268 DAVKNPORT ACADEMY OK NATURAL SCIENCES. 



In entering upon his work of demolition, it was open to Mr. Hen- 

 shaw to make some show of thorough investigation and fair treatment. 

 The circumstances called for it. He occuiiied a conspicuous ])osition 

 and wielded large influence. If his criticism was well founded, it 

 would serve a u.seful purpose in driving charlatans from the fold of 

 truth. If based only on partial investigations, and without substandal 

 foundadon, his censure would tend to destroy confidence in all histor- 

 ical evidence, discourage original research, and poison truth at its very 

 fountain-head. When, therefore, Mr. Henshaw was forced by the exi- 

 gencies of his theory to assail these discoveries, archaeologists had a 

 right to expect that he would make thorough examination into the 

 evidence of their genuineness; that he would visit the scenes of these 

 explorations and take careful note of the surroundings; that he would 

 make searching inquiry as to the character and rehability of the discov- 

 erers; that he would closely question the members of the Davenport 

 Academy as to the existence of any suspicious circumstances; that he 

 would make critical inspection of the relics themselves to note pecu- 

 liarities which might escape an eye less thoroughly trained than his own ; 

 and that, in this just and judicious manner, he would seek to satisfy all 

 reasonable scruples of the earnest and conscientious seeker after truth. 

 All this was easy for Mr. Henshaw, for he had at his command unhmited 

 resources. It will be learned with surprise that he did none of these 

 things. This feeling will be increased to astonishment when it is ascer- 

 tained that, instead of adoiKing these wise precautions, Mr. Henshaw 

 seized with avidity upon a stray paper, written by a gentleman in no 

 way connected with the Davenport Academy, imperfectly illustrated 

 with some coarse wood-cuts, and published in an Eastern magazine, 

 and that he made this second-hand information the poor excuse for his 

 unscientific screed. When, in addition to all this, it is found that Mr. 

 Henshaw never consulted the extensive correspondence concerning 

 these relics in the possession of the Smithsonian Institution, and appa- 

 rendy never gave even a passing glance to the photographs of these 

 elephant pipes in its museum, archaeologists will regard with just resent- 

 ment these scientific delinciuencies of this eminent gentleman. 



In that porti(Hi of his ])aper relating to "animal carvings," Mr. Hen- 

 shaw makes the statement that the celebrated "elephant mound" of 

 Wisconsin represents neither tusks nor tail, and that the sculptors of 

 the "elephant pipes," taking that mound for a model, have even imi- 

 tated these omissions! Through these similarities Mr. Henshaw sug- 

 gests an argument against the authenticity of these relics! As to the 



