282 DAVF.NPORT ACADF..MV OF NA'l LRAI, SCMF-NCRS. 



In the same volume which contained Mr. Henshaw's paper, Mr. 

 William H. Holmes has an admirable monograph upon "Art in Shell," 

 and in describing the "Missouri Gorget" he states that it was obtained 

 from unknown persons in South-western Missouri. Upon the question 

 of its genuineness, Mr. Holmes remarks : 



"It was chalky and crumbling from decay; the lines of the de.sign bear equal 

 evidence with the general surface of the shell of great age; besides this, even if it 

 were possible to produce such a condition in a recently carved shell, there existed no 

 motive for such an attempt. Nothing was to be made by it, no beiicfit could accrue 

 to the perpetrator to reward him for his pains, and, further, there was no prece- 

 dent — there 7vas nothing extant that could serve as a model for such a loork." * 



This is a fair canon of criticism, and if it is effectual to establish the 

 genuineness of this gorget, the same rule of evidence should be ex- 

 tended to the elephant pipes, and it would be found equally apjihcable 

 and convincing. It is a curious fact, in this connection, that these 

 pipes condemned by Mr. Henshaw were obtained in nearly the same 

 manner and under almost exactly similar surroundings with the "gor- 

 gets" which Mr. Holmes i)ronounces untjuestionably genuine. Thus, 

 of the gorgets, one was obtained from unknown persons, and the other 

 was discovered by Dr. E. Palmer, a collector in the employ of the 

 Bureau of Ethnology. So, of the two elephant pipes, one was obtained 

 of a well-known and honest farmer, and the other was discovered in a 

 mound by Rev. A. Blumer, with two assistants as witnesses. As to the 

 inscribed tablets, no less than three well-known and highly respected 

 citizens were present at their discovery. It will thus be perceived that 

 there are stronger evidences to support the authenticity of the pipes 

 and tablets than of the inscribed gorgets. Still, under the high author- 

 ity of the Bureau of Ethnology, the latter are pronounced genuine, 

 while the former are condemned. Evidently, Mr. Holmes omitted to 

 confer with Mr. Henshaw concerning his important deductions. Had 

 he done so, doubtless he would have been informed by that gentle- 

 man, with sententious gravity, that discoveries so important could not 

 safely be received upon the testimony of a single individual ; that the 

 very novelty of the discovery rendered it suspicious; and that "arch- 

 aeology could better afford to wait for further and more certain evi- 



iin exception in favor of Mr. William H. Holmes, who is also enjjag-ed in this Bureau. This 

 gentleman, who was formerly connected with the Geological Survey, is an artist of rare accom- 

 plishments, and his monograph upon " Ait in Shell," which appeared in the Second Annual 

 Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, and another upon " Ancient Pottery of the Mississippi 

 Valley," in Vol. IV. of the Proceedings of the Davenport Academy, are of such singular merit 

 as to fairly entitle him to rank among cultured archaeologists. 



♦Second Ann\i;il Report Bureau of Ethnology, 1S80-81, p. .^03. 



