing in the mind its form,\nwe are able to recognize it where it reappears, isolated, or in new\ncombinations. While this way of determining the feather symbol was the\nmethod adopted, there was brought to its aid likewise the testimony of\nliving priests, among whom knowledge of some of the ancient symbols\nstill survives. This latter aid to a comprehension of the symbols of\nancient paleography is valuable, so far as it goes, but it does not\ntake one long to discover that it is limited in its application. Many\nancient designs are incomprehensible to living Hopi priests, and their\ninterpretations are in some cases simply conjectural. The decay in\nknowledge of the meanings of old symbols is due to the fact that most\nof the ancient symbolism has been replaced by the modern.\n\nIn their drawings of animals the ancient Hopi artists were often far\nfrom realistic. They violated many fundamental rules in perspective.\nThis is well illustrated in profile figures. It often happens, for\ninstance, in delineating the head of an animal, as seen from one side,\nthat both eyes are represented. The feathers of a bird's tail, normally\non a horizontal plane, are brought into a vertical. Internal organs\nwhich are hidden from sight are sometimes represented\u2014a characteristic\nof modern Pueblo art, where, as in pictures of antelopes, it is not\nuncommon to find the heart and \u0153sophagus, or even the intestinal tract,\ndrawn as if the animal were transparent. In a figure of a bird shown\non plate LIX in my preliminary account of Sikyatki, where the artist\napparently had no available space in which to represent the extremity\nof the tail, it is bent upward, and the tips of three feathers\nconventionalized into three triangles, one of the symbols of wing\nfeathers, as elsewhere shown.\n\nIn their simplest forms figures of birds are crudely represented,\nconsisting of a head with curved beak and elongated body, which is\ncontinued backward into three or four parallel lines, representing tail\nfeathers.\n\nIt is an instructive fact that _three_[4] seems to be the predominating\nnumber of tail feathers in pictures of birds, as seen in the clusters\nof symbolic feathers, _f_, in the richly decorated vase a part of\nwhich is depicted in figure 5. This number, however, is not universal,\nfor there are many well-drawn figures of birds with more than three\ntail-feathers, and in some of the simpler forms there are but two.\nCertain jars in the form of birds have the wing and tail feathers\nrepresented by parallel lines, and the same bands are often employed\non the bodies of dolls to represent a feathered garment which some\nmythological personages are reputed to have worn.\n\nOne of the common forms of the feather symbol is shown in figure 1,\nwhich represents the tail of a bird as pictured on a beautiful food\nbasin from Sikyatki. In this figure five feathers are represented,\nand the characteristic marking of each feather is a division into a\nblack and red zone by a diagonal line. The upper part of the figure\nrepresents the body and the two lateral appendages the wings, which in\nthe original figure are well represented. A figure of feathers with the\nsame outline, but destitute of the characteristic markings of figure 1,\nmay be seen in figure 2, where three feather symbols are represented.\n\n[Illustration: 1 2]\n\nFigure 2[5] represents a crest composed of three feathers copied from\na design on the head of a reptilian figure depicted on the interior of\na food basin from Sikyatki. There are other figures of animals which\nbear this symbolic form of feather on the head, and its occurrence as\na decorative design on the exterior of food basins, where there is no\nother suggestion of a bird, is common.\n\nThe same form of the feather symbol appears in figure 3, where we\nhave the triangular tips differently marked from any of the previous\nsymbols. There are in the Sikyatki collection designs representing\nbirds where the feathers of the tail are identical in shape and\nmarkings with these, and it is reasonable to suppose that in this\nfigure they represent the same parts as when attached to a picture of a\nbird.\n\nThe fragment shown in figure 3 represents a portion of the upper\nsurface of a vase, of which the dotted line is the border of the\norifice.\n\nHaving determined from its position on a bird that the main design\nin figure 3 is a conventionalized feather, let us see if there is\ncorroborative evidence from other sources telling the same story.\n\nIn modern Hopi ceremonials the priests use a small gourd receptacle for\nsacred water, specimens of which have been figured elsewhere.[6] It\nsometimes happens that an earthen vase is used for the same purpose.\nThis water gourd is covered by a cotton net, and feathers are tied to\nthat part of the net which surrounds the orifice. When an earthen vase\nis used a cotton string is tied around the neck of the vase, and to\nthis string feathers are attached. Apparently we have a deep-seated\nand significant connection between the ancient vase and the modern\nceremonial counterpart with appended feathers. The ancient form had\nsymbols of feathers painted on the upper surface about the orifice, the\nmodern has the feather itself tied in the same position.\n\nIn the design represented in figure 3 we have, therefore, symbols of\nfeathers represented as tied around the neck of an ancient Sikyatki\nvase. The figure represents only a portion of the top of this vessel,\nbut gives enough to show the general character of this form of feather\nsymbol. If we compare this symbol with those on the head of the picture\nof Tu\u00f1wup[7] on the upright slats of the Katcina altars of modern times\nwe will find an exact correspondence. They are also the same in shape\nand markings as the painted wooden sticks representing feathers on the\nheads of several dolls.[8]\n\nThe symbolic picture of the feather has still other modifications in\nits markings from the preceding, although preserving the same shape.\n\nOne of the most highly conventionalized symbolic figures of the feather\nis a triangle in which there are two parallel lines on one side. This\nform of the feather symbol is said to be the feather of the wild\nturkey, and the double marking recalls that of a tail feather.\n\nWe find this symbol on the angles of the lightning snakes of the\nsand-picture of the Antelope altar at Cu\u00f1opavi,[9] on wooden slats of\nthe Flute altars,[10] and elsewhere. I have ceramic objects from the\nruins of Homolobi and Chevlon which bear this form of feather symbol,\nand it appears to have been used as far south as Pinedale, on the\nnorthern edge of the Apache reservation.\n\n[Illustration: 3 4 5]\n\nOne of the most beautiful vessels from the cemetery of Sikyatki is\nthe \"butterfly vase,\" the complicated design on which I have figured\nin plate LX of the Smithsonian Report for 1895. I have represented a\nsector of this design in figure 5 in order to point out the feather\ndecorations which form an important element in the ornamentation. The\nother sectors closely resemble that figured, with the exception that\nthe butterflies in alternating sections have different markings on\ntheir heads, indicative of the sex. The butterfly here represented is\nfemale, and it is interesting to note the fact that the symbol of the\nfemale was the same when this vase was made as that now used in Hopi\nceremonials.[11] There are three clusters of feathers (_f_) in this\nsection, and each cluster is composed of three members. One of these\nclusters corresponds with those from the head of the reptile, figure 2.\n\nThe three feathers shown in the cut below the butterfly, and\nperipherally placed on the surface of the vase, are likewise feather\nsymbols, but as they have different markings from the others are\nprobably from a different genera of birds. This form of feather symbol\nis a common one on ancient Sikyatki ware. One of the best illustrations\nmay be seen in the wing of the bird which is figured on plate LX of\nmy preliminary report on Sikyatki (_op. cit._). That portion of the\nwing which reproduces the wing feathers is shown in figure 4, and its\nresemblance to the feathers on figure 5 will, I think, be evident at a\nglance.[12]\n\nOn several of the food basins from Sikyatki we find two or more\nfeathers of this kind represented as hanging from a ring-shape or\ncrescentic figure. One of the former is represented in plate LXI of\nthe Smithsonian Report for 1895. The latter symbol has come down to\nmodern times, and the figure painted on a shield of the Soyalu\u00f1a\nceremony, represented in color on plate CIV of my article on Tusayan\nKatcinas,[13] is almost an exact reproduction of the design on\na Sikyatki food basin. This is one of several symbols on modern\nceremonial paraphernalia which we can trace back over three hundred\nyears by the aid of archaeology.\n\n[Illustration: 6 7]\n\nThe feather may lose all semblance to the preceding forms and become a\nsimple triangle. This is the case in figures 6 and 7 from a vase and\nfood basin from Sikyatki. If the whole design, of which figure 6 is one\nwing, were represented we should have no hesitancy in regarding it a\nfigure of a bird. From their position on this figure, then, we conclude\nthat their triangular designs are wing feathers. If we seek to apply\nthe conclusion that the triangular figure represents a feather to the\njar, a portion of which is shown in figure 7, we find that the seven\ntriangular designs in this figure bear the same relation to the orifice\nof the jar as the symbols of feathers in figure 3. This relationship,\nas will readily be seen, is confirmatory of the conclusion that the\nfeather symbol is sometimes reduced to a simple triangle, or, looking\nfor corroborative evidence, we approach the subject in another way.\n\nThe conception of a serpent with a plumed head is common in modern\nTusayan, and we find several serpents represented on ancient food\nbasins from Sikyatki. Two of these figures have triangular appendages\non top of the head, and, as there are no other designs on that organ\nthat can be referred to feathers, we conclude that the triangular\nsymbols represent the feathered crest of the Great Plumed Serpent.\nEvidently not all triangular figures represent feathers, for some may\nbe simply ornamental geometric designs; but that many figures of this\nshape are symbols of feathers there can hardly be a reasonable doubt,\nfrom the evidence adduced above.\n\nFrom our studies of the triangle as a wing feather we are able to\ninterpret many designs, where all semblance to the feather or wing is\nlost. Thus in the upper part of figure 7 we have one of the most common\ndesigns on ancient Hopi ceramics. There is nothing in it to suggest a\nbird's wing, but if we compare it with the wing on the undoubted figure\nof a bird (figure 6) we find a perfect homology.\n\nThe presence of eagle feathers on ancient Hopi disks, symbolic of the\nsun, is frequent, and feathers are still inserted in a cornhusk border\non the margin of hoops covered with painted buckskin representing\nthe sun in modern Tusayan ceremonies.[14] In the old forms of sun\npictographs the disk is represented by a circle, and the symbolic\nfeathers are arranged in four clusters on the margin. In some instances\neach of these clusters of feathers is accompanied by a curved horn\nsimilar to that near the right-hand cluster of feathers in figure 5.\nThe significance of this curved addition is unknown to me, but there\nare a large number of specimens in which a similar design is associated\nwith two or more feathers.\n\nIn figure 9 we have a symbolic form of feather which is very common in\nancient Hopi decorations. The whole design from which this was taken\nrepresents a bird in which the part lettered w is the wing and _b_ the\nbody. It will be noticed that this feather is attached to the body\ndirectly under the wing, and as feathers found on the breast of birds\nare at present given an especial signification in ceremonials, it is\nsupposed that the symbol in this design has a similar meaning. This\nsymbol is therefore identified as the breast feather.\n\n[Illustration: 8]\n\nIn looking over the variety of designs in which this form of the\nfeather symbol occurs, one of the most instructive is shown in figure\n8, from a food basin obtained at Sikyatki by Dr Miller, of Prescott,\nArizona, after my excavations at that ruin were abandoned. The complete\ndesign on this bowl represents a figure with five triangular peripheral\nextensions from a circular band, and alternating with these are five\nbundles[15] of feathers of the symbolic form shown in figure 9. This\ndesign is probably a sun emblem, although in figures of the sun\ntail-feathers in four clusters are more common.\n\nThe symbol of the feather shown in figure 9 likewise occurs on the\nhead of a snake and that of a bird which is figured on the inside of a\nladle found at Sikyatki. It is also represented on the upper surface\nof several vases in the same relative position to the orifice as those\nalready described and illustrated (figure 3).\n\nThe symbol of a feather with the markings shown in figure 10 is\nlikewise a common one in the decoration of ancient Hopi ceramics. The\ndesign here reproduced (figure 10) is a section of a small, beautiful\nvase, with the decoration confined to the equatorial region. From this\nzone hang symbols of feathers, one of which is plainly indicated. These\nzones are repeated at intervals around the vase. They may be comparable\nwith the feathers tied about modern ceremonial vessels to which I have\nelsewhere referred.[16]\n\n[Illustration: 9]\n\nI have attempted in the preceding pages to show the symbolic forms\nassumed by one letter, the feather, in the alphabet of design on\nancient Hopi ceramics. These designs, or some simple modifications\nof them, occur in almost three-fourths of all the decorated ancient\nvessels of Tusayan. With a little practice the student can readily\nrecognize them, thus rendering comprehensible a most important\nelement in ancient Hopi symbolism. There are two or three other known\nletters in this alphabet, representing two or three other types which\ncan be identified with the same ease, but limited space prevents a\nconsideration of them in this article.\n\n[Illustration: 10]\n\nAs would naturally be the case with an element of decoration so\nconstantly duplicated as the feather, there are numerous instances\nwhere it has become so changed that while a figure was probably\nintended for a feather symbol, it is difficult to prove that it was\nsuch. These doubtful cases are not, therefore, discussed from the\nuncertainty which hangs about their identification.\n\nI believe enough has been written above to show that the feather was\nregarded by ancient Hopi potters as an important decorative motive,\nand that its symbolism had significant differentiations, so that even\ndifferent kinds of feathers were indicated by different markings on\nthose symbols.\n\nConsidering also how strong a hold the feather has on the modern Hopi\nmind in ceremonial usages, I am led to the belief that its influence\non the ancient mind was of the same general character. Thus we come\nback to a belief, taught by other reasoning, that ornamentation of\nancient pottery was something higher than simple effort to beautify\nceramic wares. The ruling motive in decorating these ancient vessels\nwas a religious one, for in their system everything was under the\nsame sway. Esthetic and religious feelings were not differentiated,\nthe one implied the other, and to elaborately decorate a vessel\nwithout introducing a religious symbol was to the ancient potter an\nimpossibility. This union is weaker in the mind of the modern Hopi,\nyet still potent; but as the new conception of beauty has crowded out\nthe religious element, the character of the pottery and its decoration\nhave deteriorated. Many patterns which once had a religious symbolism\nare mechanically followed, through conservatism, and pottery of fair\ncharacter is still made, but every Pueblo shows a marked decadence in\nthe potter's art. As time goes by and the Hopi are more modified by\ntheir new environment\u2014contact with civilization\u2014the white crockery of\nthe traders will replace the aboriginal wares. This will lead to a\nstill greater degeneracy of native ceramics, and, if they survive at\nall, it will be more as a commercial product than a medium of religious\nexpression. It can readily be seen that the decorations on pottery\nmade \"for the trade\" will no longer be a spontaneous expression of\naboriginal art, but imitative of types of beauty which please the\npurchaser. Into that condition much of the pottery made in pueblos\nalong the railroad has already drifted, and Hopi potters are not behind\ntheir neighbors in recognizing those decorative designs which please\nthe buyer and those which are most often rejected. Quite in line with\nwhat is said above is the feeling which leads some of the best potters\nof the East Mesa to imitate ancient forms of decorations. These copies\nare adorned with old patterns because ethnologists ask for ancient ware\nand purchase vessels with imitations of ancient symbols more eagerly\nthan modern. Trade cannot revive the old religious feeling which\nexpressed itself on ancient Hopi ceramics or resuscitate the defunct\nintimate union of esthetic and religious inspiration.\n\nFinally, and this is embraced in the primary reason why I am interested\nin the archeology of the Southwest or any other region, a study of the\nreligious decorative symbols of ancient pottery is an investigation\nnot alone of the peculiarities of one cluster of men and women in\nancient Arizona, but of religion in a characteristic environment.[17]\nA psychologist devises experiments in which he places individual men\nor animals under conditions to observe how they are thereby affected.\nNature has performed a psychological experiment on a grand scale\nfor the ethnologist in the semi-deserts of Arizona, and has set\ntribes of men in a special environment for our study. The problem of\nthe ethnologist is to consider the effect on religion as shown in\nthe products or expression of the same. The most important ethnic\ncharacteristic of man is his religion. It distinguishes him from other\nanimals and embraces all other mental characteristics, sociology,\nlanguage, and arts.\n\nMan can transmit his religious feelings to posterity by legends and by\npaleographic records. The former, if not recorded, may suffer changes\nin transmission, may be colored by successive generations, which have\nheard them from their elders and passed them along to their children.\nPaleography does not change. The ancient pictures are the same as when\nburied in the ancient graves. We may not be able to fully interpret\nthem, but we are sure they have not been materially changed in the\nyears which separate our time from that in which they were drawn.\nImperfect as this picture-writing is as a means of transmitting to\nus the religion of prehistoric Tusayan when compared with written\ndocuments, it will in connection with legends yield a rich harvest to\nthe student of the history of the Pueblo beliefs. The investigator who\nneglects this element in them misses the soul of the study.\n\n\n                              FOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] For a discussion of the antiquity of Sikyatki, see \"Prehistoric\nCulture of Tusayan,\" _American Anthropologist_, 1896, and _Report of\nthe Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution_, 1895.\n\n[2] A preliminary report will be found in the Smithsonian Report for\n1895.\n\n[3] The reason for this relatively large number of avian over other\nzoomorphic deities in the Hopi system is not apparent.\n\n[4] Compare the combination of _three_ feathers in Aztec and Maya\nsymbolism.\n\n[5] This figure shows the head below, with the eye well drawn. The\ncontinuation to the left is the neck, that to the right a beginning of\nan elaborate snout.\n\n[6] A number of these gourds are figured in my accounts of Tusayan\nceremony. A vase with attached feathers, called _patne_, is represented\non page 43, _Journ. Amer. Eth. and Arch._, vol. IV.\n\n[7] _Journ. Amer. Eth. and Arch._, vol. II, pp. 86, 107; _American\nAnthropologist_, May, 1897, pp. 133, 134.\n\n[8] It will be seen on consultation of my article on \"Dolls of the\nTusayan Indians\" that there are several in which the crests of feathers\non the heads are represented by sticks with symbolic markings. In some\ninstances we have real feathers instead of symbols. An example of this\nkind is figured on page 136, _American Anthropologist_, May, 1897.\n\n[9] Tusayan Snake Ceremonies, plate LXXII.\n\n[10] _Journ. Amer. Eth. and Arch._, vol. II, p. 120.\n\n[11] See male and female lightning snakes on Walpi Antelope altar.\n\n[12] The three arrowpoints, figure 4, represent the flint arrowpoints\nwhich the mythic bird is reputed to have worn in its feathers.\n\n[13] Fifteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology.\n\n[14] Tusayan Katcinas, Fifteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of\nAmerican Ethnology. A figure of the symbolic sun disk from which the\nfeathers have been removed is given on plate CIV of that memoir.\n\n[15] The bundle here figured represents eight feathers.\n\n[16] The symbol of the feather was painted on the vase in ancient\ntimes, whereas in modern vessels stringed feathers are tied in the same\npositions. Probably the latter custom was also common in ancient times.\n\n[17] It is believed that the religious sentiment permeated and\ndominated all ancient Hopi art as well as sociology, and that a study\nof the symbolism of the decorations on ancient pottery is practically a\nstudy of religion.\n\n\n                         Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n\n  - Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).","title":"The feather symbol in ancient Hopi designs","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":5013}