A CURIOUS SCRATCHED DESIGN
ON A CONNECTICUT PAINTSTONE
Bernard W. Powell
Abstract
A TABULAR PIECE of hematite which bears a rather complex, lightly scratched design (Fig. 1) occurs as part of the inventory at the Spruce Swamp site still under study by me at Norwalk, Fairfield County, Connecticut. Since such items are not commonly described from southern coastal New England, a description with suggested interpretations of the design's "meaning" seems warranted.
“…I acknowledge the pitfalls and caveats rightfully attending interpretations which cross such psychological, cultural, and temporal gulfs as are undoubtedly here represented, and none of what follows is to be construed as the interpretation.
A further comment seems pertinent. Since phenomena such as this may stimulate active imaginations in a fashion analogous to the familiar Rorschach tests, two criteria are suggested to offset this possibility: (1) any interpretation of the design elements should relate them logically one to another within some relevant frame of reference, and (2) this frame of reference itself should be logical within the geographical, physical, and cultural contexts of the artifact's occurrence.
Newton enjoined early scientists to abjure complicated explanations when simple ones would do; so we might doubt interpretations that are too radical or too irrelevant. With some psychological and cryptogrammic (sic) reservations, we may proceed...(from American Antiquity, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1964)”
http://www.bwpowell.com/archeology/paintstone/paintstone.html
ON A CONNECTICUT PAINTSTONE
Bernard W. Powell
Abstract
A TABULAR PIECE of hematite which bears a rather complex, lightly scratched design (Fig. 1) occurs as part of the inventory at the Spruce Swamp site still under study by me at Norwalk, Fairfield County, Connecticut. Since such items are not commonly described from southern coastal New England, a description with suggested interpretations of the design's "meaning" seems warranted.
“…I acknowledge the pitfalls and caveats rightfully attending interpretations which cross such psychological, cultural, and temporal gulfs as are undoubtedly here represented, and none of what follows is to be construed as the interpretation.
A further comment seems pertinent. Since phenomena such as this may stimulate active imaginations in a fashion analogous to the familiar Rorschach tests, two criteria are suggested to offset this possibility: (1) any interpretation of the design elements should relate them logically one to another within some relevant frame of reference, and (2) this frame of reference itself should be logical within the geographical, physical, and cultural contexts of the artifact's occurrence.
Newton enjoined early scientists to abjure complicated explanations when simple ones would do; so we might doubt interpretations that are too radical or too irrelevant. With some psychological and cryptogrammic (sic) reservations, we may proceed...(from American Antiquity, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1964)”
http://www.bwpowell.com/archeology/paintstone/paintstone.html
I guess this is in reference to the topic of split rocks. I agree with this:
ReplyDelete(1) any interpretation of the design elements should relate them logically one to another within some relevant frame of reference, and (2) this frame of reference itself should be logical within the geographical, physical, and cultural contexts of the artifact's occurrence.
The use of ethnographic literature as a guide is part of what creates the frame of reference (2). I was making the point earlier that is expressed by (1) - about the possibility of intrinsic meaning.
If this object still exists, any interpretation should be based on a good raking light photograph (and seeing it in person) rather than on a drawing of it. For example, what are those grey smudges in the drawing? Indentations? Raised bumps?
ReplyDeleteReally, it's in reference to meanings in general.
ReplyDeleteI left a message on his guestbook at http://www.bwpowell.com/