146 



ANIMAL CARVINGS. 



bears witness. It may pass, however, as a badly executed likeness of 

 the tufted cardinal grosbeak ©r red-bird. The same is true of Figs. 

 174 and 175. which are also said to be " cherry-birds." 



Fig. 24 (Fig. 179 from Squier and Davis), of which Squier and Davis 

 say it is uncertain what bird it is intended to represent, is an unmis- 

 takable likeness of a woodpecker, and is one of the best executed of the 

 series of bird carvings. To undertake to name the species would be 

 the merest guess-work. 



Fig. 24. — Wotnlperker, from Squier aud Davis. 



The heads shown in Fig. 25, which the authors assert "was probably 



intended to represent the eagle" and '' are far superior in point of finish, 



si)irit, and truthfulness to any miniature carving, ancient or modern, 



/ 2 which have fallen under the 



notice of the authors," cannot 

 be identified further than to say 

 they are raptorial birds of some 

 sort, j)robably not eagles but 

 hawks. 

 Fig. 26 (Fig. 180 from Squier 

 :5.— L.i„io,' fi lira Sciuier and Davis. and Davis), accordiug to the 



" certainly represents the rattlesnake." It certainly represents 

 a snake,but there is no hint in it of the peculiarities of the rattlesnake ; 

 which, indeed, it would be difScnlt to portray in a imde carving like 

 this without showing the rattle. This is done in another carving. Fig. 

 190. 



The extraordinary terms of praise bestowed by the authors on the 

 heads of the hawks just alluded to, as well as on many other of the 

 sculptured animals, suggest the question whether the illustrations given 

 in the Ancient Monuments afibrd any adequate idea of the beauty and 

 artistic excellence asserted for the carvings, and so whether they are fair 

 objects for criticism. While of course for the purpose of this paper an 



III.. 

 authors, 



