266 DAVENPORT ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES. 



domain of science. FLvery essential circumstance was carefully noted 

 — the location of the relics, the condition of the surrounding soil, the 

 evidence of undisturbed strata. The explorers were only embarrassed 

 by the e.xtraordinary character of their discoveries, and were fortunate 

 in being able to furnish for these "unusual relics" that "positive ]>roof" 

 demanded by Mr. Bancroft's rigid rule. 



This rapid review will ser\'e, 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 ances- 

 tors of the present American Indians, and of higher type and more 

 advanced civilization. .\s 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 

 censure the institution that published them to the world. It is, there- 

 fore, full time for a calm and thorough review of all the circumstances 

 surrounding these discoveries, with the view of finally disposing of all 

 (juestions as to their authenticity. 



That we may not in the slightest degree misrepresent the Bureau of 



* We must not be understood to condemn all " theory " as without use in scientific research. 

 We only condenm its abuse. It must be conceded that theory is a tireless pioneer o£ prog-ress, 

 and has inspired many a j^-reat worker in science to follow its li^ht into vast unknown seas, until, 

 as with Columbus, a new contment has dawned upon his vision. Let archxoloffists therefore, if 

 they please, weave their "theories" out of the very g-ossamers of thoug-ht, if so he it induce 

 them to delve more industriously in earth-work and mound for their "facts." In the dawning 

 lijrht the unsubstantial theory may melt awav, but the ultimate facts will remain, an imperishable 

 possession. 



tThe 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 tiuestion 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. For a parallel 

 to this performance we must resort to fiction. We shall find its analogue in the memorable tilt 

 of the valorous Knight of La Mancha'witli the unoffending windmillsl 



