HOLMES] AUTHENTICITY OF THE ENGRAVED GORGETS. 303 



objects with precision, but they delineate conceptions of mythical crea- 

 tures of composite character for which nature afloi-ds no model. In ex- 

 ecution the best of these tablets will not compare with the wonderful 

 works in stucco and stone of Palenque, or the elaborate sculptures of 

 the Aztecs, but they are, like them, vigorous in action and complete in 

 conception. 



In case the authenticity of these relics be questioned, the facts in re- 

 gard to them, so lar as known, are here presented for reference. As to 

 the two specimens from Sevierville, lenn. (Plates LXXI and LXXIII), 

 the shadow of a doubt cannot be attached to them. Were there no rec- 

 ord whatever of the time or place of discovery, the evidence upon the 

 faces of the relics themselves woald show satisfactorily that they are 

 genuine. They were taken from the great mound, which I have called 

 the McMahon Mound, at Sevierville, Tenn. This mound was opened in 

 1881 by one of our most experienced collectors, Dr. E. Palmer. The 

 specimens when found were in a very advanced stage of decays pitted, 

 discolored, and crumbling, and had to be handled with the utmost care 

 to prevent total disintegi-ation. They were dried by the collector, im- 

 mersed in a weak solution of glue, and forwarded immediately to the 

 National Museum at Washington. In this mound a multitude of relics 

 were found, a large number being of shell, many of which are figured 

 and described in this paper. These two gorgets, as well as many others 

 of more ordinary types were found on or near the breasts of skeletons, 

 and it is highlj' probable that they were suspended about the necks of 

 the dead Just as they had been worn by the living. By accurately as- 

 certaining the authenticity of one of these specimens we establish, so far 

 as need be, the genuineness of all of the same class. If one is genuine 

 that is sufQcient ; the others may or uiay not be so, without seriously 

 effecting the questions at issue, yet the occurrence of duplicate or closely 

 related specimens in widely separated localities furnishes confirmatory 

 evidence of no little importance. I do not wish to be understood as cast- 

 ing a doubt upon any of the four specimens described, as I am thoroughly 

 convinced that there is no cause for suspicion. 



The Missouri gorget, which has already been described and figured, 

 was obtained by unknown persons in Southeastern Missouri. Several 

 years back it came into the hands of Colonel Whitley, and from him it 

 was obtained by its present owner. Professor Potter, of Saint Louis. 

 There has never been a question as to its genuineness, and according to 

 Professor Hilder, who saw it shortly after its discovery, the appearance 

 and condition of the specimen were such that it could not have been of 

 fraudulent manufacture. It was chalky and crumbling from decay, the 

 lines of the design bearing equal evidence with the general surface of the 

 shell of great age. Beside this, even if it were possible to produce such 

 a condition in a recently carved shell, there existed no motive for such 

 an attempt. Nothing was to be made by it ; no benefit could accrue 

 to the perpetrator to reward him for his pains, and, further, there was uo 



