...Continued

Sorry to be so lengthy, but I want to give the subject the careful attention it deserves.

The concept that "European quilts tended to be more 'symmetrical' while African quilts were more 'asymmetrical'" is not very reliable. While an African aesthetic has developed over the past half-century or so, a (late 1970s, I think) study of what are known as "plain" quilts made by older white Appalachians with no exposure to African-Americans revealed a remarkable similarity to quilts we tend to think of as "typically African-American". In fact, a quilt's style seems at least as much related to socioeconomics, function ("plain" or "fancy") and personal taste as to race. If asymmetry were "typically African," quilts made in Liberia by descendants of repatriated slaves would strongly resemble their African-American counteparts in this regard. To my knowledge, this is not the case.

An interesting example is that of Gees Bend. Depression-era photos of Gees Bend quilters document them working on quilts that are both carefully pieced and symmetrical; by the postwar years style and workmanship had changed dramatically. This was due at least in part to what were by then substandard tools: it is very hard to achieve symmetry and tiny stitches when your scissors are nearly 50 years old, you own one needle, and your thimble has a hole in it.

I have not found anything to support the notion that Euro- and African-Americans "had different styles of design for their quilts. The designs can be easily recognized of the quilts made long ago." To my knowledge, all of the "code" blocks appear in Euro-American quilts, including those made in regions with little or no African-American population. To claim, as some proponents do, that a block pattern is *based on* an African (e.g., Adinkra) symbol requires that (a) the block can be shown to have originated with Afro-American slave quilters and then spread to the Euro-American quilt world, and (b) the meaning it conveys in the "code" has some similarity to that of the Adinkra symbol. I have found neither to be the case; the one "code" pattern I have found that remotely resembles an Adinkra symbol has a purported meaning almost directly opposite that of the Adinkra - and (like several of the "code" blocks) has no evidence of even existing before 1928, and is not included in all of the many conflicting versions of the "code".

The best that can reasonably be said is that *if* a code can be shown to have existed, it *could have* consisted of Anglo-American block patterns to which African-American slaves *may have* attached their own meaning. (At the very least, this would certainly be more logical than introducing unusual African motifs which would draw attention.) But this is a theory in search of proof - not the historical fact presented by "code" proponents.

I do agree with you that research does need to be done; I don't know that any actual research was ever done by "code" proponents. I'd also agree with your observation that what we'll call "species knowledge" makes every human naturally wonder "what's up?" when something seems out of place (a candle in the window). I would conclude by suggesting that when all the evidence a theory's proponents provide conflicts with what we *have* learned from multiple primary sources, when no primary-source evidence has been found to support the theory, and when proponents stand to profit from its acceptance, refuse to submit their evidence to scholarly examination, and resort to ad hominem attacks to defend their theory, it should be regarded with considerable skepticism.