292 PAVFXPORT Ar.\nFM> OF VATrKAl, SCIFXCRS. 



the elephant mound, concerning which he doubts whether an effigy without ears, 

 tail, tusks, or extended trunk can stand for a mastodon. /'//< author llirouis dis- 

 credit upon the authenticity of the elephant pi pes y 



To the Davenport Academy, however, the tlippant criticism of Mr. 

 Henshaw has more serious import, and, uncontradicted,' it might inflict 

 irreparable injury. It has l^een well remarked, "that not the least 

 misfortune of a prominent falsehood is the fact that tradition is apt to 

 repeat it for truth." Shielded under the respectable name of the 

 Smithsonian Institution, Mr. Henshaw insinuates his slanders into the 

 ear of the world. Not by a frank and open statement, with good rea- 

 sons assigned, does this "naturalist" condemn our elej)hant pipes and 

 accuse their discoverer; but, as seeking to escape responsibility, with 

 a nod and a wink, he merely hints, as it were, in a sly whisper, "that 

 their authenticity as specimens of the Mound-builder's art has been 

 seriously called in question." Thereupon a i)rominent scientific jour- 

 nal, caught in the snare, innocently takes up the whispered story and 

 reports to the vast company of its readers that Mr. Henshaw, an ac- 

 credited representative of the Bureau of Ethnology, "throws discredit 

 upon the authenticity of the elephant i)ipes!" and this without a word 

 of disapproval of its base and unfounded insinuations. Nor is this all. 

 We have before us the work upon "Prehistoric America," by the Mar- 

 quis de Nadaillac, just issued from the i)ress, and therein we find this 

 reference to the relics in (juestion : 



'■''Qtcite recently, in hnoa, a pipe has been foinid, nnide 0/ rather soft sandstone, 

 which is claimed to represent an elephant. It is to i)e observed, however, that such 

 identifications generally owe much to the natural desire to recognize something 

 strange or unusual, and also to the want of a sufficient knowledge of natural history. 

 A recently published investigation of bird-pipes and carvings, by a well-known orni- 

 thologist, has resulted in demolishing the foundation of much theorizing which has 

 l)een based on the identical specimens examined. Fort:;eries are also too common.'''' * 



And the distinguished author gives as his authorit)- for these strong 

 statements, "H. W. Henshaw. Second Annual Report Biu-eau of Eth- 

 nology, Washington, 1884." The mischief is now done. The "de- 



* '• Prehistoric -Vinuric;!," by XadailUic, pp. ii>i i".>. I- riMii tliu fac I lliat the above reference 

 to the elephant pipes h;is no apjiropriate setting in the texl, it may he reasonalily set down as an 

 interpolation by the American editor. It skives occasion for surprise that so excellent an archa'ol- 

 oj^ist as Mr. Dall should thus have g'iven a jironiinent place in scientific literature to statements 

 of so jj^reat importance without careful verification. In an rxcellent review of this work, the 

 Nation thus notices the want of harmony between its author and editor: " .\vailinij himself of 

 the liberty judiciously allowed him as editor. .Mr. Dall has not only rewritten the chajiter (X.) 

 on the origin of man in America, but he has so ' modified and revised ' other portions of the 

 work as to lead to conclusions that were but little dreanicd of in the orii^inal publication." 

 \.\tition. March i.'th, 1SS5. ) 



