This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Klaus F. Wellmann, MD
Brooklyn, NY

JAMA. 1970;214(13):2339.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

In his plea (214: 599, 1970) for a medical explanation of the derivation of the Kokopelli figure of Indian paleology, Dr. Vogl fails to acknowledge the large body of cultural, ie, nonmedical, associations, all detailed in my article (212:1678, 1970), that characterize this figure and all its individual attributes such as flute, "gibbus" deformity, and phallus. In order to understand Kokopelli, a hypothesis of physical disability is, in my opinion, simply not necessary. I had also hoped to show that the great variability with which the Kokopelli figure has been depicted by its ancient creators renders it virtually impossible to invoke any one specific disease for an explanation; that is true not only for Pott's disease but would equally apply for achondroplasia and any other affliction one might be tempted to think of. As was pointed out, there are unmistakable Kokopelli figures without any gibbus deformity, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?