17S DAVENPORT ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES. 



nose skewer. A zigzag tatoo line runs from below the nose across the 

 cheek to the ear. The mouth is open, the teeth of the upper jaw are 

 indicated and a curious object projects from the mouth. The body is 

 curiously stiff and formal. The arms are extended and the left hand 

 grasps some object. The right one (somewhat distorted in the cut) 

 projects beyond it to the very border of the design. The legs are ex- 

 tended forward. The foot is claw-like. Plumes are attached to the 

 arms and legs. Part of a rectangular object, apparently a belt, is seen 

 and from it in front an apron-like pendent apparently projects, while, 

 if I mistake not, a tail-like appendage hangs down below the figure, 

 apparently after having passed between the legs. What appears to be 

 a shield with a downward hanging fringe of plumes is on the warrior's 

 back and over it is an object which resembles somewhat a war club al- 

 though it may be an atlatl or spear-thrower. At several places within 

 the design are pit-like cavities sometimes surrounded by circles. There 

 are ten apertures cut through the shell within this area. 



Many points of similarity might be found between this design and 

 those from the United States. The stiff and formal trunk may be 

 compared with those of {a) and {b). The clawlike foot recalls the 

 Tennessean specimens. The curious object at the mouth is apparently 

 in nature like that in {p), (r), and (<?). The curious perforations are 

 present in several. Tatoo markings are the rule in these designs but 

 those on the Mexican specimens and the Georgian piece (e) are almost 

 identical. The belt and curious apron-like projections are comparable 

 with those in {/) and (^g). 



The finding of such an object in the heart of Mexico is of much 

 interest. Form, function, character of this Michoacan specimen are 

 plainly the same as those of the pieces from Tennessee, Georgia, and 

 Missouri. It can no longer be said that the type is essentially north- 

 ern nor that it belongs exclusively to the "Mound-builders" of the 

 United States. We must modify Mr. Holmes' statement and may say 

 of the Missouri gorget {/) — "it is a member of a great family, not pe- 

 culiarly northern." We may emphasize this other statement — ''the 

 design upon it affiliates with the art of Mexico 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 custotns and the same culture as the art of Mexico. ' ' In fact there 

 are greater differences between the Tennessee specimens themselves, or 

 between the Missouri specimens alone, than there are between the 

 United States specimens, as a class, and this Mexican gorget. 



