Enigma and Mystery

Every work of art holds certain dimensions of reality and mystery. What are the most enigmatic elements of your object? What questions might they lead you to explore in your final paper? What evidence could you find to build an argument around?

This is an exciting and multi-layered question for me; so much of both the details on my object and its history are enigmatic, in that they either have not been written about, or that their significances are merely impossible to rightly divine.

When I examined my object in person for 2+ hours, I came up with this (preliminary!) list of attributes that were mysterious to me:

**pictures of what I'm describing here are coming soon, once I get my camera phone functioning for transfer!**

• The body markings are arranged in something like a "dotted line" where each "dot" looks like a little equilateral (or in some cases, isosceles) triangle that points either up or up and to the right. Is the shape of the "dot" (a triangle) symbolic? Intentional? Justa result of the available tools?
• The body markings are not symmetrical; to the right of the breasts and the navel, two lines -- parallel on the left-hand side -- diverge away from each other to the right.
• Similarly, the whole object seams to lean/tilt toward the right. The buttocks are clearly defined and delineated from the thighs on the left, but not on the right. This looks almost inarguably intentional to me; what is the significance of the right-leaning?
• She also leans forward, in almost a bowing or submissive stance -- or is this just the wood settling oddly?
• There is a hole on the top of the coiffure and smaller holes on the sides -- what for? I never read that this could be hung...
• She's so light! Why, compared to other, heavier figures of comparable size?
• Lines/scratch-marks emerging in the shape of a sunburst around the breasts and navel -- intentional, or just the result of available tools?
• 9 red beads on bracelet, 16 red beads on left anklet, 14 red beads and 2 blue beads on right anklet. Are these numbers significant? Why the seemingly arbitrary inclusion of two pieces of blue?
• What color were beads on the bracelet intended for the other hand? How did that bracelet fall off? Where is it now? (It was definitely attached at some point, the indentations are clear.)
• The metal eyes! Are those actual nails? How were they pounded in without destroying the nasal bridge?
• The legs make almost a perfect rectangle -- is this intentional? What is the significants?
• The face is so flat on the bottom -- practically no chin. Significance?
• The markings on the back and the markings on the front are not connected -- is this significant, or was it just impossible to get tools in under the arms?
• What is the significance of the nose ring? How many women wore them at the time? How did he make the rippling pattern in it? What is its significance.

And there are many, many more where those came from.

Still, beyond the physical attributes of the objects that are enigmatic, I am additionally dumbfounded by the number of possibilities regarding its use and ownership:

• It was carried during the Jo initiation journey, but before then -- how was it stored?
• After that -- how was it stored?
• Was it actually put on a staff?
• What happened after the ceremony? Was it really given to young girls?
• At what point in its life was it hanging?? What are those holes for? Hanging in storage?
• How did Donald Deskey get it?
• Why did he not donate it in his first batch of donations?
• Why does no one seem to care about it in the correspondence?

Given these facts, I am choosing between the following frameworks for my paper:

• Semiotic
• Psychodynamic
• Structuralist
• Formalist

Right now, the enigma that most interests me is the body markings, so despite the persuasive thought of a paper that discusses purely gender issues, I am hoping to look at gender through a semiotic lens -- if that is possible! I look forward to discussing the potentials and possibilities further.