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 aesthetic 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 aesthetic motive.

   [4] Holmes, W.H.:  ’Textile Art in its Relation to the
   Development of Form and Ornament,’ Rep. of Bur. of Ethnol.,
   1884-5, p. 195.

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.)

   [5] Reiss, W., und Stubel, A.:  ‘Todtenfeld von Ancon,’ Berlin,
   1880-7, Bd.  II.

   [6] Hein, W.:  ’Die Verwendung der Menschen-Gestalt in
   Flechtwerken,’ Mitteil. d.  Anthrop.  Gesellsch. in Wien, Bd. 
   XXI.

[Illustration:  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