de ,france 7,bn,f_/,gallica7 at         
http3_/_/gallica4bnf4fr7                
,,smithsonian ,,institution----,,bureau 
,,of ,,ethnology4  ,,animal ,,carvings  
,,from  ,,mounds ,,of ,,the             
,,mississippi ,,valley4  ,,by  ,,henry  
,w4 ,,henshaw4      ,,contents4         
,introductory                           
#abc   ,manatee                         
#abe   ,toucan                          
#ace   ,paroquet                        
#aci ,knowledge of tropical animals by  
,mound-,builders  #adb   ,other errors  
of identification                 #add  
,skill in sculpture of the              
,mound-,builders         #adh           
,generalization not designed            
#adi   ,probable totemic origin         
#aej ,animal mounds                     
#aeb   ,the ,elephant mound             
#aeb   ,the ,alligator mound            
#aeh ,human sculptures                  
#afj ,indian and mound-builders' art    
compared          #afd   ,general       
conclusions                             

#aff      ,,illustrations4  ,fig4       
#d4--,otter from ,squier and ,davis     
#abh      #e4--,otter from ,squier and  
,davis                    #abh          
#f4--,otter from ,rau4 ,manatee from    
,stevens           #abi                 
#g4--,manatee from ,stevens             
#abi      #h4--,lamantin or ,sea-,cow   
from ,squier and ,davis      #acj       
#i4--,lamantin or ,sea-,cow from ,squier
                #acj     #aj4--,manatee 
7,manatus ,americanus1 ,cuv47           
#acb     #aa4--,manatee 7,manatus       
,americanus1 ,cuv47           #acb      
#ab4--;,cincinnati ,tablet--back4 ,from 
,squier and ,davis #acc                 
#ac4--;,cincinnati ,tablet--back4 ,from 
,short            #acd     #ad4--,toucan
 from ,squier and ,davis                
#ace     #ae4--,toucan from ,squier and 
,davis                   #ace           
#af4--,toucan from ,squier and ,davis   
#acf     #ag4--,toucan as figured by    
,stevens                   #acg         
#ah4--,keel-billed ,toucan of ,southern 

,mexico          #aci                   
#ai4--,paroquet from ,squier and ,davis 
#adj     #bj4--,owl from ,squier and    
,davis                      #add        
#ba4--;,grouse from ,squier and ,davis  
#add     #bb4--,turkey-buzzard from     
,squier and ,davis           #ade       
#bc4--;,cherry-bird                     
#ade     #bd4--,woodpecker              
#adf     #be4--;,eagle from ,squier and 
,davis                    #adf          
#bf4--,rattlesnake from ,squier and     
,davis              #adg     #bg4--;,big
 ,elephant ,mound in ,grant ,county1    
,wisconsin  #aec     #bh4--;,elephant   
,pipe4 ,iowa                            
#aee     #bi4--;,elephant ,pipe4 ,iowa  
#aef     #cj4--,the ,alligator ,mound   
near ,granville1 ,ohio       #aei       
#ca4--;,carvings of heads               
#afb     #cb4--;,carvings of heads      
#afb     #cc4--;,carvings of heads      
#afb     #cd4--;,carving of head        
#afc     #ce4--;,carving of head        
#afc      ,,animal ,,carvings ,,from    

,,mounds ,,of ,,the ,,mississippi       
,,valley4  ,,by ,h4 ,w4 ,,henshaw4      
,,introductory4   ,the considerable     
degree of decorative and artistic skill 
attained by the so-called               
,mound-,builders1 as evidenced by many  
of the relics that have been exhumed    
from the mounds1 has not failed to      
arrest the attention of archaeologists4 
,among them1 indeed1 are found not a few
 who assert for the people conveniently 
designated as above a degree of artistic
 skill very far superior to that        
attained by the present race of ,indians
 as they have been known to history4 ,in
 fact1 this very skill in artistic      
design1 asserted for the                
,mound-,builders1 as indicated by the   
sculptures they have left1 forms an     
important link in the chain of argument 
upon which is based the theory of their 
difference from and superiority to the  
,north ,american ,indian4  ,eminent as  
is much of the authority which thus     
contends for an artistic ability on the 

part of the ,mound-,builders far in     
advance of the attainments of the       
present ,indian in the same line1 the   
question is one admitting of argument2  
and if some of the best products of     
artistic handicraft of the present      
,indians be compared with objects of a  
similar nature taken from the mounds1 it
 is more than doubtful if the artistic  
inferiority of the latter-day ,indian   
can be substantiated4 ,deferring1       
however1 for the present1 any comparison
 between the artistic ability of the    
,mound-,builder and the modern ,indian1 
attention may be turned to a class of   
objects from the mounds1 notable1       
indeed1 for the skill with which they   
are wrought1 but to be considered first 
in another way and for another purpose  
than mere artistic comparison4  ,as the 
term ,mound-,builders will recur many   
times throughout this paper1 and as the 
phrase has been objected to by some     
archaeologists on account of its        
indefiniteness1 it may be well to state 

that it is employed here with its       
commonly accepted signification1 viz3 as
 applied to the people who formerly     
lived throughout the ,mississippi       
,valley and raised the mounds of that   
region4 ,it should also be clearly      
understood that by its use the writer is
 not to be considered as committing     
himself in any way to the theory that   
the ,mound-,builders were of a different
 race from the ,north ,american ,indian4
  ,among the more interesting objects   
left by the ,mound-,builders1 pipes     
occupy a prominent place4 ,this is      
partly due to their number1 pipes being 
among the more common articles unearthed
 by the labors of explorers1 but more to
 the fact that in the construction of   
their pipes this people exhibited their 
greatest skill in the way of sculpture4 
,in the minds of those who hold that the
 ,mound-,builders were the ancestors of 
the present ,indians1 or1 at least1 that
 they were not necessarily of a         
different race1 the superiority of their

 pipe sculpture over their other works  
of art excites no surprise1 since1      
however prominent a place the pipe may  
have held in the affections of the      
,mound-,builders1 it is certain that it 
has been an object of no less esteem and
 reverence among the ,indians of        
history4 ,certainly no one institution1 
for so it may be called1 was more firmly
 fixed by long usage among the ,north   
,american ,indians1 or more             
characteristic of them1 than the pipe1  
with all its varied uses and            
significance4  ,perhaps the most        
characteristic artistic feature         
displayed in the pipe sculpture of the  
,mound-,builders1 as has been well      
pointed out by ,wilson1 in his          
,prehistoric ,man1 is the tendency      
exhibited toward the imitation of       
natural objects1 especially birds and   
animals1 a remark1 it may be said in    
passing1 which applies with almost equal
 truth to the art productions generally 
of the present ,indians throughout the  

length and breadth of ,north ,america4  
,as some of these sculptured animals    
from the mounds have excited much       
interest in the minds of archaeologists1
 and have been made the basis of much   
speculation1 their examination and      
proper identification becomes a matter  
of considerable importance4 ,it will    
therefore be the main purpose of the    
present paper to examine critically the 
evidence offered in behalf of the       
identification of the more important of 
them4 ,if it shall prove1 as is believed
 to be the case1 that serious mistakes  
of identification have been made1       
attention will be called to these and   
the manner pointed out in which certain 
theories have naturally enough resulted 
from the premises thus erroneously      
established4  ,it may be premised that  
the writer undertook the examination of 
the carvings with no theories of his own
 to propose in place of those hitherto  
advanced4 ,in fact1 their critical      
examination may almost be said to have  

been the result of accident4 ,having    
made the birds of the ,united ,states   
his study for several years1 the writer 
glanced over the bird carvings in the   
most cursory manner1 being curious to   
see what species were represented4 ,the 
inaccurate identification of some of    
these by the authors of ,the ,ancient   
,monuments of the ,mississippi ,valley  
led to the examination of the series as 
a whole1 and subsequently to the        
discussion they had received at the     
hands of various authors4 ,the carvings 
are1 therefore1 here considered rather  
from the stand-point of the naturalist  
than the archaeologist4 ,believing that 
the question first in importance        
concerns their actual resemblances1     
substantially the same kind of critical 
study is applied to them which they     
would receive were they from the hands  
of a modern zoological artist4 ,such a  
course has obvious disadvantages1 since 
it places the work of men who were in1  
at best1 but a semi-civilized condition 

on a much higher plane than other facts 
would seem to justify4 ,it may be urged1
 as the writer indeed believes1 that the
 accuracy sufficient for the specific   
identification of these carvings is not 
to be expected of men in the state of   
culture the ,mound-,builders are        
generally supposed to have attained4 ,to
 which answer may be made that it is    
precisely on the supposition that the   
carvings were accurate copies from      
nature that the theories respecting them
 have been promulgated by               
archaeologists4 ,on no other supposition
 could such theories have been advanced4
 ,so accurate indeed have they been     
deemed that they have been directly     
compared with the work of modern        
artists1 as will be noticed hereafter4  
,hence the method here adopted in their 
study seems to be not only the best1 but
 the only one likely to produce definite
 results4  ,if it be found that there   
are good reasons for pronouncing the    
carvings not to be accurate copies from 

nature1 and of a lower artistic standard
 than has been supposed1 it will remain 
for the archaeologist to determine how  
far their unlikeness to the animals they
 have been supposed to represent can be 
attributed to shortcomings naturally    
pertaining to barbaric art4 ,if he      
choose to assume that they were really  
intended as imitations1 although in many
 particulars unlike the animals he      
wishes to believe them to represent1 and
 that they are as close copies as can be
 expected from sculptors not possessed  
of skill adequate to carry out their    
rude conceptions1 he will practically   
have abandoned the position taken by    
many prominent archaeologists with      
respect to the mound sculptors' skill1  
and will be forced to accord them a     
position on the plane of art not        
superior to the one occupied by the     
,north ,american ,indians4 ,if it should
 prove that but a small minority of the 
carvings can be specifically identified1
 owing to inaccuracies and to their     

general resemblance1 he may indeed go   
even further and conclude that they form
 a very unsafe basis for deductions that
 owe their very existence to assumed    
accurate imitation4   ,,manatee4  ,in   
#ahdh ,squier and ,davis published their
 great work on the ,mounds of the       
,mississippi ,valley4 ,the skill and    
zeal with which these gentlemen         
prosecuted their researches in the      
field1 and the ability and fidelity     
which mark the presentation of their    
results to the public are sufficiently  
attested by the fact that this volume   
has proved alike the mine from which    
subsequent writers have drawn their most
 important facts1 and the chief         
inspiration for the vast amount of work 
in the same direction since undertaken4 
,on pages #bea and #beb of the          
above-mentioned work appear figures of  
an animal which is there called         
,lamantin1 ,manitus1 or ,sea ,cow1      
concerning which animal it is stated    
that seven sculptured representations   

have been taken from the mounds4 ,when  
first discovered1 the authors continue1 
it was supposed they were monstrous     
creations of fancy2 but subsequent      
investigations and comparison have shown
 that they are faithful representations 
of one of the most singular animal      
productions of the world4  ,these       
authors appear to have been the first to
 note the supposed likeness of certain  
of the sculptured forms found in the    
mounds to animals living in remote      
regions4 ,that they were not slow to    
perceive the ethnological interest and  
value of the discovery is shown by the  
fact that it was immediately adduced by 
them as affording a clew to the possible
 origin of the ,mound-,builders4 ,the   
importance they attached to the         
discovery and their interpretation of   
its significance will be apparent from  
the following quotation 7p4 #bdb73      
,some of these sculptures have a value1 
so far as ethnological      research is 
concerned1 much higher than they can    

claim as mere      works of art4 ,this  
value is derived from the fact that they
      faithfully represent animals and  
birds peculiar to other latitudes1      
thus establishing a migration1 a very   
extensive intercommunication      or a  
contemporaneous existence of the same   
race over a vast extent      of country4
  ,the idea thus suggested fell on      
fruitful ground1 and each succeeding    
writer who has attempted to show that   
the ,mound-,builders were of a race     
different from the ,north ,american     
,indian1 or had other than an           
autochthonous origin1 has not failed to 
lay especial stress upon the presence in
 the mounds of sculptures of the        
manatee1 as well as of other strange    
beasts and birds1 carved evidently by   
the same hands that portrayed many of   
our native fauna4  ,except that the     
theories based upon the sculptures have 
by recent writers been annunciated more 
positively and given a wider range1 they
 have been left almost precisely as set 

forth by the authors of the ,ancient    
,monuments1 while absolutely nothing    
appears to have been brought to light   
since their time in the way of          
additional sculptured evidence of the   
same character4 ,it is indeed a little  
curious to note the perfect unanimity   
with which most writers fall back upon  
the above authors as at once the source 
of the data they adduce in support of   
the several theories1 and as their      
final1 nay1 their only1 authority4 ,now 
and then one will be found to dissent   
from some particular bit of evidence as 
announced by ,squier and ,davis1 or to  
give a somewhat different turn to the   
conclusions derivable from the testimony
 offered by them4 ,but in the main the  
theories first announced by the authors 
of ,ancient ,monuments1 as the result of
 their study of the mound sculptures1   
are those that pass current to-day4     
,particular attention may be called to  
the deep and lasting impression made by 
the statements of these authors as to   

the great beauty and high standard of   
excellence exhibited by the mound       
sculptures4 ,since their time writers   
appear to be well satisfied to express  
their own admiration in the terms made  
use of by ,squier and ,davis4 ,one      
might1 indeed1 almost suppose that      
recent writers have not dared to trust  
to the evidence afforded by the original
 carvings or their fac-similes1 but have
 preferred to take the word of the      
authors of the ,ancient ,monuments for  
beauties which were perhaps hidden from 
their own eyes4  ,following the lead of 
the authors of the ,ancient ,monuments1 
also1 with respect to theories of       
origin1 these carvings of supposed      
foreign animals are offered as affording
 incontestible evidence that the        
,mound-,builders must have migrated from
 or have had intercourse1 direct or     
indirect1 with the regions known to     
harbor these animals4 ,were it not1     
indeed1 for the evident artistic        
similarity between these carvings of    

supposed foreign animals and those of   
common domestic forms--a similarity     
which1 as ,squier and ,davis remark1    
render them indistinguishable1 so far as
 material and workmanship are concerned1
 from an entire class of remains found  
in the mounds--the presence of most of  
them could readily be accounted for     
through the agency of trade1 the far    
reaching nature of which1 even among the
 wilder tribes1 is well understood4     
,trade1 for instance1 in the case of an 
animal like the manatee1 found no more  
than a thousand miles distant from the  
point where the sculpture was dug up1   
would offer a possible if not a probable
 solution of the matter4 ,but           
independently of the fact that the      
practically identical character of all  
the carvings render the theory of trade 
quite untenable1 the very pertinent     
question arises1 why1 if these supposed 
manatee pipes were derived by trade from
 other regions1 have not similar        
carvings been found in those regions1   

as1 for instance1 in ,florida and the   
,gulf ,states1 a region of which the    
archaeology is fairly well known4       
,primitive man1 as is the case with his 
civilized brother1 trades usually out of
 his abundance2 so that not seven1 but  
many times seven1 manatee pipes should  
be found at the center of trade4 ,as it 
is1 the known home of the manatee has   
furnished no carvings either of the     
manatee or of anything suggestive of it4
  ,the possibility of the manatee having
 in past times possessed a wider range  
than at present seems to have been      
overlooked4 ,but as a matter of fact the
 probability that the manatee ever      
ranged1 in comparatively modern times at
 least1 as far north as ,ohio without   
leaving other traces of its presence    
than a few sculptured representations at
 the hands of an ancient people is too  
small to be entertained4  ,nor is the   
supposition that the ,mound-,builders   
held contemporaneous possession of the  
country embraced in the range of the    

animals whose effigies are supposed to  
have been exhumed from their graves     
worthy of serious discussion4 ,if true1 
it would involve the contemporaneous    
occupancy by the ,mound-,builders1 not  
only of the ,southern ,united ,states   
but of the region stretching into       
,southern ,mexico1 and even1 according  
to the ideas of some authors1 into      
,central and ,south ,america1 an area   
which1 it is needless to say1 no known  
facts will for a moment justify us in   
supposing a people of one blood to have 
occupied contemporaneously4  ,assuming1 
therefore1 that the sculptures in       
question are the work of the            
,mound-,builders and are not derived    
from distant parts through the agency of
 trade1 of which there would appear to  
be little doubt1 and1 assuming that the 
sculptures represent the animals they   
have been supposed to represent--of     
which something remains to be said--the 
theory that the acquaintance of the     
,mound-,builders with these animals was 

made in a region far distant from the   
one to which they subsequently migrated 
would seem to be not unworthy of        
attention4 ,it is necessary1 however1   
before advancing theories to account for
 facts to first consider the facts      
themselves1 and in this case to seek an 
answer to the question how far the      
identification of these carvings of     
supposed foreign animals is to be       
trusted4 ,before noticing in detail the 
carvings supposed by ,squier and ,davis 
to represent the manatee1 it will be    
well to glance at the carvings of       
another animal figured by the same      
authors which1 it is believed1 has a    
close connection with them4             
,illustration3 ,fig4 #d4--,otter4 ,from 
,ancient ,monuments4  ,figure #d is     
identified by the authors of the        
,ancient ,monuments 7,fig4 #aef7 as an  
otter1 and few naturalists will hesitate
 in pronouncing it to be a very good    
likeness of that animal2 the short broad
 ears1 broad head and expanded snout1   

with the short1 strong legs1 would seem 
to belong unmistakably to the otter4    
,added to all these is the indication of
 its fish-catching habits4 ,having thus 
correctly identified this animal1 and   
with it before them1 it certainly       
reflects little credit upon the         
zoological knowledge of the authors and 
their powers of discrimination to refer 
the next figure 7,ancient ,monuments1   
,fig4 #aeg7 to the same animal4         
,illustration3 ,fig4 #e4--,otter of     
,squier and ,davis4  ,of a totally      
different shape and physiognomy1 if     
intended as an otter it certainly       
implies an amazing want of skill in its 
author4 ,however it is assuredly not an 
otter1 but is doubtless an unfinished or
 rudely executed ground squirrel1 of    
which animal it conveys in a general way
 a good idea1 the characteristic        
attitude of this little rodent1 sitting 
up with paws extended in front1 being   
well displayed4 ,carvings of small      
rodents in similar attitudes are        

exhibited in ,stevens's ,flint ,chips1  
p4 #dbh1 ,figs4 #fa and #fb4 ,stevens's 
,fig4 #fa evidently represents the same 
animal as ,fig4 #aeg of ,squier and     
,davis1 but is a better executed        
carving4  ,in illustration of the       
somewhat vague idea entertained by      
archaeologists as to what the manatee is
 like1 it is of interest to note that   
the carving of a second otter with a    
fish in its mouth has been made to do   
duty as a manatee1 although the latter  
animal is well known never to eat fish1 
but1 on the contrary1 to be strictly    
herbivorous4 ,thus ,stevens gives       
figures of two carvings in his ,flint   
,chips1 p4 #dbi1 ,figs4 #fe and #ff1    
calling them manatees1 and says3 ,in one
 particular1 however1 the sculptors of  
the mound-period committed an error4    
,although the lamantin is strictly      
herbivorous1 feeding chiefly upon       
subaqueous plants and littoral herbs1   
yet upon one of the stone smoking-pipes1
 ,fig4 #ff1 this animal is represented  

with a fish in its mouth4 ,mr4 ,stevens 
apparently preferred to credit the mound
 sculptor with gross ignorance of the   
habits of the manatee1 rather than to   
abate one jot or tittle of the claim    
possessed by the carving to be          
considered a representation of that     
animal4 ,stevens's fish-catching manatee
 is the same carving given by ,dr4 ,rau1
 in the ,archaeological ,collection of  
the ,united ,states ,national ,museum1  
p4 #dg1 ,fig4 #ahj1 where it is         
correctly stated to be an otter4 ,this  
cut1 which can scarcely be distinguished
 from one given by ,stevens 7,fig4 #ff71
 is here reproduced 7,fig4 #f71 together
 with the second supposed manatee of the
 latter writer 7,fig4 #g74              
,illustration3 ,fig4 #f4--,otter of     
,rau2 ,manatee of ,stevens4             
,illustration3 ,fig4 #g4--,manatee of   
,stevens4  ,to afford a means of        
comparison1 ,fig4 #aed1 from the        
,ancient ,monuments of ,squier and      
,davis1 is introduced 7,fig4 #h74 ,the  

same figure is also to be found in      
,wilson's ,prehistoric ,man1 vol4 i1 p4 
#dgf1 ,fig4 #bb4 ,another of the        
supposed lamantins1 ,fig4 #i1 is taken  
from ,squier's article in the           
,transactions of the ,american          
,ethnological ,society1 vol4 ii1 p4     
#ahh4 ,a bad print of the same wood-cut 
appears as ,fig4 #aec1 p4 #bea1 of the  
,ancient ,monuments4  ,it should be     
noted that the physiognomy of ,fig4 #f1 
above given1 although unquestionably of 
an otter1 agrees more closely with the  
several so-called manatees1 which are   
represented without fishes1 than with   
the fish-bearing otter1 first mentioned1
 ,fig4 #d4  ,fig4 #f thus serves as a   
connecting link in the series1 uniting  
the unmistakable otter1 with the fish in
 its mouth1 to the more clumsily        
executed and less readily recognized    
carvings of the same animal4            
,illustration3 ,fig4 #h4--,lamantin or  
sea-cow of ,squier and ,davis4          
,illustration3 ,fig4 #i4--,lamantin or  

sea-cow of ,squier4  ,it was doubtless  
the general resemblance which the       
several specimens of the otters and the 
so-called manatees bear to each other   
that led ,stevens astray4 ,they are by  
no means facsimiles one of the other4   
,on the contrary1 while no two are just 
alike1 the differences are perhaps not  
greater than is to be expected when it  
is considered that they doubtless embody
 the conceptions of different artists1  
whose knowledge of the animal1 as well  
as whose skill in carving1 would        
naturally differ widely4 ,recognizing   
the general likeness1 ,stevens perhaps  
felt that what one was all were4 ,in    
this1 at least1 he is probably correct1 
and the following reasons are deemed    
sufficient to show that1 whether the    
several sculptures figured by one and   
another author are otters or not1 as    
here maintained1 they most assuredly are
 not manatees4 ,the most important      
character possessed by the sculptures1  
which is not found in the manatee1 is an

 external ear4 ,in this particular they 
all agree4 ,now1 the manatee has not the
 slightest trace of a pinna or external 
ear1 a small orifice1 like a slit1      
representing that organ4 ,to quote the  
precise language of ,murie in the       
,proceedings of the ,london ,zoological 
,society1 vol4 #h1 p4 #ahh3 ,in the     
absence of pinna1 a small orifice1 a    
line in diameter1 into which a probe    
could be passed1 alone represents the   
external meatus4 ,in the dried museum   
specimen this slit is wholly invisible1 
and even in the live or freshly killed  
animal it is by no means readily        
apparent4 ,keen observer of natural     
objects1 as savage and barbaric man     
certainly is1 it is going too far to    
suppose him capable of representing an  
earless animal--earless at least so far 
as the purposes of sculpture are        
concerned--with prominent ears4 ,if1    
then1 it can be assumed that these      
sculptures are to be relied upon as in  
the slightest degree imitative1 it must 

be admitted that the presence of ears   
would alone suffice to show that they   
cannot have been intended to represent  
the manatee4 ,but the feet shown in each
 and all of them present equally        
unquestionable evidence of their        
dissimilarity from the manatee4 ,this   
animal has instead of a short1 stout    
fore leg1 terminating in flexible       
fingers or paws1 as indicated in the    
several sculptures1 a shapeless         
paddle-like flipper4 ,the nails with    
which the flipper terminates are very   
small1 and if shown at all in carving1  
which is wholly unlikely1 as being too  
insignificant1 they would be barely     
indicated and would present a very      
different appearance from the distinctly
 marked digits common to the several    
sculptures4  ,noticing that one of the  
carvings has a differently shaped tail  
from the others1 the authors of the     
,ancient ,monuments attempt to reconcile
 the discrepancy as follows3 ,only one  
of the sculptures exhibits a flat       

truncated tail2 the others are round4   
,there is however a variety of the      
lamantin 7,manitus ,senigalensis1       
,desm47 which has a round tail1 and is  
distinguished as the round-tailed       
manitus4 7,ancient ,monuments1 p4 #beb47
 ,the suggestion thus thrown out means1 
if it means anything1 that the sculpture
 exhibiting a flat tail is the only one 
referable to the manatee of ,florida and
 southward1 the ,m4 ,americanus1 while  
those with round tails are to be        
identified with the so-called           
,round-tailed ,lamantin1 the ,m4        
,senegalensis1 which lives in the rivers
 of ,senegambia and along the coast of  
,western ,africa4 ,it is to be regretted
 that the above authors did not go      
further and explain the manner in which 
they suppose the ,mound-,builders became
 acquainted with an animal inhabiting   
the ,west ,african coast4 ,elastic as   
has proved to be the thread upon which  
hangs the migration theory1 it would    
seem to be hardly capable of bearing the

 strain required for it to reach from   
the ,mississippi ,valley to ,africa4    
,had the authors been better acquainted 
with the anatomy of the manatees the    
above suggestion would never have been  
made1 since the tails of the two forms  
are1 so far as known1 almost exactly    
alike4 ,a rounded tail is1 in fact1 the 
first requisite of the genus ,manatus1  
to which both the manatees alluded to   
belong1 in distinction from the forked  
tail of the genus ,halicore4  ,whether  
the tails of the sculptured manatees be 
round or flat matters little1 however1  
since they bear no resemblance to       
manatee tails1 either of the round or   
flat tailed varieties1 or1 for that     
matter1 to tails of any sort4 ,in many  
of the animal carvings the head alone   
engaged the sculptor's attention1 the   
body and members being omitted entirely1
 or else roughly blocked out2 as1 for   
instance1 in the case of the squirrel   
given above1 in which the hind parts are
 simply rounded off into convenient     

shape1 with no attempt at their         
delineation4 ,somewhat the same method  
was evidently followed in the case of   
the supposed manatees1 only after the   
pipe cavities had been excavated the    
block was shaped off in a manner best   
suited to serve the purpose of a handle4
 ,without1 however1 attempting to       
institute farther comparisons1 two views
 of a real manatee are here subjoined1  
which are fac-similes of ,murie's       
admirable photo-lithograph in ,trans4   
,london ,zoological ,society1 vol4 #h1  
#ahgb-'gd4 ,a very brief comparison of  
the supposed manatees1 with a modern    
artistic representation of that animal1 
will show the irreconcilable differences
 between them better than any number of 
pages of written criticism4             
,illustration3 ,fig4 #aj4--,manatee     
7,manatus ,americanus1 ,cuv474 ,side    
view4  ,illustration3 ,fig4             
#aa4--,manatee 7,manatus ,americanus1   
,cuv474 ,front view4  ,there would seem1
 then1 to be no escape from the         

conclusion that the animal sculptures   
which have passed current as manatees do
 not really resemble that animal1 which 
is so extraordinary in all its aspects  
and so totally unlike any other of the  
animal creation as to render its        
identification in case it had really    
served as a subject for sculpture1 easy 
and certain4  ,as the several sculptures
 bear a general likeness to each other  
and resemble with considerable closeness
 the otter1 the well known fish-eating  
proclivities of this animal being shown 
in at least two of them1 it seems highly
 probable that it is the otter that is  
rudely portrayed in all these           
sculptures4  ,the otter was a common    
resident of all the region occupied by  
the ,mound-,builders1 and must certainly
 have been well known to them4          
,moreover1 the otter is one of the      
animals which figures largely in the    
mythology and folk-lore of the natives  
of ,america1 and has been adopted in    
many tribes as their totem4 ,hence1 this

 animal would seem to be a peculiarly   
apt subject for embodiment in sculptured
 form4 ,it matters very little1 however1
 whether these sculptures were intended 
as otters or not1 the main point in the 
present connection being that they      
cannot have been intended as manatees4  
,before leaving the subject of the      
manatee1 attention may be called to a   
curious fact in connection with the     
,cincinnati ,tablet1 of which a wood-cut
 is given in ,the ,ancient ,monuments   
7p4 #bge1 ,fig4 #aie74 ,if the reverse  
side as there shown be compared with the
 same view as presented by ,short in    
,the ,north ,americans of ,antiquity1 p4
 #de1 or in ,mac,lean's                 
,mound-,builders1 p4 #ajg1 a remarkable 
discrepancy between the two will be     
observed4  ,illustration3 ,fig4         
#ab4--;,cincinnati ,tablet4 7,back47    
,from ,squire and ,davis4  ,in the      
former1 near the top1 is indicated what 
appears to be a shapeless depression1   
formless and unmeaning so far as its    

resemblance to any special object is    
concerned4 ,the authors remark of this  
side of the tablet1 ,the back of the    
stone has three deep longitudinal       
grooves1 and several depressions1       
evidently caused by rubbing1--probably  
produced in sharpening the instrument   
used1 in the sculpture4 ,this           
explanation of the depressions would    
seem to be reasonable1 although it has  
been disputed1 and a peculiar           
significance 7,short7 attached to this  
side of the tablet4 ,in ,short's        
engraving1 while the front side         
corresponds closely with the same view  
given by ,squier and ,davis1 there is a 
notable difference observable on the    
reverse side4 ,for the formless         
depression of the ,squier and ,davis cut
 not only occupies a somewhat different 
position in relation to the top and     
sides of the tablet1 but1 as will be    
seen by reference to the figure1 it     
assumes a distinct form1 having in some 
mysterious way been metamorphosed into a

 figure which oddly enough suggests the 
manatee4 ,it does not appear that the   
attention of archaeologists has ever    
been directed to the fact that such a   
resemblance exists2 nor indeed is the   
resemblance sufficiently close to       
justify calling it a veritable manatee4 
,but with the aid of a little           
imagination it may in a rude way suggest
 that animal1 its earless head and the  
flipper being the most striking1 in fact
 the only1 point of likeness4 ,conceding
 that the figure as given by ,short     
affords a rude hint of the manatee1 the 
question is how to account for its      
presence on this the latest             
representation of the tablet which1     
according to ,short1 ,mr4 ,guest1 its   
owner1 pronounces the first correct     
representations of the stone4 ,the cast 
of this tablet in the ,smithsonian      
,institution agrees more closely with   
,short's representation in respect to   
the details mentioned than with that    
given in the ,ancient ,monuments4       

,nevertheless1 if this cast be accepted 
as the faithful copy of the original it 
has been supposed to be1 the engraving  
in ,short's volume is subject to        
criticism4 ,in the cast the outline of  
the figure1 while better defined than   
,squier and ,davis represent it to be1  
is still very indefinite1 the outline   
not only being broken into1 but being in
 places1 especially toward the head1    
indistinguishable from the surface of   
the tablet into which it insensibly     
grades4 ,in the view as found in ,short 
there is none of this irregularity and  
indefiniteness of outline1 the figure   
being perfect and standing out clearly  
as though just from the sculptor's hand4
 ,as perhaps on the whole the nearest   
approach to the form of a manatee       
appearing on any object claimed to have 
originated at the hands of the          
,mound-,builders1 and from the fact that
 artists have interpreted its outline so
 differently1 this figure1 given by the 
latest commentators on the ,cincinnati  

tablet1 is interesting1 and has seemed  
worthy of mention4 ,as1 however1 the    
authenticity of the tablet itself is not
 above suspicion1 but1 on the contrary1 
is believed by many archaeologists to   
admit of grave doubts1 the subject need 
not be pursued further here4            
,illustration3 ,fig4 #ac4--;,cincinnati 
,tablet4 7,back47 ,from ,short4         
,,toucan4  ,the a priori probability    
that the toucan was known to the        
,mound-,builders is1 of course1 much    
less than that the manatee was1 since no
 species of toucan occurs farther north 
than ,southern ,mexico4 ,its distant    
habitat also militates against the idea 
that the ,mound-,builders could have    
acquired a knowledge of the bird from   
intercourse with southern tribes1 or    
that they received the supposed toucan  
pipes by way of trade4 ,without         
discussing the several theories to which
 the toucan pipes have given rise1 let  
us first examine the evidence offered as
 to the presence in the mounds of       

sculptures of the toucan4  ,it is a     
little perplexing to find at the outset 
that ,squier and ,davis1 not content    
with one toucan1 have figured three1 and
 these differing from each other so     
widely as to be referable1 according to 
modern ornithological ideas1 to very    
distinct orders4  ,illustration3 ,fig4  
#ad4--,toucan of ,squier and ,davis4    
,the first allusion to the toucan in the
 ,monuments of the ,mississippi ,valley 
is found on page #aid1 where the authors
 guardedly remark of a bird's head in   
terra cotta 7,fig4 #gi71 ,it represents 
the head of a bird1 somewhat resembling 
the toucan1 and is executed with much   
spirit4  ,this head is vaguely          
suggestive of a young eagle1 the        
proportions of the bill of which1 until 
of some age1 are considerably distorted4
 ,the position of the nostrils1 however1
 and the contour of the mandibles1      
together with the position of the eyes1 
show clearly enough that it is a        
likeness of no bird known to            

ornithology4 ,it is enough for our      
present purpose to say that in no       
particular does it bear any conceivable 
resemblance to the toucan4  ,of the     
second supposed toucan 7,ancient        
,monuments1 p4 #bfj1 ,fig4 #afi7 here   
illustrated1 the authors remark3        
,the engraving very well represents the 
original1 which is      delicately      
carved from a compact limestone4 ,it is 
supposed to      represent the toucan--a
 tropical bird1 and one not known to    
exist      anywhere within the limits of
 the ,united ,states4 ,if we are not    
mistaken in supposing it to represent   
this bird1 the remarks made             
respecting the sculptures of the manitus
 will here apply with      double force4
  ,illustration3 ,fig4 #ae4--,toucan of 
,squier and ,davis4  ,this sculpture is 
fortunately easy of identification4     
,among several ornithologists1 whose    
opinions have been asked1 not a         
dissenting voice has been heard4 ,the   
bird is a common crow or a raven1 and is

 one of the most happily executed of the
 avian sculptures1 the nasal feathers1  
which are plainly shown1 and the general
 contour of the bill being truly        
corvine4 ,it would probably be          
practically impossible to distinguish a 
rude sculpture of a raven from that of a
 crow1 owing to the general resemblance 
of the two4 ,the proportions of the head
 here shown are1 however1 those of the  
crow1 and the question of habitat       
renders it vastly more likely that the  
crow was known to the ,mound-,builders  
of ,ohio than that the raven was4 ,what 
possible suggestion of a toucan is to be
 found in this head it is not easy to   
see4  ,turning to page #bff 7,fig4 #agh7
 another and very different bird is held
 up to view as a toucan4  ,illustration3
 ,fig4 #af4--,toucan of ,squier and     
,davis4  ,squier and ,davis remark of   
this sculpture3       ,from the size of 
its bill1 and the circumstance of its   
having two      toes before and two     
behind1 the bird intended to be         

represented      would seem to belong to
 the zygodactylous order--probably the  
toucan4 ,the toucan 7,ramphastos of     
,lin47 is found on this continent       
only in the tropical countries of ,south
 ,america4  ,in contradiction to the    
terms of their description their own    
figure1 as will be noticed1 shows three 
toes in front and two behind1 or a total
 of five1 which makes the bird an       
ornithological curiosity1 indeed4       
,however1 as the cast in the            
,smithsonian collection shows three toes
 in front and one behind1 it is probably
 safe to assume that the additional hind
 toe was the result of mistake on the   
part of the modern artist1 so that four 
may be accepted as its proper quota4    
,the mistake then chargeable to the     
above authors is that in their          
discussion they transferred one toe from
 before and added it behind4 ,in this   
curious way came their zygodactylous    
bird4  ,this same pipe is figured by    
,stevens in ,flint ,chips1 p4 #dbf1     

,fig4 #e4 ,the wood-cut is a poor one1  
and exhibits certain important changes1 
which1 on the assumption that the pipe  
is at all well illustrated by the cast  
in the ,smithsonian1 reflects more      
credit on the artist's knowledge of what
 a toucan ought to look like than on his
 fidelity as an exact copyist4  ,the    
etchings across the upper surface of the
 base of the pipe1 miscalled fingers1   
are not only made to assume a hand-like 
appearance but the accommodating fancy  
of the artist has provided a roundish   
object in the palm1 which the bird      
appears about to pick up4 ,the bill1    
too1 has been altered1 having become    
rounded and decidedly toucan-like1 while
 the tail has undergone abbreviation1   
also in the direction of likeness to the
 toucan4 ,in short1 much that was       
lacking in the aboriginal artist's      
conception towards the likeness of a    
toucan has in this figure been supplied 
by his modern interpreter4              
,illustration3 ,fig4 #ag4--,toucan as   

figured by ,stevens4  ,this cut         
corresponds with the cast in the        
,smithsonian collection1 in having the  
normal number of toes1 four--three in   
front and one behind4 ,this departure   
from the arrangement common to the      
toucan family1 which is zygodactylous1  
seems to have escaped ,stevens's        
attention4 ,at least he volunteers no   
explanation of the discrepancy1 being1  
doubtless1 influenced in his acceptance 
of the bird as a toucan by the          
statements of others4  ,wilson follows  
the cut of ,squier and ,davis1 and      
represents the bird with five toes1     
stating that the toucan is imitated with
 considerable accuracy4 ,he adds3 ,the  
most important deviation from           
correctness of detail is1 it has three  
toes instead of two before1 although the
 two are correctly represented behind4  
,how ,wilson is guided to the belief    
that the sculptor's mistake consists in 
adding a toe in front instead of one    
behind it would be difficult to explain1

 unless1 indeed1 he felt the necessity  
of having a toucan at all hazards4 ,the 
truth is that1 the question of toes     
aside1 this carving in no wise resembles
 a toucan4 ,its long legs and           
proportionally long toes1 coupled with  
the rather long neck and bill1 indicate 
with certainty a wading bird of some    
kind1 and in default of anything that   
comes nearer1 an ibis may be suggested2 
though if intended by the sculptor as an
 ibis1 candor compels the statement that
 the ibis family has no reason to feel  
complimented4  ,the identification of   
this sculpture as a toucan was doubtless
 due less to any resemblance it bears to
 that bird than to another circumstance 
connected with it of a rather fanciful  
nature4 ,as in the case of several      
others1 the bird is represented in the  
act of feeding1 upon what it would be   
difficult to say4 ,certainly the four   
etchings across the base of the pipe    
bear little resemblance to the human    
hand4 ,had they been intended for       

fingers they would hardly have been made
 to extend over the side of the pipe1 an
 impossible position unless the back of 
the hand be uppermost4 ,yet it was      
probably just this fancied resemblance  
to a hand1 out of which the bird is     
supposed to be feeding1 that led to the 
suggestion of the toucan4 ,for1 say     
,squier and ,davis1 p4 #bff3       ,in  
those districts 7i4e41 ,guiana and      
,brazil7 the toucan was      almost the 
only bird the aborigines attempted to   
domesticate4 ,the      fact that it is  
represented receiving its food from a   
human hand      would1 under these      
circumstances1 favor the conclusion that
 the      sculpture was designed to     
represent the toucan4  ,rather a slender
 thread one would think upon which to   
hang a theory so far-reaching in its    
consequences4  ,nor was it necessary to 
go as far as ,guiana and ,brazil to find
 instances of the domestication of wild 
fowl by aborigines4 ,among our ,north   
,american ,indians it was a by no means 

uncommon practice to capture and tame   
birds4 ,roger ,williams1 for instance1  
speaks of the ,new ,england ,indians    
keeping tame hawks about their dwellings
 to keep the little birds from their    
corn4 7,williams's ,key into the        
,language of ,america1 #afdc1 p4 #bbj47 
,the ,zunis and other ,pueblo ,indians  
keep1 and have kept from time           
immemorial1 great numbers of eagles and 
hawks of every obtainable species1 as   
also turkies1 for the sake of the       
feathers4 ,the ,dakotas and other       
western tribes keep eagles for the same 
purpose4 ,they also tame crows1 which   
are fed from the hand1 as well as hawks 
and magpies4 ,a case nearer in point is 
a reference in ,lawson to the ,congarees
 of ,north ,carolina4 ,he says1 they are
 kind and affable1 and tame the cranes  
and storks of their savannas4 7,lawson's
 ,history of ,carolina1 p4 #ea47 ,and   
again 7p4 #ec7 these ,congarees have an 
abundance of storks and cranes in their 
savannas4 ,they take them before they   

can fly1 and breed them as tame and     
familiar as a dung-hill fowl4 ,they had 
a tame crane at one of these cabins that
 was scarcely less than six feet in     
height4  ,so that even if the bird1 as  
has been assumed by many writers1 be    
feeding from a human hand1 of which fact
 there is no sufficient evidence1 we are
 by no means on this account driven to  
the conclusion1 as appears to have been 
believed1 that the sculpture could be no
 other than a toucan4  ,as in the ,cass 
of the manatee1 it has been thought well
 to introduce a correct drawing of a    
toucan in order to afford opportunity   
for comparison of this very striking    
bird with its supposed representations  
from the mounds4 ,for this purpose the  
most northern representative of the     
family has been selected as the one     
nearest the home of the                 
,mound-,builders4  ,the particulars     
wherein it differs from the supposed    
toucans are so many and striking that it
 will be superfluous to dwell upon them 

in detail4 ,they will be obvious at a   
glance4  ,thus we have seen that the    
sculptured representation of three      
birds1 totally dissimilar from each     
other1 and not only not resembling the  
toucan1 but conveying no conceivable    
hint of that very marked bird1 formed   
the basis of ,squier and ,davis'        
speculations as to the presence of the  
toucan in the mounds4 ,these three      
supposed toucans have been copied and   
recopied by later authors1 who have     
accepted in full the remarks and        
deductions accompanying them4  ,at least
 two exceptions to the last statement   
may be made4 ,it is refreshing to find  
that two writers1 although apparently   
accepting the other identifications by  
,squier and ,davis1 have drawn the line 
at the toucan4 ,thus ,rau1 in ,the      
,archaeological ,collections of the     
,united ,states ,national ,museum1 pp4  
#df-dg1 states that--       ,the figure 
7neither of the writers mentioned appear
 to have been      aware that there was 

more than one supposed toucan7 is not of
      sufficient distinctness to        
identify the original that was before   
the artist's mind1 and it would not be  
safe1 therefore1 to make      this      
specimen the subject of far-reaching    
speculations4  ,illustration3 ,fig4     
#ah4--,keel-,billed ,toucan of ,southern
 ,mexico 7,rhamphastos carinatus47      
,further on he adds1 ,leaving aside the 
more than doubtful toucan1 the imitated 
animals belong1 without exception1 to   
the ,north ,american fauna4 ,barber1    
also1 after taking exception to the idea
 that the supposed toucan carving       
represents a zygodactylous bird1 adds in
 his article on ,mound ,pipes1 pp4      
#bhj-bha 7,american ,naturalist for     
,april1 #ahhb71 ,it may be asserted with
 a considerable degree of confidence    
that no representative of an exclusively
 exotic fauna figured in the pipe       
sculptures of the ,mound-,builders4     
,,paroquet4  ,the presence of a carving 
of the paroquet in one of the ,ohio     

mounds has been deemed remarkable on    
account of the supposed extreme southern
 habitat of that bird4 ,thus ,squier and
 ,davis remark 7,ancient ,monuments of  
the ,mississippi ,valley1 p4 #bfe1 ,fig4
 #agb71 ,among the most spirited and    
delicately executed specimens of ancient
 art found in the mounds1 is that of the
 paroquet here presented4  ,the paroquet
 is essentially a southern bird1 and    
though common along the ,gulf1 is of    
rare occurrence above the ,ohio ,river4 
,the above language would seem to admit 
of no doubt as to the fact of the       
decided resemblance borne by this       
carving to the paroquet4 ,yet the bird  
thus positively identified as a         
paroquet1 upon which identification     
have1 without doubt1 been based all the 
conclusions that have been published    
concerning the presence of that bird    
among the mound sculptures is not even  
distantly related to the parrot family4 
,it has the bill of a raptorial bird1 as
 shown by the distinct tooth1 and this1 

in connection with the well defined     
cere1 not present in the paroquet1 and  
the open nostril1 concealed by feathers 
in the paroquet1 places its identity as 
one of the hawk tribe beyond doubt4     
,illustration3 ,fig4 #ai4--,paroquet of 
,squier and ,davis4  ,in fact it closely
 resembles several of the carvings      
figured and identified as hawks by the  
above authors1 as comparison with       
figures given below will show4 ,the     
hawks always appear to have occupied a  
prominent place in the interest of our  
,north ,american ,indians1 especially in
 association with totemic ideas1 and the
 number of sculptured representations of
 hawks among the mound relics would     
argue for them a similar position in the
 minds of the ,mound-,builders4  ,a word
 should be added as to the distribution 
of the paroquet4 ,the statement by      
,squier and ,davis that the paroquet is 
found as far north as the ,ohio ,river  
would of itself afford an easy          
explanation of the manner in which the  

,mound-,builders might have become      
acquainted with the bird1 could their   
acquaintance with it be proved4 ,but the
 above authors appear to have had a very
 incorrect idea of the region inhabited 
by this once widely spread species4 ,the
 present distribution1 it is true1 is   
decidedly southern1 it being almost     
wholly confined to limited areas within 
the ,gulf ,states4 ,formerly1 however1  
it ranged much farther north1 and there 
is positive evidence that it occurred in
 ,new ,york1 ,pennsylvania1 ,ohio1      
,illinois1 ,indiana1 ,michigan1 and     
,nebraska4 ,up to #ahce it was extremely
 abundant in ,southern ,illinois1 and1  
as ,mr4 ,ridgway informs the writer1 was
 found there as late as #ahfa4          
,specimens are in the ,smithsonian      
collection from points as far north as  
,chicago and ,michigan4 ,over much of   
the region indicated the exact nature of
 its occurrence is not understood1      
whether resident or a more or less      
casual visitor4 ,but as it is known that

 it was found as far north as           
,pennsylvania in winter it may once have
 ranged even farther north than the line
 just indicated1 and have been found in 
,southern ,wisconsin and ,minnesota4    
,occurring1 as it certainly did1 over   
most of the mound region1 the peculiar  
habits of the paroquet1 especially its  
vociferous cries and manner of          
associating in large flocks1 must1 it   
would seem1 have made it known to the   
,mound-,builders4 ,indeed from the ease 
with which it is trapped and killed1 it 
very probably formed an article of food 
among them as it has among the whites   
and recent tribes of ,indians4          
,probable1 however1 as it is that the   
,mound-,builders were well acquainted   
with the paroquet1 there appears to be  
no evidence of the fact among their     
works of art4     ,,knowledge ,,of      
,,tropical ,,animals ,,by               
,,mound-,,builders4   ,the supposed     
evidence of a knowledge of tropical     
animals possessed by the ancient        

dwellers of the ,mississippi ,valley    
which has just been discussed seems to  
have powerfully impressed ,wilson1 and  
in his ,prehistoric ,man he devotes much
 space to the consideration of the      
matter4 ,his ideas on the subject will  
be understood from the following        
quotation3      ,by the fidelity of the 
representations of so great a variety of
     subjects copied from animal life1  
they furnish evidence of a     knowledge
 in the ,mississippi ,valley1 of the    
fauna peculiar not only     to southern1
 but to tropical latitudes1 extending   
beyond the ,isthmus     into the        
southern continent2 and suggestive      
either of arts derived     from a       
foreign source1 and of an intimate      
intercourse maintained     with the     
central regions where the civilization  
of ancient ,america     attained its    
highest development3 or else indicative 
of migration1     and an intrusion into 
the northern continent1 of the race of  
the     ancient graves of ,central and  

,southern ,america1 bringing with them  
the arts of the tropics1 and models     
derived from the animals     familiar to
 their fathers in the parent-land of the
 race4 7,vol4 #a1     p4 #dge47  ,the   
author subsequently shows his preference
 for the theory of a migration of the   
race of the ,mound-,builders from       
southern regions as being on the whole  
more probable4 ,wilson does not1        
however1 content himself with the       
evidence afforded by the birds and      
animals which have just been discussed1 
but strengthens his argument by         
extending the list of supposed exotic   
forms known to the ,mound-,builders in  
the following words 7vol4 #a1 p4 #dgg73 
,but we must account by other means for 
the discovery of accurate      miniature
 representations of it 7i4e4 the        
,manatee7 among the      sculptures of  
the far-inland mounds of ,ohio2 and the 
same remark      equally applies to the 
jaguar or panther1 the cougar1 the      
toucan2      to the buzzard possibly1   

and also to the paroquet4 ,the majority 
of      these animals are not known in  
the ,united ,states2 some of them are   
totally unknown to within any part of   
the ,north ,american      continent4    
7,italics of the present writer47       
,others may be classed      with the    
paroquet1 which1 though essentially a   
southern bird1 and      common in the   
,gulf1 does occasionally make its       
appearance inland2      and might       
possibly become known to the untraveled 
,mound-,builder      among the fauna of 
his own northern home4  ,the information
 contained in the above paragraph       
relative to the range of some of the    
animals mentioned may well be viewed    
with surprise by naturalists4 ,to begin 
with1 the jaguar or panther1 by which   
vernacular names the ,felis onca is     
presumably meant1 is not only found in  
,northern ,mexico1 but extends its range
 into the ,united ,states and appears as
 far north as the ,red ,river of        
,louisiana4 7,see ,baird's ,mammals of  

,north ,america47 ,hence a sculptured   
representation of this animal in the    
mounds1 although by no means likely1 is 
not entirely out of the question4       
,however1 among the several carvings of 
the cat family that have been exhumed   
from the mounds and made known there is 
not one which can1 with even a fair     
degree of probability1 be identified as 
this species in distinction from the    
next animal named1 the cougar4  ,the    
cougar1 to which several of the carvings
 can with but little doubt be referred1 
was at the time of the discovery of     
,america and is to-day1 where not       
exterminated by man1 a common resident  
of the whole of ,north ,america1        
including of course the whole of the    
,mississippi ,valley4 ,it would be      
surprising1 therefore1 if an animal so  
striking1 and one that has figured so   
largely in ,indian totemism and         
folk-lore1 should not have received     
attention at the hands of the           
,mound-,builders4  ,nothing resembling  

the toucan1 as has been seen1 has been  
found in the mounds2 but1 as stated1    
this bird is found in ,southern ,mexico4
  ,the buzzard is to-day common over    
almost the entire ,united ,states1 and  
is especially common throughout most of 
the ,mississippi ,valley4  ,as to the   
paroquet1 there seems to be no evidence 
in the way of carvings to show that it  
was known to the ,mound-,builders1      
although that such was the case is      
rendered highly probable from the fact  
that it lived at their very doors4  ,it 
therefore appears that of the five      
animals of which ,wilson states the     
majority are not known in the ,united   
,states1 and some of them are totally   
unknown1 within any part of the ,north  
,american continent1 every one is found 
in ,north ,america1 and all but one     
within the limits of the ,united        
,states1 while three were common        
residents of the ,mississippi ,valley4  
,as a further illustration of the       
inaccurate zoological knowledge to which

 may be ascribed no small share of the  
theories advanced respecting the origin 
of the ,mound-,builders1 the following  
illustration may be taken from ,wilson1 
this author1 however1 being but one of  
the many who are equally in fault4 ,the 
error is in regard to the habitat of the
 conch shell1 ,pyrula 7now ,busycon7    
perversa4  ,after exposing the blunder  
of ,mr4 ,john ,delafield1 who describes 
this shell as unknown on the coasts of  
,north and ,south ,america1 but as      
abundant on the coast of ,hindostan1    
from which supposed fact1 coupled with  
its presence in the mounds1 he assumes a
 migration on the part of the           
,mound-,builders from ,southern ,asia   
7,prehistoric ,man1 vol4 #a1 p4 #bai1   
ibid41 p4 #bgb71 ,wilson states4        
,no question can exist as to the        
tropical and marine origin of the       
large shells exhumed not only in the    
inland regions of ,kentucky and         
,tennessee1 but in the northern         
peninsula lying between the ,ontario    

and ,huron ,lakes1 or on the still      
remoter shores and islands of           
,georgian ,bay1 at a distance of upwards
 of three thousand miles from      the  
coast of ,yucatan1 on the mainland1 the 
nearest point where the      ,pyrula    
perversa is found in its native         
locality4 7,italics of the      present 
writer47  ,now the plain facts on the   
authority of ,mr4 ,dall are that the    
,busycon 7,pyrula7 perversa is not only 
found in the ,united ,states1 but       
extends along the coast up to           
,charleston1 ,s4,c41 with rare specimens
 as far north as ,beaufort1 ,n4,c4      
,moreover1 archaeologists have usually  
confounded this species with the        
,busycon carica1 which is of common     
occurrence in the mounds4 ,the latter is
 found as far north as ,cape ,cod4 ,the 
facts cited put a very different        
complexion on the presence of these     
shells in the mounds4   ,,other ,,errors
 ,,of ,,identification4  ,illustration3 
,fig4 #bj4--,owl1 from ,squier and      

,davis4  ,the erroneous identification  
of the manatee1 the toucan1 and of      
several other animals having been       
pointed out1 it may be well to glance at
 certain others of the sculptured animal
 forms1 the identification of which by  
,squier and ,davis has passed without   
dispute1 with a view to determining how 
far the accuracy of these authors in    
this particular line is to be trusted1  
and how successful they have been in    
interpreting the much lauded fidelity to
 nature of the mound sculptures4  ,fig4 
#bj 7,squier and ,davis1 ,ancient       
,monuments of the ,mississippi ,valley1 
p4 #bbe1 ,fig4 #abc7 represents a tube  
of steatite1 upon which is carved1 as is
 stated1 in high relief this figure of  
an owl1 attached with its back to the   
tube4 ,this carving1 the authors state1 
is remarkably bold and spirited1 and    
represents the bird with its claws      
contracted and drawn up1 and head and   
beak elevated as if in an attitude of   
defense and defiance4  ,illustration3   

,fig4 #ba4--;,grouse1 from ,squier and  
,davis4  ,this carving differs markedly 
from any of the avian sculptures1 and   
probably was not intended to represent a
 bird at all4 ,the absence of feather   
etchings and the peculiar shape of the  
wing are especially noticeable4 ,it more
 nearly resembles1 if it can be said to 
resemble anything1 a bat1 with the      
features very much distorted4  ,fig4 #ba
 7,fig4 #agj from ,squier and ,davis7 it
 is stated1 will readily be recognized  
as intended to represent the head of the
 grouse4  ,the cere and plainly notched 
bill of this carving clearly indicate a 
hawk1 of what species it would be       
impossible to say4  ,illustration3 ,fig4
 #bb4--,turkey ,buzzard1 from ,squier   
and ,davis4  ,fig4 #bb 7,fig4 #aga from 
,squier and ,davis7 was1 it is said1    
probably intended to represent a turkey 
buzzard4 ,if so1 the suggestion is a    
very vague one4 ,the notches cut in the 
mandibles1 as in the case of the carving
 of the wood duck 7,fig4 #afh1 ,ancient 

,monuments71 are perhaps meant for      
serrations1 of which there is no trace  
in the bill of the buzzard4 ,as         
suggested by ,mr4 ,ridgway1 it is       
perhaps nearer the cormorant than       
anything else1 although not executed    
with the detail necessary for its       
satisfactory recognition4               
,illustration3 ,fig4                    
#bc4--;,cherry-bird1 from ,squier and   
,davis4  ,fig4 #bc 7,fig4 #agc from     
,squier and ,davis7 it is claimed much  
resembles the tufted cherry-bird1 which 
is by no means the case1 as the bill    
bears witness4 ,it may pass1 however1 as
 a badly executed likeness of the tufted
 cardinal grosbeak or red-bird4 ,the    
same is true of ,figs4 #agd and #age1   
which are also said to be cherry-birds4 
,fig4 #bd 7,fig4 #agi from ,squier and  
,davis71 of which ,squier and ,davis say
 it is uncertain what bird it is        
intended to represent1 is an            
unmistakable likeness of a woodpecker1  
and is one of the best executed of the  

series of bird carvings4 ,to undertake  
to name the species would be the merest 
guess-work4  ,illustration3 ,fig4       
#bd4--,woodpecker1 from ,squier and     
,davis4  ,the heads shown in ,fig4 #be1 
which the authors assert was probably   
intended to represent the eagle and are 
far superior in point of finish1 spirit1
 and truthfulness to any miniature      
carving1 ancient or modern1 which have  
fallen under the notice of the authors1 
cannot be identified further than to say
 they are raptorial birds of some sort1 
probably not eagles but hawks4  ,fig4   
#bf 7,fig4 #ahj from ,squier and        
,davis71 according to the authors1      
certainly represents the rattlesnake4   
,it certainly represents a snake1 but   
there is no hint in it of the           
peculiarities of the rattlesnake2 which1
 indeed1 it would be difficult to       
portray in a rude carving like this     
without showing the rattle4 ,this is    
done in another carving1 ,fig4 #aif4    
,illustration3 ,fig4 #be4--;,eagle1 from

 ,squier and ,davis4  ,the extraordinary
 terms of praise bestowed by the authors
 on the heads of the hawks just alluded 
to1 as well as on many other of the     
sculptured animals1 suggest the question
 whether the illustrations given in the 
,ancient ,monuments afford any adequate 
idea of the beauty and artistic         
excellence asserted for the carvings1   
and so whether they are fair objects for
 criticism4 ,while of course for the    
purpose of this paper an examination of 
the originals would have been           
preferable1 yet1 in as much as the      
,smithsonian ,institution contains casts
 which attest the general accuracy of   
the drawings given1 and1 as the         
illustrations by other authors afford no
 higher idea of their artistic          
execution1 it would seem that any       
criticism applicable to these           
illustrations must in the main apply to 
the originals4 ,with reference to the   
casts in the ,smithsonian collection it 
may be stated that ,dr4 ,rau1 who had   

abundant opportunity to acquaint himself
 with the originals while in the        
possession of ,mr4 ,davis1 informs the  
writer that they accurately represent   
the carvings1 and for purposes of study 
are practically as good as the          
originals4 ,the latter are1 as is well  
known1 in the ,blackmore ,museum1       
,england4  ,illustration3 ,fig4         
#bf4--,rattlesnake1 from ,squier and    
,davis4  ,without going into further    
detail the matter may be summed up as   
follows3 ,of forty-five of the animal   
carvings1 including a few of clay1 which
 are figured in ,squier and ,davis's    
work1 eleven are left unnamed by the    
authors as not being recognizable2      
nineteen are identified correctly1 in a 
general way1 as of a wolf1 bear1 heron1 
toad1 c42 sixteen are demonstrably      
wrongly identified1 leaving but five of 
which the species is correctly given4   
,from this showing it appears that      
either the above authors' zoological    
knowledge was faulty in the extreme1 or 

else the mound sculptors' ability in    
animal carving has been amazingly       
overestimated4 ,however just the first  
supposition may be1 the last is         
certainly true4     ,,skill ,,in        
,,sculpture ,,of ,,mound-,,builders4    
,in considering the degree of skill     
exhibited by the mound sculptors in     
their delineation of the features and   
characteristics of animals1 it is of the
 utmost importance to note that the     
carvings of birds and animals which have
 evoked the most extravagant expressions
 of praise as to the exactness with     
which nature has been copied are        
uniformly those which1 owing to the     
possession of some unusual or salient   
characteristic1 are exceedingly easy of 
imitation4 ,the stout body and broad    
flat tail of the beaver1 the            
characteristic physiognomy of the wild  
cat and panther1 so utterly dissimilar  
to that of other animals1 the tufted    
head and fish-eating habits of the      
heron1 the raptorial bill and claws of  

the hawk1 the rattle of the rattlesnake1
 are all features which the rudest skill
 could scarcely fail to portray4  ,it is
 by the delineation of these marked and 
unmistakable features1 and not the      
sculptor's power to express the         
subtleties of animal characteristics1   
that enables the identity of a          
comparatively small number of the       
carvings to be established4 ,it is true 
that the contrary has often been        
asserted1 and that almost everything has
 been claimed for the carvings1 in the  
way of artistic execution1 that would be
 claimed for the best products of modern
 skill4 ,squier and ,davis in fact go so
 far in their admiration 7,ancient      
,monuments1 p4 #bgb71 as to say that1 so
 far as fidelity is concerned1 many of  
them 7i4e41 animal carvings7 deserve to 
rank by the side of the best efforts of 
the artist naturalists in our own day--a
 statement which is simply preposterous4
 ,so far1 in point of fact1 is this from
 being true that an examination of the  

series of animal sculptures cannot fail 
to convince any one1 who is even        
tolerably well acquainted with our      
common birds and animals1 that it is    
simply impossible to recognize specific 
features in the great majority of them4 
,they were either not intended to be    
copies of particular species1 or1 if so 
intended1 the artist's skill was wholly 
inadequate for his purpose4  ,some      
remarks by ,dr4 ,coues1 quoted in an    
article by ,e4 ,a4 ,barber on ,mound    
,pipes in the ,american ,naturalist for 
,april1 #ahhb1 are so apropos to the    
subject that they are here reprinted4   
,the paragraph is in response to a      
request to identify a bird pipe3        
,as is so frequently the probable case  
in such matters1 ,i am      inclined to 
think the sculptor had no particular    
bird in mind in      executing his rude 
carving4 ,it is not necessary1 or       
indeed1      permissible1 to suppose    
that particular species were intended to
 be      represented4 ,not unfrequently 

the likeness of some marked bird is     
so good as to be unmistakable1 but the  
reverse is oftener the case2      and in
 the present instance ,i can make no    
more of the carving than      you have  
done1 excepting that if any particular  
species may have      been in the       
carver's mind1 his execution does not   
suffice for its      determination4     
,the views entertained by ,dr4 ,coues as
 to the resemblances of the carvings    
will thus be seen to coincide with those
 expressed above4 ,another prominent    
ornithologist1 ,mr4 ,ridgway1 has also  
given verbal expression to precisely    
similar views4  ,so far1 therefore1 as  
the carvings themselves afford evidence 
to the naturalist1 their general        
likeness entirely accords with the      
supposition that they were not intended 
to be copies of particular species4     
,many of the specimens are in fact just 
about what might be expected when a     
workman1 with crude ideas of art        
expression1 sat down with intent to     

carve out a bird1 for instance1 without 
the desire1 even if possessed of the    
requisite degree of skill1 to impress   
upon the stone the details necessary to 
make it the likeness of a particular    
species4   ,,generalization ,,not       
,,designed4  ,while the resemblances of 
most of the carvings1 as indicated      
above1 must be admitted to be of a      
general and not of a special character1 
it does not follow that their general   
type was the result of design4  ,such an
 explanation of their general character 
and resemblances is1 indeed1 entirely   
inconsistent with certain well-known    
facts regarding the mental operations of
 primitive or semi-civilized man4 ,to   
the mind of primitive man abstract      
conceptions of things1 while doubtless  
not entirely wanting1 are at best but   
vaguely defined4 ,the experience of     
numerous investigators attests how      
difficult it is1 for instance1 to obtain
 from a savage the name of a class of   
animals in distinction from a particular

 species of that class4 ,thus it is easy
 to obtain the names of the several     
kinds of bears known to a savage1 but   
his mind obstinately refuses to         
entertain the idea of a bear genus or   
class4 ,it is doubtless true that this  
difficulty is in no small part due      
simply to the confusion arising from the
 fact that the savage's method of       
classification is different from that of
 his questioner4 ,for1 although         
primitive man actually does classify all
 concrete things into groups1 the       
classification is of a very crude sort1 
and has for a basis a very different    
train of ideas from those upon which    
modern science is established--a fact   
which many investigators are prone to   
overlook4 ,still there seems to be good 
ground for believing that the conception
 of a bird1 for instance1 in the        
abstract as distinct from some          
particular kind or species would never  
be entertained by a people no further   
advanced in culture than their various  

relics prove the ,mound-,builders to    
have been4 ,in his carving1 therefore1  
of a hawk1 a bear1 a heron1 or a fish1  
it seems highly probable that the mound 
sculptor had in mind a distinct species1
 as we understand the term4 ,hence his  
failure to reproduce specific features  
in a recognizable way is to be          
attributed to the fact that his skill   
was inadequate to transfer the exact    
image present in his mind1 and not to   
his intention to carve out a general    
representative of the avian class4  ,to 
carry the imitative idea farther and to 
suggest1 as has been done by writers1   
that the carver of the ,mound-,building 
epoch sat down to his work with the     
animal or a model of it before him1 as  
does the accurate zoological artist of  
our own day1 is wholly insupported by   
evidence derivable from the carvings    
themselves1 and is of too imaginative a 
character to be entertained4 ,by the    
above remarks as to the lack of specific
 resemblances in the animal carvings it 

is not intended to deny that some of    
them have been executed with a          
considerable degree of skill and spirit 
as well as1 within certain limitations  
heretofore expressed1 fidelity to       
nature4 ,taking them as a whole it can  
perhaps be asserted that they have been 
carved with a skill considerably above  
the general average of attainments in   
art of our ,indian tribes1 but not above
 the best efforts of individual tribes4 
,that they will by no means bear the    
indiscriminate praise they have received
 as works of art and as exact imitations
 of nature may be asserted with all     
confidence4   ,,probable ,,totemic      
,,origin4  ,with reference to the origin
 of these animal sculptures many writers
 appear inclined to the view that they  
are purely decorative and ornamental in 
character1 i4e41 that they are attempts 
at close imitations of nature in the    
sense demanded by high art1 and that    
they owe their origin to the artistic   
instinct alone4 ,but there is much in   

their general appearance that suggests  
they may have been totemic in origin1   
and that whatever of ornamental         
character they may possess is of        
secondary importance4  ,with1 perhaps1  
no exceptions1 the ,north ,american     
tribes practiced totemism in one or     
other of its various forms1 and1        
although it by no means follows that all
 the carving and etchings of birds or   
animals by these tribes are totems1 yet 
it is undoubtedly true that the totemic 
idea is traceable in no small majority  
of their artistic representations1      
whatever their form4 ,as rather favoring
 the idea of the totemic meaning of the 
carvings1 it may be pointed out that a  
considerable number of the recognizable 
birds and animals are precisely the ones
 known to have been used as totems by   
many tribes of ,indians4 ,the hawk1     
heron1 woodpecker1 crow1 beaver1 otter1 
wild cat1 squirrel1 rattlesnake1 and    
others1 have all figured largely in the 
totemic divisions of our ,north         

,american ,indians4 ,their sacred nature
 too would enable us to understand how  
naturally pipes would be selected as the
 medium for totemic representations4 ,it
 is also known to be a custom among     
,indian tribes for individuals to carve 
out or etch their totems upon weapons   
and implements of the more important and
 highly prized class1 and a variety of  
ideas1 superstitious and other1 are     
associated with the usage2 as1 for      
instance1 in the case of weapons of war 
or implements of the chase1 to impart   
greater efficiency to them4 ,the etching
 would also serve as a mark of          
ownership1 especially where property of 
certain kinds was regarded as belonging 
to the tribe or gens and not to the     
individual4 ,often1 indeed1 in the      
latter case the individual used the     
totem of his gens instead of the symbol 
or mark for his own name4  ,as a theory 
to account for the number and character 
of these animal carvings the totemic    
theory is perhaps as tenable as any4    

,the origin and significance of the     
carvings may1 however1 involve many     
different and distinct ideas4 ,it is    
certain that it is a common practice of 
,indians to endeavor to perpetuate the  
image of any strange bird or beast1     
especially when seen away from home1 and
 in order that it may be shown to his   
friends4 ,as what are deemed the        
marvellous features of the animal are   
almost always greatly exaggerated1 it is
 in this way that many of the           
astonishing productions noticeable in   
savage art have originated4 ,among the  
,esquimaux this habit is very prominent1
 and many individuals can show etchings 
or carvings of birds and animals        
exhibiting the most extraordinary       
characters1 which they stoutly aver and 
doubtless have come to believe they have
 actually seen4     ,,animal ,,mounds4  
,as having1 for the purposes of the     
present paper1 a close connection with  
the animal carvings1 another class of   
remains left by the                     

,mound-,builders--the animal mounds--may
 next engage attention4 ,as in the case 
of the carvings1 the resemblance of     
particular mounds to the animals whose  
names they bear is a matter of          
considerable interest on account of the 
theories to which they have given rise4 
,the conclusion reached with respect to 
the carvings that it is safe to rely    
upon their identification only in the   
case of animals possessed of striking   
and unique characters or presenting     
unusual forms and proportions1 applies  
with far greater force to the animal    
mounds4 ,perhaps in none of the latter  
can specific resemblances be found      
sufficient for their precise            
determination4 ,so general are the      
resemblances of one class that it has   
been an open question among             
archaeologists whether they were        
intended to represent the bodies and    
arms of men1 or the bodies and wings of 
birds4 ,other forms are sufficiently    
defined to admit of the statement that  

they are doubtless intended for animals1
 but without enabling so much as a      
reasonable guess to be made as to the   
kind4 ,of others again it can be        
asserted that whatever significance they
 may have had to the race that built    
them1 to the uninstructed eyes of modern
 investigators they are meaningless and 
are as likely to have been intended for 
inanimate as animate objects4  ,there   
are many examples among the animal      
shapes that possess peculiarities       
affording no hint of animals living or  
extinct1 but which are strongly         
suggestive of the play of mythologic    
fancy or of conventional methods of     
representing totemic ideas4 ,as in the  
case of the animal carvings1 the latter 
suggestion is perhaps the one that best 
corresponds with their general          
character4   ,,the ,,elephant ,,mound4  
,by far the most important of the animal
 mounds1 from the nature of the         
deductions it has given rise to1 is the 
so-called ,elephant ,mound1 of          

,wisconsin4  ,by its discovery and      
description the interesting question was
 raised as to the contemporaneousness of
 the ,mound-,builder and the mastodon1  
an interest which is likely to be       
further enhanced by the more recent     
bringing to light in ,iowa of two pipes 
carved in the semblance of the same     
animal1 as well as a tablet showing two 
figures asserted by some archaeologists 
to have been intended for the same      
animal4  ,although both the mound and   
pipes have been referred in turn to the 
peccary1 the tapir1 and the armadillo1  
it is safe to exclude these animals from
 consideration4 ,it is indeed perhaps   
more likely that the ancient inhabitants
 of the ,upper ,mississippi ,valley were
 autoptically acquainted with the       
mastodon than with either of the        
above-named animals1 owing to their     
southern habitat4  ,referring to the    
possibility that the mastodon was known 
to the ,mound-,builders1 it is          
impossible to fix with any degree of    

precision the time of its disappearance 
from among living animals4 ,mastodon    
bones have been exhumed from peat beds  
in this country at a depth which1 so far
 as is proved by the rate of deposition1
 implies that the animal may have been  
alive within five hundred years4 ,the   
extinction of the mastodon1 geologically
 speaking1 was certainly a very recent  
event1 and1 as an antiquity of upwards  
of a thousand or more years has been    
assigned to some of the mounds1 it is   
entirely within the possibilities that  
this animal was living at the time these
 were thrown up1 granting even that the 
time of their erection has been         
overestimated4 ,it must be admitted1    
therefore1 that there are no inherent   
absurdities in the belief that the      
,mound-,builders were acquainted with   
the mastodon4 ,granting that they may   
have been acquainted with the animal1   
the question arises1 what proof is there
 that they actually were8 ,the answer to
 this question made by certain          

archaeologists is--the ,elephant ,mound1
 of ,wisconsin4  ,illustration3 ,fig4   
#bg4--,the ,elephant ,mound1 ,grant     
,county1 ,wisconsin4  ,recalling the    
fact that among the animal mounds many  
nondescript shapes occur which cannot be
 identified at all1 and as many others  
which have been called after the animals
 they appear to most nearly resemble1   
carry out their peculiarities only in   
the most vague and general way1 it is a 
little difficult to understand the      
confidence with which this effigy has   
been asserted to represent the mastodon2
 for the mound 7a copy of which as      
figured in the ,smithsonian ,annual     
,report for #ahgb is here given7 can by 
no means be said to closely represent   
the shape1 proportions1 and             
peculiarities of the animal whose name  
it bears4 ,in fact1 it is true of this1 
as of so many other of the effigies1 the
 identity of which must be guessed1 that
 the resemblance is of the most vague   
and general kind1 the figure simulating 

the elephant no more closely than any   
one of a score or more mounds in        
,wisconsin1 except in one important     
particular1 viz1 the head has a         
prolongation or snout-like appendage1   
which is its chief1 in fact its only    
real1 elephantine character4 ,if this   
appendage is too long for the snout of  
any other known animal1 it is certainly 
too short for the trunk of a mastodon4  
,still1 so far as this one character    
goes1 it is doubtless true that it is   
more suggestive of the mastodon than of 
any other animal4 ,no hint is afforded  
of tusks1 ears1 or tail1 and were it not
 for the snout the animal effigy might  
readily be called a bear1 it nearly     
resembling in its general make-up many  
of the so-called bear mounds figured by 
,squier and ,davis from this same county
 in ,wisconsin4 ,the latter1 too1 are of
 the same gigantic size and proportions4
  ,if it can safely be assumed that an  
animal effigy without tusks1 without    
ears1 and without a tail was really     

intended to represent a mastodon1 it    
would be stretching imagination but a   
step farther to call all the            
large-bodied1 heavy-limbed animal       
effigies hitherto named bears1          
mastodons1 attributing the lack of      
trunks1 as well as ears1 tusks1 and     
tails1 to inattention to slight details 
on the part of the mound artist4  ,it is
 true that one bit of good1 positive    
proof is worth many of a negative       
character4 ,but here the one positive   
resemblance1 the trunk of the supposed  
elephant1 falls far short of an exact   
imitation1 and1 as the other features   
necessary to a good likeness of a       
mastodon are wholly wanting1 is not this
 an instance where the negative proof   
should be held sufficient to largely    
outweigh the positive8  ,in connection  
with this question the fact should not  
be overlooked that1 among the great     
number of animal effigies in ,wisconsin 
and elsewhere1 this is the only one     
which even thus remotely suggests the   

mastodon4 ,as the ,mound ,builders were 
in the habit of repeating the same      
animal form again and again1 not only in
 the same but in widely distant         
localities1 why1 if this was really     
intended for a mastodon1 are there no   
others like it8 ,it cannot be doubted   
that the size and extraordinary features
 of this monster among mammals would    
have prevented it being overlooked by   
the ,mound-,builders when so many       
animals of inferior interest engaged    
their attention4 ,the fact that the     
mound is a nondescript1 with no others  
resembling it1 certainly lessens the    
probability that it was an intentional  
representation of the mastodon1 and     
increases the likelihood that its slight
 resemblance was accidental2 a slide of 
earth from the head1 for instance1 might
 readily be interpreted by the modern   
artist as a trunk1 and thus the head be 
made to assume a shape in his sketch not
 intended by the original maker4 ,as is 
well known1 no task is more difficult   

for the artist than to transfer to paper
 an exact copy of such a subject4       
,especially hard is it for the artist to
 avoid unconsciously magnifying or      
toning down peculiarities according to  
his own conceptions of what was         
originally intended1 when1 as is often  
the case1 time and the elements have    
combined to render shape and outlines   
obscure4 ,archaeologic treatises are    
full of warning lessons of this kind1   
and the interpretations given to ancient
 works of art by the erring pencil of   
the modern artist are responsible for   
many an ingenious theory which the      
original would never have suggested4 ,it
 may well be that future investigations 
will show that the one peculiarity which
 distinguishes the so-called ,elephant  
,mound from its fellows is really       
susceptible of a much more commonplace  
explanation than has hitherto been given
 it4  ,even if such explanation be not  
forthcoming1 the ,elephant ,mound of    
,wisconsin should be supplemented by a  

very considerable amount of             
corroborative testimony before being    
accepted as proof positive of the       
acquaintance of the ,mound-,builders    
with the mastodon4  ,as regards likeness
 to the mastodon1 the pipes before      
alluded to1 copies of which as given in 
,barber's articles on ,mound ,pipes in  
,american ,naturalist for ,april1 #ahhb1
 ,figs4 #ag and #ah1 are here presented1
 while not entirely above criticism1 are
 much nearer what they have been        
supposed to be than the mound just      
mentioned4  ,illustration3 ,fig4        
#bh4--;,elephant ,pipe1 ,iowa           
,illustration3 ,fig4 #bi4--;,elephant   
,pipe1 ,iowa4  ,of the two1 figure #bi  
is certainly the most natural in        
appearance1 but1 if the pipes are       
intentional imitations of any animal1   
neither can be regarded as having been  
intended for any other than the         
mastodon4 ,yet1 as pointed out by       
,barber and others1 it is certainly     
surprising that if intended for         

mastodons no attempt was made to        
indicate the tusks1 which with the trunk
 constitute the most marked external    
peculiarities of all the elephant kind4 
,the tusks1 too1 as affording that most 
important product in primitive          
industries1 ivory1 would naturally be   
the one peculiarity of all others which 
the ancient artist would have relied    
upon to fix the identity of the animal4 
,it is also remarkable that in neither  
of these pipes is the tail indicated1   
although a glance at the other          
sculptures will show that in the        
full-length figures this member is      
invariably shown4 ,in respect to these  
omissions1 the pipes from ,iowa are     
strikingly suggestive of the ,elephant  
,mound of ,wisconsin1 with the          
peculiarities of which the sculptor1    
whether ancient or modern1 might almost 
be supposed to have been acquainted4 ,it
 certainly must be looked upon as a     
curious coincidence that carvings found 
at a point so remote from the ,elephant 

,mound1 and presumably the work of other
 hands1 should so closely copy the      
imperfections of that mound4  ,in       
considering the evidence afforded by    
these pipes of a knowledge of the       
mastodon on the part of the             
,mound-,builders1 it should be borne in 
mind that their authenticity as         
specimens of the ,mound-,builders' art  
has been called seriously in question4  
,possibly the fact that the same person 
was instrumental in bringing to light   
both the pipes has had largely to do    
with the suspicion1 especially when it  
was remembered that although explorers  
have been remarkably active in the same 
region1 it has fallen to the good       
fortune of no one else to find anything 
conveying the most distant suggestion of
 the mastodon4 ,as the manner of        
discovery of such relics always forms an
 important part of their history1 the   
following account of the pipes as       
communicated to ,mr4 ,barber by ,mr4 ,w4
 ,h4 ,pratt1 president of the ,davenport

 ,academy 7,american ,naturalist for    
,april1 #ahhb1 pp4 #bge1 #bgf71 is here 
subjoined3       ,the first elephant    
pipe1 which we obtained 7,fig4 #ag7 a   
little more      than a year ago1 was   
found some six years before by an       
illiterate      ,german farmer named    
,peter ,mare1 while planting corn on a  
farm in      the mound region1 ,louisa  
,county1 ,iowa4 ,he did not care whether
 it      was elephant or kangaroo2 to   
him it was a curious ',indian stone1'   
and nothing more1 and he kept it and    
smoked it4 ,in #ahgh he removed      to 
,kansas1 and when he left he gave the   
pipe to his brother-in-law1      a farm 
laborer1 who also smoked it4 ,mr4 ,gass 
happened to hear of      it1 as he is   
always inquiring about such things1     
hunted up the man      and borrowed the 
pipe to take photographs and casts from 
it4 ,he      could not buy it4 ,the man 
said his brother-in-law gave it to him  
and as it was a curious thing--he wanted
 to keep it4 ,we were1      however1    

unfortunate1 or fortunate1 enough to    
break it2 that      spoiled it for him  
and that was his chance to make some    
money out      of it4 ,he could have    
claimed any amount1 and we would1 as in 
duty      bound1 have raised it for him1
 but he was satisfied with three or     
four dollars4 ,during the first week in 
,april1 this month1 ,rev4 ,ad4          
,blumer1 another ,german ,lutheran      
minister1 now of ,genesee1 ,illinois1   
having formerly resided in ,louisa      
,county1 went down there in      company
 with ,mr4 ,gass to open a few mounds1  
,mr4 ,blumer being well      acquainted 
there4 ,they carefully explored ten of  
them1 and found      nothing but ashes  
and decayed bones in any1 except one4   
,in that one      was a layer of red1   
hard-burned clay1 about five feet across
 and      thirteen inches in thickness  
at the center1 which rested upon a bed  
of ashes one foot in depth in the       
middle1 the ashes resting upon      the 
natural undisturbed clay4 ,in the ashes1

 near the bottom of the      layer1 they
 found a part of a broken carved stone  
pipe1      representing some bird2 a    
very small beautifully formed copper    
'axe1' and this last elephant pipe      
7,fig4 #ah74 ,this pipe was first       
discovered by ,mr4 ,blumer1 and by him1 
at our earnest solicitation1      turned
 over to the ,academy4  ,it will be seen
 from the above that the same gentleman 
was instrumental in bringing to light   
the two specimens constituting the      
present supply of elephant pipes4  ,the 
remarkable archaeologic instinct which  
has guided the finder of these pipes has
 led him to even more important         
discoveries4 ,by the aid of his divining
 rod he has succeeded in unearthing some
 of the most remarkable inscribed       
tablets which have thus far rewarded the
 diligent search of the mound explorer4 
,it is not necessary to speak in detail 
of these here1 or of the various        
theories to which they have given rise  
and support1 including that of phonetic 

writing1 further than to call attention 
to the fact that by a curious           
coincidence one of the tablets contains1
 among a number of familiar animals1    
figures which suggest in a rude way the 
mastodon again1 which animal indeed some
 archaeologists have confidently        
asserted them to be4 ,the resemblance   
they bear to that animal is1 however1 by
 no means as close as exhibited by the  
pipe carvings2 they are therefore not   
reproduced here4 ,both figures differ   
from the pipes in having tails2 both    
lack trunks1 and also tusks4            
,archaeologists must certainly deem it  
unfortunate that outside of the         
,wisconsin mound the only evidence of   
the co-existence of the ,mound-,builder 
and the mastodon should reach the       
scientific world through the agency of  
one individual4 ,so derived1 each       
succeeding carving of the mastodon1 be  
it more or less accurate1 instead of    
being accepted by archaeologists as     
cumulative evidence tending to establish

 the genuineness of the sculptured      
testimony showing that the              
,mound-,builder and mastodon were       
coeval1 will be viewed with ever        
increasing suspicion4  ,this part of the
 subject should not be concluded without
 allusion to a certain class of         
evidence1 which1 although of a negative 
sort1 must be accorded very great weight
 in considering this much vexed         
question4 ,it may be asked why if the   
,mound-,builders and the mastodon were  
contemporaneous1 have no traces of the  
ivory tusks ever been exhumed from the  
mounds8 ,no material is so perfectly    
adapted for the purposes of carving1 an 
art to which we have seen the           
,mound-,builders were much addicted1 as 
ivory1 both from its beauty and the ease
 with which it is worked1 to say nothing
 of the other manifold uses to which it 
is put1 both by primitive and civilized 
man4 ,the mastodon affords an abundant  
supply of this highly prized substance1 
not a particle of which has ever been   

exhumed from the mounds either in the   
shape of implements or carving4 ,yet the
 exceedingly close texture of ivory     
enables it to successfully resist the   
destroying influences of time for very  
long periods--very long indeed as       
compared with certain articles which    
commonly reward the search of the mound 
explorer4  ,among the articles of a     
perishable nature that have been exhumed
 from the mounds are large numbers of   
shell ornaments1 which are by no means  
very durable1 as well as the perforated 
teeth of various animals2 sections of   
deers' horns have also been found1 as   
well as ornaments made of the claws of  
animals1 a still more perishable        
material4 ,the list also includes the   
bones of the muskrat and turtle1 as of  
other animals1 not only in their natural
 shape1 but carved into the form of     
implements of small size1 as awls1 etc4 
,human bones1 too1 in abundance1 have   
been exhumed in a sufficiently well     
preserved state to afford a basis for   

various theories and speculations4  ,but
 of the mastodon1 with which these dead 
,mound-,builders are supposed to have   
been acquainted1 not a palpable trace   
remains4 ,the tale of its existence is  
told by a single mound in ,wisconsin1   
which the most ardent supporter of the  
mastodon theory must acknowledge to be  
far from a facsimile1 and two carvings  
and an inscribed tablet1 the three      
latter the finds of a single explorer4  
,bearing in mind the many attempts at   
archaeological frauds that recent years 
have brought to light1 archaeologists   
have a right to demand that objects     
which afford a basis for such important 
deductions as the coeval life of the    
,mound-,builder and the mastodon1 should
 be above the slightest suspicion not   
only in respect to their resemblances1  
but as regards the circumstances of     
discovery4 ,if they are not above       
suspicion1 the science of archaeology   
can better afford to wait for further   
and more certain evidence than to commit

 itself to theories which may prove     
stumbling-blocks to truth until that    
indefinite time when future             
investigations shall show their illusory
 nature4   ,,the ,,alligator ,,mound4   
,although of much less importance than  
the mastodon1 a word may be added as to 
the so-called alligator mound1 more     
especially because the alligator1 owing 
to its southern habitat1 is not likely  
to have been known to the               
,mound-,builders of ,ohio4 ,that it may 
have been known to them either through  
travel or hearsay is of course possible4
 ,a copy of the mound from the ,ancient 
,monuments is subjoined4  ,the alligator
 mound was described under this name for
 no other reason than because it was    
known in the vicinity as such1 this     
designation having been adopted by      
,squier and ,davis1 as they frankly say1
 for want of a better1 adding although  
the figure bears as close a resemblance 
to the lizard as any other reptile4     
7,ancient ,monuments1 p4 #ii47  ,in     

truth it bears a superficial likeness to
 almost any long-tailed animal which has
 the power of curling its tail--which1  
the alligator has not--as1 for instance1
 the opossum4 ,it is1 however1 the      
merest guess-work to attempt to confine 
its resemblances to any particular      
animal4 ,nevertheless recent writers    
have described this as the alligator    
mound without suggesting a word of doubt
 as to its want of positive resemblance 
to that saurian4  ,illustration3 ,fig4  
#cj4--;,alligator ,mound4     ,,human   
,,sculptures4   ,the conclusion reached 
in the foregoing pages that the animal  
sculptures are not exact and faithful   
copies from nature1 but are imitations  
of a general rather than of a special   
character1 such as comport better with  
the state of art as developed among     
certain of the ,indian tribes than among
 a people that has achieved any notable 
advance in culture is important not only
 in its bearing on the questions        
previously noticed in this paper1 but in

 its relation to another and highly     
interesting class of sculptures4  ,if a 
large proportion of the animal carvings 
are so lacking in artistic accuracy as  
to make it possible to identify         
positively only the few possessing the  
most strongly marked characters1 how    
much faith is to be placed in the       
ability of the ,mound sculptor to fix in
 stone the features and expressions of  
the human countenance1 infinitely more  
difficult subject for portrayal as this 
confessedly is8  ,that ,wilson regards  
the human sculptures as affording a     
basis for sound ethnological deductions 
is evident from the following paragraph1
 taken from ,prehistoric ,man1 vol4 #a1 
p4 #dfa3       ,alike from the minute   
accuracy of many of the sculptures of   
animals1 hereafter referred to1 and from
 the correspondence to well      known  
features of the modern ,red ,indian     
suggested by some of the      human     
heads1 these miniature portraits may be 
assumed1 with every      probability1 to

 include faithful representations of the
 predominant      physical features of  
the ancient people by whom they were    
executed4  ,short1 too1 accepting the   
popular idea that they are faithful and 
recognizable copies from nature1 remarks
 in the ,north ,americans of ,antiquity1
 p4 #ih1 ibid41 p4 #ahg3       ,there is
 no reason for believing that the people
 who wrought stone      and clay into   
perfect effigies of animals have not    
left us      sculptures of their own    
faces in the images exhumed from the    
mounds2 and again1 ,the perfection of   
the animal representations      furnish 
us the assurance that their sculptures  
of the human face      were equally true
 to nature4  ,squier and ,davis also    
appear to have had no doubt whatever of 
the capabilities of the ,mound-,builders
 in the direction of human portraiture4 
,they are not only able to discern in   
the sculptured heads niceties of        
expression sufficient for the           
discrimination of the sexes1 but1 as    

well1 to enable them to point out such  
as are undoubtedly ancient and the work 
of the ,mound-,builders1 and those of a 
more recent origin1 the product of the  
present ,indians4 ,their main criterion 
of origin is1 apparently1 that all of   
fine execution and finish were the work 
of the ,mound sculptors1 and those      
roughly done and immeasurably inferior  
to the relics of the mounds1 to use     
their own words1 were the handicraft of 
the tribes found in the country by the  
whites4 ,conclusions so derived1 it may 
strike some1 are open to criticism1     
however well suited they may be to meet 
the necessities of preconceived         
theories4  ,after discussing in detail  
the methods of arranging the hair1 the  
paint lines1 and tattooing1 the features
 of the human carvings1 ,squier and     
,davis arrive at the conclusion that the
 physiological characteristics of these 
heads do not differ essentially from    
those of the great ,american family4    
,of later writers some agree with       

,squier and ,davis in believing the type
 illustrated by these heads to be       
,indian2 others agree rather with       
,wilson1 who dissents from the view     
expressed by ,squier and ,davis1 and1 in
 conformity with the predilections      
visible throughout his work1 is of the  
opinion that the ,mound-,builders were  
of a distinct type from the ,north      
,american ,indian1 and that the majority
 of sculptured human heads hitherto     
recovered from their ancient            
depositories do not reproduce the       
,indian features4 7,wilson's            
,prehistoric ,man1 vol4 #a1 p4 #dfi47   
,again1 ,wilson says that the diversity 
of type found among the human sculptures
 proves that the ,mound-,builders were  
familiar with the ,american ,indian     
type1 but nothing more4--,ibid41 p4     
#dfi4  ,the varying type of physiognomy 
represented by these heads would better 
indicate that their resemblances are the
 result of accident rather than of      
intention4 ,for the same reason that the

 sculptured animals of the same species 
display great differences of form and   
expression1 according to the varying    
skill of the sculptors or the unexacting
 demands made by a rude condition of    
art1 so the diversified character of the
 human faces is to be ascribed1 not to  
the successful perpetuation in stone by 
a master hand of individual features1   
but simply to a want of skill on the    
part of the sculptor4 ,the evidence     
afforded by the animal sculptures 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  
it2 the latter is altogether improbable4
 ,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 sculptures4 ,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 physical features1   
and to embody exact racial characters   
falls to the ground1 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 portraiture4 ,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 misleading4 
,copies of several of the heads as they 
appear in ,ancient ,monuments 7pp4      
#bdd-bdg7 are here subjoined to show the
 various types of physiognomy           
illustrated by them3  ,illustration3    
,fig4 #ca4 ,fig4 #cb4 ,fig4 #cc4 ,human 
,carvings from the ,mounds4             
,illustration3 ,fig4 #cd4 ,fig4 #ce4    
,human ,carvings from the ,mounds4      
,could the many other stone and         
terra-cotta sculptures of the human face
 which have been ascribed to the        

,mound-,builders be reproduced here it  
would be seen that the specimens        
illustrated above are among the very    
best4 ,in not a few1 traces of the      
grotesque are distinctly visible1 and   
there is little in their appearance to  
suggest that they had a different origin
 or contain a deeper meaning than       
similar productions found among present 
,indians4 ,as each of the many carvings 
differ more or less from every other1 it
 will at once be perceived that the     
advocates of different theories can     
readily find in the series abundant     
testimony in support of any and all     
assumptions they may choose to advance4 
,,indian ,,and ,,mound-,,builders' ,,art
 ,,compared4   ,turning from special    
illustrations of the artistic skill of  
the ,mound-,builders1 brief attention   
may be paid to their art in its more    
general features1 and as compared with  
art as found among our ,indian tribes4  
,among some of the latter the artistic  
instinct1 while deriving its            

characteristic features1 as among the   
,mound-,builders1 from animated nature1 
exhibits a decided tendency towards the 
production of conventional forms1 and   
often finds expression in creations of  
the most grotesque and imaginative      
character4  ,while this is true of some 
tribes it is by no means true of all1   
nor is it true of all the art products  
of even those tribes most given to      
conventional art4 ,but even were it true
 in its broadest terms1 it is more than 
doubtful if the significance of the fact
 has not been greatly overestimated4    
,some authors indeed seem to discern in 
the introduction of the grotesque       
element and the substitution of         
conventional designs of animals for a   
more natural portrayal1 a difference    
sufficient to mark1 not distinct eras of
 art culture merely1 but different races
 with very different modes of art       
expression4  ,to trace the origin of art
 among primitive peoples1 and to note   
the successive steps by which decorative

 art grew from its probable origin in   
the readily recognized adornments of    
nature and in the mere accidents of     
manufacture1 as they have been termed1  
would be not only interesting1 but      
highly instructive4 ,such a study should
 afford us a clew to the origin and     
significance of conventional as         
contrasted with imitative art4  ,the    
natural process of the evolution of art 
would seem to be from the purely        
imitative to the conventional1 the      
tendency being for artistic expression  
of a partially or wholly imaginative    
character to supplant or supplement the 
imitative form only in obedience to     
external influences1 especially those of
 a religious or superstitious kind4 ,in 
this connection it is interesting to    
note that even among tribes of the      
,northwest1 the ,haidahs1 for instance1 
whose carvings or paintings of birds and
 animals are almost invariably treated  
in a manner so highly conventional or   
are so distorted and caricatured as to  

be nearly or quite unrecognizable1 it is
 still some natural object1 as a well   
known bird or animal1 that underlies and
 gives primary shape to the design4     
,however highly conventionalized or     
grotesque in appearance such artistic   
productions may be1 evidences of an     
underlying imitative design may always  
be detected2 proof1 seemingly1 that the 
conventional is a later stage of art    
superimposed upon the more natural by   
the requirements of mythologic fancies4 
,as it is with any particular example of
 savage artistic fancy1 so is it with   
the art of certain tribes as a whole4   
,nor does it seem possible that the     
growth of the religions or mythologic   
sentiment has so far preceded or        
outgrown the development of art as to   
have had from the first a dominating    
influence over it1 and that the art of  
such tribes as most strongly show its   
effect has never had what may be termed 
its natural phase of development1 but   
has reached the conventional stage      

without having passed through the       
intermediate imitative era4  ,it is more
 natural to suppose1 so far1 at least as
 the ,north ,american ,indians are      
concerned1 that the road to             
conventionalism has always led through  
imitation4  ,the argument1 therefore1   
that because a tribe or people is less  
given than another to conventional      
methods of art1 it therefore must       
necessarily be in a higher stage of     
culture1 is entitled to much less weight
 than it has sometimes received4 ,squier
 and ,davis1 for instance1 referring to 
the ,mound-,builders1 state that many of
 these 7i4e41 sculptures7 exhibit a     
close observance of nature such as we   
could only expect to find among a people
 considerably advanced in the minor     
arts1 and to which the elaborate and    
laborious1 but usually clumsy and       
ungraceful1 not to say unmeaning1       
productions of the savage can claim but 
a slight approach4  ,it is clearly not  
the intention of the above authors to   

claim an entire absence of the grotesque
 method of treatment in specimens of the
 ,mound-,builder's art1 since elsewhere 
they call attention to what appears to  
be a caricature of the human face1 as   
well as to the disproportionate size of 
the heads of many of the animal         
carvings4 ,not only are the heads of    
many of the carvings of disproportionate
 size1 which1 in instances has the      
effect of actual distortion1 but in not 
a few of the sculptures nature1 instead 
of being copied1 has been trifled with  
and birds and animals show peculiarities
 unknown to science and which go far to 
prove that the ,mound-,builders1 however
 else endowed1 possessed lively         
imaginations and no little creative     
fancy4  ,decided traces of              
conventionalism also are to be found in 
many of the animal carvings1 and the    
method of indicating the wings and      
feathers of birds1 the scales of the    
serpent1 c41 are almost precisely what  
is to be observed in modern ,indian     

productions of a similar kind4  ,few and
 faint as are these tendencies towards  
caricaturing and conventionalizing as   
compared with what may be noted in the  
artistic productions of the ,haidahs1   
,chinooks1 and other tribes of the      
,northwest1 they are yet sufficient to  
show that in these particulars no hard  
and fast line can be drawn between the  
art of the ,indian and of the           
,mound-,builder4  ,as showing how narrow
 is the line that separates the         
conventional and imitative methods of   
art1 it is of interest to note that     
among the ,esquimaux the two stages of  
art are found flourishing side by side4 
,in their curious masks1 carved into    
forms the most quaint and grotesque1 and
 in many of their carvings of animals1  
partaking as they do of a half human1   
half animal character1 we have abundant 
evidence of what authors have           
characterized as savage taste in        
sculpture4 ,but the same tribes execute 
carvings of animals1 as seals1          

sea-lions1 whales1 bears1 c41 which1    
though generally wanting in the careful 
modeling necessary to constitute fine   
sculpture1 and for absolute specific    
resemblance1 are generally recognizable 
likenesses4 ,now and then indeed is to  
be found a carving which is noteworthy  
for spirited execution and faithful     
modeling4 ,the best of them are far     
superior to the best executed carvings  
from the mounds1 and1 are much worthier 
objects for comparison with modern      
artistic work4  ,as deducible from the  
above premises it may be observed that1 
while the state of art among primitive  
peoples as exemplified by their artistic
 productions may be a useful index in   
determining their relative position in  
the scale of progress1 unless used with 
caution and in connection with other and
 more reliable standards of measurement 
it will lead to very erroneous          
conclusions4 ,if1 for instance1 skill   
and ingenuity in the art of carving and 
etching be accepted as affording a      

proper idea of a people's progress in   
general culture1 the ,esquimaux of      
,alaska should be placed in the front   
rank of ,american tribes1 a position    
needless to say which cannot be accorded
 them from more general considerations4 
,on the other hand1 while the evidences 
of artistic skill left by the ,iroquoian
 tribes are in no way comparable to the 
work produced by the ,esquimaux1 yet the
 former have usually been assigned a    
very advanced position as compared with 
other ,american tribes4   ,,general     
,,conclusions4  ,the more important     
conclusions reached in the foregoing    
paper may be briefly summed up as       
follows3  ,that of the carvings from the
 mounds which can be identified there   
are no representations of birds or      
animals not indigenous to the           
,mississippi ,valley4  ,and consequently
 that the theories of origin for the    
,mound ,builders suggested by the       
presence in the mounds of carvings of   
supposed foreign animals are without    

basis4  ,second4 ,that a large majority 
of the carvings1 instead of being1 as   
assumed1 exact likenesses from nature1  
possess in reality only the most general
 resemblance to the birds and animals of
 the region which they were doubtless   
intended to represent4  ,third4 ,that   
there is no reason for believing that   
the masks and sculptures of human faces 
are more correct likenesses than are the
 animal carvings4  ,fourth4 ,that the   
state of art-culture reached by the     
,mound ,builders1 as illustrated by     
their carvings1 has been greatly        
overestimated4     ,,index4     ,animal 
carvings from mounds of the ,mississippi
 ,valley1                       by ,h4  
,w4 ,henshaw1 #aag   ,bat1 ,carving of  
the1 #add   ,birds domesticated by      
,indians1 #ach   ,buzzard1 ,range of    
the1 #adb   ,carvings1 ,animal1 from    
mounds1 #aag   ,cherry ,bird1 ,carving  
of the1 #ade   ,cincinnati tablet1 #acc 
,conch shell1 ,range of the1 #adc       
,coues1 ,dr4 ,e41 on bird carvings from 

mounds1 #adh   ,cougar1 ,range of the1  
#adb   ,crow1 ,carvings of the1 #acf    
,cushing1 ,f4 ,h41 on ,zuni fetiches1   
#ade   ,dall1 ,w4 ,h41 on the conch     
shell 7,pyrula71 #adc   ,eagle1         
,carvings of the1 #adf   ,elephant      
mound1 #aeb      pipes1 #aee   ,grouce1 
,carving of the1 #add   ,henshaw1 ,h4   
,w41 ,animal ,carvings from ,mounds of  
the                      ,miss4 ,valley1
 #aag   ,human sculptures1 #afj         
,jaguar1 ,range of the1 #adb   ,manatee1
 ,sculptures of the1 #abe               
,mound-builders' art vs4 ,indian art1   
#afd      carvings1 #aag      skill in  
sculpture1 #adh      methods in art1    
#adi   ,mounds1 ,animal1 #aeb   ,otter1 
,carvings of the1 #abe   ,owl1 ,carvings
 of the1 #add   ,panther1 ,range of the1
 #adb   ,paroquet1 ,carving of the1 #aci
      1 ,range of the1 #adj   ,pipe     
sculpture of the mounds builders1 #abd  
,pipes1 ,elephant1 #aee1aeg   ,pyrula   
perversa1 ,range of the1 #adc           
,rattlesnake1 ,carving of the1 #adg     

,skill in sculpture of the ,mounds      
,builders1 #adh   ,squirrel1 ,ground1   
,carving of the1 #abh   ,totemism1 #aej 
,tropical animals known to ,mound       
,builders1 #adb   ,turkey ,buzzard1     
,carving of the1 #ade   ,white1 ,c4 ,a41
 ,unios identified by1 #abi   ,wilson on
 the conch shell 7,pyrula71 #adc        
carvings of tropical animals1 #adb      
,woodpecker1 ,carvings of the1 #adf