I saw the stone first, I think, in November, in the fall of
1881, and a few days after Mr. Paxon had obtained the second
piece. He had said to me that he had a curious stone which he
wished to show me. I remember his mentioning the figure of a
turtle, a snake, and an elephant carved on the stone, although
he did not first mention the elephant figure or show that he
appreciated the mammoth. It was not till he had read my article
in the county newspaper that he came to know the value of the
carving. He was only eighteen or nineteen then, and I believe
would have sold the stone for a comparatively trifling sum.
As soon as I took the stone home, after Mr. Paxon had lent it
to me, all my family saw it. Judge Paxon, his uncle, did not
realize its archæological importance, neither did Mr. Paxon,
the owner's father. I showed it to Judge Paxon before I wrote
the article. The first time Mr. Harry Paxon showed me the
stone I remember his saying that "he could sell it for five
dollars." He wanted me to glue or cement the pieces together,
but I discountenanced the plan. I think he must have scraped
out the original soil clinging to it with a nail or some sharp
instrument, and I told him that he had cleaned the lines too
much and that the stone had lost the look of age. The next
time I saw it he had filled the lines with clay, and this I
advised him to remove, as it did not resemble the soil of the
original field. So the next time I saw it he had cleaned it
again. I took the stone to the January or April meeting of the
Bucks County Historical Society, 1882, and showed it to all the
members present. I showed it to Gen. Davis, who advised me in
connection with it to prepare an article on the Indian relics
found in Bucks County, to be read before the July meeting at
Penn's Manor. A few days after that I returned the stone to Mr.
Paxon. Somewhere in June or July (1882) I borrowed it again, and
kept it until two or three weeks after the meeting at Pennsbury.
This meeting was on the third Tuesday in July, 1882. Mr. Paxon
did not go to the meeting, but after reading my article in the
paper he set a higher value on his relic and wished me to return
it. I do not recollect seeing either part separately. The two
pieces were together when I first saw it. I think Hansell told
me that the large part had been found first. Very many people
saw the stone at my lecture at Penn's Manor. I had a large
diagram of the inscription, several feet long. Two hundred
people must have seen it. There was an article in the Bucks
County _Intelligencer_ about it, and it was at the Bi-Centennial
and there seen by everybody.
[Signed] JOHN S. BAILEY.
Affirmed to before
ELIAS EASTBURN, J. P., Nov. 8, 1884.
Letter from Dr. D. G. Brinton, Professor of Archæology and Ethnology in
the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
_To the Editor of the Bucks County "Intelligencer"_:
The discussion in your paper about the so-called "Lenape Stone,"
in which my name has incidentally been introduced, leads me to
address you a few lines on some archæological points, especially
on the methods of distinguishing genuine from fabricated
specimens. I shall only refer to the Lenape Stone by way of
illustration. It was first shown to me by Professor Lewis, and
after a careful inspection I pronounced it a modern piece of
work, which opinion has been substantiated by later observers.
My opinion was based, first, on the design, and secondly, on the
execution. It may be laid down as a rule, holding good in all
aboriginal designs of the Eastern United States, that no lines
indicating either shading or rounding are found on figures of
pure native origin. Every line was significant, and nothing was
done for affect. Grouping was also unknown, and any such triple
arrangement as the brute, the human, and the divine groups,
standing in immediate relation to each other and forming parts
of a picture, as appears on the Lenape Stone, was as far above
aboriginal æsthetic conceptions as the Sistine Madonna would
be above the execution of a sign-painter. Certain artistic
details, as the lightnings shooting in various directions from
a central point (as from the hand of Jove), were also unknown
to the art notions of the red race. The treatment of the sun as
a face, with rays shooting from it, I also consider foreign to
the pictography of the Delaware Indians, nor have I yet seen any
specimens proved to be of their manufacture that present it. It
is found, indeed, in Chippeway pictography, but there only in
late examples.
The execution of such imitations also usually betrays their
origin. The lines on the Lenape Stone are obviously cut with a
metal instrument, making clean incisions, deepest in the centre
and tapering to points--quite different from the scratch of a
flint point. Shrewder fabricators than the unknown author of
this one make use of flint points. Some of the Western "tablets"
have been so inscribed. They may thus conceal their tools, but
there are other resources for the archæologist. The surface of
all stones undergoes a certain chemical change on exposure to
the air, which is called by the French term _patine_. In many
varieties, as flints, jasper, and hard shales, this affords
a decisive means of discriminating a modern from an ancient
inscription or arrow-head. It requires the use of the microscope
and some practice, but with these most of such impostures can
be detected. This does not exhaust the resources at the command
of the antiquary to circumvent those who would practise on his
love for relics of the past. But I have said enough to show that
opinions on relics need neither be vague nor prejudiced. It is
most desirable that the citizens of our Commonwealth should
take an earnest interest in the collection of our aboriginal
remains, and it is gratifying to learn that Bucks County is not
behindhand in this direction.
Respectfully yours,
[Signed] D. G. BRINTON, M.D.
From the Bucks County _Intelligencer_
of Sept. 6, 1884.
Letter from Mr. H. Carvill Lewis, Professor of Mineralogy, Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 19, 1884.