290 D.WKM'Okr \( APKAn OK \,\ri:KAI S( ikmcf.s. 



mended, the work of Sqiiier and Davis made its appearance under the 

 auspices of the Smithsonian Institution.-^ It was everywhere well re- 

 ceived. Since that date it has been the principal authority in Ameri- 

 can archaeology, and the most considerable storehouse of ethnological 

 information. It has given direction to a generation of scientific work- 

 ers. Its important deductions have permeated the thought of the best 

 scholars and most i^rofound thinkers throughout our own and foreign 

 lands. + 



Lender a new management, the Smithsonian Institution has under- 

 taken to reconsider this great work of Siiuier and Davis, and aims to 

 refute its important deductions. It seems to have been recently dis- 

 covered that in its ])ublication that institution has not been engaged in 

 the "diffusion of knowledge" at all, but instead, during all these years, 

 has been scattering error broadcast through the land. We are, there- 

 fore, called upon to retrace our steps, to unlearn the lesson we have so 

 long conned, and to take our places at the feet of strange teachers. 

 This is certainly discouraging to American scholarship, and the thought- 

 ful student will wisely pause and make careful incpiiry as to which, after 

 all, is error — the earlier or the later deductions. 



Still, it must be conceded, if the statements of the great work of 

 Squier and Davis are unreliable, and its deductions without sufficient 

 basis, these defects cannot be too early disclosed to the world of 

 science. Such an e.vposure would be a benefaction to the cause of 

 truth. The attempt to reverse the thought of an age is, however, a 

 most notable undertaking. It needs great courage, excellent schol- 

 arship, and a commanding name. It will, of course, be taken for 

 granted that the man called to so important a work must have been 

 long engaged in archaeological research, trained in its methods of in- 

 \estigation, and familiar with its literature. We recall the names of 

 noted archaeologists, and wonder who among them would have the 

 temerity to engage in this gigantic undertaking. In response to our 

 summons none such appear; but, instead, the Director of the Bureau 

 steps j)romptly to the front and makes due announcement of "Henry 



* Eisjiith Annuiil Kuijort Sinithsoni;in Institution, ])]). i.5,j-i47. 



+ It i.s reasonable to conclude that Professor Baird, of the Sinith.sonian Institution, never saw 

 the paper of Mr. Ilenshaw previous to its publication. Had it been subjected to the scrutiny of 

 this eminent and profound scholar, its careless sfcitements and loose deductions would assuredly 

 have met his condemnation and prevented its unfortunate publication. The Secretary of the 

 Smithsonian Institutitm will doubtless find it necessary to excrcise^a more careful supervision 

 over the publications of the Bureau of Ethnoloijy, and to subject them to somewhat of that severe 

 srnttinv cmplnved when the valuable work of S(|uier and Davis was accepted for publication. 



