: age 
i 
954 General Notes, [September, 
“That a large majority of the carvings possess only the most 
general resemblance to the birds and animals of the region they 
were doubtless intended to represent. 
“That there is no reason for believing that the masks and 
sculptures of human faces are more correct likenesses than are 
the animal carvings.. 
“ That the state of art-culture reached by the Mound-builders, 
as illustrated by their carvings, has been greatly overestimated.” 
_ Just as, at a hurdle race, the crowds gather at the wickets to 
see the horses make the leaps, so the archzologists will be anx- 
ious to know how Mr. Henshaw gets over some of our archæo- 
logical hedges and ditches. Well, the first animal to block the way 
is the manatee, and all will agree that the leap is effective. The 
next myth attacked is that relating to the toucan, and what is left 
of it “is easy of identification. The bird is a common crow or 
a raven, and is one of the most happily executed of the avian 
sculptures.” The paroquet is treated more kindly, this species 
having abounded in the Mississippi valley; but the particular 
paroquet of Squier and Davis is made to step aside. Passing 
over the remarks upon various well-known forms and the skill 
shown in the carving, we come to Mr. Henshaw’s attack on the 
elephant mound, concerning which he doubts whether an effigy 
without ears, tail, tusks or extended trunk can stand for a masto- 
don, The author throws discredit on the authenticity of the ele- 
of new methods among savages, like the unfolding of the embry _ 
discloses the very life history of civilization. ee 
Mr. Holmes’s monograph is a masterpiece. Commencing WN" — 
Same subject printed in the transactions of the Anthropo 2o 
Society of Washington, Vol. 1. The forms discussed and n 
trated are the cross, the scalloped disk, the bird, the spider, the 
serpent, the human face, the human figure. It seems almost ag- — 
Sravating that in the same volume wherein Mr. Henshaw : 
