334 



DAVENPOKI' ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES. 



CRITICISMS OF SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS. 



The controversy forced upon the Davenport Academy by the accu 

 sations of the Bureau of Ethnology has attracted very general attention 

 and been made the subject of frequent newspaper comment. It is not, 

 however, our intention to include herein the many kindly notices we 

 have received from the popular press, and we shall now strictly limit 

 ourselves to a brief presentation of the views and statements of the 

 more conservative scientific journals : 



Tlu American Antiquay-ian. 



"We next read the article by Mr. Henry W. Henshaw, 'Animal Carv- 

 ings from the Mounds of the Mississij^pi Valley.' We recognize the 

 cuts, which have become so familiar, and agree with the writer in many 

 of his conclusions, but prefer to leave some (juestions open. He is cer- 

 tainly insinuating a great deal when the writer says that the discoverer 

 of the elephant pipes and inscribed tablets at r)aveni)ort had a remark- 

 able ' archieologic instinct and the aid of his divining-rod' when making 

 his discoveries, as if he was guilty of an intentional fraud. We should 

 consider it a libel if it was said of us."— Rev. Stephen I). Peet, March, 

 1885. 



"Mr. Henshaw and Mound-Bl ii.ders' Pipes. — The pamphlet on 

 Mound-builders' pipes, by Mr. C. E. Putnam, has awakened very much 

 interest among arch;cologists of this country and Europe. The attack 

 upon the society by Mr. Henshaw, which was published in the second 

 report of the Ethnological Bureau, seems to have aroused indignation 

 in many different quarters. The letters which have been received by 

 Mr. Putnam, congratulating him on the boldness of his defense, are not 

 only numerous, but from the very best sources. The more we read 

 Mr. Henshaw's article, the more pretentious and groundless do the po- 

 sitions of the writer seem. There is scarcely a truthful or convincing 

 paragraph in the whole article, and many of the remarks are as careless 

 and groundless as they can well be. Mr. Henshaw would better have 

 confined his attention to his own department of ornithology, or else 

 have been a little more modest in entering upon the dei)artment of 

 architology. The arrogance which he has exhibited is certainly not a 

 good introduction for him in the new field. The wonder is that Major 

 Powell, the chief of the Bureau, should not have seen the carelessness 

 of his statements and noticed the supercilious air with which he has 

 treated archaeologists generally. Written by assistant and endorsed by 



