SKILL IN SCULPTURE OF MOUND-BUILDJKRS. 



In consideriug the degree of skill exhibited by the mound sculptors 

 in their deliueation of the features and characteristics of animals, it is 

 of the utmost importance to note that the carvings of birds and animals 

 which have evoked the most extravagant expressions of praise as to the 

 exactness with which natui'e has been copied are uniformly those which, 

 owing to the possession of some unusual or salient characteristic, are ex- 

 ceedingly easy of imitatiou. The stout body and broad flat tail of the 

 beaver, the characteristic iDhysiognomy of the wild cat and panther, so 

 utterly dissimilar to that of other animals, the tufted head and fish-eat- 

 ing habits of the heron, the raptorial bill and claws of the hawk, the 

 rattle of the rattlesnake, are all features which the rudest skill could 

 scarcely fail to portray. 



It is by the delineation of these marked and nnmistakable features, 

 and not the sculptor's power to exi^ress the subtleties of animal char- 

 acteristics, that enables the identity of a comparatively small number 

 of the carvings to be established. It is true that the contrary has often 

 been asserted, and that almost everything has been claimed for the carv- 

 ings, in the way of artistic execution, that would be claimed for the best 

 products of modern skill. Squier and Davis in fact go so far in their 

 admiration (Ancient Monuments, p. 272), as to say that, so far as fidelity 

 is concerned, many of them {i. e., animal carvings) deserve to rank by 

 the side of the best efforts of the artist naturalists in our own day — a 

 statement which is simply preposterous. So far, in point of fact, is this 

 from being true that an examination of the series of animal sculptures 

 cannot fail to convince any one, who is even tolerably well acquainted 

 with our common birds and animals, that it is simply impossible to 

 recognize specific features in the great majority of them. They were 

 either not intended to be coi>ies of particular species, or, if so intended, 

 the artist's skill was wholly inadequate for his purpose. 



Some remarks by Dr. Cones, quoted in an article by E. A. Barber on 

 Mound Pipes in the American Naturalist for April, 1S82, are so apropos 

 to the subject that they are here reprinted. The paragraph is in re- 

 sponse to a request to identify a bird pii^e : 



As is so frequently the probable case in sueli matters, I am inclined to think the 

 sculjitor had no particular bird in mind in executing his rude carving. It is not 

 necessary, or indeed, permissible, to suppose that particular species were intended to 

 be represented. Not unfrequeutly the lilseness of some marked bird is so good as to 

 be unmistakable, but the reverse is oftener the case; and in the present Instance I 

 can make no more of the carving than you have done, excepting that if any par- 

 ticular species may have been in the carver's mind, his execution does not suffice for 

 its determination. 

 148 



