APPENDIX : ELEPHANT PIPES AND INSCRIBED TABLETS. 267 



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 the same person was instruinetital 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. * * * -pj^g 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 remarkal)le tablets which have thus far rewarded the 

 diligent search of the mound explorer. ******* 



'^Archu-ologists 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 shonld reach the scientific world through the agency of 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 establish 

 the genuineness of the sculptured testimony showing that the Mound-builder and 

 mastodon were coeval, will be viewed with ei>er-increasing suspicion. * * 



* * Bearing in mind the many attempts at archnsological 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 shal^ 

 show their illusory nature." * 



We find here an abundance of hints, innuendoes, imaginings, suspi- 

 cions, without the statement of a fact to justify them. Had it been 

 more specific, this paper would have had more force. In a grave 

 scientific essay, controverting the authenticity of some very important 

 discoveries, it should have been stated when, where, how, by whom, 

 and for what reasons the genuineness of these relics had been "seri- 

 ously 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. 



♦Second Annual Report Bureau ;of Ethnoloffy, Washinffton, 18S0-S1, pp. 156, 157, and 158 

 ("Animal Carvingfs from Mounds in the Mississippi \'alley," by H. W. Henshaw). 



