1886. | Anthropology. 193 
In the first place, though these institutions are presided over by 
men of great ability, there is a deplorable lack of mutual under- 
standing and uniformity of method among them. There should be 
between those who hold in trust such vast treasures a better 
scientific method, a more wholesome comity of intercourse. In 
short, before we draw inferences we should know what and what 
kind of material we have in hand. 
In the second place, investigations have been so increasingly 
fraught with grand results that some of the first efforts are likely 
to be ignored or forgotten. There are some points in the history 
of Squier’s and Davis’ work that have been misunderstood, and as 
the venerable authors are yet living it would seem a grateful 
tribute to bear them in mind. The earliest explorations of any 
great importance in the tumuli of the Ohio valley were made by 
Dr. Davis, who commenced a series of mound excavations while 
a student in Kenyon College from 182) to 1833. The result of 
this first effort was published in some of the college papers. 
Subsequently, Dr. Davis removed to Chilicothe, in the Scioto 
valley, celebrated for its earthworks. Here he laid out his plans 
for the great work which will forever be associated with his name. 
After ten years of digging, plotting, mapping, and collecting, 
Dr. Davis was associated with Mr. Squier, and the fruit of their 
joint labors is the first Smithsonian contribution to knowledge, 
entitled “ Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley.” When 
detail and great results. 
Recently the accuracy of the work done by Squier and Davis 
has been challenged, and this brings us to another phase of the 
question. Fully realizing the importance of criticism at any and — 
all times, we still hold that a very important matter has been 
overlooked ; it is this: The works of the mound-builders of a 
particular character or grade have not been compared with works 
of the same grade by their successors. If some of the best pro- 
ductions of artistic’handicraft of the present Indians be compared 
with objects of a similar nature taken from the mounds it is more 
than doubtful if the superiority of the latter-day Indians can be 
substantiated. Generally woodcuts are published in this con- 
nection to show the low condition of the mound-builders’ art. 
The cuts are copies of casts taken from inferior examples. 
, 
every good cabinet in the country. 
