564 



SGIEJSrCE, 



[Vol. VI., No. 151. 



The Davenport tablet. 



As there appears to be a doubt in the minds of 

 many archeologists as to whether these relics should 

 be considered genuine specimens of mound -builders' 

 art, a discussion of their claims to this distinction 

 seems to be demanded. 



To do this satisfactorily, a personal inspection of 

 the relics, and a thorough investigation of all the 

 circumstances attending their discovery, should be 

 made. I do not claim to be thus prepared, nor is it 

 my intention to enter at this time upon such discus- 

 sion ; my only object in view in this communication 

 being to call attention to some items in reference to 

 the ' limestone tablet ' represented on plate vii. , vol. 

 li., of the Proceedings of the Davenport academy of 

 sciences. The unique and extraordinary character 

 of these relics is calculated, of itself, to raise a doubt 

 in the minds of antiquarians which requires more 

 than ordinary proof of genuineness to render their 

 acceptance as such universal. Examining the excel- 

 lent albertype of the limestone tablet given on plate 

 vJi., vol. ii., of the Proceedings, we are somewhat 

 surprised to see the sun represented with a face ; nor 

 is this surprise lessened by finding to the left of the 

 ' hatchet ' a regularly formed Arabic 8, made as is 

 customary with writers of the present day, and near 

 the upper right-hand corner the Roman numeral viii. 

 These are not museum marks, as some might sup- 

 pose, but parts of the original inscription on the 

 stone when found. 



The facts regarding the finding, as published by 

 the academy and given by its members, are not cal- 

 culated to strengthen belief in its genuineness. 

 According to the account given in the Proceedings, 

 (vol. ii. pp. 221-224), the exploration of the mound 

 in which it was found was made by Mr. Gass, assisted 

 by Mr. C. E. Harrison and Mr. John Hume. The 

 account is by Mr. Harrison. The annexed cut is an 

 exact copy of the figure of the mound as given in 

 this account. There was an excavation in the origi- 

 nal earth in which was built a pile of stones {x in 

 the figure), over which the mound of earth was 

 thrown. This earth was comparatively loose, "easy 

 to handle, being composed of dark soil with some 

 admixture of clay," and there appeared to have been 

 no indications of stratification. At the bottom of the 

 stone pile was a miniature vault covered by a single 

 flat stone. Lying on the clay bottom of this vault 

 was the tablet, as indicated in the figure. This 



vault was about thirteen or fourteen inches square, 

 five inches deep, and, with the exception of the tab- 

 let (an inch and a half thick), four arrow-points, a 

 little quartz crystal, and a Unio shell, was empty, 

 as appears from this published account ; for it is 

 stated, that, " on raising the flat stone, an irregularly 

 rectangular, engraved tablet was suddenly exposed 

 to view as it lay face up in a walled vault, evidently 

 built for its reception" {A in the figure). But in 

 order to be certain as to this inference, I addressed 

 the following inquiry to Mr. W. H. Pratt, the cura- 



tor of the museum of the academy : ' ' Was the 

 cavity A (fig. 17, Proc. Dav. acad. sc, p. 222, 

 vol. ii ) filled with dirt when first observed ? " to 

 which he kindly returned this answer: "Mr. C. E. 

 Harrison, who assisted in the work, states that the 

 cavity in which the limestone tablet was found con- 

 tained scarcely any dirt when the flat stone with 

 which it was covered was raised, exposing it to view." 



That there should have been an unfilled space in a 

 pile of loose stone in an excavation, beneath a heap 

 of comparatively loose dirt which had stood there for 

 centuries, is certainly most extraordinary. 



In a letter now in my possession, written by Mr. 

 A. S. Tiffany in 1882, 1 find the following statement ; 

 ' ' The limestone tablet I am certain is a fraud. Mr. 

 Gass was assisted in digging it out by Mr. Harrison 

 and Mr. Hume. Mr. Hume informs me that there 

 was a wall of small bowlders around the tablet. On 

 the tablet there were some arrow-points, a quartz 

 crystal, and a Unio shell filled with red paint, the 

 whole being covered with a rough limestone slab, 

 the space between it and the tablet not filled with 

 earth, and the paint bright and clean." Mr. Tiffany 

 was one of the founders of the academy, and, as 

 appears from the Proceedings, was long one of its 

 most prominent, active, and trusted local members, 

 and is still a member. 



If these statements in regard to the conditions 

 under which this tablet was found be correct, — 

 which we have no reason to doubt, as they appear 

 to agree in all essential particulars, — there are strong 

 reasons for suspecting that it was a plant made by 

 some unknown person to deceive the members of the 

 academy. The simple fact that the little vault under 

 the pile of loose stones was empty, save the presence 

 of the relics, appears to absolutely forbid the idea of 

 age. It is well known to all who have taken any part 

 in excavating, that the water, running down through 

 earth and a pile of stones beneath, will at length fill 

 all the crevices with earth, and in fact all places not 

 hermetically sealed. 



It is proper to add here that Mr. Tiffany, in the 

 same letter, vouches for the honesty of Mr. Gass (the 

 finder), who, he believes, was deceived. Speaking 

 of the elephant pipe found by Mr. Gass, which he 

 also thinks was a plant, he says, " It bears the same 

 finger-marks as the first one [first pipe], and Mr. 

 Gass could be deceived with that plant as he was 

 with the tablet. Mr Gass is honest." I have Mr. 

 Tift'any's acknowledgment that this letter, which has 

 been in my possession since 1882, is authentic. 



Cyrus Thomas. 



Disinfection. 



In my article on ' Disinfection,' published in 

 Science of Oct. 16 (p. 330), under the heading ' Sul- 

 phurous acid gas,' the statement is made that this 

 agent 'is important for the destruction of spores.^ 

 The reverse of this is true, and the sentence should 

 read ' impotent for the destruction of spores.' 

 Curiously enough, the same mistake has been made 

 by the printer in my article on ' The destruction of 

 cholera germs,' in Dr. Wendt's recent work on 

 ' Asiatic cholera ' (p. 332). Both of these articles 

 were published during my absence in Europe, and I 

 had consequently no opportunity to correct the proof. 

 Unfortunately, the printers have made several other 

 serious errors in the last-mentioned article, the chief 

 of which is the substitution of the word ' grain ' for 

 ' gram,' on p. 333. George M. Sternberg. 



