The occurrence of scrolls and spirals in South-East New Guinea, and
their general resemblance to certain Maori patterns, have led several
observers to believe that there may have been intercourse between
New Guinea and New Zealand. As this problem raises some interesting
questions I have thought it desirable to discuss it, but to do so
adequately would take far more room than can here be spared.
Mr. Goodyear makes out a good case for the view that some, at least, of
the spiral scroll motives in Malaysia are due to Mohammedan influence;
but he probably goes too far in ascribing all the scrolls of the
decorative art of the Malay Archipelago to that source. “The ornamental
system of India was in the first instance, as known to us, Buddhist,
under Greek influences; second, Arab-Mohammedan. The spiral scroll
ornament of modern India is a mixture and survival of the two. (The
more formal classic style of old Buddhist ornament has disappeared in
India.) This is the ornamental system of the Malay Archipelago.... The
present ornamental system of Malaysia is mainly the Mohammedan-Arab,
which is derived from Byzantine Greek. The Malay alphabet, the
Malay ornament, the Malay religion, and the Malay culture are all
derived from India.... The spiral scroll is absolutely foreign to the
ornamental systems of Polynesia.
“There only remains the case of New Guinea and New Zealand. Not
only does New Guinea border directly on the Malay Islands, but it
is geographically part of Malaysia. [Mr. Goodyear is wrong in this
statement, as in its geology,[13] fauna, and flora New Guinea is
essentially Australian.] The princes of the Island of Tidore have
actually been the potentates of the Northern Coast of New Guinea. The
New Guinea ornamental system shows degraded and barbaric forms of the
Mohammedan spiral scrolls of Malaysia. From these once more are derived
the spiral scroll ornaments of New Zealand.”[14]
[13] Haddon, Sollas, and Cole, “On the Geology of Torres
Straits,” _Trans. Royal Irish Acad._, vol. xxx., 1894, p. 419.
[14] _Architectural Record_, ii., 1893, p. 412.
The problem is by no means so simple as the reader might infer from
Mr. Goodyear’s remarks. It does not appear that he sufficiently allows
for ethnic influence in decorative art. My contention is that we must
first try to obtain a definite conception of the racial elements in a
given people before we can expect to thoroughly comprehend their art.
According to my experience, the more backward the people, the less
they borrow artistic motives. Why should they? Their ornament has to
them a significance and associations which foreign decoration lacks;
the latter appeals to them no more than does Mexican or Mangaian
ornament to us. From their mental attitude they are far less likely to
copy foreign designs than are we. I have already (p. 65) adduced an
interesting example of this when I compared the art of the Motu folk
with that of the Gulf Papuans.
Malaysia is peopled by various races, of which the Malay stock is
undoubtedly predominant, but the latter is regarded as having been,
comparatively speaking, a late wave of migration, and probably the
advent of the Malay was the disturbing cause which initiated the
wanderings of the Polynesians (or Sawaiori, as Mr. A. H. Keane terms
them).
Even in Oceania the problem is complicated by the now generally
received fact of an earlier population of many of the islands by
Melanesians. Personally, I believe we can find distinct traces of
their artistic skill in the decorative art which we are accustomed
to put down as “Polynesian”; indeed, I suspect that most of the
Oceanic wood-carving is due to Melanesian influence, although it now
illustrates Sawaiori mythology.
I have not yet studied the decorative art of the Malay Archipelago; but
as my friend, Professor Hickson, has, I will quote what he has said on
the subject:—“From collections in museums it might be supposed that
the Malays are very artistic; this is perhaps due to the fact that
collectors frequently will only obtain implements and the like that are
ornamented with curious coloured designs and figures, and leave behind
all the spears, shields, and the like that are not so ornamented; the
result being that an unfair proportion of ornamented things appear in
the cabinets of the museum. I am inclined to believe that the Malays
are not artistic, and that the few ornamented designs of their own are
very poor and primitive.”[15] After alluding to the ruined temples
in Sumatra and Java, and the complicated patterns on the people’s
costumes, he continues, “but this is not Malay art. It is the art that
was brought by Buddhist priests in the third century, according to
Fa-hien, the Chinese pilgrim from Further India.
[15] _The Academy_, 30th May 1891, No. 995, p. 519; also
_Journal of the Cambridge Ant. Soc._, vii., p. 293.
“Nor should we judge of Malay art from the specimens obtained in Timor,
Aru, Timor Laut, and Ceram, for in these islands there is undoubtedly
a very great influence from the mixture of the race with the Papuans.
In Celebes, South Borneo, and the Moluccas, there is very little art;
and this is due, I believe, to the fact that there has been very little
Buddhist influence and very little Papuan influence.
“The chief character of Malay art, if it can be so called, is the
absence of any good curves. Nearly all their designs are angular, and
those that they have copied from other races have a tendency to become
angular.” The implements, weapons, cloths, etc., “of the people are
frequently, if not usually, unornamented, in striking contrast to
similar things among the Papuans. Nothing could be more impressive than
the contrast in this respect between a Malay and a Papuan village.”
There can be no doubt that the decorative art of North-West New Guinea
has been affected by influences from Malaysia; but it is very doubtful
whether this has penetrated very far inland, or even very far down the
coast.
It must be remembered that the Papuans, and Melanesians generally,
are a fierce people, and there is, as a rule, very little intercourse
indeed between various tribes, in fact there is an almost continual
condition of inter-tribal war. In a country containing great mountain
ranges, dense jungles, or extensive swamps, with no roads, and
innumerable tribes speaking different languages, and at enmity with
one another, it is difficult to see how artistic motives could readily
travel. There are only two possible routes, rivers and the coast-line.
I have elsewhere[16] stated that the Fly River “has been to a certain
extent what may be termed a ‘culture route,’ and that the natives of
the higher reaches have indirect communication with those of the north
coast of New Guinea.”
[16] _The Decorative Art of British New Guinea_, 1894, p. 256.
If any one will take the trouble to study the evidence I have
collected, it will, I think, be incontestable that the scroll designs
of the extreme south-east point of New Guinea and of the adjacent
islands could not have come overland. With the possible exception of
the central region of the Fly River, about which we at present know
very little, I can see no traces of “Malayan” culture in the decorative
art of British New Guinea.
The evidence at our disposal certainly points to the conclusion
that the bulk, at all events, of the natives of the Louisiades,
D’Entrecasteaux, and neighbouring islands and mainland are sea-borne
immigrants. And if their scroll designs have not been developed in the
district where they now reside, we must seek for their origin in the
ancestral home of these travellers. I have discussed this question in
my _Memoir_ (pp. 258-269), and have stated it in a more concise form in
_Science Progress_, vol. ii. (1894), pp. 91-95, and have come to the
conclusion, which is shared by Mr. S. H. Ray, on linguistic grounds,
that no Malay influence can be shown, but that the people came from the
great chain of Melanesian islands which stretches from the Admiralty
Islands to New Caledonia, and possibly from the Solomon group. Nowhere
in the Melanesian Archipelago do we find scroll designs comparable
with those of the district of New Guinea now under consideration.
The conclusion, then, seems inevitable, that until further evidence
is adduced we must regard these scroll designs as having originated
in this district, and in the manner I have demonstrated—_i.e._, from
birds’ heads.
To pass on to New Zealand. Although we have innumerable specimens of
the beautiful and very characteristic wood-carving of New Zealand
in our museums and in private collections, yet no one has seriously
studied the art, or has offered a satisfactory explanation of it.
It is generally admitted that there was a Melanesian population on
the group before the Maoris arrived some six hundred years ago. The
latter probably came from some of the islands between Samoa and Tahiti,
probably mainly from Rarotonga.
The scroll designs have no resemblance to the patterns from the
Rarotongan region of Oceania. The only examples of this particular
technique occur in one or two weapons from Fiji; these are of typical
Fijian shapes, but the carving is in the New Zealand manner. One of
these is in Baron von Hügel’s collection in Cambridge, and another is
in the British Museum. I have no explanation to offer for these facts
that is satisfactory to myself. Apart from one or two isolated Fijian
specimens, the wood-carving of New Zealand is unique.
[Illustration: FIG. 43.—Rubbing of the decoration of a Maori flute, in
the Natural History Museum, Belfast; one-half natural size.]
Some of the New Zealand patterns (Fig. 43, and Plate VI., Fig. 12)
certainly have a superficial resemblance to the more typical scroll
patterns from the South-Eastern Archipelago of New Guinea, but there is
no ground for comparing them except for this casual resemblance. The
bird element is entirely lacking, and there is far less interlocking
in the Maori than in the Papuan scrolls; there are also noticeable
technical differences. My impression is that the carved designs have
been derived mainly from tattooing, and possibly also partly from the
dismemberment which so often befalls the conventionalised carvings
of their ancestral figures. (Plate VI., Fig. 11.) When one looks at
tattooed Maori heads or carvings of human figures one finds that
rounded surfaces, such as the wings of the nose, the cheeks, the
shoulders and thighs are usually decorated with spiral designs; this is
in such places an appropriate device, as it accentuates the features
which are ornamented, and personally I am inclined to believe that
artistic fitness is the explanation of this employment of the spiral,
and that it has been transferred to other objects as being a pleasing
design, and that connecting lines have been made to give coherence
to the decoration. It is worth noting that in early European art the
shoulders and haunches of animals are often decorated with spirals.[17]
[17] See, for example, Plate VII., Figs. 2, 5.