In answer to your request, I put on paper a few thoughts in
relation to the carved gorget of slate said to have been found
in Bucks Co., Penna. It is needless to say that I have examined
the stone with great care; for if it is a work of prehistoric
times in America, it is a specimen of very great archæological
interest. The first impression I received was that it was
probably a fraud. This was of course natural, after having
seen several gorgets with figures carved upon them which were
unquestionable frauds. I therefore first of all examined the
stone, and was sorry to find that it had been so much cleaned,
and rubbed, and scrubbed, and probably oiled, that no evidence
could be derived from the character of the lines cut upon the
surface of the stone, or from the stone itself, bearing upon
its antiquity. So far as the testimony of the stone itself is
concerned, the lines may have been cut within a few weeks or
many years ago. Throwing out of consideration all the facts you
have given me in relation to the history of the stone as known
to you, I am left with the character of the carvings alone upon
which to draw conclusions. From a study of these I get the
following results:
1st. The person who carved the stone must have been familiar
with the appearance of an elephant or mammoth, either from
having seen one or the other in life or represented in pictures.
There is too much expression given to the details of outline of
forehead, curve of back and belly, and position of the legs,
representing the animal as walking, to be the work of one who
only knew the animal from a general description handed down by
tradition.
2d. Most of the other figures on both sides of the stone are of
a character common to Indian picture-writing, but there are a
few which, like the "mammoth," show an appreciation of details
or ideas unlike any I can recall in Indian picture-writings.
Take, for example, the fish on the edge of the small piece, and
the long eel-like figure by the side of the bird--each of these
have a few hair-lines drawn from the back as if to represent
the rays of fins, in order to impress the character of a fish,
although the rays are out of natural position. The figure of a
man on his back under the foot of the "mammoth" is not drawn in
the usual conventional manner, like the figure of the man with
the bow.
3d. The idea of the heavens, conveyed by the figures of stars,
moon, and sun, is probably not an unusual way of representing
the sky or the heavens, but the mass of crossed lines near the
sun, which are supposed to represent lightning, seems to me to
be more the conventional symbol of the white man than the Indian.
Considering all these points I draw these conclusions:
1st. The carvings were made in ancient times by an Indian of
superior artistic skill, who had seen a living mammoth, and
who wished to preserve some myth or tradition relating to the
animal, in picture-writing upon his gorget; or,
2d. The carvings were made by an Indian in comparatively recent
times, with the same idea of preserving a myth about the "great
beast," and he was aided in his work by some white man; or,
3d. That the carving is the work of some white man in very
recent times, who may or may not have known of the myth and
tradition of the Indians relating to the "mammoth."
An attempt to read the stone as a pictograph illustrating the
myth of the "great beast" may be going too far, but if it can be
shown to be a piece of Indian work beyond reasonable doubt, the
interpretation of the figures in that connection is certainly
legitimate from the remarkable coincidence between them and the
myth.
I certainly hope you will bring every possible evidence to bear
in your work, and that by a study of many pictographs you will
be able to test the doubtful figures on the stone.
Yours very truly,
[Signed] F. W. PUTNAM,
Curator Peabody Museum.
Extracts from a report of an examination of the Lenape Stone by Dr.
M. E. Wadsworth, of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The answers are Dr.
Wadsworth's.
Q. Are the carvings made by steel or flint instruments?
A. The depth and regularity of the carvings indicate that they were
made by some dulled steel tool like an awl.
Q. Are the carvings later than the fracture of the ends and the middle?
A. Later--for the tool-mark can be seen at one end striking across the
broken surface, and lines crossing the middle fracture do not match on
both sides. On one side they pass down on the rounded and worn surface
of the fracture, below their position on the other side. This is seen
in all the marks (three only) crossing the line of fracture. One other
line sinks down on one side, and ends against the fractured portion
opposite. This appears to have been made after the fracture by holding
the pieces together. It is very remarkable that the line of fracture
should cross the specimen at the only place it could and intersect the
minimum number of the lines of carving. Even in two of those cuts, the
fracture breaks across the point where they cross one another. * * *
[Signed] M. E. WADSWORTH.
Cambridge, Massachusetts,
March 17, 1884.
Extracts from a report of an examination of the Lenape Stone by Mr. J.
P. Iddings, of the U. S. Coast Survey. The answers are Mr. Iddings'.
Q. Can it be decided beyond reasonable doubt whether the carvings were
made with a steel or flint instrument--is there a great probability
either way?
A. I do not know.
Q. Are the carvings beyond a reasonable doubt later than the fracture
in the middle--(or other fractures)?
A. They appear to be later than the middle fracture; they do not lie
at the same depth on the edges of both pieces. The small arrow's shaft
does not appear to have been a continuous line. It is interesting to
note that the middle fracture only crosses three lines on one side and
none on the other side, and that in no other position could one happen
without cutting half a dozen or more. The carvings appear to have been
arranged with reference to the break.
[Signed] JOSEPH P. IDDINGS.
New York, March 24, 1884.
Letter from Dr. F. W. Putnam referring to the two carved stones (figs.
19 and 20) found on the Hansell Farm in the summer of 1884.
CAMBRIDGE, MASS., Oct. 30, 1884.