238 DAVENPOR1 \< \M.\n 'il NAT! RA1 SCIENCES. 



the genuineness of the pipes and Lablets. This paper contains illustra- 

 tions of one of the elephant pipes, as well as some others in the 

 Academy museum. The paper of Dr. Uhle was especially devoted to 

 these relics, and, indeed, is entitled "Concerning the Two Klephant 

 Carvings from America." It was published under the auspices of the 

 Berlin Anthropological Society, of which the distinguished Prof. Vir- 

 chow is president, and contains excellent illustrations of both elephant 

 pipes. Dr. Uhle thus refers to the paper issued under the auspices of 

 the Academy: 



"Mr. C. K. Putnam, of the Davenport Academy, in an article upon 

 the Elephant Pipes in the museum of the Academy, which appeared in 

 Volume IV. of its Proceedings, has replied to Mr. Henshaw's attack, 

 and though many may not have seen it, it "as received by the writer 

 of this article, as was also the second edition, who therefore considers 

 it his duty to help to bring it to a larger audience." 



Dr. Uhle then proceeds to notice the facts connected with the dis- 

 covery of the relics in question, and the circumstances involved in this 

 controversy in these emphatic terms : 



"Henshaw has sought, by falsely representing that the tail is wanting 

 in both pipes, to make a point against their genuineness. But on the 

 originals, as well as on the correct pictures of them, the tails are plainly 

 visible. Moreover, Henshaw was not correctly informed of the circum- 

 stances of the discovery. The arguments against the genuineness taken 

 from the circumstances fail absolutely. Hence, the whole attack has 

 been very badly prepared, and the points upon which he principally 

 based his charge of ungenuineness are altogether without foundation. 

 The impression, therefore, which we receive from the reply of Mr. Put- 

 nam is the opposite of that from Mr. Henshaw's paper, and is favor- 

 able to the genuineness of both these interesting relics." 



Inasmuch as these two gentlemen occupy a foremost position among 

 living archaeologists, their favorable judgments may reasonably be taken 

 as decisive of this controversy. 



In this review of the work of the Academy, I must not omit some 

 mention of its business interests. These financial matters are of vital 

 importance in promoting scientific research, and whether we delve in 

 the deep strata of the earth, or explore the star depths of the universe, 

 this "filthy lucre" becomes essential to our researches. The truly 

 scientific man, accustomed, as he is, to precision in all his operations, 

 should also be a good business man. It becomes us, therefore, in fur- 

 nishing a report of our scientific work, to also present to the patrons 

 of the Academy a good balance sheet, and whenever an indebtedness 

 shall appear thereon, it should be made clear that it was wisely incurred, 

 and represents true scientific progress. "Pay as you go" is a good rule 

 for both societies and individuals, and yet indebtedness does not always 

 indicate improvidence. Thus, at the close of the great civil war, the 

 ledger of the nation exhibited an enormous deficiency, but, when turning 

 to the other side of the account the government was found credited with 

 the emancipation of a race, this very indebtedness appeared encircled 

 with a halo of glory. So. too, when the Royal Society of England 



