""■<«"■"* 1 HUMAN SCULPTURES. 161 



and Davis arrive at the conclusion that the "physiological character- 

 istics of these heads do not differ essentially from those of the great 

 American family." 



Of later writers some agree with Squier and Davis in believing the 

 type illustrated by tliese heads to be Indian; others agree rather with 

 Wilson, who dissents from the view expressed by Squier and Davis, and, 

 in conformity with the predilections visible throughout his work, is of 

 the opinion that the Mound-Builders were of a distinct type from the 

 North American Indian, and that "the majority of sculptured human 

 heads hitherto recovered from their ancient depositories do not repro- 

 duce the Indian features." (Wilson's Prehistoric Man, vol. 1, p. 4G9.) 

 Again, Wilson says that the diversity of type found among the human 

 sculptures "proves that the Mound-Builders were familiar with the 

 American Indian type, but nothing more." — Ibid, p. 4G9. 



The varying type of physiognomy represented by these heads would 

 better indicate that their resemblances are the result of accident rather 

 than of intention. For the same reason that the sculptured animals of 

 the same species display great differences of form and expression, ac- 

 cording to the varying skill of the sculptors or the unexacting demands 

 made by a rude condition of art, so the diversified character of the hu- 

 man faces is to be ascribed, not to the successful perpetuation in stone 

 by a master hand of individual features, but simply to a want of skill 

 on the part of the sculptor. The evidence afforded by the animal sculpt- 

 ures all tends to the conclusion that exact individual portraiture would 

 have been impossible to the mound sculptor had the state of culture he 

 lived in demanded it; the latter is altogether improbable. A glance at 

 the above quotations will show that it is the assumed fidelity to nature 

 of the animal carvings and their fine execution which has been relied 

 upon in support of a similar claim for the human sculptures. As this 

 claim is seen to have but slight basis in fact the main argument for 

 asserting the human sculptures to be faithful representations of phys- 

 ical features, and to embody exact racial characters falls to the ground, 

 and it must be admitted as in the last degree improbable that the art of 

 the mound sculptor was adequate for the task of accurate human por- 

 traiture. To base important ethnologic deductions upon the evidence 

 afforded by the human sculptures in the present state of our knowledge 

 concerning them would seem to be utterly unscientific and misleading. 

 11 E 



