appendix: elephant pipes and inscribed tablets. 317 



American Antiquarian Society, at Worcester, beginning the category 

 with the oldest in point of time; the Smithsonian Institution; the Pea- 

 body Museum of American Ethnology, in Cambridge; the American 

 Museum of Natural History, Central Park; and the well-known Daven- 

 port Academy of Sciences — all prominent, with great devotion to this 

 branch of science. 



Though these institutions are presided over by able scholars, yet 

 there is certainly a great lack of uniformity of methods. Also, there 

 seems to be desirable a purer spirit of science exercised in the disposi- 

 tion of material, and a more wholesome comity of intercourse between, 

 individuals and institutions devoted to this subject. 



Though our notes more largely appertain to other features, yet we 

 are constrained to regret the attitude of some archaeologists towards 

 the proceedings of the Davenport Academy. The reputation of this 

 institution is too well established to be lightly arraigned, even if it be a 

 rnonotreme, or a toothed bird, or a loxolophodon that its council offers 

 for consideration in the shape of a carved stone pipe. By all the 

 amenities are we not bound to give respectful attention? As Falstafif 

 says: 



"But, then, think what a man is." 



Are not the members of the Davenport Academy gentlemen and 

 scholars? Should not the title of their published transactions be an 

 unquestioned guaranty of high motives, the contents always, of course, 

 subject to clear scrutiny and fair revision, as in all other Hke instances? 



Dr. Willis De Hass, Washington, D. C. 



[In ;i communication bearmnf tlati; Marcli3i, iSiij, Dr. De Hass thus refers to the atfcick of 

 Mr. Henshaw upon the Davenport Academy and its published 'Vindication": "! will here 

 say that the unjust criticism of which you complain can do no injury to the tablets and pipes. 

 Criticism, to h tve weisjht, must be made by competent authority. The persons of whom you 

 comi)lain are not archa;olog;ists, and their opinions on such subjects are not regarded as possess- 

 ing- weig-ht by competent archa^oloifists." During^ the past winter Dr. De Hass favored the 

 Academy with a lecture upon "Prelilstoric Archa;oloffy — Proy;ress of Discovery," in which he 

 referred at some lenij^th to the relics in question. Comino; from so competent and distintfuished 

 an archaeoloijist, his investig^ations and conclusions must carrv with them ^reat weiijht, and 

 hence we have extracted this jjorlion of his lecture.] 



Having said thus much in commendation of the Academy and its 

 excellent work, it may be expected that I shall say something of the 

 charges so industriously circulated, affecting the value of certain dis- 

 coveries. I can add but little to the masterly " Vindication " made by 

 President Putnam. His admirable rejoinder is full, thorough, lucid, 

 and convincing. The charges and insinuations made by captious crit- 

 ics are unjust and unfounded. I have carefully examined the relics 

 specially objected to, and have no hesitation in pronouncing them 

 equally entitled to credit given to the collection generally. The ele- 

 phant pipes, which have elicited so much criticism, I consider as gen- 

 uine as the most undoubted specimens in the museum. Subjected to 

 the sharpest tests, they pass successfully. The principal objection to 

 the pipes is that they are anomalous — that no similar forms occur in 

 other collections, and that the mastodon did not exist contemporane- 

 ously with man. I could inesent abundant evidence in contradiction 

 [Pkoc. D. a. N. S., Vol. IV. J ::5.j [Feb. 20, 1886.] 



