3l6 DAVKNPORI' ACADl'.MY OK NATURAt, SCIENCES. 



opinion, of judgment, or of error, but tiiey are charged by very direct 

 implication with being perpetrators of frauds. The most favorable 

 view that can be taken is that they are either great simpletons or ac- 

 complished knaves. If the parties thus arraigned before the world for 

 so grave an offense kee|) i[uiet, and suffer the imputation of dishonesty 

 to remain, their honor and reputation is forever overclouded, an irre- 

 [jarable damage done their entire work, the whole collection placed 

 under the ban of permanent suspicion and doubt, and its value dimin- 

 ished to the very lowest point. 



Under these circumstances no mere protest, hov/ever strong, will 

 meet the case or remove the stain. I presume, from what I have read 

 and heard, that it can be established that the finds called in (juestion 

 and alluded to are genuine finds, and established judicially, and that 

 none of the parties thus so seriously implicated have been guilty of 

 any knavery in the premises, and that none of them, to this day, have 

 any reason to believe they have been made the victims of deceitful 

 proceedings of any kind. If one and all, as I take to be the case, 

 they are conscious of their own integrity and freedom from guile in any 

 and every matter touching these finds, I do not well see how they can 

 avoid instituting a libel suit and bringing out the evidence, and thus 

 vindicating their own integrity, a matter of more importance than any 

 arch;eological (juestions. 



I think, moreover, you owe this to others as well as yourselves. 

 There are many who, without passing opinion on the finds in ([uestion, 

 from the best helps they could get, have insisted strongly that whatever 

 might be the value of the specimens to archaeology, the persons them- 

 selves were honest, and that their acts could be depended upon. I do 

 not see what other course is open, for the writer, not satisfied with his 

 most damaging im|)utations, goes on to poison the wells, to forestall 

 any vindication through the discovery of other objects; for, on page 

 157, he goes on to say that each succeeding carving of the mastodon, 

 be it more or less accurate, instead of being accepted as cumulative 

 evidence, will be received with ever-increasing susjMcion. Monstrous! 



I write very plainly, because I feel that the gentleman in ijuestion 

 has gone outside the record to attack the reputation of others in a 

 manner which nothing but the most sure evidence in his possession of 

 their fraudulent acts could for an instant justify. 



I beg to be remembered to your associates whose acquaintance I 

 casually formed, and to Mrs. Putnam in particular. 



Very truly yours, Oscar W. Collet. 



From Dr. J. li. Holder, oJ the American Museum of Natural History, Central 

 Park, Ne70 York City. 



[We have been favored bv Dr. Holder with the perusal, in advance of its publication, of a 

 valuable paper upon "Some ^Esthetic Features of Prehistoric Art," and now avail ourselves of 

 his kind permission to include herein its openinj^ parai^raph.] 



American archa:^ological science seems to be, in a sense, homeless, 

 notwithstanding it is large and growing. There are, to be sure, excel- 

 lent institutions holding with jealous care objects of great worth. The 



