NRLF B 3 7flM THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ALFRED L. KROEBER COLLECTION r\ A. L. Kroeber ELEPHANT PIPES IX THE MISKCM OF Till-: ACADEMY OF NATURAL DAVENPORT, IOWA. BY CHARLES E. PUTNAM I) AY i;\ I ORT, IOWA: il.A.v- A IIOOVKK, I KI.NTKKS AND HINDKKS. 1885. DAVENPORT ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES. OFFICERS 1885. C. I-:. PUTNAM, President. C. E. HARRISON, .... First Vice-Presidtnt. J. B. PHELPS, Second Vice-President. Miss LUCY M. PRATT, . . . Recording Secretary. W. H. PRATT, Corresponding Secretary W. H. FLl KE, .... Treasurer. W. II. PRATT, . . . . . Curator.- DR. JENNIE McCOWEX, Librarian. TRUSTEEjS. C. E. PlTNAM, } W. H. FLUKE, /- E.v-ojfido. Miss LUCY M. PRATT, ) C. C. PARRY, M.D. J. P. PHELPS. E. H. HA/EN, M.D. C. H. PRESTON, M.I). WILLIAM RIEPE. !",. P. LYNCH. Prof. W. H. BARKIS. W. H. PRATT. C. E. HARRISON. TAMES THOMPSON. G. P. MCCLELLAND. T. W. MCCLELLAND. STANDING COMMITTEES. finance. W. H. Fluke, G. P. McClelland, Rev. A. M. Judy, H. C. Fulton. Publication. Mrs. M. L. D. Putnam, Prof. W. H. Barris, Dr. C. C. Parry, Dr. C. H. Preston, James Thompson. Miisciiw.Vt. H. Pratt, Prof. D. S. Sheldon, Prof. W. H. Barris, William Riepe, Capt. W. P. Hall, E. P. Lynch, Miss Julia F. Sanders. Library. Dr. Jennie McCowen, C. E. Harrison, James M. De Armond. HONORARY MEMBERS. Priif. ASA GRAY, M.I)., .... Cambridge, Mass. Prof. JOSEPH HENRY, . . . Washington, D. C. Dr. JOHN L. LE CONTE. . . . Philadelphia,!^. Dr. JARED P. KIRTLAND, . . . Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. JOSEPH D. HOOKER, . . . Ke-w, England. Prof. ALPHONSE DE CANDOLLE, . . Geneva, Switzerland. Dr. WM. B. CARPENTER, . . . London, England. Prof. J. O. WESTWOOD, . . . Oxford, England. Prof. SPENCER F. BAIRD, . . . Washington, D. C. Dr. H. A. HAG EN, .... Cambridge, Mass. A VINDICATION OK T11K AUTHENTICITY OK Tilt Elephant Pipes ami Inscribed Tablets IN THE MUSEUM OK THE DAVENPORT ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES, KKOM THE ACCUSATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. BY CHARLES E.^PUTNAM, PRESIDENT OK THE DAVENPORT ACADEMY OK NATURAL SCIENCES. Fiat /Hstitia, runt ccelum. DAVKNPOKT, IOWA: (,1-ASS \ HOOVER, PRINTERS AND HINDERS. PREFATORY NOTE. The following paper was prepared in response to an earnest feeling enter tained by members of the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences, and in its preparation the writer has had their hearty cooperation and active assistance. Especial acknowledgments are due to Mr. William H. Pratt, the Curator and Corresponding Secretary of the Academy, whose extensive researches in arche ology enabled him to furnish much valuable material for incorporation in this paper; to Rev. A. M. Judy, Mr. James Thompson, and Dr. C. H. Preston, who, as a special committee on behalf of the Academy, thoroughly investigated all the circumstances connected with the transactions in question, and freely placed at the disposal of the writer the results of their investigations; and to our honored associates, Prof. 1). S. Sheldon and Rev. W. H. Harris, of Griswold College, who carefully reviewed the paper, and favored the writer with excellent suggestions. An expression of grateful appreciation is also due to those correspondents, in various parts of the country, who, in strong terms, have expressed their con demnation of the unjustifiable attack made upon the Academy by the United States Bureau of Kthnology; and, in entering upon the preparation of this vin dication, the writer has derived great encouragement from the hearty assurances of approbation and support received from these eminent arclncologists. C. 10. P. DAVKNTOKT, IOWA, Febniarv 9th, iSS^. Anthropology Add l ANTHROF- LIBRARY ELEPHANT PIPES AND INSCRIBED TABLETS OK TIIK. MOUND-BUILDERS. BY CHARLES E. PUTNAM. IN the sharp controversy now being waged among archaeologists, as to the origin of the Mound-builders, the Bureau of Ethnology con nected with the Smithsonian Institution has taken decided position as the champion of the theory that this mysterious race can be traced with comparative certainty to the ancestors of our American Indians. In the first annual report of the Bureau, Major Powell, its accom plished .Director, thus emphatically states its position upon this ques tion :* "With regard to the mounds so widely scattered between the two oceans, it may also be said that mound-building tribes were known in the early history of the dis covery of this continent, and that vestiges of art discovered do not excel in any respect the arts of Indian tribes known to history. There is, therefore, no reason for us to search for an extralimital origin, through lost tribes, for the arts discov ered in the mounds of North America. The tracing of the origin of these arts to the ancestors of known tribes, or stocks of tribes, is more legitimate." The position thus assumed by Major Powell finds recent and strong support in the work of Marquis De Nadaillac, on "Prehistoric Amer ica," just issued from the press, whose conclusions upon this interest ing question are thus stated :t "In closing this chapter, what, it may be asked, are we to believe was the char acter of the race to which, for the purpose of clearness, we have for the time being applied the term Mound-builder? The answer must be, they were no more nor less than the immediate predecessors, in blood and culture, of the Indians described by De Soto s chronicler and other early explorers the Indians who inhabited the region of the mounds at the time of the discovery by civilized men." + * First Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology, Washing-ton, 1879-80, p. 74. f Prehistoric America, by Marquis De \ T adaillac, p. 130. $ Foster makes this strong- statement of the opposite position concerning the American Indian: "He was never known voluntarily to engage in an enterprise requiring methodical 466 -4- Another class of archaeologists as strongly maintain the opposite theory, that the Mound-builders were more advanced in civilization than the American Indian, and hence have endeavored to trace them to a Mexican origin, or to some earlier common ancestry. The leader ship on this side must be accorded to Messrs. Squier and Davis, who, in their great work upon "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Val ley," thus state their conclusions:* "Without undertaking to point out the affinities, or to indicate the probable origin of the builders of the western monuments, and the cause of their final dis appearance, we may venture to suggest that the facts so far collected point to a connection, more or less intimate, between the race of the mounds and the semi- civilized nations which formerly had their seats among the sierras of Mexico and Peru, and who erected the imposing structures which, from their number, vastness, and mysterious significance, invest the central portion of the continent with an inter est no less absorbing than that which attaches to the Nile. These nations alone, of all found in possession of the continent by the European discoverers, were essen tially stationary and agricultural in their habits, conditions indispensable to large populations, to fixedness of institutions, and to any considerable advance in the economic or ennobling arts. That the Mound-builders, although perhaps in a less degree, were also stationary and agricultural, clearly appears from a variety of facts and circumstances, most of which will no doubt recur to the mind of the reader." After the lapse of nearly half a century, and in the light of subse quent researches, a more recent statement of this position was made by Prof. F. W. Putnam, of the Peabody Museum, at the British Association during its session at Montreal. At this meeting Prof. Putnam gave an interesting account of discoveries made in a group of mounds in Ham ilton County, Ohio, and his conclusions were subsequently reported in Science, as follows : t "These relics seem to show a more complex social life, more abundant and varied artistic products, and a higher status altogether, than can be deemed consistent with the views of those who hold that these Mound-builders were merely the ancestors of our present Indians, and in the same state of culture." An abstract of another paper by Prof. Putnam, presented before the hihor; he dwells in temporary and movable habitations; he follows the game in their migra tions; he imposes the drudgery of life upon his squaw; he takes no heed for the future . To suppose that such a race threw up the strong line of circumvallations and the symmetrical mounds which crown so many of our river terraces, is as preposterous, almost, as to suppose that they built the pyramids of Egypt." ("Prehistoric Races," p. 300.) See, also, Johnson s Cyclopaedia, title "American Antiquities," wherein Prof. J. S. Newberry arrives at the conclusion that " the Mound-builders belonged to a distinct and now extinct race." * Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Vol. I., p. 301. \Scienc,- for September 26th, 1884. American Association for the Advancement of Science at its recent meeting in Philadelphia, was also published in Science, wherein an account is given of his explorations of a group of mounds in Madison - ville, Ohio, and it is stated that, "as a result, one of the most remark able series of objects ever discovered in America had been obtained:"* "Among the objects taken from the largest mound of the group were the follow ing, some of them never found before in mounds: Shell-beads, disks, and rings, which were obtained in thousands; cones cut from alligator teeth; ornaments cut from plates of buffalo horn, mica, and native copper, and even gold and meteoric iron; pearls, most of them pierced and injured by heat (not less than fifty thousand were found); small stone dishes, beautifully carved to represent some animal form; and last, and perhaps most important, terra-cotta figurines of exceedingly artistic form, and strangely Egyptian in character, ""fr In these extracts we have stated in clear contrast these conflicting theories. While largely engaged in archaeological work, the Daven port Academy has postponed decision upon these important deduc tions, awaiting further discoveries. Its conservative position is well stated by its late Corresponding Secretary, Joseph Duncan Putnam, in a letter to Rev. Dr. Peet, of the Antiquarian, bearing date October loth, 1878: "I am, of course, only an outsider, and look upon the workers in the field of archaeology from over the fence; still I am so close that I feel like offering a sug gestion occasionally, and I do wish you archaeologists could introduce some scientific methods into so interesting a study, gather up the facts, arrange them systematic ally, and then deduce the theories. But this is an age of speculation, and even in entomology there is a strong tendency to get up a theory and then hunt for facts to support it." And in a subsequent letter to the same gentleman, Mr. Putnam thus explicitly states the position of the Academy upon the questions raised by the discovery of its inscribed tablets : u Whether they are modem Indian, or Mound-builder, or Mexican, or European, or post-Columbian, or ante-Columbian whether the characters are phonetic, sym- * Science for October ,}d, 1884. fThe late Lewis H. Morgan, in a series of admirable papers, expressed the opinion that the Mound -builders were derived from the "Village Indians" of New Mexico, and he advanced gome strong- reasons in support of this conclusion. He further remarks that, "from the absence of all traditionary knowledge of the Mound-builders among the tribes found east of the Missis sippi, an inference arises that the period of their occupation was ancient. Their withdrawal was probably gradual, and completed before the advent of the ancestors of the present tribes, or simultaneously with their arrival." While his conclusions may not in all cases be accepted, these thoughtful papers of Mr. Morgan will well repay perusal. See Johnson s Cyclopedia, title "Architecture of the American Aborigines," Vol. I., p. 217; " Montexuma s Dinner," North American Review, April, 1876; "Houses of the Mound-build ers," North American Rwieiv, July, 1876. bolic, hieroglyphic, or meaningless is yet to be decided; we have no means of knowing." And in looking over the many statements macfe by Mr. Gass, the principal discoverer of these relics, as published in the Proceedings of the Academy, it will be found that they contain no suggestion of a theory. On the contrary, in giving a description of some inscribed rocks in Cleona Township, Scott County, Iowa, he thus states his own position upon these mooted questions :* "But for what purpose the people selected them, by what intention they were guided, with what kind of tools the inscriptions on such hard material were made, by what nation the engraving was executed Indian or Mound-builder these are questions which I do not venture to answer." In these utterances on behalf of the Academy will be found the lan guage, not of the champions of a theory, but of earnest seekers after truth. That the theory advanced by the Bureau of Ethnology as to the origin of the Mound-builders should be maintained with consummate ability, was to be expected of the able and accomplished scholars enlisted in its service. It is, however, to be regretted that, actuated by intemperate zeal to establish this theory, its promoters have some times abandoned scientific methods, indulged in hasty generalizations, and even violated the amenities of literature. It will be found that the second annual report of the Bureau of Ethnology, recently issued under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution, is open to this criti cism. In that report there appears a monograph by Henry W. Hen- shaw, entitled "Animal Carvings from Mounds in the Mississippi Valley,"t and therein an attack of no ordinary severity is made upon the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences. In this bitter assault Mr. Henshaw is ably supported by the strong endorsement of Major J. W. Powell, the Director of the Bureau. The Smithsonian Institu tion occupies a commanding position in the world of science; and, inasmuch as it has given special attention to researches in archaeology, it may properly be considered entitled to speak with authority upon these questions. Its sharp criticism, .therefore, presents to our Acad emy a conspicuous opportunity for a careful review of the circum stances, and a plain restatement of the facts establishing, beyond rea sonable doubt, the genuineness of its valuable discoveries. * Proceeding s of Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences, Vol. II., p. 17^. f Second Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, Washing-ton, iSSo-Si, p. 152. In the line of archaeology the Davenport Academy has attained deserved eminence. Its inscribed tablets, elephant pipes, cloth-cov ered copper axes, aifd rare collection of ancient pottery have attracted the attention of archaeologists throughout the world of science. These remarkable relics, received with enthusiasm by antiquarians, are gener ally accepted as authentic additions to the "unwritten history" of the past. That discoveries so rare and unique should be subjected to severe scrutiny might reasonably be expected; and, when exercised in the spirit of an earnest quest of truth, it was even to be desired. Dis coveries which are to become the foundations for important historical deductions should be securely intrenched, beyond the reach of adverse criticism, on the bed-rock of truth. These valuable contributions to the science of archaeology have undoubtedly given the Davenport Academy conspicuous position. The assumed fact, emphasized by Mr. Henshaw, that "it has fallen to the good fortune of no one else to find anything conveying the most distant suggestion of the mastodon," is found to be even embarrassing, inasmuch as it places our Academy in the range of fire between contending archaeologists. It is certainly a misfortune of the Davenport Academy that the museum of the Smith sonian Institution contains neither elephant pipes nor inscribed tablets. The discoveries in question are two elephant pipes and three in scribed tablets. Of the latter, the first two were found in what is known as Mound Xo. 3, on the Cook farm, adjoining the city of Dav enport. The principal discoverer was Rev. Jacob (iass, a Lutheran clergyman, then settled over a congregation in Davenport. In this exploration Mr. Gass was assisted by L. H. Willrodt and H. S. Stoltz- enau, with five other persons who were accidentally present during the opening of the mound. The discovery was made on January roth. 1877. An exact and careful statement of the facts connected therewith was soon after prepared by Rev. Mr. Gass, and read at an early meeting of the Davenport Academy. It was published, and may be found in its "Proceedings."* Upon the announcement of the discovery, the officers and many members of the Academy were early on the ground to verify the statements made by the discoverers. The gentlemen engaged in the exploration are well known, and held in high esteem : their testimony as to all essential facts is clear and convincing, and the circumstances narrated seem to fully establish the genuineness of these relics. That their statement contains only facts, all who know them will not ques- * Proceedings Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences, Vol. II., p. yo. _8 tion ; and that the mound from which the relics were obtained had not been previously disturbed, is sufficiently established by their testimony. The authenticity of this discovery must therefore be conceded by every fair-minded inquirer. The third inscribed tablet was found on January 3oth, 1878, in Mound No. n, in the group of mounds on Cook s farm, in the suburbs of Davenport, and in close proximity to the mound wherein the other tablets were discovered. That indefatigable explorer, Rev. J. Gass, was also present during these further researches, and had for his assist ants John Hume and Charles E. Harrison, both members of the Acad emy, and well and favorably known in this community. The circum stances of this discovery, as narrated by Mr. Harrison, are published in the Proceedings of the Academy. * No suspicions whatever attach to this discovery, and the well-attested facts connected therewith estab lish beyond reasonable doubt, that, whether more or less ancient, the tablet was deposited at the making of the mound. Of the elephant pipes in the museum of the Academy, one was dis covered in March, 1880, in a mound on the farm of Mr. P. Hass, in Louisa County, Iowa, by Rev. A. Blumer, a Lutheran clergyman from a neighboring city, and was by him donated to the Academy. Rev. J. Gass, Mr. F. Hass, and a number of workmen were present, assisting in the exploration. A detailed account of the finding, pre pared by Rev. Mr. Blumer, is published in the Proceedings of the Academy.t From the social standing and high character of the prin cipal discoverers, no question has been, or can be, successfully raised as to the authenticity of this discovery. The other elephant pipe was not "discovered" by Rev. J. Gass, as stated by Mr. Henshavv, but was obtained by him from a farmer in Louisa County, lowa.J This man found it while planting corn on his farm several years prior to that date, and attached no particular value to the relic, but had some times used it in smoking. A brief account of its finding is given in the Proceedings of the Academy, and in substance is republished in Mr. Henshaw s paper. It will thus be perceived that there are no * Proceedings of Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences, Vol. II., p. 221. Mr. Harrison is now Vice- President of the Academy. f Proceeding s of Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences, Vol. III., p. 1 52. ^ Proceedings of Davenport Academv of Natural Sciences, Vol. II., p. ,549; note. The quotation from Barber, in Mr. Henshaw s paper, correctly states the circumstances connected with the rinding of the elephant pipes; and still, notwithstanding the fact that his quotation refutes his statement, in order to make his point he persists in speaking of Mr. (Jass as the " discoverer " of both pipes! suspicious circumstances connected with either of these discoveries, but that the surrounding and well-authenticated facts seem to suffi ciently establish the genuineness of these interesting relics. The explicit statements of the explorers as to the discovery of these relics will find strong corroboration in the early inspection made by other members of the Academy, and their reports thereon. Thus, the learned and lamented Dr. R. |. Farquharson, who was as guileless in character as he was eminent in science, in a paper upon the inscribed tablets, bears this most emphatic testimony to their genuineness: Shortly after the report of the discovery, several gentlemen, officers of the Academy, visited the excavation, and, through our President, reported that, from the unbroken condition of the layers of shells, and from other evidence visible, they were of opinion that no disturbance of the mound had taken place since the forma tion of these layers. Hut the indisputable evidence of the authenticity of the tablets rests in the explicit statement of Rev. Mr. Gass and the gentlemen assisting him, that, after tJie penetration of the frozen crust of the earth, thev did not leave the spot until the tablets were unearthed by the hands of the former. This forever silences the doubt in regard to the intrusion or interpolation of these tablets, for, taken in connection with the frozen state of the ground, it makes such an act simply impossible." * Kqually emphatic is the testimony of Mr. William H. Pratt, the Curator of the Academy, and one of its principal founders. As is well known, this gentleman has given years of gratuitous service in building up the Davenport Academy, and it is due to his exact methods and untiring industry that some scientific order has been introduced into its valuable museum. During his long and disinter ested connection with our Academy, Mr. Pratt has been extensively engaged in archaeological research, and is thus well qualified to pass judgment on the authenticity of these relics. In a valedictory address as its President, delivered before the Academy at its annual meeting in 1881, Mr. Pratt thus refers to these questions: "Some doubts, of course, have been expressed regarding the genuineness of the tablets, though not to any extent by competent and candid archaeologists, and we feel no uneasiness on that account. The tablets have been sent to the Smithsonian Institution for examination, and were retained there and subjected to the most thorough scrutiny for two months, during which time the National Academy held its meeting there, and the heliotype plates of them were obtained under the direc tion of Prof. Baird himself. They were also exhibited throughout the sessions of the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, last August. Any author or other person who cared to inform himself of the facts * Proceedings of Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences, Vol. II., p. 107. 10 has always had ample opportunity to do so, and would at once see that the circum stances of the finding were such as utterly to preclude all possibility of fraud or imposition. The evidence that they are coeval with the other relics that is, that they were inhumed with them, and before the mound was built is ample and con clusive, and will be so considered by any unbiased man. No prehistoric relic ever found has better evidence to establish its genuineness than these, and not one sus picious circumstance in connection with them has been pointed out, nor can there be. We shall confidently hope for and gladly welcome further discoveries, by whomsoever made, tending to throw more light upon this still obscure and intensely interesting problem of our earliest predecessors on this continent. 1 * The late Joseph Duncan Putnam, who gave his young life a martvr to science, was at the date of this discovery Corresponding Secretary of the Academy, and in answer to a letter of inquiry from Prof. Spencer F. Baird, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, addressed to that gentleman a communication which is important as a very com plete contemporary account written by an officer of the Academy a few days after the finding of the second elephant pipe, and hence is given entire : "OFFICE OF J. D. PUTNAM, Corresponding Secretary \ Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences, DAVENPORT, IOWA, March 28th, 1880. \ "PROF. S. F. BAIRD "Dear Sir : Your favor of the iyth inst. duly received during my absence from the city. It will give us pleasure to send you casts of the pipes referred to in my previous letters as soon as we have them made; also of the elephant pipe found last year. There is no doubt in our minds that these two pipes are intended to repre sent the elephant at least it seems to require a good deal of imagination to make them look like anything else. In the finding of this last pipe there were three wit nesses Rev. A. Blumer, an evangelical clergyman living in Geneseo, Illinois, Rev. J. Gass, a Lutheran clergyman residing in Davenport, Iowa, and a Mr. Hass, for many years owner of the farm on which it was found, and several others. We have never heard a word that would lead us to suspect the integrity of these men from any source whatever (except Eastern archaeologists, who know nothing about them). The first elephant pipe was found by a German farmer (Peter Mare, now living somewhere in Kansas), who plowed it up on his farm, in Louisa County, Iowa, some seven or eight years ago. When he moved to Kansas he gave the pipe to his brother-in-law, from whom we obtained it by barter. This man used it habitually for smoking, and valued it highly as a keepsake from his brother. He had no idea of its archaeological value. The history of the finding of these two pipes shows not the slightest evidence of collusion or fraud. They each tend to confirm the genuine ness of the other. "Of the other finds of Mr. Gass, and of other members of the Academy, the evidence of genuineness is equally strong whenever it is stated they were taken from the mounds by themselves as, for example, the three inscribed tablets, the first * Proceedings of Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences, Vol. III., p. two of which were found by Messrs. Gass and Wilrodt, and the third, a year later, by Messrs. Hume, Gass, and Harrison. When the objects were obtained from third persons the evidences are, of course, not so strong; but the Academy s collection contains very few such objects. "In explanation of the many important finds made by Mr. Gass, I would say that he is a very tireless worker, and not easily discouraged. The mounds in this region are very numerous, but not one in ten contains anything of value. This causes most men to become easily discouraged, but not Mr. Gass. After opening, say, twenty or more mounds without result, he will commence the next with as much vigor as the first. His work is always thorough, and if there is anything to be found he always finds it. Having charge of a number of small congregations, and going from place to place to preach, he has many acquaintances throughout the country, whom he keeps on the lookout for any archaeological relics that may turn up. He pays his own expenses, and whatever he gets he gives to the Academy. It is in this way the Academy has obtained a number of objects in its collection, the Academy being entirely without funds that can be devoted to this purpose. "In the same manner we have received very large collections of stone and flint implements and pottery from another of our members, Captain W. P. Hall, who spends most of his time traveling up and down the entire length of the Mississippi and some of its branches, paying his own expenses by working his way, and donating all he gets to the Academy. Many other members, and many persons not members, have done and are doing the same thing. It is this unselfish devotion that has ena bled the Davenport Academy to take and to maintain the position it has, notwith standing the financial poverty of its members. None of our members known to me have any desire either to deceive or be deceived; hence they would be greatly pleased to have the genuineness of these relics, about which some skepticism has been expressed, thoroughly examined into by disinterested archaeologists. We believe this can be best done by personal examination of all the relics from each mound, and by visiting the grounds, examining the persons who assisted in the exploration and the neighbors who live in the vicinity of the mounds. All the relics under suspicion have been found within fifty miles of the city of Davenport, and several of the most ^mportant (both tablets) almost within the city limits. We believe that such an investigation would be of considerable benefit, and feel quite certain that the result would show that, whatever other conclusions might be arrived at, the members of the Davenport Academy have been acting in good faith, a fact which seems to be doubted by some. "Asking your pardon for the length of this letter, I am, sir, "Very respectfully yours, "J. DUNCAN PUTNAM.* * If it is objected to Mr. Putnam that, as an entomologist, he was disqualified as a judge, it may also he objected to Mr. Henshaw that, as an ornithologist, he was disqualified as a critic. While it might be considered unbecoming in the writer to speak in terms of commendation of a son, it will not be thought improper to present the testimony of another as to the qualifications of this young scientist. Prof. Asa Gray, who had excellent opportunities for forming an opinion, says of him: "What struck me in my intercourse with Putnam was his sobriety of judgment and simplicity of spirit. Never have I seen a cooler and, as we say, more level, head upon young shoulders." (Proceedings of Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences, Vol. III., P- * 5-) U I ( - S. Regarding the interpretation to be put upon these tablets and pipes, there is room for a vast difference of opinion. They may be three hundred or they may be one thousand years old; they may have been made in the locality where found, or they may have been brought from a distance. These and many other questions will probably require many years of investigation to settle, if, indeed, they can be settled. J. D. P." In these contemporary accounts, made by gentlemen not unknown among men of science, and who were familiar with all the circum stances connected with these discoveries, we find striking confirma tion of the explicit testimony given by the explorers, as to the genu ineness of these relics. This rapid review will serve in some measure to recall the circum stances surrounding the discoveries in question, and in a slight degree to indicate their great scientific value. If their authenticity is estab lished, then archaeologists will find in them strong corroborative evi dence that man and the mastodon were contemporary on this conti nent, and that the Mound-builders were a race anterior to the ancestors of the present American Indians, and of higher type and more advanced civilization. As this conclusion would conflict with the theory announced by the Bureau of Ethnology, Mr. Henshaw was compelled to discredit these important discoveries.* Before his "destructive criticism" the characters of men and the verities of science must alike be swept away to make room for a favorite theory. It was doubtless unfortunate for the Davenport Academy that its remarkable discoveries impeded the progress of this knight-errant of science ;t but if its elephant pipes and inscribed tablets were authentic and genuine, then his favorite theory would seem to be at fault. He does not hesitate, therefore, to throw discredit upon these relics, to assail the honesty of the discoverer, and to impale with his scathing * We must not be understood to condemn all "theory" as without use in scientific research. We only condemn its abuse. It must be conceded that theory is a tireless pioneer of progress, and has inspired many a great worker in science to follow its light into vast unknown seas, until, as with Columbus, a new continent has dawned upon his vision. Let archaeologists there fore, if they please, weave their "theories" out of the very gossamers of thought, if so be it induce them to delve more industriously in earth- work and mound for their "facts." In the dawning light the unsubstantial theory may melt away, but the ultimate facts will remain, an imperishable possession. . -rThe appellation in the text is not undeserved. Mr. Henshaw presents an "illustration" of a tailless elephant which is itself a fraud; he then assumes that all the relics in question were the "finds" of "one individual," which is false. Having thus conjured through his imagina tion this unreal state of "facts," he then triumphantly proceeds to demolish it! Fora parallel to this performance we must resort to fiction. We shall find its analogue in the memorable tilt of tlu valorous Knight of La Mancha with the unoffending windmills! censure the institution that published them to the world. Tt is, there fore, full time for a calm and thorough review of all the circumstances surrounding these discoveries, with trie view of finally disposing of all questions as to their authenticity. That we may not in the slightest degree misrepresent the Bureau of Ethnology, or its champion, Mr. Henshaw, we will extract from this remarkable paper a few choice specimens as illustrations of its tone and temper. Disregarding entirely the strong evidences of the authen ticity of these relics which we have thus plainly presented. Mr. Hen shaw proceeds to assail them with this "destructive criticism:" "In considering the evidence afforded by these pipes of a knowledge of the mas todon on the part of the Mound-builder, it should be borne in mind that their authenticity as specimens of the Mound-builder s art has been seriously called in question. Possibly the fact that tJic same person was instrumental in bringing to light both of the pipes has had largely to do with this suspicion, especially when it was remembered that, although explorers had been remarkably active in the same region, it has fallen to the good fortune of no one else to find anything conveying the most distant suggestion of the mastodon. * The remarkable archaeological instinct which has guided the finder of these pipes has led him to some more important discoveries. By the aid of his divining-rod he has succeeded in unearthing some of the most remarkable tablets which have thus far rewarded the diligent search of the mound explorer. ^ Arcfueologists must certainly deem it unfortunate that, outside of tlie IViscon- sin mound, the only evidence of the coexistence of t/ie Mound-builder and tlie mas todon should reach the scientific world through tlie agency of one individual. S<> derived, each succeeding carving of the mastodon, be it more or less accurate, instead of being accepted by archaeologists as cumulative evidence tending to estab lish the genuineness of the sculptured testimony showing that the Mound-builder and mastodon were coeval, will be viewed with ever-increasing suspicion. * * * * Hearing in mind the many attempts at archaeological fraud that recent years have brought to light, archaeologists have a right to demand that objects which afford a basis for such important deductions as the coeval life of the Mound- builder and mastodon should be above the slightest suspicion, not only in respect to their resemblances, but as regards the circumstances of their discovery. If they are not above suspicion, the science of archaeology can better afford to wait for further and more certain evidence than to commit itself to theories which may prove stumbling-blocks to truth, until that indefinite time when further investigation shall show their illusory nature."* \Ve find here an abundance of hints, innuendoes, imaginings, suspi cions without the statement of a fact to justify them. Hud it been more specific, this paper would have had more force. In a grave sci- * Second Annual Report Bureau of Kthnolojfy, Washington, iSSo-Si, pp. 1^6, 1^7, and iyS ( Animal Carvings from Mounds in the Mississippi Valley," by H. W. Henshaw). - 14- entific essay, controverting the authenticity of some very important dis coveries, it should have been stated when, where, how, by whom, and for what reasons the genuineness of tfiese relics had been "seriously called in question." To controvert a statement with a sneer is the peculiar achievement of the ordinary polemic, and cannot be set down among accepted scientific methods. In entering upon his work of demolition, it was open to Mr. Hen- shaw to make some show of thorough investigation and fair treatment. The circumstances called for it. He occupied a conspicuous position and wielded large influence. If his criticism was well founded, it would serve a useful purpose in driving charlatans from the fold of truth. If based only on partial investigations, and without substantial foundation, his censure would tend to destroy confidence in all histor ical evidence, discourage original research, and poison truth at its very fountain-head. When, therefore, Mr. Henshaw was forced by the exi gencies of his theory to assail these discoveries, archaeologists had a right to expect that he would make thorough examination into the evidences of their genuineness; that he would visit the scene of these explorations and take careful note of the surroundings; that he would make searching inquiry as to the character and reliability of the discov erers; that he would closely question the members of the Davenport Academy as to the existence of any suspicious circumstances; that he would make critical inspection of the relics themselves to note pecu liarities which might escape an eye less thoroughly trained than his own ; and that, in this just and judicious manner, he would seek to satisfy all reasonable scruples of the earnest and conscientious seeker after truth. All this was easy for Mr. Henshaw, for he had at his command unlimited resources. It will be learned with surprise that he did none of these things. This feeling will be increased to astonishment when it is ascer tained that, instead of adopting these wise precautions, Mr. Henshaw sei/ed with avidity upon a stray paper, written by a gentleman in no way connected with the Davenport Academy, imperfectly illustrated with some coarse wood-cuts, and published in an Kastern maga/.ine, and that he made this second-hand information the poor excuse for his unscientific screed. When, in addition to all this, it is found that Mr. Henshaw never consulted the extensive correspondence concerning these relics in the possession of the Smithsonian Institution, and appa rently never gave even a passing glance to the photographs of these elephant pipes in its museum, arch;eologists will regard with just resent ment these scientific delinquencies of this eminent gentleman. In that portion of his paper relating to "animal carvings," Mr. Hen- shaw makes the statement that the celebrated " Klephant Mound" of Wisconsin represents neither tusks nor tail, and that the sculptors of the "elephant pipes," taking that mound for a model, have even imi tated these omissions! Through these similarities Mr. Henshaw sug gests an argument against the authenticity of these relics! As to the absence of "tusks" in both mound and pipes, Mr. Henshaw is doubt less correct. This omission in the pipes, however, could be suffi ciently accounted for from the difficulty the ancient artist would expe rience in representing them in the soft sandstone used for the purpose of this carving. As will be seen, Mr. Barber adopts this view : "It is, to say the least, a singular fact that the most characteristic feature of this pachyderm, the prominent tusks, should have been omitted both in the pipe sculp ture and the big elephant mound, if the ancient Americans were acquainted with the model. The long, slender, curved tusks, however, would be difficult to imitate, either in the miniature stone sculptures or the embankments of earth, and might have been purposely ignored."* In the argument of Mr. Henshaw, based upon the absence of the "tail" in these carvings, he is peculiarly unfortunate. He has been misled, no doubt, by the faulty "illustrations," which alone he must have consulted, inasmuch as in each of these pipes the "tail" is well developed. It will also be found clearly represented in the photo graphs sent to the Smithsonian Institution ; in the illustrations of the pipes, given in the Proceedings of the Davenport Academy, and in the stamp on the cover of the volume. So, too, in the "Prehistoric America" of Nadaillac, quite recently introduced to the American public by a noted archaeologist (Mr. Dall), we find an illustration of one of these identical elephant pipes, with the missing "tail" in full view ! In the light of these facts, the singular argument of Mr. Hen shaw will be read with amusement. It is as follows : "It is also remarkable t/iat in neither of these pipes is the tail indicated, although a glance at the other sculptures will show that in the full-length figures this member is invariably shown. /// respect to these omissions the pipes from ICKVO. are strikingly suggestive of the elephant mound of Wisconsin, with the peculiarities of which the sculptor, whether ancient or modern, might almost be supposed to have been acquainted. It certainly must be looked upon as a curious coincidence that carvings found at a point so remote from the elephant mound, and presumably the work of other hands, should so closely copy the imperfections of that mound, "t * American Naturalist for April, 1882, p. 277. f Second Annual Report Bureau of Kthnology, iSSo-Si, p. 156. This ludicrous blunder on the part of Mr. Henshaw dearly reveals the culpable carelessness of his scientific methods." It will be found, moreover, upon careful examination, that the differences between the Wisconsin mound and the elephant pipes are more numerous than their resemblances -the full-length proboscis and the tail, ears, eyes, and mouth, all being fully represented in the pipes and wanting in the mound; and hence, in the one point of similarity, from the absence of tusks, there is no sufficient basis for his argument. In this connection it may be mentioned as at least a curious coincidence that the repre sentation of the elephant in Johnson s Cyclopaedia has the same omission. The absence of "ivory" relics in the mounds is also urged by Mr. Henshaw to strengthen his argument. A sufficient explanation of this circumstance will be found in the accepted hypothesis that at the era of the Mound-builders, the elephant and mastodon must have nearly reached the point of extinction on this continent, and hence would be infrequently seen and the article of "ivory" quite uncommon. Assum ing this as a fact, it will furnish a reasonable explanation both of the absence of ivory in the mounds and of imperfect representations in the carvings. It is, moreover, quite within the range of probability that future explorations of innumerable mounds, still unopened, may bring to light the missing relics. t A singular perversion of facts, on the part of Mr. Henshaw, still remains to be noted. After quoting at length from a communication addressed to Mr. Barber by the President of the Davenport Academy, wherein it is clearly stated that one of the elephant pipes was found by Peter Mare, an illiterate German farmer, and the other was discovered by the Rev. Mr. Blumer, Mr. Henshaw, curiously enough, proceeds as follows : "It will be seen from the above that the same gentleman was instrumental in bringing to light the two specimens constituting the present supply of elephant * Mr. Henshaw manifests /.eal in the exposure of deceptions, and yet the very representa tions of our elephant pipes employed by him to embellish his paper are themselves archaeological "frauds" of singular enormity; and as the unfortunate citizen found with the kit of the coun terfeiter in his grip-suck is required by the law to justify his possession, so Mr. Henshaw may properly be called upon to reader who will compare the ings, or even in the recent Mr. Henshaw s argument \ \ plain the origin of these "tailless" illustrations. The curious i with the true representations! as found in the Academy Proceed- -ork of Xadaillac, will find himself in "serious doubt" whether as framed to fit his fancy illustrations, or the illustrations were designed to support his arg ment. fin the American Antiquarian for March, 1880, Rev. S. D. Peet announced the discovery of one of these pipes, and expressed the opinion that it clearly represented the "elephant." pipes. / //< remarkable arc/ncological instinct which has guided the finder of these pipes has led him to even more important discoveries. By the aid of his divining- rod he has succeeded in unearthing some of the most remarkable inscribed tablets which have thus far rewarded the diligent search of the mound explorer." The unfounded and ungenerous insinuations contained in this re markable passage will require neither commentary nor condemnation. When it is remembered that no less than six highly respected citizens were engaged in these explorations, and no less than three were present at each discovery, and when it is further noted that the person who unearthed the inscribed tablets is not "the same gentleman" who dis covered the elephant pipes, and that the pipes themselves were discov ered by different individuals, archaeologists may well conclude that a writer so reckless in the use of his "facts" is wholly unqualified for the important work he has undertaken. Deductions so loosely made are many degrees beneath the dignity of serious scientific criticism. In all this "destructive criticism," which Major Powell commends as "successful," the only "fact" presented as a basis for their sweeping "suspicions" is this same fictitious statement, that the explorer was alone when lie made his discoveries. It would seem, in the view of Mr. Henshaw, that explorers should go to their work with a body guard of affidavit-makers, or, peradventure, with some accredited rep resentative of the Bureau of Ethnology, to verify each discovery; and that, unless so witnessed, such discovery must be discredited. As the finding of many of these relics is accidental, and often by men having little appreciation of their scientific value, the adoption of so narrow a rule would eliminate from our museums some of the most remarkable mementoes. This low estimate of human nature does not correctly represent the liberal spirit of pure science. All of us can point to earnest and disinterested workers, impelled by the love of science, with no thought of gain, whose single, simple word would be received with absolute trust, when the carefully verified narratives of a crowd of professional collectors, delving for hire, would be regarded with well-founded distrust. Had Mr. Henshaw taken the trouble to ascer tain this important fact, he would have found that the principal discov erer of the inscribed tablets belonged to this select circle of voluntary workers, and that, in his own home, his word was beyond question and his character above reproach. In this connection it may properly be stated that Mr. Gass. who, as the discoverer of these unique relics, is assailed by Mr. Henshaw, is now preaching to a congregation at Postville, in northern Iowa, where he is, as he everywhere has been, highly esteemed by his people. He is a good classical scholar, well- grounded in Hebrew, but with a decided scientific bent of mind, which accounts for his perseverance and enthusiasm in these archaeological explorations. It would seem that his fine abilities, extensive attain ments, high social position, and spotless character should have shielded him from attack ; and if, peradventure, it ever falls to the lot of his assailants to themselves encounter "destructive criticism,-" it will then serve them in good stead should they be able to confront it with as clean a record. The unjustifiable attack made by Mr. Henshaw upon the scientific character of Mr. Gass is followed with the warning that, in future, all such explorations must cease, and enforced with the dire threat v that any more such discoveries will surely encounter the "ever-increasing suspicion" of archaeologists ! We will repeat this unique paragraph, and bespeak for it careful attention, as a scientific curiosity : "Archaeologists must certainly deem it unfortunate that, outside of the Wiscon sin mound, the only evidence of the coexistence of the Mound-builder and the mas todon should reach the scientific world through the agency oj one individual. So derived, each succeeding carving of the mastodon, be it more or less accurate, in stead of being accepted by archaeologists as cumulative evidence tending to estab lish the genuineness of the sculptured testimony showing that the Mound-builder and mastodon were coeval, will be viewed with ever-increasing suspicion." As will be perceived, in reading this passage, the condemnation is absolute, the prohibition complete ! In the view of Mr. Henshaw, no genuine elephant pipe has been, or can be, discovered. The discov ery of a new elephant pipe, he considers, would not confirm the previous discovery, but, instead, would add to the "suspicion" of its genuineness ! The guilt of the explorer, in his distorted vision, in creases with his success ! The possibility of conscientious research is thus denied to the solitary student of science. As we turn over the pages of this writer, the air seems murky with "doubts" and "suspi cions," with "frauds" and "forgeries." The mandates he issues appear to have been framed for a company of convicts! Now, if this arrogant assumption, on the part of Mr. Henshaw, was not utterly puerile, it would be simply "monstrous!" That such doctrines should have emanated from the Smithsonian Institution, "will be viewed with ever-increasing" wonder. "Archaeologists must certainly deem it unfortunate" that an *This strong adjective is quoted from the private communication of a well-known archaeolo gist, and was used by him to express his distrust with the extraordinary doctrines announced by Mr. Henshaw in the above passage. institution established "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge" should thus endeavor to discourage research and stifle thought ! Archaeologists will not fail to notice the bold, unequivocal statement made by Mr. Henshaw, that the "only evidence of the coexistence of the Mound-builder and mastodon" is such as may be furnished by these elephant pipes and inscribed tablets. That any gentleman, who had passed the alphabet of archaeology, could have the hardihood to con front its extensive literature with such a statement, is quite unaccount able. Turning to the accepted records of archaeology, among which may be cited Lubbock s "Prehistoric Times" and Foster s "Prehis toric Races in the United States," we find many other interesting discoveries, earlier in date, of like character and equal importance with these elephant pipes and inscribed tablets. We will, at this time, only call attention to some of the more important of these relics which seem to furnish valuable evidence as to "the coexistence of the Mound- builder and mastodon." We now refer to the following: First . We find, in the transactions of the St. Louis Academy of Sciences, in 1857, a detailed statement, by Dr. A. C. Koch, of the remains of a mastodon found in Gasconade County, Missouri, and with it, among ashes, bones, and rocks, sev eral arrow-heads and some stone axes, which relics are preserved in the British Museum. Second. Dr. Dickson, of Natchez, many years ago, found the pelvic bone of a man with the remains of mastodon and megalonyx, which specimens are preserved in the museum of the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences. Third. Count Pourtales, in 1848, found, in Florida, some human bones in a calcareous conglomerate, estimated by Agassiz to be ten thousand years old. Pour- tales will be remembered as the friend and favorite pupil of the great naturalist. Fourth. In an excavation in New Orleans some charcoal and a human skele ton were discovered, to which Dr. Dowler attributes an antiquity of no less than fifty thousand years. This estimate was based upon the deposits and forests found above the remains, and as connected with this question was the age of the delta of the Mississippi, it may be stated that this has been estimated by Sir Charles Lyell as probably reaching one hundred thousand years. Fifth. In 1857, Dr. C. F. Winslow sent the Boston Natural History Society the fragment of a human cranium, found, in connection with the bones of the mas todon and elephant, one hundred and eighty feet below the surface of Table Moun tain. Sixth. Professor Whitney deposited in the museum of the State Geological Society of California a human cranium, discovered deep down in the gold drift, and covered with five successive overflows of lava. Seventh. T. T. Cleu contributed to the Smithsonian Institution a specimen of ancient basket-work, or " mat made of interlaced reeds," found on Petit Anse Island, some fifteen or twenty feet below the surface, and on a bed of rock-salt, 20 and about two feet above it, were the remains of the tusks and bones of a fossil elephant. This "mat" is nou> in t/ic National Museum, at Washington.* Eight/i. In 1867, ,. W. Hilgard and Dr. E. Fontaine, Secretary of the New Orleans Academy of Sciences, explored the location last above referrred to, and discovered, twelve feet below the surface, and immediately adjoining the rock-salt, incredible quantities of pottery, mingled with fragments of the bones of the ele phant. Ninth. Dr. Holmes made a communication to the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, several years since, in which he described the occurrence of fragments of pottery in connection with the bones of the mastodon and megatherium. These are among the earlier discoveries, familiar to archaeologists, tending to prove the coexistence of man and mastodon on this conti nent. While ample for our purpose, the list might be considerably ex tended. The details of these discoveries can be found in any respect able work on archaeology. t While it may be claimed that the authen ticity of some of the relics in the foregoing list has been "seriously called in question," it will be found impracticable by any process of "destructive criticism," however sweeping, to entirely destroy their weight as evidence, more or less valuable, upon this important ques tion. Until successfully controverted, they must stand as at least prima facie proof of the fact, and the evidence to disprove the gen uineness of these discoveries must consist of something beside misty * Professor Henry, late Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, affixed to this remarkable relic in the National Museum the following- interesting sketch: "Petit Anse Island is the local ity of the remarkable mine of rock-salt, discovered during the civil war, and from which, for a considerable time, the Southern States derived a great part of their supply of this article. The salt is almost chemically pure, and apparently inexhaustible in quantity, occurring- in every part of the island (which is about five thousand acres in extent), at a depth below the surface of the soil of fifteen or twenty feet. The fragment of matting- was found near the surface of the salt, and about two feet above it were remains of tusks and bones of a fossil elephant. The peculiar interest in regard to the specimen is in its occurrence in situ two feet below the elephant re mains, and about fourteen feet below the surface of the soil, thus showing the existence of man on the island prior to the deposit in the soil of the fossil elephant. The material consists of the outer bark of the common southern cane (Arundiuarta macrosperma), and has been preserved for so long a period both by its silicious character and the strongly saline condition of the soil." It thus appears that Professor Henry regarded this relic as furnishing valuable evidence of the co existence of man and the mastodon on this continent. ("The Archaeological Collection of the United States Museum, in charge of the Smithsonian Institution," by Charles Ran, " Smithso nian Contributions to Knowledge," No. 287, p. 89.) f Foster s " Prehistoric Races in the United States," pp. 52, 78; Lubbock s "PrehistoricTimes," pp. 286-288; "Prehistoric America," by Nadaillac, pp. 33-45: Baldwin s "Ancient America," pp. 47-56; "Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man," by MacLean, pp. 13-20; Maclean s " Mound - builders," p. 136; Nott and Gliddon s " Types of Mankind," p. 352; " Antiquity of Man," by Sir Charles Lyell, pp. 43, 203; Dana s "Manual of Geology," pp. 577-578; Transactions of the St. Louis Academy, Vol. I., p. 62, 1857; "Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge," No. 248, "On the Geology of Lower Louisiana, and the Salt Deposit on Petit Anse Island," by E. W. Hilgard, p. 14. doubts and suspicions. It thus appears that the evidence furnished by the elephant pipes is not the "only evidence," but is strongly corrobor ative of the prior evidence furnished by the above discoveries of the coexistence of man and the mastodon. Still, with all this literature within easy reach, Mr. Henshaw coolly ignores its existence, and calmly informs the scientific world that the elephant pipes furnish "the only evidence" in support of that hypothesis. Many of these earlier discoveries are noted and discussed in Sir John Lubbock s valuable work upon "Prehistoric Times," and in his estimate of their value to science he observes a caution as commend able as it is discriminating. Commenting upon the discovery narrated by Dr. Dowler, he expresses, with scientific precision, his hesitation about its acceptance, as follows : "Whether, therefore, we accept Dr. Dowler s calculation or not, it is obvious that if the statements are thoroughly trustworthy, this skeleton certainly must carry back the existence of man in America to a very early period. Vet, until further evidence is obtained, the question cannot, I think, be regarded as entirely decided, and even if on a priori grounds, the idea seems probable, there does not, as yet, appear to be any conclusive proof that man coexisted with the mammoth and mas todon." * It must not be overlooked that Sir John Lubbock based his reason ing entirely upon the earlier discoveries we have enumerated, and we are justified in the conclusion that the subsequent finding of these ele phant pipes and inscribed tablets would have furnished him with the "further evidence" required to complete and make conclusive his chain of evidence. As aptly expressed by Dr. Farquharson, "in the elephant pipes we have the key-stone of the arch of evidence which has been building for so many years." Nadaillac, in his recent work, thus states his conclusions : "The first Americans, too, were contemporary with gigantic animals, which, like their conquerors of Europe, have passed away never to return. They had to con tend with the mastodon, the megatherium, the mylodon, the megalonyx, the ele phant, with a jaguar larger than that of the present day, and a bear more formid able than that of the caves. Like our forefathers, they had to attack and overcome them with stone hatchets, obsidian knives, and all the wretched weapons the import ance of which we have been so long in recognizing in America as in Europe, "t Neither must it be overlooked that Mr. Henshaw himself admits that the extinction of the mastodon on this continent was a very recent * Lubbock s " Prehistoric Times." p. 288. f " Prehistoric America," by Nadaillac, p. 15. 22 event, probably within five hundred years prior to its discovery, and that, inasmuch as an antiquity of at least a thousand years has been assigned to the mounds, there are, therefore, no inherent absurdities in the belief that the Mound-builders were acquainted with the masto don ; but his admission is qualified with serious "doubts" as to the suf ficiency of. the "proof presented to substantiate it." In his eagerness to find some support for his "doubts," he approaches, if he does not overstep, the limits of legal libel, in misrepresenting the pipes by the use of false illustrations, and in charging Mr. Gass with the perpetra tion of a mercenary fraud, and violates all canons of propriety in brand ing, by implication, the members of the Davenport Academy as par ticipants in this disgraceful deception. In his introductory chapter, Major Powell commends Mr. Henshaw to the public as "a trained scholar, who can discern the germ of truth even in a blundering statement, and whose own knowledge is a touch stone for the detection of spurious productions." We fail to discern this wonderful "touchstone" in the deplorable want of information in Mr. Henshaw which we have been compelled to expose, and from the "blundering statements" made by him, containing not a "germ of truth," it is evident his intellectual equipment is insufficient for a suc cessful teacher of archaeology.* As an ornithologist of acknowledged skill and ability, he was well fitted to engage in the special research properly before him, and in his important undertaking he would have found a broad and unoccupied field. The tracing of resemblances between the carvings found in the mounds and known species of birds and animals was a legitimate object, involved important deductions, and, if thoroughly and conscientiously executed, the results must have had great scientific value. Unfortunately, as it turned out, Mr. Hen shaw was unwilling to be trammeled by any such limitations; and hence, most unwisely abandoning his special work, this "naturalist," with infinite complacency, takes his place among trained archaeologists, revises their methods of exploration, and promulgates new canons for archaeological research ! "Now, in the names of all the gods at once, Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, That he is grown so great?" * In view of this attack upon Mr. Gass, the writer recently submitted some inquiries to a noted archaeologist as to the standing of Mr. Henshaw among them, and received this curious answer: " Of course the Bureau has a right to attack the authenticity of anything it wants to; but the insinuations against Mr. Gass are simply contemptible. Of all forms of libel, I think that of insinuations the meanest. Henshaw, so far as I know, has no standing among archaeologists. I am free to say I have no recollection of having ever heard of him." In the same volume which contained Mr. Henshaw s paper, Mr. William H. Holmes has an admirable monograph upon "Art in Shell," and in describing the "Missouri Gorget" he states that it was obtained from unknown persons in South-western Missouri. Upon the question of its genuineness, Mr. Holmes remarks : "It was chalky and crumbling from decay; the lines of the design bear equal evi dence with the general surface of the shell of great age; besides this, even if it were possible to produce such a condition in a recently carved shell, there existed no mo tive for such an attempt. A r othing was to be made by if, no benefit could accrue to the perpetrator to reward him for /i is pains, and, further, there was no precedent there was nothing extant that could serve as a model for sue It a work."* This is a fair canon of criticism> and if it is effectual to establish the genuineness of this gorget, the same rule of evidence should be ex tended to the elephant pipes, and it would be found equally applicable and convincing. It is a curious fact, in this connection, that these pipes condemned by Mr. Henshaw were obtained in nearly the same manner and under almost exactly similar surroundings with the "gor gets" which Mr. Holmes pronounces unquestionably genuine. Thus, of the gorgets, one was obtained from unknown persons, and the other was discovered by Dr. E. Palmer, a collector in the employ of the Bureau of Ethnology. So, of the two elephant pipes, one was obtained of a well-known and honest farmer, and the other was discovered in a mound by Rev. A. Blumer, with two assistants as witnesses. As to the inscribed tablets, no less than three well known and highly respected citi/ens were present at their discovery. It will thus be perceived that there are stronger evidences to support the authenticity of the pipes and tablets than of the inscribed gorgets. Still, under the high author ity of the Bureau of Ethnology, the latter are pronounced genuine, while the former are condemned. Evidently, Mr. Holmes omitted to confer with Mr. Henshaw concerning his. important deductions. Had he done so, doubtless he would have been informed by that gentle man, with sententious gravity, that discoveries so important could not safely be received upon the testimony of a single individual ; that the very novelty of the discovery rendered it suspicious; and that "arch eology could better afford to wait for further and more certain evi dence." With the possibility of this "destructive criticism" impending over his valuable work, it was fortunate for Mr. Holmes that the Direc tor of the Bureau introduced it to the world of science with words of high commendation. In the parallel case of Mr. Gass, it was doubtless * Second Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology, iSSo-Si, p. 303. 24 equally unfortunate that his valuable contribution to the cause of arch aeology could not have been likewise announced by so imposing a herald. Upon the question of the authenticity generally of these Mound- builders relics, Mr. Holmes advances the following broad and liberal views : "By accurately ascertaining the authenticity of one of these specimens, we estab lish, so far as need be, the genuineness of all of the class. If one is genuine, that is sufficient the others may or may not be so, without seriously affecting the question at issue; yet the occurrence of duplicate or clearly related specimens in widely sep arated localities, furnish confirmatory evidence of no little importance."* Pursuing a similar line of thought, Foster, in his "Prehistoric Races," remarks, concerning "the testimony of a single witness to these arch;eo- logical discoveries, that "Those who are most apt to make discoveries in this branch of knowledge day- laborers are the least apt to appreciate their value. It is hardly to be expected that a competent observer will be present at the precise time when any relic of the past is disinterred. If such relic pertain to a horse or any other quadruped, we take the statement of the workman with absolute trust; but if it were to prove of human origin, we discredit it."t In the absence of all motive to deceive, it is clear that such testi mony may safely be received by the scientific inquirer as equally valu able in establishing the genuineness of either class of discoveries. It seems to be the singular thought of Mr. Henshaw that if a solitary ex plorer discovers anything never before discovered, it must be discred ited as suspicious. The limitations he seeks to place around these archaeological researches would have been effectual to discredit every such discovery made since the dawn of civilization. J A remarkable circumstance connected with the museum of the Dav enport Academy, wherein these pipes and tablets are deposited, is that it has grown up entirely by private contributions. The services of its workers have been rendered gratuitously. Its founders and builders have been solely impelled by the love of science. Its location is far * Second Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology, iSSo-Si, p. 303. t Foster s " Prehistoric Races," p. 72. J Upon these questions of evidence, Schoolcraft quotes from the "Cosmos" of Humholdt the following wise observations : " Where history, so far as it is founded on certain and dis tinctly expressed evidence, is silent, there remains only different degrees of probability; but an absolute denial of all facts in the world s history of which the evidence is not distinct appears to me no happy application of philological and historical criticism." Cosmos, Vol. II., p. 409. (" History of the Indian Tribes of the United States," by H. R. Schoolcraft. Vol. V., p. - 7.) 25 removed from the centers of wealth and power. It has no endowment. It has no laborers for hire. These circumstances are favorable to the genuineness of its discoveries. As no pecuniary reward was expected by its voluntary collectors, a principal motive to the perpetration of frauds is wanting. Its poverty has been its protection, and effectually removes from its museum of relics all well-founded suspicion of decep tion. The Smithsonian Institution, on the contrary, has a generous endow ment. It is located in the capital of our country, and is the recipient of government aid. The Bureau of Ethnology, while under the man agement of the Smithsonian Institution, is a part of the United States Geological Survey, and is supported by liberal appropriations. It ex pends large sums in explorations and in securing additions to its col lections. All these circumstances are, doubtless, favorable for advanc ing its scientific work; and yet, in an important sense, its good fortune may have been its misfortune. Its paid collectors, going up and down the land in quest of valuable relics, may be strongly tempted to mag nify their vocations by the practice of shameless deceptions. Its wealth may invite fraud. The modern manufacturer of ancient relics may turn his back upon our mendicant Academy and offer his wares to these scientific capitalists. The circumstances certainly are such as would give rise to suspicion and provoke scrutiny. That the Smith sonian Institution and its Bureau of Ethnology have, to any consid erable extent, been victimized by this mercenary spirit, we have no reason to believe, and do not claim. The considerations advanced, however, are legitimate, and will devolve upon its officers the necessity of establishing the authenticity of their own relics. The shafts of crit icism so ruthlessly hurled at other gleaners in the same field may turn out to be dangerous weapons, and, after the manner of the ancient boomerang, may, peradventure, return to smite the senders. It is well known that a large number of the specimens in the National Museum are without a record, and as to some of them, suspicions may, not without reason, be entertained as to their authenticity. In the paper of Mr. Holmes, the reader will not have failed to notice his fre quent references to these unfortunate circumstances. Thus, of the shell gorget, entitled "The Bird," he remarks: "The gorget in question is, un fortunately, without a pedigree;"* and of another, entitled "Profile of an Eagle s Head," he makes this emphatic statement: "Like so many *" Art in Shell," Second Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology, iSSo-Si, pp. ,282-285. -26- of the National Museum specimens, it is practically without a record a stray." It is, doubtless, because of these imperfections in its collec tions that its management has grown distrustful, and have come to consider the policeman as essential as the collector in making these explorations. Professor Baird himself, in his letter of March i7th, 1880, gives pathetic expression to this forlorn state of feeling, as fol lows: "I must confess to a very considerable degree of incredulity in regard to the won derful finds of Mr. Gass. It is very remarkable that so many shotild fall into the hands of one person. Is it not possible that somebody has interested himself in deceiving Mr. Gass, and, through him, the archaeologists of the north-west? We have detected a series of most clever forgeries in stone as perpetrated by parties living in eastern Pennsylvania. They were entirely too good and too remarkable not to excite criticism, which has resulted, I think, in proving their falsity. We shall soon begin to siispect everything that is out of the routine average of Amer ican stone implements" As with Major Powell and Mr. Henshaw, it will be observed that Professor Baird gives no reason for his "incredulity," other than that it is remarkable that so many discoveries had been made by "one person." The answer of the Corresponding Secretary to this letter contained the sufficient explanation that the success of Mr. Gass was wholly due to his zeal, perseverance, and vigorous use of the spade. The fact that enterprising parties in another part of the country, with a greedy eye on appropriations, had established a manufactory of stone imple ments for the supply of the Smithsonian Institution, cannot be seri ously advanced as an argument against the authenticity of the Daven port relics. In the latter case, no question of profit intervenes, and there is an entire absence of all motive to deceive. In introducing to the public Mr. Henshaw s paper, and those accom panying it, Major Powell makes use of the following emphatic lan guage : * "Each of the papers appended to this report has its proper place in the general scheme, the scope of which they, together with the other publications before noted, seem to indicate, and each was prepared with a special purpose." In the light of this announcement, it will be instructive to carefully read, in connection with the monograph of Mr. Henshaw, that of Mr. Holmes, to which reference has already been made. In describing their respective discoveries they were compelled to traverse the same ground. The shells under consideration by Mr. Holmes were also * Second Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology, 1880-81, p. xxvi., Introductory. 2 7 relics of the Mound-builders. Among these remarkable relics recov ered from ancient mounds were engraved gorgets. These shells were probably worn about the neck, or on the breast. In another depart ment they were the complements of our "inscribed tablets," and were discovered in similar tumuli in other parts of the country. On them are represented the cross, birds, spiders, serpents, and the human face and form. By a series of comparisons with Mexican and Peruvian art, Mr. Holmes traces the origin of these interesting relics to the Aztecs of ancient Mexico. The concluding thoughts of Mr. Holmes are as follows : * "As an ornament, this Missouri gorget is a member of a great family that is probably northern; but the design engraved upon it affiliates with the art of Mex ico, and so close and striking are the resemblances that accident cannot account for them, and we are forced to the conclusion that it must be the offspring of the same beliefs and customs and the same culture as the art of Mexico. 1 1 These conclusions of Mr. Holmes appear in singular contrast with the labored effort of Mr. Henshaw to disprove the Mexican origin of the animal carvings found in the mounds; and, with all due deference to Major Powell, the perplexed reader will find it difficult to discover a "proper place" for these two important papers in any "general scheme." A popular scientific magazine thus refers to these conflicting deduc tions : t "It seems almost aggravating that in the same volume wherein Mr. Henshaw [denies] + and effectually disproves the Mexican origin of many animal forms in the mound-pipes, new forms should be described, concerning which the author says that they must be the offspring of the same beliefs and customs and the same cul ture of the arts of Mexico. " In now bringing these notes to a close, it is, perhaps, no more than justice to Mr. Henshaw to state that in his attack upon the authen- * Second Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology, 1880-81, p. 305. f American Naturalist, September, 1884. J Misprint. Major Powell himself was evidently impressed with this remarkable parallel, drawn by Mr. Holmes, between the relics from the mounds and the art of Mexico; and", in presenting this masterly monograph to the public, as if feeling the necessity of tempering it to some show of consistency with his own theories, the Director thoughtfully, adds the following reservation: " A deduction, not made by the author, may, perhaps, be suggested by the comparison from the art and literature furnished by him, to the effect that the artistic methods of the Mound-builder are traceable among the historic tribes of North America, tending to shoiv that, contrary to the once current belief, based exclusively on the same evidence, there is no marked racial dis tinction bet-ween them." Major Powell is quite right in saying that this is "a deduction not made by the author /" When, on the contrary, it is observed how directly it conflicts with the conclusions of Mr. Holmes, as stated in the above paragraph, it affords an amusing illustration of the eagerness of the accomplished Director to maintain his theory. -28 ticity of the relics in question he does not then stand alone, but is ably sustained by the Director of the Bureau. In his introductory chapter, Major Powell writes as follows : "It will be the duty of the Bureau of Ethnology to devote careful attention to this interesting field of archaeology. But those who have hitherto conducted these researches have betrayed a predetermination to find something inexplicable on the simple hypothesis of a continuous Indian population, and were swept by blind zeal into serious errors, even when they were not imposed upon by frauds and forgeries. Some of the latter, consisting of objects manufactured for sale to supply the man ifested craving after the marvelous, and even inscribed tablets suggesting alpha betic or phonetic systems, have recently been exposed bv the agency of this Bureau. " * This was the first information given to the public that any such "frauds and forgeries" had "recently been exposed" by the Bureau, and we look in vain through its publications for the details of these alleged extraordinary exposures ! As in the case of Mr. Henshaw, it will be noticed that these extravagant denunciations of the relics in the Dav enport Academy are made by Major Powell without reference to a particle of evidence to sustain them, or even the suggestion of a sus picious circumstance in connection with them. But we have, as fellow- sufferers, the grand company of archaeologists the world over, for the Director of the Bureau, while he discredits our relics, also condemns the work of all "who have hitherto conducted these researches." None so worthy as to escape his denunciation ! Before closing this paper, it will be instructive, in connection with this "new departure" of the Bureau of Ethnology, to recall the curious circumstance that the first publication ever made by the Smithsonian Institution was the great work of Squier and Davis, entitled "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley." In this work an exactly oppo site theory from that held by Major Powell was confidently advanced and strongly supported. The reader will not have failed to notice that a considerable portion of Mr. Henshaw s paper is devoted to an attempted refutation of their important deductions. In contrasting the views of Squier and Davis as to the origin of the Mound-builders with * Second Annual Report Bureau of Kthnology, 1880 Si, pp. xxxi. -xxxii., Introductory. The severity of the language italicized can only be fully appreciated by reference to the paper of Mr. Henshaw, which Major Powell thus introduces and endorses. In that paper Mr. Hen shaw makes direct mention of the Davenport Academy, and selects the relics in question for condemnation. Major Powell, therefore, clearly aims his shafts at these relics, and having- con signed the " pipes " to a commercial hell, looks about for some lower deep for "even inscribed tablets! " If this is the standard of criticism, and these the critics, explorers may well hesitate before exposing their heads above an opened mound to be pelted with maledictions by archaeolo gists in high places, and may deem it prudent to engage in some less perilous pursuit. -29- those advanced by Major Powell, as clearly presented in the opening ex tracts of this paper, the reader will be struck with the extent of the diver gence between the earlier and later deductions. Equally at variance are the views expressed by Squier and Davis and those of Mr. Hen- shaw upon the subject of ancient art. As to the degree of artistic skill possessed by the Mound-builders, the former thus state their views : * "Such is the general character of the sculptures found in the mounds. It is un necessary to say more than that as works of art they are immeasurably beyond any thing which the North American Indians are known to produce, even at this day, with all the suggestions of European art and the advantages afforded by steel instru ments. The only fair test of the relative degree of skill possessed by the two races would be in comparison of the remains of the mounds with the productions of the Indians before the commencement of European intercourse; a comparison with the works of the latter, however, at any period, would not fail to exhibit in striking light the greatly superior skill of the ancient people." In opposition to these conclusions of Squier and Davis, Mr. Hen- shaw makes this emphatic statement of his own views : t "Eminent as is much of the authority which thus contends for an artistic ability on the part of the Mound-builders far in advance of the attainments of the present Indians in the same line, the question is one admitting of argument, and if some of the best products of artistic handicraft of the present Indians be compared with the objects of a similar nature taken from the mounds, it is more than doubtful if the artistic inferiority of the latter-day Indian can be maintained." * Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Vol. I., p. 272. f Second Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology, i8So-Si, p. 123. J The fact has been fairly assumed throughout this paper, based upon repeated and emphatic utterances, that Major Powell and Mr. Henshaw, in seeking for the artisans of these mound - relics, exclude the Toltec and Aztec races, and adopt the theory that these ancient sculptures are the artistic handicraft of the ancestors of the Indian tribes at present within the limits of the United States. While it is doubtless true that all the aborigines found on the American conti nents by the discoverers were designated as " Indians," an obvious distinction may still be made between the semi -civilized races then inhabiting Mexico, Central and South America, and the wild, wandering tribes found within the limits of the United States, and at that date frequenting the region of the mounds. In referring to this distinction, Baldwin remarks: "People of the ancient Mexican and Central American race are not found farther north than New Mexico and Arizona, where they are known as Pueblos, or Village Indians. In the old time that was a frontier region, and the Pueblos seem to represent ancient settlers who went there from the south. There was the border line between the Mexican race and the wild Indian, and the dis tinction between the Pueblos and the savage tribes is every way uniform and so great that it is well-nigh impossible to believe they all belonged to the same race. In fact, no people like our wild Indians of North America have ever been found in Mexico, Central America, or South America." In claiming for these "wild Indians" a degree of semi-civilization and artistic skill beyond that displayed by the Mound -builder, Major Powell rinds himself in good company. Lucien Carr, the Marquis De Nadaillac, and a large number of cultured archaeologists adopt the same view. While the weight of argument and authority, however, appears to be on the oppo site side, and in favor of a Mexican origin for the Mound-builder, it must be conceded that the question is still an open one. ("Ancient America," by John D. Baldwin, pp. 217-218; "Mounds of the Mississippi Valley;" "Memoirs of the Kentucky Geological Survey," Vol. II., 1883; " Prehistoric America," by Marquis De Nadaillnc, p. 131, note 3.) - 3 o- It thus becomes quite evident, from this review, that it is a principal object of the present management of the Smithsonian Institution, through its Bureau of Ethnology, to reexamine these early explorations of Squier and Davis, and to reconsider, and, if possible, reverse, their important deductions. The work of Squier and Davis was issued by the Smithsonian Insti tution in 1847, as the first of its "Contributions to Knowledge." As its publication was to be the inauguration of that great enterprise, unu sual care and caution were observed in the examination into its scien tific merits and deciding upon its acceptance for publication. The work was well received by the illustrious Joseph Henry, then Sec retary of the Smithsonian Institution, and was by him referred to the American Ethnological Society of New York for further examination. The favorable report of that institution was subscribed with such re spectable names as Albert Gallatin, John R. Bartlett, George P. Marsh, Samuel C. Morton, Edward Robinson, and W. W. Turner. The pro posed publication of this important work was still further approved by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and is mentioned with approbation in a report made on December yth, 1847, to Professor Henry, by a committee embracing such notable names in American scholarship as Edward Everett, Jared Sparks, Benjamin Pierce, Henry W. Longfellow, Asa Gray, and O. W. Holmes. Thus strongly recom mended, the work of Squier and Davis made its appearance under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution.* It was everywhere well re ceived. Since that date it has been the principal authority in Ameri can archaeology, and the most considerable storehouse of ethnological information. It has given direction to a generation of scientific work ers. Its important deductions have permeated the thought of the best scholars and most profound thinkers throughout our own and foreign lands.t Under a new management the Smithsonian Institution has underta ken to reconsider this great work of Squier and Davis, and aims to re fute its important deductions. It seems to have been recently discov- * Eighth Annual Report Smithsonian Institution, pp. 133-147. fit is reasonable to conclude that Professor Baircl, of the Smithsonian Institution, never saw the paper of Mr. Henshaw previous to its publication. Had it been subjected to the scrutiny of this eminent and profound scholar, its careless statements and loose deductions would assuredly have met his condemnation and prevented its unfortunate publication. The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution will doubtless find it necessary to exercise a more careful supervision over the publications of the Bureau of Ethnology, and to subject them to somewhat of that severe scrutiny employed when the valuable work of Squier and Davis was accepted for publi cation. ered that in its publication that institution has not been engaged in the "diffusion of knowledge" .at all, but instead, during all these years, has been scattering error broadcast through the land. We are, there fore, called upon to retrace our steps, to unlearn the lesson we have so long conned, and to take our places at the feet of strange teachers. This is certainly discouraging to American scholarship, and the thought ful student will wisely pause and make careful inquiry as to which, after all, is error the earlier or the later deductions. Still, it must be conceded, if the statements of the great work of Squier and Davis are unreliable, and its deductions without sufficient basis, these defects cannot be too early disclosed to the world of sci ence. Such an exposure would be a benefaction to the cause of truth. The attempt to reverse the thought of an age is, however, a most nota ble undertaking. It needs great courage, excellent scholarship, and a commanding name. It will, of course, be taken for granted that the man called to so important a work must have been long engaged in archaeological research, trained in its methods of investigation and familiar with its literature. We recall the names of noted archaeolo gists, and wonder who among them would have the temerity to engage in this gigantic undertaking. In response to our summons none such appear; but, instead, the Director of the Bureau steps promptly to the front and makes due announcement of "Henry W. Henshaw" as the champion of his theory ; and this is the method of his introduction : "Mr. H. W. Henshaw, skilled as a naturalist, especially as an ornithologist, and familiar by personal experience with a large part of our national territory, was led to examine into the truth of these statements, repeated from author to author with out question or criticism, and used as data in all discussions on the mounds. The result is the important paper now published. His conclusions, from the evidence adduced, seem to be incontrovertible." * And so the valiant gentleman appointed to displace Squier and Davis is a new-comer in archaeology, but, nevertheless, is "skilled as a natur alist, especially as an ornithologist;" and, moreover, is "familiar with a large part of our national territory ! " With this unique statement be fore us of Mr. Henshaw s qualifications for his great work, comment would be superfluous. The recommendation is itself a condemnation. The scientific world will scarcely consent to so summary a displace ment of its old worthies, at the behest of a newly-fledged archaeolo gist, even though he may be "skilled as a naturalist!" With the de thronement of Squier and Davis, it followed, as a logical necessity, that, * Second Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology, 1880-81, p. xxxii., Introductory. _ 3 2 in a more lowly sphere, our Mr. Gass must be decapitated. Each act was an essential factor in the same "general scheme." We have here the full force of Major Powell s significant announcement that Mr. Henshaw s effort was "a successful destructive criticism!" It would, perhaps, have been more prudent, before pronouncing it "successful," to have awaited the verdict of the large company of cultured archaeolo gists throughout the world of science, who, in the last resort, must pass upon the merits of this controversy. We cannot better take our leave of Mr. Henshaw than by quoting from the American Naturalist the following humorous account of his ludicrous production :* "Just as in a hurdle race the crowd gather at the wicket to see the horses make the leaps, so the archaeologists will be anxious to know how Mr. Henshaw gets over some of our archaeological hedges and ditches. Well, the first animal to block the way is the manitee, and all will agree that the leap is effective. The next myth attacked is that relating to the toucan, and what is left of it is easy of identifica tion. The bird is a common crow, or a raven, and is one of the most happily ex ecuted of the avian sculptures. The paroquet is treated more kindly, this species having abounded in the Mississippi Valley; but the particular paroquet of Squier and Davis is made to step aside. Passing over the remarks upon various well-known forms and the skill shown in the carving, we come to Mr. Henshaw s attack upon the elephant mound, concerning which he doubts whether an effigy without ears, tail, tusks, or extended trunk can stand for a mastodon. The author throws discredit upon the authenticity of the elephant pipes. " To the Davenport Academy, however, the flippant criticism of Mr. Henshaw has more serious import, and, uncontradicted, it might inflict irreparable injury. It has been well remarked, "that not the least mis fortune of a prominent falsehood is the fact that tradition is apt to re peat it for truth." Shielded under the respectable name of the Smith sonian Institution, Mr. Henshaw insinuates his slanders into the ear of the world. Not by a frank and open statement, with good reasons assigned, does this "naturalist" condemn our elephant pipes and ac cuse their discoverer; but, as seeking to escape responsibility, with a nod and a wink, he merely hints, as it were, in a sly whisper, "that their authenticity as specimens of the Mound-builder s art has been seriously called in question." Thereupon a prominent scientific jour nal, caught in the snare, innocently takes up the whispered story and reports to the vast company of its readers that Mr. Henshaw, an ac credited representative of the Bureau of Ethnology, "throws discredit * American Naturalist for September, 1884. 33 upon the authenticity of the elephant pipes!" and this without a word of disapproval of its base and unfounded insinuations. Nor is this all. We have before us the work upon " Prehistoric America," by the Mar quis De Nadaillac, just issued from the press, and therein we find this reference to the relics in question : "Quite recently, in Iowa, a pipe has been found made of rather soft sandstone, which is claimed to represent an elephant. It is to be observed, however, that such identifications generally owe much to the natural desire to recognize something strange or unusual, and also to the want of a sufficient knowledge of natural his tory. A recently published investigation of bird-pipes and carvings, by a well- known ornithologist, has resulted in demolishing the foundation of much theorizing which has been based on the identical specimens examined. Forgeries are also too common." * And the distinguished author gives as his authority for these strong statements, " H. W. Henshaw, Second Annual Report Bureau of Eth nology, Washington, 1884." The mischief is now done. The "de structive" work, commended by Major Powell, seems complete. The unsupported accusation is caught up with avidity, passed from writer to writer, from paper to paper, from book to book, gathering volume in its passage, until at length, having attained portentous proportions, the fiction may pass into history as fact. The fiction is thus fairly launched on its journey round the world and down the years. It has been said, though in somewhat homely phrase, "that a lie will travel from Maine to Georgia while truth is stopping to put on his boots," and though these should prove the seven-league "boots" of the nursery tale, it is doubt ful whether the falsehood can ever be overtaken and wholly overcome. The history of archaeology itself is replete with instances of similar wrong-doing, some of which, like that of the late Dr. Koch, of Mis souri, are full of almost pathetic interest. Because of his labors for science, this enthusiastic explorer was subjected to a most "destructive criticism" until his life went out in gloom; and now, at this late day, a distinguished archaeologist renders him this tardy but well-deserved jus tice : * " Prehistoric America," by Xadaillac, pp. 161-162. From the fact that the above reference to the elephant pipes has no appropriate setting in the text, it may be reasonably set down as an interpolation by the American editor. It gi ves occasion for surprise that so excellent an archa^ol- ogist as Mr. Dall should thus have given a prominent place in scientific literature to statements of so great importance without careful verification. In an excellent review of this work, the Nation thus notices the want of harmony between its author and editor: "Availing himself of the liberty judiciously allowed him as editor, Mr. Dall has not only rewritten the chapter (X.) on the origin of man in America, but he has so modified and revised other portions of the work as to lead to conclusions that were but little dreamed of in the original publication." (Nation, March i2th, iSS5.) -34- "Unfortunately, Koch s want of scientific knowledge and the exaggerations with which he accompanied his story, at first threw some discredit upon the facts them selves. But the recent discoveries of Dr. Aughey, in Iowa and Nebraska, have now confirmed them. There, too, the bones of the mastodon have been found mixed with numerous stone weapons, and man, we learn to our surprise, armed with these feeble weapons, not only did not fear to attack the gigantic animal, but suc ceeded in vanquishing it."* The student in science will also recall the parallel case of M. Boucher de Perthes, in France, who, for years after his remarkable discoveries at Abbeville, saw them discredited, and found himself regarded not only as an enthusiast, but almost as a madman. But his deductions are now generally accepted ; and there is no more impressive scene in the history of science than that presented when, some fourteen years after the publication of his first work, he stood on the spot of his exploit, with representatives of the French Academy and the Royal Society of England, and received their plaudits over his great discovery. It may well be questioned whether progress in science has not been greatly retarded by the unreasonable incredulity of its votaries. Not only in religion, but in the pursuits of science as well, we too often find a stolid adherence to old traditions. The religious intolerance that burned Bruno and the scientific intolerance that persecuted Koch had a com mon origin. With altered environments, the fanatic who saw only "heresy" in Bruno s great thoughts, and the scientist who saw only "fraud" in Koch s great discovery, might easily have exchanged places, t This discussion gives prominence to another question of no ordinary importance, and that is as to the value of local organizations through out the country in facilitating archaeological research. The Bureau of Ethnology not only seems to regard them with disfavor, but makes no secret of its hostility to these independent methods of research. It is clearly contemplated that all these local organizations should be re solved into mere conduits to the Smithsonian Institution ; that all explo- *" Prehistoric America," by Nachiilhic, p. 37. fLubhock s "Prehistoric Times," pp. 342, 343, 351. Concerning the threat discoveries at Abbeville, this distinguished author remarks: "We cannot, therefore, wonder that the state ment by Mr. Frere has been distrusted for more than half a century : that the weapon found by Mr. Conyers has lain unnoticed for more than double that time; that the discoveries by M. Boucher de Perthes have been ignored for fifteen years ; that the numerous cases in which caves have contained the remains of men together with those of extinct animals, have been suppressed or explained away. These facts show how deeply rooted was the conviction that man belonged altogether to a more recent order of things; and, whatever other accusation may be brought against them, geologists can at least not be said to have hastily accepted the theory of the co existence of the human race with the now extinct pachydermata of western Kurope." - 35- rations of mounds and earth-works should be under the direction of its Bureau of Ethnology ; and that all relics obtained should be deposited for safe-keeping in the National Museum.* This certainly is a notable scheme; difficult, however, of execution, and of doubtful wisdom. This was not the spirit manifested by the late Joseph Henry, when in charge of that Institution. In the Smithsonian Report for 1875, Pro fessor Henry thus states his views : "It has been, from the first, the policy of this Institution to encourage the estab lishment of such societies, on account of the great advantage they are to their members in the way of intellectual and moral improvement, as well as in the way of positive contributions to science, "t It cannot be denied that these small organizations, scattered through the land, are doing excellent service in the cause of science. Being located in their midst, they are thus brought close to the heart and thought of the people. Their stated meetings attract persons of sci entific tastes and scholarly acquirements. The wonders of the past and the worth of science are thus revealed. They inspire enthusiasm in archaeological research and an unflagging zeal in its prosecution. They thus become powerful auxiliaries to scientific education. Their growing museums will first attract young eyes to admire, and then retain them to study. Mere relic-hunting soon becomes serious arch- *Th;tt this statement is not overdrawn will be made evident by reading the description of the National Musetim, by Ernest Ingersoll, in the Century for January. Commenting- upon that article, Science remarks: "Mr. Ingersoll develops the grandeur of the scheme with a lavish hand, and it would appear as if, were the plan to be carried out in detail, the District of Colum bia would not be large enough to hold the Museum." Nor does the enterprise of the gentlemen of the Smithsonian Institution stop here! Major Powell, Director of its Bureau of Ethnology, recently gave some important testimony before a joint committee of both Houses of Congress, wherein he recommended that "all the scientific institutions of the government should be placed under one management," and expressed the opinion that "if such of the scientific bureaus as should properly have a civil organization were placed under the direction of the regents of the Smithsonian Institution, perhaps the best possible administration of the scientific work of the government would thereby he secured." The consolidation, under the management of the Smithsonian Institution, thus recommended by Major Powell, embraces the Fish Commission, the National Museum, the Geological Survey, the Bureau of Ethnology, and about everything else, now scattered among the various departments, having- any relation to science, literature, and art. It reveals a gigantic scheme, and it may be questioned whether any single management would be equal to its proper requirements. A valuable report was also submitted upon the same subject by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, consisting of General Meigs and Professors J. P. Trowhridge, Pickering, Young, Walker, and Langley, wherein the follow ing more moderate views were expressed : " We conceive it to be a sound principle, that Congress should not undertake any work which can be equally well done by the enterprise of individual investigators. Our leading universities are constantly increasing the means of scientific research by their professors and students, and while the government may with propriety encourage :md cooperate with them, there is no reason why it should compete with them. The scientific work of the government ought not, therefore, to be such as can be undertaken by individuals." (Science, January 2d and i6th, 1885.) f Smithsonian Report for 1875, pp. 217-219. -36- 03ological research. Out of these practical schools of the people will come the great scientific students of the future. The work in these small societies is all the more valuable that it is entirely disinterested. Truth j is its inspiration and reward. Watched by so many curious eyes, frauds are well-nigh impossible. We have thus presented im portant services rendered to science by these "local societies" which no gigantic institution, located at tlr^ political capital of our country, and managed by salaried officers, could, by any possibility, have so well performed. We think we may claim, without unseemly arrogance, that the history of the Davenport Academy itself reveals some contri butions to science which will justify its existence.* Scholars will ever find an absorbing interest in archaeological re search. There is in the mind of man an innate craving to recover the secrets of the past, and brooding in the thought of the explorer is the confident expectation that in these ancient relics will yet be found indelible traces of ancestry or undoubted remains of ancient civiliza tions. In the view of the Director of the Bureau, it is true, "working naturalists postulate evolution, "t and he deprecates the "search for an extra-limital origin" for the ancient races of North America. It would seem, therefore, that he proposes to work out upon our own continent the problem of man s origin and existence. Those of us, however, who still hold to the orthodox belief in the unity of the race, will continue to indulge in the conjecture that sometime, .somehow, somewhere, by adventurous barque of some ancient mariner, by bridge of ice at the north, or by a lost Atlantis at the south, a pathway was opened, and the original progenitors of the races found on this continent by the discoverers made their way from the great centers of populations in the far orient. J Be this as it may, so far as the ancient *The conclusions stated in the text are amply justified by the facts. The Davenport Acad - emy is not only assailed by name, but it is plainly expressed that its discoveries are under ban, and that its exploration of ancient mounds should be discontinued, inasmuch as each fresh dis covery " will b? ri-ceirfd with erfr-increasing suspicion /" Had our critic been kindly disposed, his censure might have been more gently administered. He might have admitted the possibility of our being- deceived and not deceivers. He could have easily attributed our short-comings to our benighted location on the far banks of the Mississippi, so distant from the Bureau of Eth nology! Our critic, however, is pitiless. He li is studied the Indian character until he seems to have imbibed his nature! We are pelted with red-hot epithets! Nothing will satisfy his "de structive" appetite, unless our Mr. Gass puts aside his spade! j- " Origin of Man," J. W. Powell, First Annual Report Bureau of Kthnology, 1879-80, p. 77. | The theory has been advanced, upon high authority, that, inasmuch as the Americas are. geologically the elder of the continents, there is a strong possibility that the human race origin ated here, and hence that the tide of emigration may have set the other way. Dr. Lapham says: " I know reasons valid enough and numerous enough to have made the notion of the New World being the oldest of the two a paradox. Nevertheless, I know of no absolutely conclusive ones." 37 works of art under consideration are concerned, it matters little whether they be traced to the ancestors of our present Indians, thus showing decadence in the race; or to the Toltec or Aztec of ancient Mexico, thus indicating that, with their- migrations southward, they evolved a higher civilization. There is nothing in either theory, or in all of them, to require or justify the "destructive criticism" visited upon the Davenport Academy and its members.* We regret the occasion which has made necessary this defense of our Academy against a most unjust assault. t Many words of cheer As the New \VoriU, so-called, is the ul^st gjologically, it in.iy provo to bo so eUmologically. (New American Cyclopaedia, Vol. IX., p. 488, title "Indians.") " In the classification of Blumenbach, the American Indians are treated as a distinct variety of the human race; but in the three-fold division of mankind laid down by Dr. Latham, they are ranked among the Mongolida;. Other ethnologists also regard them as a branch of the great Mongolian family, which, at a remote period of the world s history, found its way from Asia to the American continent, and there remained for thousands of years, separate from the rest of mankind, passing meanwhile through various alternations of barbarism and civili/.ation. Morton, however, the distinguished American ethnologist, and his disciples, Nott and Gliddon, claim for them a distinct origin, one as indigenous to the continent itself as its fauna and flora." (Chambers s Encyclopaedia, Vol. V., p. 554, title "Indians.") The concluding chapter of Nadaillac s " Prehistoric America" is contributed by the American editor, Mr. Ball, and his conclusions, as therein stated, are among the most reasonable yet advanced. He thus states his views: " Squier, Gibbs, and numerous American ethnologists, believed in a migration from the west to South America. A northern migration is almost universally considered to have taken place. Probably the American races entered by both gates." And in the same connection he further remarks: " That America was peopled at different times, bv scions of different races, is highly probable, from the physical differences to be observed between the remains of prehistoric man and the complexion and features he bequeathed to his historic descendants." (" Prehistoric America," by Xadaillac, pp. 5^3~53 1- J * In concluding this vindication of the Davenport Academy from the unfounded accusations of the Bureau of Ethnology, we desire to express our high appreciation of the great ability and large acquirements of its Director, Major Powell, and of the valuable contributions he has made to the cause of science. The careless supervision of the work of subordinates, which permitted the publication of a paper so void of merit and so full of blunders as the one in question of Mr. Henshaw, as well as the endorsement of its statements and deductions without careful verifica tion, must, no doubt, be set down as among the mistakes of an overburdened man. Bv the con solidation of the Government Surveys in 1879, Major Powell became the Director of this great work, and when, at the same time, the Bureau of Ethnology was established, under the charge of the Smithsonian Institution, he was also appointed the Director of that department. It will, therefore, occasion no surprise that he is left little opportunity for calm and careful supervision of the scientific work of his assistants. This fact becomes still more apparent, when it is consid ered that, superadded to the proper work of these departments, the executive management also devolves upon Major Powell important and absorbing political duties. fThe attack made upon the Davenport Academy by the Bureau of Ethnology was wholly unex pected. The paper of Mr. Henshaw has been written for several years, and yet, until the recent distribution of the volume containing it, the officers of the Academy had received no intimation that such an accusation was impending over it. We have been accused, convicted, and sentenced without opportunity of defense. This extraordinary proceeding occasions the greater surprise from the fact that our Academy is under great obligations to the Smithsonian Institution, both under the former and present administrations, for especial favors. Through it our foreign exchanges have been made, and we are indebted to it for large additions to our library. We therefore take this occasion to distinguish between that Institution and its "destructive" Bureau of Ethnology. came to our young society from the illustrious and lamented Henry, while he was in charge of the Smithsonian Institution ; and we can now regard the Institution he has left behind him only with admiration, as the emanation of his broad intelligence. The great vacancy occa sioned by his death has been well-filled by Professor Baird, and it is fortunate for the cause of science that so capable and scholarly a suc cessor was found to take up and carry on the important work so auspiciously commenced. The Smithsonian Institution easily takes its place among the great scientific organizations of the world with the Academy of France or the Royal Society of England. It is its noble mission to encourage original research and give proper direction to the scientific thought of our country. It will best subserve this great purpose by sternly observing in its discussions the dignity and decorum of high scholarship, the serene and catholic spirit of true science. In submitting this refutation, we have sought to avoid scientific dis cussion, and have carefully abstained from taking part in the war of rival theories. It has been our object to clear our unique relics from all taint of suspicion, and so to present them to the scientific world for careful study. Upon experienced archaeologists will devolve the duty of tracing resemblances and deciphering inscriptions; and to them will belong the privilege of determining their age and origin, and of announcing their scientific significance and value. In themselves per haps insufficient to become the basis for positive deductions, these relics must take their place with other discoveries until that "good time coming," when the basis of fact shall be deep and broad enough to allow the opening of another page in the "unwritten history" of our earth and race. The purpose of this paper will have been accomplished, if we have succeeded in vindicating a generous and worthy man from foul asper-" sions; our young and growing Academy from the stigma of participa tion in a disgraceful deception ; and our unique and valuable relics from all reasonable ground for suspicion. APPENDIX I. Since concluding the foregoing paper, we have obtained the follow ing wood-cut of the elephant pipe found in 1873, by Peter Mare, in a corn-field in Louisa County, Iowa, and now in the museum of the Davenport Academy : The above wood-cut is a correct representation, in outline, of one of the elephant pipes of which Mr. Henshaw wrote as follows: "It is also remarkable that /;/ neither of these pipes is the tail indicated, although a glance at the other sculptures will show that in the full-length figures this member is invariably shown. In respect to these omissions, the pipes of Iowa are strikingly suggestive of f/ie elepliant mound of Wisconsin, with the peculiarities of which the sculptor, whether ancient or mod ern, might almost be supposed to have been acquainted." * The accu racy of this representation can easily be verified by comparison with the photographs of these pipes in possession of the Smithsonian Insti tution. As will be seen by "a glance" at the above representation, the "tail" is therein clearly "indicated," and as it is also a prominent feature in the other elephant pipe, Mr. Henshaw s rlimsy argument is left with out foundation, and he stands convicted of an inexcusable blunder. * Second Annual Report Hureau of Ethnology, 1880-81, p. 156. APPENDIX II. DAVENPORT, TOWA, February 6th, 1885. At the regular monthly meeting of .the Davenport Academy of Natural Sci ences, held on Friday evening, January 3Oth, 1885, Dr. ( . H. Preston offered the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted : WHEREAS, The Second Annual Report of the United States Bureau of Eth nology contains an unjust and gratuitous attack upon the honor and good faith of this Academy and some of its members, calling in question the genuineness of cer tain articles in its museum; and, WHEREAS, Such attacks must tend to impair and destroy the usefulness of such collections and to discourage earnest and faithful workers in their disinterested labors; therefore, Resolved i That justice and the interests of science imperatively demand a com plete refutation of these charges, and vindication of the character of the parties attacked, and especially of our honored associate, Rev. J. Gass; and, Resolved ) That the foregoing paper, prepared by Mr. C. F. Putnam, and, as we are fully satisfied, representing the whole matter in all truth and fairness, be adopted as our reply to the article in question; and, Resolved, That copies of said paper be published immediately, under the direction of the Academy Publication Committee, in pamphlet form, corresponding with the Proceedings, and that the same be distributed, as far as possible, to parties who receive the above-mentioned Report of the Bureau of Fthnology, and to all known archaeological associations, and to individual collectors and explorers, and to all publishers and writers on the subject, and that a record be kept, of all parties to whom it has been sent. The above resolutions are correctly transcribed from the records of the Acad emy, and the same will appear in Volume V. of its published Proceedings. L. M. PRATT, Recording -Secretary. FTJB LI O^L.T IO IsTS OF Till- Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences. Three volumes of the Proceedings of the Academy have been published, and the fourth volume is now in press. Price of each volume, bound in cloth, $5.00 ; in paper covers, $4.00. VOLUME I., 1867-1876. Published for the Academy by the Women s Centen nial Association, July 1876. 8vo, pp. 304, 38 plates. Ym.r.MK II., 1876-1878. Published by J. D. Putnam, 1877-1880. 8vo, pp. 365, 13 plates, 24 wood-cuts. VOLUME III., 1879-1881. Published by the Academy. 8vo, pp. 310, 9 plates, 10 wood-cuts. This volume contains a biographical sketch and a fine steel portrait of the late J. Duncan Putnam. VOLUME IV., 1881-1884. 8vo, pp. 300. In press. Principal Contents: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, January 4th, 1881; Address of the President; Reports of Officers; Election of Officers, etc. List of Contributions to the Museum, 1879-1881. Contributions to the Flora of Iowa, No. V. J. C. Arthur. Arctostaphylos, Adans. Notes on United States Pacific Coast Survey and a New Species from Lower California. Dr. C. C. Parry. New Plants from Lower California. Dr. C. C. Parry. The Chambers Lightning- Rod. Prof. E. W. Claypole. Chorizanthe, R. Brown. Revision of the Genus and Re-arrangement of the Annual Species. Dr. C. C. Parry. Contributions to the Flora of Iowa, No. VI. J. C. Arthur. On a New Genus and Species of Blastoids. (Two illustrations.) Charles Wachsmuth. Descriptions of Some New Blastoids from the Hamilton Group. (One illustra tion.) Prof. W. H. Harris. Description of a New Crinoid from the Hamilton Group of Michigan. Charles Wachsmuth. Descriptions of Some Xew Crinoids from the Hamilton Group. (Two plates.) Prof. W. H. Ban-is. Remarks on Aboriginal Art in California and in Queen Charlotte s Island. (Three plates.) W. J. Hoffman, M.D. Ancient Pottery of the Mississippi Valley: a Study of the Collections in the Mu seum of the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences. (With numerous illustra tions.) W. H. Holmes. Biographical Sketch of the late Dr. R. J. Farquharson. (With portrait.) Dr. W. D. Middleton. Synopsis of the Proceedings of the Academy from 1881 to 1884, inclusive. %* The papers published in the Proceedings of the Academy are all the result of original investigations of the authors. Owing to the peculiarly favorable situ ation of Davenport, the archaeological papers are of very unusual interest, and contain a vast amount of information concerning the ancient Mound-Builders of the Mississippi Valley not accessible elsewhere. APR 2 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED This publication is due on the LAST DATE stamped below. JAN 2 63-7 APR 20 70 -7 APR 2 ? 70 -7 JAN 6 1976 RB 17-60m-8, 60 (B3395slO)4188 General Library University of California Berkeley