appendix: elephant pipes and inscribed tap>lkts. 283 



dence." With the possibility of this "destructive criticism" impending 

 over his vakiable work, it was fortunate for Mr. Holmes that the Di- 

 rector of the Bureau introduced it to the world of science with words 

 of high commendation. In the parallel case of Mr. Gass, it was doubt- 

 less equally unfortunate that his valuable contribution to the cause ot 

 archaeology could not have been hkewise announced by so imposing a 

 herald. 



Upon the question of the authenticity generally of these Mound- 

 builders' relics, Mr. Holmes advances the following broad and liberal 

 views : 



"By accurately ascertaining the authenticity of one of these specimens, we estab- 

 lish, so far as need be, the genuineness of all of the class. If one is genuine, that 

 is sufficient — the others may or may not be so without seriously affecting the ques- 

 tion at issue; yet the occurrence of duplicate or clearly related specimens in widely 

 separated localities furnish confirmatory evidence of no little importance." * 



Pursuing a similar line of thought, Foster, in his " Prehistoric Races," 

 remarks, concerning the testimony of a single witness to these archaeo- 

 logical discoveries, that 



"Those who are most apt to make disco%'eries in this branch of knowledge — day- 

 laborers — are the least apt to appreciate their value. It is hardly to be expected 

 that a competent observer will he present at the precise time when any relic of the 

 past is disinterred. If such relics pertain to a horse or any other quadruped, we 

 take the statement of the workman with absolute trust; but if it were to prove of 

 human origin, we discredit it."T 



In the absence of all motive to deceive, it is clear that such testi- 

 mony may safely be received by the scientific inquirer as equally valu- 

 able in establishing the genuineness of either class of discoveries. It 

 seems to be th6 singular thought of Mr. Henshaw that if a solitary ex- 

 plorer discovers anything never before discovered, it must be discred- 

 ited as suspicious. The limitations he seeks to place around these 

 archaeological researches would have been efifectual to discredit every 

 such discovery made since the dawn of civilization.;}: 



♦Second Annual Report Bureau of P^thnolog-y, 18S0-S1, p. 303. 



f Foster's '' Prehistoric Races," p. 72. 



iUpon these questions of evidence, Schoolcraft quotes from the " Cosmos "' of Humboldt 

 the following^ wise observations; "Where history, so far as it is founded on certain and dis 

 tinctly expressed evidence, is silent, there remains only different deg^rees of probability; but an 

 absolute denial of all facts in the world's history of which the evidence is not distinct appears 

 to me no happy application of philoloafical and historical criticism." — Cosmos, \"ol. II., p. 409 

 ("History of the Indian Tribes of the United States," by H. R. Schoolcraft, Vol. V., p. 27 ) 



The American Antiquarian Society, also, in a report upon the publications of Dr. Le Plon- 

 jjeon, expressed these liberal canons of criticism: "The successes of Du Chaillu, Schliemann. 

 and of Stanley are remarkable instiinces of triumphant results in cases where enthusiasm had 

 been supposed to lack the g-uidance of wisdom. If earnest men are willing' to take the risks of 



