VOL. IV. 
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, FEBRUARY, 1890. 
NO. 7. 
For Thk Naturalist. 
Those Elepliant Pipes Ag'alii. 
B.y Wakren Watson. 
Thei-e would be no excuse for reo|)Pii- 
in» the controvei'sy that ra^ed a few 
years since, as to the authenticity of the 
Elephant Pipes in the Museum of the 
Davenport Academy of Naturiil Sciences, 
were it not for the fact that IMaj. J. W. 
Powell, director of the Bureau of Eth- 
noloojy, at Washino'ton. recalled the snb- 
ject by a sneer and a series of mis-state- 
ments in a recent paper in the Forvm. 
ly as the statements controverted api)ear 
in a widely circulated magazine; but the 
proof is easy and, fortunately, unques- 
tionable. What could liave induced a 
scientific man to introduce into the 
discussion of a question of this character 
the methods of the jjettifogger or the 
stump orator is difficult to understand. If 
a lawyer should display such a lack of 
candor and veracity in the court room 
the court and his brother lawyers w ouh! 
ticat him with such unconceale 1 mhi- 
tenipt that he would never I'ep^Mt the 
act again. D >u')tless Maj I'dwell's liob- 
The passage rcfpi-red to occurs in his ar- 
ticle on "Pre-historic Man in America. " 
in the January number of that magazine, 
and is as follows: — 
"Not loiifi' .ago, a local society Iiad in 
its possession twoeleplianl pipes, tlie 
antiquity ot which Wiis quest ioiicd in 
a passing sentence of an article by 
one of the most skillfnl iirclia'olo^fisrs 
of the country, 'i'lierenpo;; ilie >oci- 
ety tield meetings and liad t lieirattoi-- 
ney make a careful in\'esi Igul ion lo 
see if the ollending scientist could be 
successfully prosecute<l for libel. 
And all this was in tlie interest of 
science, the high antiquity of nian 
and the exaltation of tlie ancitint 
Mound-buildei's!" 
There are a few truthful statements in 
the above remarkable passage, but it is 
not too severe, under the circumstances, 
to aver that the gi-eater portion of it is 
utterly untrue and Maj. Powell knew it 
to be so. It is true that the Davenport 
Academy had, and lias, two Klepliant 
Pipes and that the society lield meetings 
subsequent to the publication of Hen- 
shaw's diatribe; it is untrue that it was 
the aviiquUy of the pipes wliich was 
questioned or that the criticism occurred 
in ''a passing sentence of an article" or 
that the article was "by one of the most 
skillful archaeologists of the country," or 
that the society consulted witli an attor- 
ney looking toward a libel suit. It is 
true that what the Academy did was in the 
interests of science; it is untrue that they 
took any ground, with reference to the 
pipes, as to the high antiquity of man or 
looking to the exaltation of the ancient 
Mound-builders. 
These assertions may seem astonishing 
in view of the eminence of the gentle- 
man whose veracitj- is attacked, cspecial- 
by respecting the red-skin 01 igin of tli'' 
mounds is responsible for ai.-j '"niin.-i 
and if he is excusable at all, it must Im- 
for the reason that, like Jones, de \\<>\\v- 
bourg and Donnelly, his "crank'" m:iK( s 
him mendaci<ius and irresponsible. 
But to the proof: In tiie second vol- 
ume of the annual reports of the Bureau 
of Ethnology, a paiier by one IF. W. 
Henshaw, a])peare.l OJi tlie gi neral sub- 
ject of "Animal ( arvings fnnii jMounds 
of the Mississippi \'.ille\."' In the in- 
troduction to llu' volt, me. written by 
Maj. Powell himself, Jlr. Henshaw is not 
alleged to Le an archiieologist at all, but 
is saitl to be "skilled as a naturalist, es- 
pecially as an ornithologist." This is 
the person alluded to in the Forum arti- 
cle as "one of the most skillful archaeol- 
ogists of liie country I"' It he was an 
archreologisr why did not Maj. Powell 
introduce him as such when printing a 
paper by liim that cuuld derive force 
and influence only through the possession 
of special knowledge and skill in that 
direction by its author. But, so far 
from being a skillful archfeologist, he 
was not an archreologist at all. Rev. J. P. 
MiicLean, the autlior of "Mastodon, 
^I;nnmoth and Man,"" in a letter to Mr. 
Putnam of the Davenport Academy, 
states: "I had supposed that the names- 
ot all American archreologists and eth- 
nologists were familiar to me but tlie 
name of Henshaw is entirely new;"" 
Capt. E. Iv. Berlhond writes also: "1 
know something of Mr. Henshaw and I 
tliink he has 'brass' enough in him. in 
thus settling, ex cathedra^ what has puz- 
zled and foiled the repeated attempts ot 
some of the best antiquarians in America 
for over half a century ;" Dr. Willis de 
Hass, of Washington, speaking of Hen- 
shaw and others saj's: "The persons of 
whom yon complain are not arclwolo- 
gists and their opinions on such subjects 
are not regarded as possessing weight 
by competent archreologists;"' Dr. D. G. 
Brinton, one ot the most famous Ameri- 
ca)H's<''s in the world, says ot Mr. Hen- 
shavv's article: "From my first reading 
of his art c e 1 considered it a jiaper not 
composed in the true spiiit of science 
andontof place in the publications of 
the Bureau."" 
Was Mr. Henshaw one of ihc most 
skillful archtcologists of llic c. mil ry ? 
Falsehood luinibcr one I 
JSfexi.it was the avtlwhilritij. \wi the 
antiquihj. of tlie pijies that Mi'. Ilciisliaw 
questioned; ;.iid it was the insii ting and 
brutal iijamier in wliich this was done 
that excited the just anger of the Acade- 
my, not the fact that the genuineness of 
the relics was denied. Tiie antiquity of 
the pipes is a secondary question which 
could not be reached till their authentic- 
ity was recognized; the Bureau denied 
this ;md the Academy atfirined it; the 
secondary question, their ifiiliquuj,-, w;is 
never discussed or even reached for dis- 
cussion. 
Falsehood iiuinber two! 
So far from this criticism of Mr. Htii- 
sliaw being confined to a "passing sen- 
tence,"' any one can see by turning to 
page 1 h'l of the volume above referi ed to, 
that one of the sub-heads of his article 
"The Elephant Mound,"" commences on 
that page and runs nearly to the bottom 
of page 1.58, at least five quarto [lages I 
This is the passage referred to, for the 
elephant mound is only brought in as ;iii 
excuse or ijrelext for "questioning ' Ilie 
authenticity of the pipes and is only 
briefly discussed ; the greater portion of 
the five pages being taken up with the 
"destructive criticism" of the pipes. 
Falsehood number three I 
The Society did not have their attor. 
ney, or any attorney, look up the law of 
libel in order to punish the oftendiiig 
scientist (?); but upon the matter com- 
ing to the attention of Mr. S. D. Peet, 
editor of the American Antiquarian, re- 
ferring to Henshaw's statements, he re- 
marked in Vol.VII, No. "2, page 127, line 19; 
"W e should consider it a libel if it w;,s 
said of us."' There is little doubt but that 
the language used was libelous, but no 
one thought of a libel suit until Mr. Pow- 
ell imagined that the insinuation would 
give an additional sting to his sneer. 
Falsehood number four! 
Ho question arose as to the high antiq- 
uity of man in the whole dispute-at least 
