BULL. 30] 



DIPPEKS AND LADLES DISCOID AL STONES 



391 



by Isaac (greenwood in 1730; l)y Stephen 

 Sewell, of Caniljridjre, in 1768; by Prof. 

 Winthrop in 1788; by Joseph Gooding in 

 1790; by Edward A. Kendall in 1807; by 

 Job Gardner in 1812, and one for the 

 Rhode Island Historical Society in 1830. 

 Soon after this the suggestion was made 

 that it was a runic inscription of the 

 Norsemen, and the interest excited by 

 this caused it to be frequently copied and 

 published. The subject, with accompa- 

 nying figures, was thoroughly discussed 

 by Danish antiquaries, especially by Rafn, 

 in Anticjuitates Americana^ (1837). The 

 earlier drawings mentioned above are re- 

 produced by Mallery (10th Rep. B. A. E., 

 pi. xi, 1893). The annexed illustration 

 from a photograph is perhaps the most 

 nearly correct of any published. The 

 opinions advanced in regard to the origin 

 and signification of the inscription vary 

 widely. The members of the French 

 Academy, to whom a copy was sent, judged 

 it to be Punic; Lort, in a paper in 

 Archpeologia (London, 1786), expressed 

 the opinion that it was the work of a peo- 

 ple from Siberia; Gen. Washington, who 

 saw Winthrop's drawings at Cambridge 

 in 1789, pronounced the inscription simi- 

 lar to those made 1)y the Indians; Davis 

 and Kendall also ascribed it to the Indians, 

 the former thinking it represented an In- 

 dian deer hunt. The Danish antiquaries 

 decided that it was the work of the North- 

 men; Prof. Finn Magnusen interpreted 

 the central portion, assuming it to consist 

 of runes, as meaning that Thorfinn with 

 151 men took possession of the country; 

 and even Dr De Costa was persuaded that 

 the central part is runic. Buckingham 

 Smith, according to Haven (Proc. Am. 

 Antiq. Soc, Apr. 29, 1863), was inclined 

 to believe it to consist of ciphers used by 

 the Roman Catholic Church. Schoolcraft, 

 although charged with wavering in his 

 opinion, decided without reservation in 

 1853 that it was entirely Indian. The latter 

 author submitted several drawings of the 

 inscription to an Algonquian chief, who, 

 rejecting a few of the figures near the cen- 

 ter, interpreted the remainder as the me- 

 morial of a battle between two native 

 tribes. Although this Indian's explana- 

 tion is considered doubtful, the general 

 conclusion of students in later years, 

 especially after Mailer j^'s discussion, is 

 that the inscription is the work of In- 

 dians and belongs to a type found in 

 Pennsylvania and at points in the W. 



Following are the more imjaortant 

 writings on the subject of Dighton Rock: 

 Antiquitates Americanse, 1837; Archsolo- 

 gia, VIII, 1786; T. Ewbank, N. Am. Rock- 

 writing, 1866; Gravier in Compte-rendu 

 Cong. Internat. des Americanistes, i, 1875; 

 Haven in Proc. Am. Antiq. Soc, Apr. 

 29, 1863, Oct. 21, 1864, Oct., 1867; Ken- 



dall, Trav., 11, 1809; Mallery in 10th 

 Rep. B. A. E., 1893; Mem. Am. Acad. Arts 

 and Sci., ii, pt. 2, 1804, in, pt. 1, 1809; 

 Philos. Trans. Rov. Soc. Lond., xxviii, 

 1714; Ran (1) in Am. Antiq., i, 1878; (2) 

 in Mag. Am. Hist., Feb., 1878, Apr., 1879; 

 Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, i, 1851, iv, 1854; 

 Trans. Soc. Antiquaries, Lond., 1732; 

 Winsor, Hist. Am., i, 1884. (c. t.) 



Dippers and Ladles. See Receptacles. 



Discoidal stones. Prehistoric objects of 

 unknown use (see Problematical objects) 

 whose most typical form is that of a 

 double-convex or double-concave lens. 

 The perimeter is a circle and the sides 

 range from considerably convex through 

 plane to deeply concave. The diameter 

 varies from 1 in. to 8 in., the thickness 

 from one-fourth of an inch to 6 in., very 

 rarely passing these limits; the two di- 

 mensions have no definite relation to 

 each other. Some specimens are convex 

 on one face and plane on the other; but 

 when one face is concave the other is 

 also. Of the latter form many have a 

 secondary depression at the center; others 

 have a perforation which is sometimes 

 enlarged until the disk becomes a ring. 

 They are made principally of very hard 

 rock, as quartz, flint, jasper, novaculite, 

 quartzite, porphyry, syenite, and the like, 

 though stone as 

 soft as marble, 

 sandstone, barite, 

 and even steatite 

 was sometimes 

 chosen. No type 



of relics is more 'Ni.aa^.j^BS*^ ^^20 

 difficult to classify , . 



,, ,1 ]■ 1 Disk OF Granite; Virginia, (:-(,) 



than these disks. 



The name first given them, and by Avhich 

 they are still commonly known, is ' ' rhun- 

 key stones," from the native name of the 

 game played with analogous disks by 

 southern Indians. But the description of 

 the game, considered in connection with 

 the great variation in size and material of 

 the specimens, shows that only a small 

 percentage of them could have been thus 

 utilized. Culin believes that a limited 

 number may be definitely regarded as 

 chunkey stones. He recognizes three 

 types: (1) perforated (least common); (2) 

 symmetrical, unperforated ; (3) asym- 

 metrical, unperforated. A similar diver- 

 sity is observed in the stones used in the 

 analogous Hawaiian game of mnika (24th 

 Rep. B. A. E., 1906). From the smooth, 

 symmetrical, highly polished chunkey 

 stone they merge by insensible grada- 

 tions into mullers, pestles, mortars, pitted 

 stones, polishingandgrindingstones, ham- 

 mers, sinkers, club heads, and ornaments, 

 for all of which purposes except the last 

 they may have been used in some of 

 their stages, so that no dividing line is 

 possible. They present various styles 



