Don,
Thanks for going to so much trouble. As always, I'm concerned about the absence of any apparent effort to set such propositions within any historical or artistic tradition.
For example I can find no justification for Edith Sherwood's assertion that any part of the image represents a 'bear claw'. For one thing, bears (in the strict sense) have toes of even length.
I know I'm beginning to sound like the town grump, but the lack of rigor in most writing about the imagery troubles me - I cannot see how it can be productive or helpful in the longer term, or positively assist those working on the written text.
Perhaps some of these interpretations may prove true, but I should trust them far more if they were the conclusions of serious investigation in terms of art, history and the habits of some specified time and place - and proven to belong somewhere.
I guess the great thing for most people involved is that there are no penalties for being wrong, and no client's money on the line.
Thanks for going to so much trouble. As always, I'm concerned about the absence of any apparent effort to set such propositions within any historical or artistic tradition.
For example I can find no justification for Edith Sherwood's assertion that any part of the image represents a 'bear claw'. For one thing, bears (in the strict sense) have toes of even length.
I know I'm beginning to sound like the town grump, but the lack of rigor in most writing about the imagery troubles me - I cannot see how it can be productive or helpful in the longer term, or positively assist those working on the written text.
Perhaps some of these interpretations may prove true, but I should trust them far more if they were the conclusions of serious investigation in terms of art, history and the habits of some specified time and place - and proven to belong somewhere.
I guess the great thing for most people involved is that there are no penalties for being wrong, and no client's money on the line.