SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION----BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY. 

ANIMAL CARVINGS

FROM

MOUNDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY. 

BY

HENRY W. HENSHAW. 

CONTENTS. 

Introductory 123 Manatee 125 Toucan 135 Paroquet 139Knowledge of tropical animals by Mound-Builders 142 Other errors of identification 144Skill in sculpture of the Mound-Builders 148 Generalization not designed 149 Probable totemic origin 150Animal mounds 152 The "Elephant" mound 152 The "Alligator" mound 158Human sculptures 160Indian and mound-builders' art compared 164 General conclusions 166

ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Fig. 4. --Otter from Squier and Davis 128 5. --Otter from Squier and Davis 128 6. --Otter from Rau. Manatee from Stevens 129 7. --Manatee from Stevens 129 8. --Lamantin or Sea-Cow from Squier and Davis 130 9. --Lamantin or Sea-Cow from Squier 130 10. --Manatee (_Manatus Americanus_, Cuv. ) 132 11. --Manatee (_Manatus Americanus_, Cuv. ) 132 12. --Cincinnati Tablet--back. From Squier and Davis 133 13. --Cincinnati Tablet--back. From Short 134 14. --Toucan from Squier and Davis 135 15. --Toucan from Squier and Davis 135 16. --Toucan from Squier and Davis 136 17. --Toucan as figured by Stevens 137 18. --Keel-billed Toucan of Southern Mexico 139 19. --Paroquet from Squier and Davis 140 20. --Owl from Squier and Davis 144 21. --Grouse from Squier and Davis 144 22. --Turkey-buzzard from Squier and Davis 145 23. --Cherry-bird 145 24. --Woodpecker 146 25. --Eagle from Squier and Davis 146 26. --Rattlesnake from Squier and Davis 147 27. --Big Elephant Mound in Grant County, Wisconsin 153 28. --Elephant Pipe. Iowa 155 29. --Elephant Pipe. Iowa 156 30. --The Alligator Mound near Granville, Ohio 159 31. --Carvings of heads 162 32. --Carvings of heads 162 33. --Carvings of heads 162 34. --Carving of head 163 35. --Carving of head 163

ANIMAL CARVINGS FROM MOUNDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY. 

BY H. W. HENSHAW. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

The considerable degree of decorative and artistic skill attained by theso-called Mound-Builders, as evidenced by many of the relics that havebeen exhumed from the mounds, has not failed to arrest the attention ofarchæologists. Among them, indeed, are found not a few who assert forthe people conveniently designated as above a degree of artistic skillvery far superior to that attained by the present race of Indians asthey have been known to history. In fact, this very skill in artisticdesign, asserted for the Mound-Builders, as indicated by the sculpturesthey have left, forms an important link in the chain of argument uponwhich is based the theory of their difference from and superiority tothe North American Indian. 

Eminent as is much of the authority which thus contends for an artisticability on the part of the Mound-Builders far in advance of theattainments of the present Indian in the same line, the question is oneadmitting of argument; and if some of the best products of artistichandicraft of the present Indians be compared with objects of a similarnature taken from the mounds, it is more than doubtful if the artisticinferiority of the latter-day Indian can be substantiated. Deferring, however, for the present, any comparison between the artistic ability ofthe Mound-Builder and the modern Indian, attention may be turned to aclass of objects from the mounds, notable, indeed, for the skill withwhich they are wrought, but to be considered first in another way andfor another purpose than mere artistic comparison. 

As the term Mound-Builders will recur many times throughout this paper, and as the phrase has been objected to by some archæologists on accountof its indefiniteness, it may be well to state that it is employed herewith its commonly accepted signification, viz: as applied to the peoplewho formerly lived throughout the Mississippi Valley and raised themounds of that region. It should also be clearly understood that by itsuse the writer is not to be considered as committing himself in any wayto the theory that the Mound-Builders were of a different race from theNorth American Indian. 

Among the more interesting objects left by the Mound-Builders, pipesoccupy a prominent place. This is partly due to their number, pipesbeing among the more common articles unearthed by the labors ofexplorers, but more to the fact that in the construction of their pipesthis people exhibited their greatest skill in the way of sculpture. Inthe minds of those who hold that the Mound-Builders were the ancestorsof the present Indians, or, at least, that they were not necessarily ofa different race, the superiority of their pipe sculpture over theirother works of art excites no surprise, since, however prominent a placethe pipe may have held in the affections of the Mound-Builders, it iscertain that it has been an object of no less esteem and reverence amongthe Indians of history. Certainly no one institution, for so it may becalled, was more firmly fixed by long usage among the North AmericanIndians, or more characteristic of them, than the pipe, with all itsvaried uses and significance. 

Perhaps the most characteristic artistic feature displayed in the pipesculpture of the Mound-Builders, as has been well pointed out by Wilson, in his Prehistoric Man, is the tendency exhibited toward the imitationof natural objects, especially birds and animals, a remark, it may besaid in passing, which applies with almost equal truth to the artproductions generally of the present Indians throughout the length andbreadth of North America. As some of these sculptured animals from themounds have excited much interest in the minds of archæologists, andhave been made the basis of much speculation, their examination andproper identification becomes a matter of considerable importance. Itwill therefore be the main purpose of the present paper to examinecritically the evidence offered in behalf of the identification of themore important of them. If it shall prove, as is believed to be thecase, that serious mistakes of identification have been made, attentionwill be called to these and the manner pointed out in which certaintheories have naturally enough resulted from the premises thuserroneously established. 

It may be premised that the writer undertook the examination of thecarvings with no theories of his own to propose in place of thosehitherto advanced. In fact, their critical examination may almost besaid to have been the result of accident. Having made the birds of theUnited States his study for several years, the writer glanced over thebird carvings in the most cursory manner, being curious to see whatspecies were represented. The inaccurate identification of some of theseby the authors of "The Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley" ledto the examination of the series as a whole, and subsequently to thediscussion they had received at the hands of various authors. Thecarvings are, therefore, here considered rather from the stand-point ofthe naturalist than the archæologist. Believing that the question firstin importance concerns their actual resemblances, substantially the samekind of critical study is applied to them which they would receive werethey from the hands of a modern zoological artist. Such a course hasobvious disadvantages, since it places the work of men who were in, atbest, but a semi-civilized condition on a much higher plane than otherfacts would seem to justify. It may be urged, as the writer indeedbelieves, that the accuracy sufficient for the specific identificationof these carvings is not to be expected of men in the state of culturethe Mound-Builders are generally supposed to have attained. To whichanswer may be made that it is precisely on the supposition that thecarvings were accurate copies from nature that the theories respectingthem have been promulgated by archæologists. On no other suppositioncould such theories have been advanced. So accurate indeed have theybeen deemed that they have been directly compared with the work ofmodern artists, as will be noticed hereafter. Hence the method hereadopted in their study seems to be not only the best, but the only onelikely to produce definite results. 

If it be found that there are good reasons for pronouncing the carvingsnot to be accurate copies from nature, and of a lower artistic standardthan has been supposed, it will remain for the archæologist to determinehow far their unlikeness to the animals they have been supposed torepresent can be attributed to shortcomings naturally pertaining tobarbaric art. If he choose to assume that they were really intended asimitations, although in many particulars unlike the animals he wishes tobelieve them to represent, and that they are as close copies as can beexpected from sculptors not possessed of skill adequate to carry outtheir rude conceptions, he will practically have abandoned the positiontaken by many prominent archæologists with respect to the moundsculptors' skill, and will be forced to accord them a position on theplane of art not superior to the one occupied by the North AmericanIndians. If it should prove that but a small minority of the carvingscan be specifically identified, owing to inaccuracies and to theirgeneral resemblance, he may indeed go even further and conclude thatthey form a very unsafe basis for deductions that owe their veryexistence to assumed accurate imitation. 

MANATEE. 

In 1848 Squier and Davis published their great work on the Mounds of theMississippi Valley. The skill and zeal with which these gentlemenprosecuted their researches in the field, and the ability and fidelitywhich mark the presentation of their results to the public aresufficiently attested by the fact that this volume has proved alike themine from which subsequent writers have drawn their most importantfacts, and the chief inspiration for the vast amount of work in the samedirection since undertaken. 

On pages 251 and 252 of the above-mentioned work appear figures of ananimal which is there called "Lamantin, Manitus, or Sea Cow, "concerning which animal it is stated that "seven sculpturedrepresentations have been taken from the mounds. " When first discovered, the authors continue, "it was supposed they were monstrous creations offancy; but subsequent investigations and comparison have shown that theyare faithful representations of one of the most singular animalproductions of the world. "

These authors appear to have been the first to note the supposedlikeness of certain of the sculptured forms found in the mounds toanimals living in remote regions. That they were not slow to perceivethe ethnological interest and value of the discovery is shown by thefact that it was immediately adduced by them as affording a clew to thepossible origin of the Mound-Builders. The importance they attached tothe discovery and their interpretation of its significance will beapparent from the following quotation (p. 242):

 Some of these sculptures have a value, so far as ethnological research is concerned, much higher than they can claim as mere works of art. This value is derived from the fact that they faithfully represent animals and birds peculiar to other latitudes, thus establishing a migration, a very extensive intercommunication or a contemporaneous existence of the same race over a vast extent of country. 

The idea thus suggested fell on fruitful ground, and each succeedingwriter who has attempted to show that the Mound-Builders were of a racedifferent from the North American Indian, or had other than anautochthonous origin, has not failed to lay especial stress upon thepresence in the mounds of sculptures of the manatee, as well as of otherstrange beasts and birds, carved evidently by the same hands thatportrayed many of our native fauna. 

Except that the theories based upon the sculptures have by recentwriters been annunciated more positively and given a wider range, theyhave been left almost precisely as set forth by the authors of the"Ancient Monuments, " while absolutely nothing appears to have beenbrought to light since their time in the way of additional sculpturedevidence of the same character. It is indeed a little curious to notethe perfect unanimity with which most writers fall back upon the aboveauthors as at once the source of the data they adduce in support of theseveral theories, and as their final, nay, their only, authority. Nowand then one will be found to dissent from some particular bit ofevidence as announced by Squier and Davis, or to give a somewhatdifferent turn to the conclusions derivable from the testimony offeredby them. But in the main the theories first announced by the authors of"Ancient Monuments, " as the result of their study of the moundsculptures, are those that pass current to-day. Particular attention maybe called to the deep and lasting impression made by the statements ofthese authors as to the great beauty and high standard of excellenceexhibited by the mound sculptures. Since their time writers appear to bewell satisfied to express their own admiration in the terms made use ofby Squier and Davis. One might, indeed, almost suppose that recentwriters have not dared to trust to the evidence afforded by the originalcarvings or their fac-similes, but have preferred to take the word ofthe authors of the "Ancient Monuments" for beauties which were perhapshidden from their own eyes. 

Following the lead of the authors of the "Ancient Monuments, " also, withrespect to theories of origin, these carvings of supposed foreignanimals are offered as affording incontestible evidence that theMound-Builders must have migrated from or have had intercourse, director indirect, with the regions known to harbor these animals. Were itnot, indeed, for the evident artistic similarity between these carvingsof supposed foreign animals and those of common domestic forms--asimilarity which, as Squier and Davis remark, render them"indistinguishable, so far as material and workmanship are concerned, from an entire class of remains found in the mounds"--the presence ofmost of them could readily be accounted for through the agency of trade, the far reaching nature of which, even among the wilder tribes, is wellunderstood. Trade, for instance, in the case of an animal like themanatee, found no more than a thousand miles distant from the pointwhere the sculpture was dug up, would offer a possible if not a probablesolution of the matter. But independently of the fact that thepractically identical character of all the carvings render the theory oftrade quite untenable, the very pertinent question arises, why, if thesesupposed manatee pipes were derived by trade from other regions, havenot similar carvings been found in those regions, as, for instance, inFlorida and the Gulf States, a region of which the archæology is fairlywell known. Primitive man, as is the case with his civilized brother, trades usually out of his abundance; so that not seven, but many timesseven, manatee pipes should be found at the center of trade. As it is, the known home of the manatee has furnished no carvings either of themanatee or of anything suggestive of it. 

The possibility of the manatee having in past times possessed a widerrange than at present seems to have been overlooked. But as a matter offact the probability that the manatee ever ranged, in comparativelymodern times at least, as far north as Ohio without leaving other tracesof its presence than a few sculptured representations at the hands of anancient people is too small to be entertained. 

Nor is the supposition that the Mound-Builders held contemporaneouspossession of the country embraced in the range of the animals whoseeffigies are supposed to have been exhumed from their graves worthy ofserious discussion. If true, it would involve the contemporaneousoccupancy by the Mound-Builders, not only of the Southern United Statesbut of the region stretching into Southern Mexico, and even, accordingto the ideas of some authors, into Central and South America, an areawhich, it is needless to say, no known facts will for a moment justifyus in supposing a people of one blood to have occupiedcontemporaneously. 

Assuming, therefore, that the sculptures in question are the work ofthe Mound-Builders and are not derived from distant parts through theagency of trade, of which there would appear to be little doubt, and, assuming that the sculptures represent the animals they have beensupposed to represent--of which something remains to be said--the theorythat the acquaintance of the Mound-Builders with these animals was madein a region far distant from the one to which they subsequently migratedwould seem to be not unworthy of attention. It is necessary, however, before advancing theories to account for facts to first consider thefacts themselves, and in this case to seek an answer to the question howfar the identification of these carvings of supposed foreign animals isto be trusted. Before noticing in detail the carvings supposed by Squierand Davis to represent the manatee, it will be well to glance at thecarvings of another animal figured by the same authors which, it isbelieved, has a close connection with them. 

[Illustration: Fig. 4. --Otter. From Ancient Monuments. ]

Figure 4 is identified by the authors of the "Ancient Monuments" (Fig. 156) as an otter, and few naturalists will hesitate in pronouncing it tobe a very good likeness of that animal; the short broad ears, broad headand expanded snout, with the short, strong legs, would seem to belongunmistakably to the otter. Added to all these is the indication of itsfish-catching habits. Having thus correctly identified this animal, andwith it before them, it certainly reflects little credit upon thezoological knowledge of the authors and their powers of discriminationto refer the next figure (Ancient Monuments, Fig. 157) to the sameanimal. 

[Illustration: Fig. 5. --Otter of Squier and Davis. ]

Of a totally different shape and physiognomy, if intended as an otter itcertainly implies an amazing want of skill in its author. However it isassuredly not an otter, but is doubtless an unfinished or rudelyexecuted ground squirrel, of which animal it conveys in a general way agood idea, the characteristic attitude of this little rodent, sittingup with paws extended in front, being well displayed. Carvings of smallrodents in similar attitudes are exhibited in Stevens's "Flint Chips, "p. 428, Figs. 61 and 62. Stevens's Fig. 61 evidently represents the sameanimal as Fig. 157 of Squier and Davis, but is a better executedcarving. 

In illustration of the somewhat vague idea entertained by archæologistsas to what the manatee is like, it is of interest to note that thecarving of a second otter with a fish in its mouth has been made to doduty as a manatee, although the latter animal is well known never to eatfish, but, on the contrary, to be strictly herbivorous. Thus Stevensgives figures of two carvings in his "Flint Chips, " p. 429, Figs. 65 and66, calling them manatees, and says: "In one particular, however, thesculptors of the mound-period committed an error. Although the lamantinis strictly herbivorous, feeding chiefly upon subaqueous plants andlittoral herbs, yet upon one of the stone smoking-pipes, Fig. 66, thisanimal is represented with a fish in its mouth. " Mr. Stevens apparentlypreferred to credit the mound sculptor with gross ignorance of thehabits of the manatee, rather than to abate one jot or tittle of theclaim possessed by the carving to be considered a representation of thatanimal. Stevens's fish-catching manatee is the same carving given by Dr. Rau, in the Archæological Collection of the United States NationalMuseum, p. 47, Fig. 180, where it is correctly stated to be an otter. This cut, which can scarcely be distinguished from one given by Stevens(Fig. 66), is here reproduced (Fig. 6), together with the secondsupposed manatee of the latter writer (Fig. 7). 

[Illustration: Fig. 6. --Otter of Rau; Manatee of Stevens. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 7. --Manatee of Stevens. ]

To afford a means of comparison, Fig. 154, from the "Ancient Monuments"of Squier and Davis, is introduced (Fig. 8). The same figure is also tobe found in Wilson's Prehistoric Man, vol. I, p. 476, Fig. 22. Anotherof the supposed lamantins, Fig. 9, is taken from Squier's article in theTransactions of the American Ethnological Society, vol. Ii, p. 188. Abad print of the same wood-cut appears as Fig. 153, p. 251, of the"Ancient Monuments. "

It should be noted that the physiognomy of Fig. 6, above given, althoughunquestionably of an otter, agrees more closely with the severalso-called manatees, which are represented without fishes, than with thefish-bearing otter, first mentioned, Fig. 4. 

Fig. 6 thus serves as a connecting link in the series, uniting theunmistakable otter, with the fish in its mouth, to the more clumsilyexecuted and less readily recognized carvings of the same animal. 

[Illustration: Fig. 8. --Lamantin or sea-cow of Squier and Davis. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 9. --Lamantin or sea-cow of Squier. ]

It was doubtless the general resemblance which the several specimens ofthe otters and the so-called manatees bear to each other that ledStevens astray. They are by no means facsimiles one of the other. On thecontrary, while no two are just alike, the differences are perhaps notgreater than is to be expected when it is considered that they doubtlessembody the conceptions of different artists, whose knowledge of theanimal, as well as whose skill in carving, would naturally differwidely. Recognizing the general likeness, Stevens perhaps felt that whatone was all were. In this, at least, he is probably correct, and thefollowing reasons are deemed sufficient to show that, whether theseveral sculptures figured by one and another author are otters or not, as here maintained, they most assuredly are not manatees. The mostimportant character possessed by the sculptures, which is not found inthe manatee, is an external ear. In this particular they all agree. Now, the manatee has not the slightest trace of a pinna or external ear, asmall orifice, like a slit, representing that organ. To quote theprecise language of Murie in the Proceedings of the London ZoologicalSociety, vol. 8, p. 188: "In the absence of pinna, a small orifice, aline in diameter, into which a probe could be passed, alone representsthe external meatus. " In the dried museum specimen this slit is whollyinvisible, and even in the live or freshly killed animal it is by nomeans readily apparent. Keen observer of natural objects, as savage andbarbaric man certainly is, it is going too far to suppose him capable ofrepresenting an earless animal--earless at least so far as the purposesof sculpture are concerned--with prominent ears. If, then, it can beassumed that these sculptures are to be relied upon as in the slightestdegree imitative, it must be admitted that the presence of ears wouldalone suffice to show that they cannot have been intended to representthe manatee. But the feet shown in each and all of them present equallyunquestionable evidence of their dissimilarity from the manatee. Thisanimal has instead of a short, stout fore leg, terminating in flexiblefingers or paws, as indicated in the several sculptures, a shapelesspaddle-like flipper. The nails with which the flipper terminates arevery small, and if shown at all in carving, which is wholly unlikely, asbeing too insignificant, they would be barely indicated and wouldpresent a very different appearance from the distinctly marked digitscommon to the several sculptures. 

Noticing that one of the carvings has a differently shaped tail from theothers, the authors of the "Ancient Monuments" attempt to reconcile thediscrepancy as follows: "Only one of the sculptures exhibits a flattruncated tail; the others are round. There is however a variety of thelamantin (_Manitus Senigalensis_, Desm. ) which has a round tail, and isdistinguished as the "round-tailed manitus. " (Ancient Monuments, p. 252. ) The suggestion thus thrown out means, if it means anything, thatthe sculpture exhibiting a flat tail is the only one referable to themanatee of Florida and southward, the _M. Americanus_, while those withround tails are to be identified with the so-called "Round-tailedLamantin, " the _M. Senegalensis_, which lives in the rivers ofSenegambia and along the coast of Western Africa. It is to be regrettedthat the above authors did not go further and explain the manner inwhich they suppose the Mound-Builders became acquainted with an animalinhabiting the West African coast. Elastic as has proved to be thethread upon which hangs the migration theory, it would seem to be hardlycapable of bearing the strain required for it to reach from theMississippi Valley to Africa. 

Had the authors been better acquainted with the anatomy of the manateesthe above suggestion would never have been made, since the tails of thetwo forms are, so far as known, almost exactly alike. A rounded tail is, in fact, the first requisite of the genus _Manatus_, to which both themanatees alluded to belong, in distinction from the forked tail of thegenus _Halicore_. 

Whether the tails of the sculptured manatees be round or flat matterslittle, however, since they bear no resemblance to manatee tails, eitherof the round or flat tailed varieties, or, for that matter, to tails ofany sort. In many of the animal carvings the head alone engaged thesculptor's attention, the body and members being omitted entirely, orelse roughly blocked out; as, for instance, in the case of the squirrelgiven above, in which the hind parts are simply rounded off intoconvenient shape, with no attempt at their delineation. Somewhat thesame method was evidently followed in the case of the supposed manatees, only after the pipe cavities had been excavated the block was shaped offin a manner best suited to serve the purpose of a handle. Without, however, attempting to institute farther comparisons, two views of areal manatee are here subjoined, which are fac-similes of Murie'sadmirable photo-lithograph in Trans. London Zoological Society, vol. 8, 1872-'74. A very brief comparison of the supposed manatees, with amodern artistic representation of that animal, will show theirreconcilable differences between them better than any number of pagesof written criticism. 

[Illustration: Fig. 10. --Manatee (_Manatus Americanus_, Cuv. ). Side view. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 11. --Manatee (_Manatus Americanus_, Cuv. ). Front view. ]

There would seem, then, to be no escape from the conclusion that theanimal sculptures which have passed current as manatees do not reallyresemble that animal, which is so extraordinary in all its aspects andso totally unlike any other of the animal creation as to render itsidentification in case it had really served as a subject for sculpture, easy and certain. 

As the several sculptures bear a general likeness to each other andresemble with considerable closeness the otter, the well knownfish-eating proclivities of this animal being shown in at least two ofthem, it seems highly probable that it is the otter that is rudelyportrayed in all these sculptures. 

The otter was a common resident of all the region occupied by theMound-Builders, and must certainly have been well known to them. Moreover, the otter is one of the animals which figures largely in themythology and folk-lore of the natives of America, and has been adoptedin many tribes as their totem. Hence, this animal would seem to be apeculiarly apt subject for embodiment in sculptured form. It mattersvery little, however, whether these sculptures were intended as ottersor not, the main point in the present connection being that they cannothave been intended as manatees. 

Before leaving the subject of the manatee, attention may be called to acurious fact in connection with the Cincinnati Tablet, "of which awood-cut is given in The Ancient Monuments" (p. 275, Fig. 195). If thereverse side as there shown be compared with the same view as presentedby Short in The North Americans of Antiquity, p. 45, or in MacLean'sMound-Builders, p. 107, a remarkable discrepancy between the two will beobserved. 

[Illustration: Fig. 12. --Cincinnati Tablet. (Back. ) From Squireand Davis. ]

In the former, near the top, is indicated what appears to be a shapelessdepression, formless and unmeaning so far as its resemblance to anyspecial object is concerned. The authors remark of this side of thetablet, "The back of the stone has three deep longitudinal grooves, andseveral depressions, evidently caused by rubbing, --probably produced insharpening the instrument used, in the sculpture. " This explanation ofthe depressions would seem to be reasonable, although it has beendisputed, and a "peculiar significance" (Short) attached to this side ofthe tablet. In Short's engraving, while the front side correspondsclosely with the same view given by Squier and Davis, there is a notabledifference observable on the reverse side. For the formless depressionof the Squier and Davis cut not only occupies a somewhat differentposition in relation to the top and sides of the tablet, but, as will beseen by reference to the figure, it assumes a distinct form, having insome mysterious way been metamorphosed into a figure which oddly enoughsuggests the manatee. It does not appear that the attention ofarchæologists has ever been directed to the fact that such a resemblanceexists; nor indeed is the resemblance sufficiently close to justifycalling it a veritable manatee. But with the aid of a littleimagination it may in a rude way suggest that animal, its earless headand the flipper being the most striking, in fact the only, point oflikeness. Conceding that the figure as given by Short affords a rudehint of the manatee, the question is how to account for its presence onthis the latest representation of the tablet which, according to Short, Mr. Guest, its owner, pronounces "the first correct representations ofthe stone. " The cast of this tablet in the Smithsonian Institutionagrees more closely with Short's representation in respect to thedetails mentioned than with that given in the "Ancient Monuments. "Nevertheless, if this cast be accepted as the faithful copy of theoriginal it has been supposed to be, the engraving in Short's volume issubject to criticism. In the cast the outline of the figure, whilebetter defined than Squier and Davis represent it to be, is still veryindefinite, the outline not only being broken into, but being in places, especially toward the head, indistinguishable from the surface of thetablet into which it insensibly grades. In the view as found in Shortthere is none of this irregularity and indefiniteness of outline, thefigure being perfect and standing out clearly as though just from thesculptor's hand. As perhaps on the whole the nearest approach to theform of a manatee appearing on any object claimed to have originated atthe hands of the Mound-Builders, and from the fact that artists haveinterpreted its outline so differently, this figure, given by thelatest commentators on the Cincinnati tablet, is interesting, and hasseemed worthy of mention. As, however, the authenticity of the tabletitself is not above suspicion, but, on the contrary, is believed by manyarchæologists to admit of grave doubts, the subject need not be pursuedfurther here. 

[Illustration: Fig. 13. --Cincinnati Tablet. (Back. ) FromShort. ]

TOUCAN. 

The _a priori_ probability that the toucan was known to theMound-Builders is, of course, much less than that the manatee was, sinceno species of toucan occurs farther north than Southern Mexico. Itsdistant habitat also militates against the idea that the Mound-Builderscould have acquired a knowledge of the bird from intercourse withsouthern tribes, or that they received the supposed toucan pipes by wayof trade. Without discussing the several theories to which the toucanpipes have given rise, let us first examine the evidence offered as tothe presence in the mounds of sculptures of the toucan. 

It is a little perplexing to find at the outset that Squier and Davis, not content with one toucan, have figured three, and these differingfrom each other so widely as to be referable, according to modernornithological ideas, to very distinct orders. 

[Illustration: Fig. 14. --Toucan of Squier and Davis. ]

The first allusion to the toucan in the Monuments of the MississippiValley is found on page 194, where the authors guardedly remark of abird's head in terra cotta (Fig. 79), "It represents the head of a bird, somewhat resembling the toucan, and is executed with much spirit. "

This head is vaguely suggestive of a young eagle, the proportions of thebill of which, until of some age, are considerably distorted. Theposition of the nostrils, however, and the contour of the mandibles, together with the position of the eyes, show clearly enough that it is alikeness of no bird known to ornithology. It is enough for our presentpurpose to say that in no particular does it bear any conceivableresemblance to the toucan. 

Of the second supposed toucan (Ancient Monuments, p. 260, Fig. 169)here illustrated, the authors remark:

 The engraving very well represents the original, which is delicately carved from a compact limestone. It is supposed to represent the toucan--a tropical bird, and one not known to exist anywhere within the limits of the United States. If we are not mistaken in supposing it to represent this bird, the remarks made respecting the sculptures of the manitus will here apply with double force. 

[Illustration: Fig. 15. --Toucan of Squier and Davis. ]

This sculpture is fortunately easy of identification. Among severalornithologists, whose opinions have been asked, not a dissenting voicehas been heard. The bird is a common crow or a raven, and is one of themost happily executed of the avian sculptures, the nasal feathers, whichare plainly shown, and the general contour of the bill being trulycorvine. It would probably be practically impossible to distinguish arude sculpture of a raven from that of a crow, owing to the generalresemblance of the two. The proportions of the head here shown are, however, those of the crow, and the question of habitat renders itvastly more likely that the crow was known to the Mound-Builders ofOhio than that the raven was. What possible suggestion of a toucan is tobe found in this head it is not easy to see. 

Turning to page 266 (Fig. 178) another and very different bird is heldup to view as a toucan. 

[Illustration: Fig. 16. --Toucan of Squier and Davis. ]

Squier and Davis remark of this sculpture:

 From the size of its bill, and the circumstance of its having two toes before and two behind, the bird intended to be represented would seem to belong to the zygodactylous order--probably the toucan. The toucan (Ramphastos of Lin. ) is found on this continent only in the tropical countries of South America. 

In contradiction to the terms of their description their own figure, aswill be noticed, shows _three_ toes in front and two behind, or a totalof five, which makes the bird an ornithological curiosity, indeed. However, as the cast in the Smithsonian collection shows three toes infront and one behind, it is probably safe to assume that the additionalhind toe was the result of mistake on the part of the modern artist, sothat four may be accepted as its proper quota. The mistake thenchargeable to the above authors is that in their discussion theytransferred one toe from before and added it behind. In this curious waycame their zygodactylous bird. 

This same pipe is figured by Stevens in Flint Chips, p. 426, Fig. 5. Thewood-cut is a poor one, and exhibits certain important changes, which, on the assumption that the pipe is at all well illustrated by the castin the Smithsonian, reflects more credit on the artist's knowledge ofwhat a toucan ought to look like than on his fidelity as an exactcopyist. 

The etchings across the upper surface of the base of the pipe, miscalledfingers, are not only made to assume a hand-like appearance but theaccommodating fancy of the artist has provided a roundish object in thepalm, which the bird appears about to pick up. The bill, too, has beenaltered, having become rounded and decidedly toucan-like, while the tailhas undergone abbreviation, also in the direction of likeness to thetoucan. In short, much that was lacking in the aboriginal artist'sconception towards the likeness of a toucan has in this figure beensupplied by his modern interpreter. 

[Illustration: Fig. 17. --Toucan as figured by Stevens. ]

This cut corresponds with the cast in the Smithsonian collection, inhaving the normal number of toes, four--three in front and one behind. This departure from the arrangement common to the toucan family, whichis zygodactylous, seems to have escaped Stevens's attention. At least hevolunteers no explanation of the discrepancy, being, doubtless, influenced in his acceptance of the bird as a toucan by the statementsof others. 

Wilson follows the cut of Squier and Davis, and represents the bird withfive toes, stating that the toucan is "imitated with considerableaccuracy. " He adds: "The most important deviation from correctness ofdetail is, it has three toes instead of two before, although the two arecorrectly represented behind. " How Wilson is guided to the belief thatthe sculptor's mistake consists in adding a toe in front instead of onebehind it would be difficult to explain, unless, indeed, he felt thenecessity of having a toucan at all hazards. The truth is that, thequestion of toes aside, this carving in no wise resembles a toucan. Itslong legs and proportionally long toes, coupled with the rather longneck and bill, indicate with certainty a wading bird of some kind, andin default of anything that comes nearer, an ibis may be suggested;though if intended by the sculptor as an ibis, candor compels thestatement that the ibis family has no reason to feel complimented. 

The identification of this sculpture as a toucan was doubtless due lessto any resemblance it bears to that bird than to another circumstanceconnected with it of a rather fanciful nature. As in the case of severalothers, the bird is represented in the act of feeding, upon what itwould be difficult to say. Certainly the four etchings across the baseof the pipe bear little resemblance to the human hand. Had they beenintended for fingers they would hardly have been made to extend over theside of the pipe, an impossible position unless the back of the hand beuppermost. Yet it was probably just this fancied resemblance to a hand, out of which the bird is supposed to be feeding, that led to thesuggestion of the toucan. For, say Squier and Davis, p. 266:

 In those districts (_i. E. _, Guiana and Brazil) the toucan was almost the only bird the aborigines attempted to domesticate. The fact that it is represented receiving its food from a human hand would, under these circumstances, favor the conclusion that the sculpture was designed to represent the toucan. 

Rather a slender thread one would think upon which to hang a theory sofar-reaching in its consequences. 

Nor was it necessary to go as far as Guiana and Brazil to find instancesof the domestication of wild fowl by aborigines. Among our NorthAmerican Indians it was a by no means uncommon practice to capture andtame birds. Roger Williams, for instance, speaks of the New EnglandIndians keeping tame hawks about their dwellings "to keep the littlebirds from their corn. " (Williams's Key into the Language of America, 1643, p. 220. ) The Zuñis and other Pueblo Indians keep, and have keptfrom time immemorial, great numbers of eagles and hawks of everyobtainable species, as also turkies, for the sake of the feathers. TheDakotas and other western tribes keep eagles for the same purpose. Theyalso tame crows, which are fed from the hand, as well as hawks andmagpies. A case nearer in point is a reference in Lawson to theCongarees of North Carolina. He says, "they are kind and affable, andtame the cranes and storks of their savannas. " (Lawson's History ofCarolina, p. 51. ) And again (p. 53) "these Congarees have an abundanceof storks and cranes in their savannas. They take them before they canfly, and breed them as tame and familiar as a dung-hill fowl. They had atame crane at one of these cabins that was scarcely less than six feetin height. "

So that even if the bird, as has been assumed by many writers, befeeding from a human hand, of which fact there is no sufficientevidence, we are by no means on this account driven to the conclusion, as appears to have been believed, that the sculpture could be no otherthan a toucan. 

As in the Cass of the manatee, it has been thought well to introduce acorrect drawing of a toucan in order to afford opportunity forcomparison of this very striking bird with its supposed representationsfrom the mounds. For this purpose the most northern representative ofthe family has been selected as the one nearest the home of theMound-Builders. 

The particulars wherein it differs from the supposed toucans are so manyand striking that it will be superfluous to dwell upon them in detail. They will be obvious at a glance. 

Thus we have seen that the sculptured representation of three birds, totally dissimilar from each other, and not only not resembling thetoucan, but conveying no conceivable hint of that very marked bird, formed the basis of Squier and Davis' speculations as to the presence ofthe toucan in the mounds. These three supposed toucans have been copiedand recopied by later authors, who have accepted in full the remarks anddeductions accompanying them. 

At least two exceptions to the last statement may be made. It isrefreshing to find that two writers, although apparently accepting theother identifications by Squier and Davis, have drawn the line at thetoucan. Thus Rau, in The Archæological Collections of the United StatesNational Museum, pp. 46-47, states that--

 The figure (neither of the writers mentioned appear to have been aware that there was more than one supposed toucan) is not of sufficient distinctness to identify the original that was before the artist's mind, and it would not be safe, therefore, to make this specimen the subject of far-reaching speculations. 

[Illustration: Fig. 18. --Keel-Billed Toucan of Southern Mexico(_Rhamphastos carinatus_. )]

Further on he adds, "Leaving aside the more than doubtful toucan, theimitated animals belong, without exception, to the North Americanfauna. " Barber, also, after taking exception to the idea that thesupposed toucan carving represents a zygodactylous bird, adds in hisarticle on Mound Pipes, pp. 280-281 (American Naturalist for April, 1882), "It may be asserted with a considerable degree of confidence thatno representative of an exclusively exotic fauna figured in the pipesculptures of the Mound-Builders. "

PAROQUET. 

The presence of a carving of the paroquet in one of the Ohio mounds hasbeen deemed remarkable on account of the supposed extreme southernhabitat of that bird. Thus Squier and Davis remark ("Ancient Monumentsof the Mississippi Valley, " p. 265, Fig. 172), "Among the most spiritedand delicately executed specimens of ancient art found in the mounds, isthat of the paroquet here presented. "

"The paroquet is essentially a southern bird, and though common alongthe Gulf, is of rare occurrence above the Ohio River. " The abovelanguage would seem to admit of no doubt as to the fact of the decidedresemblance borne by this carving to the paroquet. Yet the bird thuspositively identified as a paroquet, upon which identification have, without doubt, been based all the conclusions that have been publishedconcerning the presence of that bird among the mound sculptures is noteven distantly related to the parrot family. It has the bill of araptorial bird, as shown by the distinct tooth, and this, in connectionwith the well defined cere, not present in the paroquet, and the opennostril, concealed by feathers in the paroquet, places its identity asone of the hawk tribe beyond doubt. 

[Illustration: Fig. 19. --Paroquet of Squier and Davis. ]

In fact it closely resembles several of the carvings figured andidentified as hawks by the above authors, as comparison with figuresgiven below will show. The hawks always appear to have occupied aprominent place in the interest of our North American Indians, especially in association with totemic ideas, and the number ofsculptured representations of hawks among the mound relics would arguefor them a similar position in the minds of the Mound-Builders. 

A word should be added as to the distribution of the paroquet. Thestatement by Squier and Davis that the paroquet is found as far north asthe Ohio River would of itself afford an easy explanation of the mannerin which the Mound-Builders might have become acquainted with the bird, could their acquaintance with it be proved. But the above authors appearto have had a very incorrect idea of the region inhabited by this oncewidely spread species. The present distribution, it is true, isdecidedly southern, it being almost wholly confined to limited areaswithin the Gulf States. Formerly, however, it ranged much farther north, and there is positive evidence that it occurred in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Nebraska. Up to1835 it was extremely abundant in Southern Illinois, and, as Mr. Ridgwayinforms the writer, was found there as late as 1861. Specimens are inthe Smithsonian collection from points as far north as Chicago andMichigan. Over much of the region indicated the exact nature of itsoccurrence is not understood, whether resident or a more or less casualvisitor. But as it is known that it was found as far north asPennsylvania in winter it may once have ranged even farther north thanthe line just indicated, and have been found in Southern Wisconsin andMinnesota. 

Occurring, as it certainly did, over most of the mound region, thepeculiar habits of the paroquet, especially its vociferous cries andmanner of associating in large flocks, must, it would seem, have madeit known to the Mound-Builders. Indeed from the ease with which it istrapped and killed, it very probably formed an article of food amongthem as it has among the whites and recent tribes of Indians. Probable, however, as it is that the Mound-Builders were well acquainted with theparoquet, there appears to be no evidence of the fact among their worksof art. 

KNOWLEDGE OF TROPICAL ANIMALS BY MOUND-BUILDERS. 

The supposed evidence of a knowledge of tropical animals possessed bythe ancient dwellers of the Mississippi Valley which has just beendiscussed seems to have powerfully impressed Wilson, and in hisPrehistoric Man he devotes much space to the consideration of thematter. His ideas on the subject will be understood from the followingquotation:

 By the fidelity of the representations of so great a variety of subjects copied from animal life, they furnish evidence of a knowledge in the Mississippi Valley, of the fauna peculiar not only to southern, but to tropical latitudes, extending beyond the Isthmus into the southern continent; and suggestive either of arts derived from a foreign source, and of an intimate intercourse maintained with the central regions where the civilization of ancient America attained its highest development: or else indicative of migration, and an intrusion into the northern continent, of the race of the ancient graves of Central and Southern America, bringing with them the arts of the tropics, and models derived from the animals familiar to their fathers in the parent-land of the race. (Vol. 1, p. 475. )

The author subsequently shows his preference for the theory of amigration of the race of the Mound-Builders from southern regions asbeing on the whole more probable. Wilson does not, however, contenthimself with the evidence afforded by the birds and animals which havejust been discussed, but strengthens his argument by extending the listof supposed exotic forms known to the Mound-Builders in the followingwords (vol. 1, p. 477):

 But we must account by other means for the discovery of accurate miniature representations of it (_i. E. _ the Manatee) among the sculptures of the far-inland mounds of Ohio; and the same remark equally applies to the jaguar or panther, the cougar, the toucan; to the buzzard possibly, and also to the paroquet. _The majority of these animals are not known in the United States; some of them are totally unknown to within any part of the North American continent. _ (Italics of the present writer. ) Others may be classed with the paroquet, which, though essentially a southern bird, and common in the Gulf, does occasionally make its appearance inland; and might possibly become known to the untraveled Mound-Builder among the fauna of his own northern home. 

The information contained in the above paragraph relative to the rangeof some of the animals mentioned may well be viewed with surprise bynaturalists. To begin with, the jaguar or panther, by which vernacularnames the _Felis onca_ is presumably meant, is not only found inNorthern Mexico, but extends its range into the United States andappears as far north as the Red River of Louisiana. (See Baird's Mammalsof North America. ) Hence a sculptured representation of this animal inthe mounds, although by no means likely, is not entirely out of thequestion. However, among the several carvings of the cat family thathave been exhumed from the mounds and made known there is not one whichcan, with even a fair degree of probability, be identified as thisspecies in distinction from the next animal named, the cougar. 

The cougar, to which several of the carvings can with but little doubtbe referred, was at the time of the discovery of America and is to-day, where not exterminated by man, a common resident of the whole of NorthAmerica, including of course the whole of the Mississippi Valley. Itwould be surprising, therefore, if an animal so striking, and one thathas figured so largely in Indian totemism and folk-lore, should not havereceived attention at the hands of the Mound-Builders. 

Nothing resembling the toucan, as has been seen, has been found in themounds; but, as stated, this bird is found in Southern Mexico. 

The buzzard is to-day common over almost the entire United States, andis especially common throughout most of the Mississippi Valley. 

As to the paroquet, there seems to be no evidence in the way of carvingsto show that it was known to the Mound-Builders, although that such wasthe case is rendered highly probable from the fact that it lived attheir very doors. 

It therefore appears that of the five animals of which Wilson states"the majority are not known in the United States, " and "some of them aretotally unknown, within any part of the North American continent, " everyone is found in North America, and all but one within the limits of theUnited States, while three were common residents of the MississippiValley. 

As a further illustration of the inaccurate zoological knowledge towhich may be ascribed no small share of the theories advanced respectingthe origin of the Mound-Builders, the following illustration may betaken from Wilson, this author, however, being but one of the many whoare equally in fault. The error is in regard to the habitat of the conchshell, _Pyrula (now Busycon) perversa_. 

After exposing the blunder of Mr. John Delafield, who describes thisshell as unknown on the coasts of North and South America, but asabundant on the coast of Hindostan, from which supposed fact, coupledwith its presence in the mounds, he assumes a migration on the part ofthe Mound-Builders from Southern Asia (Prehistoric Man, vol. 1, p. 219, _ibid. _, p. 272), Wilson states. 

 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 Tennessee, but in the northern peninsula lying between the Ontario and Huron Lakes, or on the still remoter shores and islands of Georgian Bay, at a distance of upwards of three thousand miles from the coast of Yucatan, on the mainland, _the nearest point where the Pyrula perversa is found in its native locality_. (Italics of the present writer. )

Now the plain facts on the authority of Mr. Dall are that the _Busycon(Pyrula) perversa_ is not only found in the United States, but extendsalong the coast up to Charleston, S. C. , with rare specimens as far northas Beaufort, N. C. Moreover, archæologists have usually confounded thisspecies with the _Busycon carica_, which is of common occurrence in themounds. The latter is found as far north as Cape Cod. The facts citedput a very different complexion on the presence of these shells in themounds. 

OTHER ERRORS OF IDENTIFICATION. 

[Illustration: Fig. 20. --"Owl, " from Squier and Davis. ]

The erroneous identification of the manatee, the toucan, and of severalother animals having been pointed out, it may be well to glance atcertain others of the sculptured animal forms, the identification ofwhich by Squier and Davis has passed without dispute, with a view todetermining how far the accuracy of these authors in this particularline is to be trusted, and how successful they have been in interpretingthe much lauded "fidelity to nature" of the mound sculptures. 

Fig. 20 (Squier and Davis, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, p. 225, Fig. 123) represents a tube of steatite, upon which is carved, as is stated, "in high relief this figure of an owl, attached with itsback to the tube. " This carving, the authors state, is "remarkably boldand spirited, and represents the bird with its claws contracted anddrawn up, and head and beak elevated as if in an attitude of defense anddefiance. "

[Illustration: Fig. 21. --"Grouse, " from Squier and Davis. ]

This carving differs markedly from any of the avian sculptures, andprobably was not intended to represent a bird at all. The absence offeather etchings and the peculiar shape of the wing are especiallynoticeable. It more nearly resembles, if it can be said to resembleanything, a bat, with the features very much distorted. 

Fig. 21 (Fig. 170 from Squier and Davis) it is stated, "will readily berecognized as intended to represent the head of the grouse. "

The cere and plainly notched bill of this carving clearly indicate ahawk, of what species it would be impossible to say. 

[Illustration: Fig. 22. --"Turkey Buzzard, " from Squier andDavis. ]

Fig. 22 (Fig. 171 from Squier and Davis) was, it is said, "probablyintended to represent a turkey buzzard. " If so, the suggestion is a veryvague one. The notches cut in the mandibles, as in the case of thecarving of the wood duck (Fig. 168, Ancient Monuments), are perhapsmeant for serrations, of which there is no trace in the bill of thebuzzard. As suggested by Mr. Ridgway, it is perhaps nearer the cormorantthan anything else, although not executed with the detail necessary forits satisfactory recognition. 

[Illustration: Fig. 23. --"Cherry-bird, " from Squier and Davis. ]

Fig. 23 (Fig. 173 from Squier and Davis) it is claimed "much resemblesthe tufted cherry-bird, " which is by no means the case, as the billbears witness. It may pass, however, as a badly executed likeness of thetufted cardinal grosbeak or red-bird. The same is true of Figs. 174 and175, which are also said to be "cherry-birds. "

Fig. 24 (Fig. 179 from Squier and Davis), of which Squier and Davis sayit is uncertain what bird it is intended to represent, is anunmistakable likeness of a woodpecker, and is one of the best executedof the series of bird carvings. To undertake to name the species wouldbe the merest guess-work. 

[Illustration: Fig. 24. --Woodpecker, from Squier and Davis. ]

The heads shown in Fig. 25, which the authors assert "was probablyintended to represent the eagle" and "are far superior in point offinish, spirit, and truthfulness to any miniature carving, ancient ormodern, which have fallen under the notice of the authors, " cannot beidentified further than to say they are raptorial birds of some sort, probably not eagles but hawks. 

Fig. 26 (Fig. 180 from Squier and Davis), according to the authors, "certainly represents the rattlesnake. " It certainly represents a snake, but there is no hint in it of the peculiarities of the rattlesnake;which, indeed, it would be difficult to portray in a rude carving likethis without showing the rattle. This is done in another carving, Fig. 196. 

[Illustration: Fig. 25. --"Eagle, " from Squier and Davis. ]

The extraordinary terms of praise bestowed by the authors on the headsof the hawks just alluded to, as well as on many other of the sculpturedanimals, suggest the question whether the illustrations given in theAncient Monuments afford any adequate idea of the beauty and artisticexcellence asserted for the carvings, and so whether they are fairobjects for criticism. While of course for the purpose of this paper anexamination of the originals would have been preferable, yet, in as muchas the Smithsonian Institution contains casts which attest the generalaccuracy of the drawings given, and, as the illustrations by otherauthors afford no higher idea of their artistic execution, it would seemthat any criticism applicable to these illustrations must in the mainapply to the originals. With reference to the casts in the Smithsoniancollection it may be stated that Dr. Rau, who had abundant opportunityto acquaint himself with the originals while in the possession of Mr. Davis, informs the writer that they accurately represent the carvings, and for purposes of study are practically as good as the originals. Thelatter are, as is well known, in the Blackmore Museum, England. 

[Illustration: Fig. 26. --"Rattlesnake, " from Squier and Davis. ]

Without going into further detail the matter may be summed up asfollows: Of forty-five of the animal carvings, including a few of clay, which are figured in Squier and Davis's work, eleven are left unnamed bythe authors as not being recognizable; nineteen are identifiedcorrectly, in a general way, as of a wolf, bear, heron, toad, &c. ;sixteen are demonstrably wrongly identified, leaving but five of whichthe species is correctly given. 

From this showing it appears that either the above authors' zoologicalknowledge was faulty in the extreme, or else the mound sculptors'ability in animal carving has been amazingly overestimated. However justthe first supposition may be, the last is certainly true. 

SKILL IN SCULPTURE OF MOUND-BUILDERS. 

In considering the degree of skill exhibited by the mound sculptors intheir delineation of the features and characteristics of animals, it isof the utmost importance to note that the carvings of birds and animalswhich have evoked the most extravagant expressions of praise as to theexactness with which nature has been copied are uniformly those which, owing to the possession of some unusual or salient characteristic, areexceedingly easy of imitation. The stout body and broad flat tail of thebeaver, the characteristic physiognomy of the wild cat and panther, soutterly dissimilar to that of other animals, the tufted head andfish-eating habits of the heron, the raptorial bill and claws of thehawk, the rattle of the rattlesnake, are all features which the rudestskill could scarcely fail to portray. 

It is by the delineation of these marked and unmistakable features, andnot the sculptor's power to express the subtleties of animalcharacteristics, that enables the identity of a comparatively smallnumber of the carvings to be established. It is true that the contraryhas often been asserted, and that almost everything has been claimed forthe carvings, in the way of artistic execution, that would be claimedfor the best products of modern skill. Squier and Davis in fact go sofar in their admiration (Ancient Monuments, p. 272), as to say that, sofar as fidelity is concerned, many of them (_i. E. _, animal carvings)deserve to rank by the side of the best efforts of the artistnaturalists in our own day--a statement which is simply preposterous. Sofar, in point of fact, is this from being true that an examination ofthe series of animal sculptures cannot fail to convince any one, who iseven tolerably well acquainted with our common birds and animals, thatit is simply impossible to recognize specific features in the greatmajority of them. They were either not intended to be copies ofparticular species, or, if so intended, the artist's skill was whollyinadequate for his purpose. 

Some remarks by Dr. Coues, quoted in an article by E. A. Barber on MoundPipes in the American Naturalist for April, 1882, are so apropos to thesubject that they are here reprinted. The paragraph is in response to arequest to identify a bird pipe:

 As is so frequently the probable case in such matters, I am inclined to think the sculptor had no particular bird in mind in executing his rude carving. It is not necessary, or indeed, permissible, to suppose that particular species were intended to be represented. Not unfrequently the likeness of some marked bird is so good as to be unmistakable, but the reverse is oftener the case; and in the present instance I can make no more of the carving than you have done, excepting that if any particular species may have been in the carver's mind, his execution does not suffice for its determination. 

The views entertained by Dr. Coues as to the resemblances of thecarvings will thus be seen to coincide with those expressed above. Another prominent ornithologist, Mr. Ridgway, has also given verbalexpression to precisely similar views. 

So far, therefore, as the carvings themselves afford evidence to thenaturalist, their general likeness entirely accords with the suppositionthat they were not intended to be copies of particular species. Many ofthe specimens are in fact just about what might be expected when aworkman, with crude ideas of art expression, sat down with intent tocarve out a bird, for instance, without the desire, even if possessed ofthe requisite degree of skill, to impress upon the stone the detailsnecessary to make it the likeness of a particular species. 

GENERALIZATION NOT DESIGNED. 

While the resemblances of most of the carvings, as indicated above, mustbe admitted to be of a general and not of a special character, it doesnot follow that their general type was the result of design. 

Such an explanation of their general character and resemblances is, indeed, entirely inconsistent with certain well-known facts regardingthe mental operations of primitive or semi-civilized man. To the mind ofprimitive man abstract conceptions of things, while doubtless notentirely wanting, are at best but vaguely defined. The experience ofnumerous investigators attests how difficult it is, for instance, toobtain from a savage the name of a class of animals in distinction froma particular species of that class. Thus it is easy to obtain the namesof the several kinds of bears known to a savage, but his mindobstinately refuses to entertain the idea of a bear genus or class. Itis doubtless true that this difficulty is in no small part due simply tothe confusion arising from the fact that the savage's method ofclassification is different from that of his questioner. For, althoughprimitive man actually does classify all concrete things into groups, the classification is of a very crude sort, and has for a basis a verydifferent train of ideas from those upon which modern science isestablished--a fact which many investigators are prone to overlook. Still there seems to be good ground for believing that the conception ofa bird, for instance, in the abstract as distinct from some particularkind or species would never be entertained by a people no furtheradvanced in culture than their various relics prove the Mound-Buildersto have been. In his carving, therefore, of a hawk, a bear, a heron, ora fish, it seems highly probable that the mound sculptor had in mind adistinct species, as we understand the term. Hence his failure toreproduce specific features in a recognizable way is to be attributed tothe fact that his skill was inadequate to transfer the exact imagepresent in his mind, and not to his intention to carve out a generalrepresentative of the avian class. 

To carry the imitative idea farther and to suggest, as has been done bywriters, that the carver of the Mound-Building epoch sat down to hiswork with the animal or a model of it before him, as does the accuratezoological artist of our own day, is wholly insupported by evidencederivable from the carvings themselves, and is of too imaginative acharacter to be entertained. By the above remarks as to the lack ofspecific resemblances in the animal carvings it is not intended to denythat some of them have been executed with a considerable degree of skilland spirit as well as, within certain limitations heretofore expressed, fidelity to nature. Taking them as a whole it can perhaps be assertedthat they have been carved with a skill considerably above the generalaverage of attainments in art of our Indian tribes, but not above thebest efforts of individual tribes. 

That they will by no means bear the indiscriminate praise they havereceived as works of art and as exact imitations of nature may beasserted with all confidence. 

PROBABLE TOTEMIC ORIGIN. 

With reference to the origin of these animal sculptures many writersappear inclined to the view that they are purely decorative andornamental in character, _i. E. _, that they are attempts at closeimitations of nature in the sense demanded by high art, and that theyowe their origin to the artistic instinct alone. But there is much intheir general appearance that suggests they may have been totemic inorigin, and that whatever of ornamental character they may possess is ofsecondary importance. 

With, perhaps, no exceptions, the North American tribes practicedtotemism in one or other of its various forms, and, although it by nomeans follows that all the carving and etchings of birds or animals bythese tribes are totems, yet it is undoubtedly true that the totemicidea is traceable in no small majority of their artisticrepresentations, whatever their form. As rather favoring the idea of thetotemic meaning of the carvings, it may be pointed out that aconsiderable number of the recognizable birds and animals are preciselythe ones known to have been used as totems by many tribes of Indians. The hawk, heron, woodpecker, crow, beaver, otter, wild cat, squirrel, rattlesnake, and others, have all figured largely in the totemicdivisions of our North American Indians. Their sacred nature too wouldenable us to understand how naturally pipes would be selected as themedium for totemic representations. It is also known to be a customamong Indian tribes for individuals to carve out or etch their totemsupon weapons and implements of the more important and highly prizedclass, and a variety of ideas, superstitious and other, are associatedwith the usage; as, for instance, in the case of weapons of war orimplements of the chase, to impart greater efficiency to them. Theetching would also serve as a mark of ownership, especially whereproperty of certain kinds was regarded as belonging to the tribe or gensand not to the individual. Often, indeed, in the latter case theindividual used the totem of his gens instead of the symbol or mark forhis own name. 

As a theory to account for the number and character of these animalcarvings the totemic theory is perhaps as tenable as any. The origin andsignificance of the carvings may, however, involve many different anddistinct ideas. It is certain that it is a common practice of Indians toendeavor to perpetuate the image of any strange bird or beast, especially when seen away from home, and in order that it may be shownto his friends. As what are deemed the marvellous features of the animalare almost always greatly exaggerated, it is in this way that many ofthe astonishing productions noticeable in savage art have originated. Among the Esquimaux this habit is very prominent, and many individualscan show etchings or carvings of birds and animals exhibiting the mostextraordinary characters, which they stoutly aver and doubtless havecome to believe they have actually seen. 

ANIMAL MOUNDS. 

As having, for the purposes of the present paper, a close connectionwith the animal carvings, another class of remains left by theMound-Builders--the animal mounds--may next engage attention. As in thecase of the carvings, the resemblance of particular mounds to theanimals whose names they bear is a matter of considerable interest onaccount of the theories to which they have given rise. 

The conclusion reached with respect to the carvings that it is safe torely upon their identification only in the case of animals possessed ofstriking and unique characters or presenting unusual forms andproportions, applies with far greater force to the animal mounds. Perhaps in none of the latter can specific resemblances be foundsufficient for their precise determination. So general are theresemblances of one class that it has been an open question amongarchæologists whether they were intended to represent the bodies andarms of men, or the bodies and wings of birds. Other forms aresufficiently defined to admit of the statement that they are doubtlessintended for animals, but without enabling so much as a reasonable guessto be made as to the kind. Of others again it can be asserted thatwhatever significance they may have had to the race that built them, tothe uninstructed eyes of modern investigators they are meaningless andare as likely to have been intended for inanimate as animate objects. 

There are many examples among the animal shapes that possesspeculiarities affording no hint of animals living or extinct, but whichare strongly suggestive of the play of mythologic fancy or ofconventional methods of representing totemic ideas. As in the case ofthe animal carvings, the latter suggestion is perhaps the one that bestcorresponds with their general character. 

THE "ELEPHANT" MOUND. 

By far the most important of the animal mounds, from the nature of thedeductions it has given rise to, is the so-called "Elephant Mound, " ofWisconsin. 

By its discovery and description the interesting question was raised asto the contemporaneousness of the Mound-Builder and the mastodon, aninterest which is likely to be further enhanced by the more recentbringing to light in Iowa of two pipes carved in the semblance of thesame animal, as well as a tablet showing two figures asserted by somearchæologists to have been intended for the same animal. 

Although both the mound and pipes have been referred in turn to thepeccary, the tapir, and the armadillo, it is safe to exclude theseanimals from consideration. It is indeed perhaps more likely that theancient inhabitants of the Upper Mississippi Valley were autopticallyacquainted with the mastodon than with either of the above-namedanimals, owing to their southern habitat. 

Referring to the possibility that the mastodon was known to theMound-Builders, it is impossible to fix with any degree of precision thetime of its disappearance from among living animals. Mastodon bones havebeen exhumed from peat beds in this country at a depth which, so far asis proved by the rate of deposition, implies that the animal may havebeen alive within five hundred years. The extinction of the mastodon, geologically speaking, was certainly a very recent event, and, as anantiquity of upwards of a thousand or more years has been assigned tosome of the mounds, it is entirely within the possibilities that thisanimal was living at the time these were thrown up, granting even thatthe time of their erection has been overestimated. It must be admitted, therefore, that there are no inherent absurdities in the belief that theMound-Builders were acquainted with the mastodon. Granting that they mayhave been acquainted with the animal, the question arises, what proof isthere that they actually were? The answer to this question made bycertain archæologists is--the Elephant Mound, of Wisconsin. 

[Illustration: Fig. 27. --The Elephant Mound, Grant County, Wisconsin. ]

Recalling the fact that among the animal mounds many nondescript shapesoccur which cannot be identified at all, and as many others which havebeen called after the animals they appear to most nearly resemble, carryout their peculiarities only in the most vague and general way, it is alittle difficult to understand the confidence with which this effigy hasbeen asserted to represent the mastodon; for the mound (a copy of whichas figured in the Smithsonian Annual Report for 1872 is here given) canby no means be said to closely represent the shape, proportions, andpeculiarities of the animal whose name it bears. In fact, it is true ofthis, as of so many other of the effigies, the identity of which must beguessed, that the resemblance is of the most vague and general kind, thefigure simulating the elephant no more closely than any one of a scoreor more mounds in Wisconsin, except in one important particular, viz, the head has a prolongation or snout-like appendage, which is its chief, in fact its only real, elephantine character. If this appendage is toolong for the snout of any other known animal, it is certainly too shortfor the trunk of a mastodon. Still, so far as this one character goes, it is doubtless true that it is more suggestive of the mastodon than ofany other animal. No hint is afforded of tusks, ears, or tail, and wereit not for the snout the animal effigy might readily be called a bear, it nearly resembling in its general make-up many of the so-called bearmounds figured by Squier and Davis from this same county in Wisconsin. The latter, too, are of the same gigantic size and proportions. 

If it can safely be assumed that an animal effigy without tusks, withoutears, and without a tail was really intended to represent a mastodon, itwould be stretching imagination but a step farther to call all thelarge-bodied, heavy-limbed animal effigies hitherto named bears, mastodons, attributing the lack of trunks, as well as ears, tusks, andtails, to inattention to slight details on the part of the mound artist. 

It is true that one bit of good, positive proof is worth many of anegative character. But here the one positive resemblance, the trunk ofthe supposed elephant, falls far short of an exact imitation, and, asthe other features necessary to a good likeness of a mastodon are whollywanting, is not this an instance where the negative proof should be heldsufficient to largely outweigh the positive?

In connection with this question the fact should not be overlooked that, among the great number of animal effigies in Wisconsin and elsewhere, this is the only one which even thus remotely suggests the mastodon. Asthe Mound Builders were in the habit of repeating the same animal formagain and again, not only in the same but in widely distant localities, why, if this was really intended for a mastodon, are there no otherslike it? It cannot be doubted that the size and extraordinary featuresof this monster among mammals would have prevented it being overlookedby the Mound-Builders when so many animals of inferior interest engagedtheir attention. The fact that the mound is a nondescript, with noothers resembling it, certainly lessens the probability that it was anintentional representation of the mastodon, and increases the likelihoodthat its slight resemblance was accidental; a slide of earth from thehead, for instance, might readily be interpreted by the modern artistas a trunk, and thus the head be made to assume a shape in his sketchnot intended by the original maker. As is well known, no task is moredifficult for the artist than to transfer to paper an exact copy of sucha subject. Especially hard is it for the artist to avoid unconsciouslymagnifying or toning down peculiarities according to his own conceptionsof what was originally intended, when, as is often the case, time andthe elements have combined to render shape and outlines obscure. Archæologic treatises are full of warning lessons of this kind, and theinterpretations given to ancient works of art by the erring pencil ofthe modern artist are responsible for many an ingenious theory which theoriginal would never have suggested. It may well be that futureinvestigations will show that the one peculiarity which distinguishesthe so-called Elephant Mound from its fellows is really susceptible of amuch more commonplace explanation than has hitherto been given it. 

Even if such explanation be not forthcoming, the "Elephant Mound" ofWisconsin should be supplemented by a very considerable amount ofcorroborative testimony before being accepted as proof positive of theacquaintance of the Mound-Builders with the mastodon. 

As regards likeness to the mastodon, the pipes before alluded to, copiesof which as given in Barber's articles on Mound Pipes in AmericanNaturalist for April, 1882, Figs. 17 and 18, are here presented, whilenot entirely above criticism, are much nearer what they have beensupposed to be than the mound just mentioned. 

[Illustration: Fig. 28. --Elephant Pipe, Iowa]

[Illustration: Fig. 29. --Elephant Pipe, Iowa. ]

Of the two, figure 29 is certainly the most natural in appearance, but, if the pipes are intentional imitations of any animal, neither can beregarded as having been intended for any other than the mastodon. Yet, as pointed out by Barber and others, it is certainly surprising that ifintended for mastodons no attempt was made to indicate the tusks, whichwith the trunk constitute the most marked external peculiarities of allthe elephant kind. The tusks, too, as affording that most importantproduct in primitive industries, ivory, would naturally be the onepeculiarity of all others which the ancient artist would have reliedupon to fix the identity of the animal. It is also remarkable that inneither of these pipes is the tail indicated, although a glance at theother sculptures will show that in the full-length figures this memberis invariably shown. In respect to these omissions, the pipes from Iowaare strikingly suggestive of the Elephant Mound of Wisconsin, with thepeculiarities of which the sculptor, whether ancient or modern, mightalmost be supposed to have been acquainted. It certainly must be lookedupon as a curious coincidence that carvings found at a point so remotefrom the Elephant Mound, and presumably the work of other hands, shouldso closely copy the imperfections of that mound. 

In considering the evidence afforded by these pipes of a knowledge ofthe mastodon on the part of the Mound-Builders, it should be borne inmind that their authenticity as specimens of the Mound-Builders' art hasbeen called seriously in question. Possibly the fact that the sameperson was instrumental in bringing to light both the pipes has hadlargely to do with the suspicion, especially when it was remembered thatalthough explorers have been remarkably active in the same region, ithas fallen to the good fortune of no one else to find anything conveyingthe most distant suggestion of the mastodon. As the manner of discoveryof such relics always forms an important part of their history, thefollowing account of the pipes as communicated to Mr. Barber by Mr. W. H. Pratt, president of the Davenport Academy (American Naturalist forApril, 1882, pp. 275, 276), is here subjoined:

 The first elephant pipe, which we obtained (Fig. 17) a little more than a year ago, was found some six years before by an illiterate German farmer named Peter Mare, while planting corn on a farm in the mound region, Louisa County, Iowa. He did not care whether it was elephant or kangaroo; to him it was a curious 'Indian stone, ' and nothing more, and he kept it and smoked it. In 1878 he removed to Kansas, and when he left he gave the pipe to his brother-in-law, a farm laborer, who also smoked it. Mr. Gass happened to hear of it, as he is always inquiring about such things, hunted up the man and borrowed the pipe to take photographs and casts from it. He could not buy it. The man said his brother-in-law gave it to him and as it was a curious thing--he wanted to keep it. We were, however, unfortunate, or fortunate, enough to break it; that spoiled it for him and that was his chance to make some money out of it. He could have claimed any amount, and we would, as in duty bound, have raised it for him, but he was satisfied with three or four dollars. During the first week in April, this month, Rev. Ad. Blumer, another German Lutheran minister, now of Genesee, Illinois, having formerly resided in Louisa County, went down there in company with Mr. Gass to open a few mounds, Mr. Blumer being well acquainted there. They carefully explored ten of them, and found nothing but ashes and decayed bones in any, except one. In that one was a layer of red, hard-burned clay, about five feet across and thirteen inches in thickness at the center, which rested upon a bed of ashes one foot in depth in the middle, the ashes resting upon the natural undisturbed clay. In the ashes, near the bottom of the layer, they found a part of a broken carved stone pipe, representing some bird; a very small beautifully formed copper 'axe, ' and this last elephant pipe (Fig. 18). This pipe was first discovered by Mr. Blumer, and by him, at our earnest solicitation, turned over to the Academy. 

It will be seen from the above that the same gentleman was instrumentalin bringing to light the two specimens constituting the present supplyof elephant pipes. 

The remarkable archæologic instinct which has guided the finder of thesepipes has led him to even more important discoveries. By the aid of hisdivining rod he has succeeded in unearthing some of the most remarkableinscribed tablets which have thus far rewarded the diligent search ofthe mound explorer. It is not necessary to speak in detail of thesehere, or of the various theories to which they have given rise andsupport, including that of phonetic writing, further than to callattention to the fact that by a curious coincidence one of the tabletscontains, among a number of familiar animals, figures which suggest in arude way the mastodon again, which animal indeed some archæologists haveconfidently asserted them to be. The resemblance they bear to thatanimal is, however, by no means as close as exhibited by the pipecarvings; they are therefore not reproduced here. Both figures differfrom the pipes in having tails; both lack trunks, and also tusks. 

Archæologists must certainly deem it unfortunate that outside of theWisconsin mound the only evidence of the co-existence of theMound-Builder and the mastodon should reach the scientific world throughthe agency of one individual. So derived, each succeeding carving of themastodon, be it more or less accurate, instead of being accepted byarchæologists as cumulative evidence tending to establish thegenuineness of the sculptured testimony showing that the Mound-Builderand mastodon were coeval, will be viewed with ever increasing suspicion. 

This part of the subject should not be concluded without allusion to acertain class of evidence, which, although of a negative sort, must beaccorded very great weight in considering this much vexed question. Itmay be asked why if the Mound-Builders and the mastodon werecontemporaneous, have no traces of the ivory tusks ever been exhumedfrom the mounds? No material is so perfectly adapted for the purposes ofcarving, an art to which we have seen the Mound-Builders were muchaddicted, as ivory, both from its beauty and the ease with which it isworked, to say nothing of the other manifold uses to which it is put, both by primitive and civilized man. The mastodon affords an abundantsupply of this highly prized substance, not a particle of which has everbeen exhumed from the mounds either in the shape of implements orcarving. Yet the exceedingly close texture of ivory enables it tosuccessfully resist the destroying influences of time for very longperiods--very long indeed as compared with certain articles whichcommonly reward the search of the mound explorer. 

Among the articles of a perishable nature that have been exhumed fromthe mounds are large numbers of shell ornaments, which are by no meansvery durable, as well as the perforated teeth of various animals;sections of deers' horns have also been found, as well as ornaments madeof the claws of animals, a still more perishable material. The list alsoincludes the bones of the muskrat and turtle, as of other animals, notonly in their natural shape, but carved into the form of implements ofsmall size, as awls, etc. Human bones, too, in abundance, have beenexhumed in a sufficiently well preserved state to afford a basis forvarious theories and speculations. 

But of the mastodon, with which these dead Mound-Builders are supposedto have been acquainted, not a palpable trace remains. The tale of itsexistence is told by a single mound in Wisconsin, which the most ardentsupporter of the mastodon theory must acknowledge to be far from afacsimile, and two carvings and an inscribed tablet, the three latterthe finds of a single explorer. 

Bearing in mind the many attempts at archæological frauds that recentyears have brought to light, archæologists have a right to demand thatobjects which afford a basis for such important deductions as the coevallife of the Mound-Builder and the mastodon, should be above theslightest suspicion not only in respect to their resemblances, but asregards the circumstances of discovery. If they are not above suspicion, the science of archæology can better afford to wait for further and morecertain evidence than to commit itself to theories which may provestumbling-blocks to truth until that indefinite time when futureinvestigations shall show their illusory nature. 

THE "ALLIGATOR" MOUND. 

Although of much less importance than the mastodon, a word may be addedas to the so-called alligator mound, more especially because thealligator, owing to its southern habitat, is not likely to have beenknown to the Mound-Builders of Ohio. That it may have been known to themeither through travel or hearsay is of course possible. A copy of themound from the "Ancient Monuments" is subjoined. 

The alligator mound was described under this name for no other reasonthan because it was known in the vicinity as such, this designationhaving been adopted by Squier and Davis, as they frankly say, "for wantof a better, " adding "although the figure bears as close a resemblanceto the lizard as any other reptile. " (Ancient Monuments, p. 99. )

In truth it bears a superficial likeness to almost any long-tailedanimal which has the power of curling its tail--which, the alligator hasnot--as, for instance, the opossum. It is, however, the merestguess-work to attempt to confine its resemblances to any particularanimal. Nevertheless recent writers have described this as the"alligator mound" without suggesting a word of doubt as to its want ofpositive resemblance to that saurian. 

[Illustration: Fig. 30. --"Alligator" Mound. ]

HUMAN SCULPTURES. 

The conclusion reached in the foregoing pages that the animal sculpturesare not "exact and faithful copies from nature, " but are imitations of ageneral rather than of a special character, such as comport better withthe state of art as developed among certain of the Indian tribes thanamong a people that has achieved any notable advance in culture isimportant not only in its bearing on the questions previously noticed inthis paper, but in its relation to another and highly interesting classof sculptures. 

If a large proportion of the animal carvings are so lacking in artisticaccuracy as to make it possible to identify positively only the fewpossessing the most strongly marked characters, how much faith is to beplaced in the ability of the Mound sculptor to fix in stone the featuresand expressions of the human countenance, infinitely more difficultsubject for portrayal as this confessedly is?

That Wilson regards the human sculptures as affording a basis for soundethnological deductions is evident from the following paragraph, takenfrom Prehistoric Man, vol. 1, p. 461:

 Alike from the minute accuracy of many of the sculptures of animals, hereafter referred to, and from the correspondence to well known features of the modern Red Indian suggested by some of the human heads, these miniature portraits may be assumed, with every probability, to include faithful representations of the predominant physical features of the ancient people by whom they were executed. 

Short, too, accepting the popular idea that they are faithful andrecognizable copies from nature, remarks in the North Americans ofAntiquity, p. 98, _ibid. _, p. 187:

 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 mounds;" and again, "The perfection of the animal representations furnish us the assurance that their sculptures of the human face were equally true to nature. 

Squier and Davis also appear to have had no doubt whatever of thecapabilities of the Mound-Builders in the direction of humanportraiture. They are not only able to discern in the sculptured headsniceties of expression sufficient for the discrimination of the sexes, but, as well, to enable them to point out such as are undoubtedlyancient and the work of the Mound-Builders, and those of a more recentorigin, the product of the present Indians. Their main criterion oforigin is, apparently, that all of fine execution and finish were thework of the Mound sculptors, and those roughly done and "immeasurablyinferior to the relics of the mounds, " to use their own words, were thehandicraft of the tribes found in the country by the whites. Conclusionsso derived, it may strike some, are open to criticism, however wellsuited they may be to meet the necessities of preconceived theories. 

After discussing in detail the methods of arranging the hair, the paintlines, and tattooing, the features of the human carvings, Squier andDavis arrive at the conclusion that the "physiological characteristicsof these heads do not differ essentially from those of the greatAmerican family. "

Of later writers some agree with Squier and Davis in believing the typeillustrated by these heads to be Indian; others agree rather withWilson, who dissents from the view expressed by Squier and Davis, and, in conformity with the predilections visible throughout his work, is ofthe opinion that the Mound-Builders were of a distinct type from theNorth American Indian, and that "the majority of sculptured human headshitherto recovered from their ancient depositories do not reproduce theIndian features. " (Wilson's Prehistoric Man, vol. 1, p. 469. ) Again, Wilson says that the diversity of type found among the human sculptures"proves that the Mound-Builders were familiar with the American Indiantype, but nothing more. "--_Ibid. _, p. 469. 

The varying type of physiognomy represented by these heads would betterindicate that their resemblances are the result of accident rather thanof intention. For the same reason that the sculptured animals of thesame species display great differences of form and expression, accordingto the varying skill of the sculptors or the unexacting demands made bya rude condition of art, so the diversified character of the human facesis to be ascribed, not to the successful perpetuation in stone by amaster hand of individual features, but simply to a want of skill on thepart of the sculptor. The evidence afforded by the animal sculptures alltends to the conclusion that exact individual portraiture would havebeen impossible to the mound sculptor had the state of culture he livedin demanded it; the latter is altogether improbable. A glance at theabove quotations will show that it is the assumed fidelity to nature ofthe animal carvings and their fine execution which has been relied uponin support of a similar claim for the human sculptures. As this claim isseen to have but slight basis in fact the main argument for assertingthe human sculptures to be faithful representations of physicalfeatures, and to embody exact racial characters falls to the ground, andit must be admitted as in the last degree improbable that the art of themound sculptor was adequate for the task of accurate human portraiture. To base important ethnologic deductions upon the evidence afforded bythe human sculptures in the present state of our knowledge concerningthem would seem to be utterly unscientific and misleading. 

Copies of several of the heads as they appear in "Ancient Monuments"(pp. 244-247) are here subjoined to show the various types ofphysiognomy illustrated by them:

[Illustration: Fig. 31. Fig. 32. Fig. 33. Human Carvings from theMounds. ]

[Illustration: Fig. 34. Fig. 35. Human Carvings from the Mounds. ]

Could the many other stone and terra-cotta sculptures of the human facewhich have been ascribed to the Mound-Builders be reproduced here itwould be seen that the specimens illustrated above are among the verybest. In not a few, traces of the grotesque are distinctly visible, andthere is little in their appearance to suggest that they had a differentorigin or contain a deeper meaning than similar productions found amongpresent Indians. As each of the many carvings differ more or less fromevery other, it will at once be perceived that the advocates ofdifferent theories can readily find in the series abundant testimony insupport of any and all assumptions they may choose to advance. 

INDIAN AND MOUND-BUILDERS' ART COMPARED. 

Turning from special illustrations of the artistic skill of theMound-Builders, brief attention may be paid to their art in its moregeneral features, and as compared with art as found among our Indiantribes. 

Among some of the latter the artistic instinct, while deriving itscharacteristic features, as among the Mound-Builders, from animatednature, exhibits a decided tendency towards the production ofconventional forms, and often finds expression in creations of the mostgrotesque and imaginative character. 

While this is true of some tribes it is by no means true of all, nor isit true of all the art products of even those tribes most given toconventional art. But even were it true in its broadest terms, it ismore than doubtful if the significance of the fact has not been greatlyoverestimated. Some authors indeed seem to discern in the introductionof the grotesque element and the substitution of conventional designs ofanimals for a more natural portrayal, a difference sufficient to mark, not distinct eras of art culture merely, but different races with verydifferent modes of art expression. 

To trace the origin of art among primitive peoples, and to note thesuccessive steps by which decorative art grew from its probable originin the readily recognized adornments of nature and in the mere"accidents of manufacture, " as they have been termed, would be not onlyinteresting, but highly instructive. Such a study should afford us aclew to the origin and significance of conventional as contrasted withimitative art. 

The natural process of the evolution of art would seem to be from thepurely imitative to the conventional, the tendency being for artisticexpression of a partially or wholly imaginative character to supplant orsupplement the imitative form only in obedience to external influences, especially those of a religious or superstitious kind. In thisconnection it is interesting to note that even among tribes of theNorthwest, the Haidahs, for instance, whose carvings or paintings ofbirds and animals are almost invariably treated in a manner so highlyconventional or are so distorted and caricatured as to be nearly orquite unrecognizable, it is still some natural object, as a well knownbird or animal, that underlies and gives primary shape to the design. However highly conventionalized or grotesque in appearance such artisticproductions may be, evidences of an underlying imitative design mayalways be detected; proof, seemingly, that the conventional is a laterstage of art superimposed upon the more natural by the requirements ofmythologic fancies. 

As it is with any particular example of savage artistic fancy, so is itwith the art of certain tribes as a whole. Nor does it seem possiblethat the growth of the religions or mythologic sentiment has so farpreceded or outgrown the development of art as to have had from thefirst a dominating influence over it, and that the art of such tribes asmost strongly show its effect has never had what may be termed itsnatural phase of development, but has reached the conventional stagewithout having passed through the intermediate imitative era. 

It is more natural to suppose, so far, at least as the North AmericanIndians are concerned, that the road to conventionalism has always ledthrough imitation. 

The argument, therefore, that because a tribe or people is less giventhan another to conventional methods of art, it therefore mustnecessarily be in a higher stage of culture, is entitled to much lessweight than it has sometimes received. Squier and Davis, for instance, referring to the Mound-Builders, state that "many of these (_i. E. _, sculptures) exhibit a close observance of nature such as we could onlyexpect to find among a people considerably advanced in the minor arts, and to which the elaborate and laborious, but usually clumsy andungraceful, not to say unmeaning, productions of the savage can claimbut a slight approach. "

It is clearly not the intention of the above authors to claim an entireabsence of the grotesque method of treatment in specimens of theMound-Builder's art, since elsewhere they call attention to what appearsto be a caricature of the human face, as well as to the disproportionatesize of the heads of many of the animal carvings. Not only are the headsof many of the carvings of disproportionate size, which, in instanceshas the effect of actual distortion, but in not a few of the sculpturesnature, instead of being copied, has been trifled with and birds andanimals show peculiarities unknown to science and which go far to provethat the Mound-Builders, however else endowed, possessed livelyimaginations and no little creative fancy. 

Decided traces of conventionalism also are to be found in many of theanimal carvings, and the method of indicating the wings and feathers ofbirds, the scales of the serpent, &c. , are almost precisely what is tobe observed in modern Indian productions of a similar kind. 

Few and faint as are these tendencies towards caricaturing andconventionalizing as compared with what may be noted in the artisticproductions of the Haidahs, Chinooks, and other tribes of the Northwest, they are yet sufficient to show that in these particulars no hard andfast line can be drawn between the art of the Indian and of theMound-Builder. 

As showing how narrow is the line that separates the conventional andimitative methods of art, it is of interest to note that among theEsquimaux the two stages of art are found flourishing side by side. Intheir curious masks, carved into forms the most quaint and grotesque, and in many of their carvings of animals, partaking as they do of a halfhuman, half animal character, we have abundant evidence of what authorshave characterized as savage taste in sculpture. But the same tribesexecute carvings of animals, as seals, sea-lions, whales, bears, &c. , which, though generally wanting in the careful modeling necessary toconstitute fine sculpture, and for absolute specific resemblance, aregenerally recognizable likenesses. Now and then indeed is to be found acarving which is noteworthy for spirited execution and faithfulmodeling. The best of them are far superior to the best executedcarvings from the mounds, and, are much worthier objects for comparisonwith modern artistic work. 

As deducible from the above premises it may be observed that, while thestate of art among primitive peoples as exemplified by their artisticproductions may be a useful index in determining their relative positionin the scale of progress, unless used with caution and in connectionwith other and more reliable standards of measurement it will lead tovery erroneous conclusions. If, for instance, skill and ingenuity in theart of carving and etching be accepted as affording a proper idea of apeople's progress in general culture, the Esquimaux of Alaska should beplaced in the front rank of American tribes, a position needless to saywhich cannot be accorded them from more general considerations. On theother hand, while the evidences of artistic skill left by the Iroquoiantribes are in no way comparable to the work produced by the Esquimaux, yet the former have usually been assigned a very advanced position ascompared with other American tribes. 

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. 

The more important conclusions reached in the foregoing paper may bebriefly summed up as follows:

That of the carvings from the mounds which can be identified there areno representations of birds or animals not indigenous to the MississippiValley. 

And consequently that the theories of origin for the Mound Builderssuggested by the presence in the mounds of carvings of supposed foreignanimals are without basis. 

Second. That a large majority of the carvings, instead of being, asassumed, exact likenesses from nature, possess in reality only the mostgeneral resemblance to the birds and animals of the region which theywere doubtless intended to represent. 

Third. That there is no reason for believing that the masks andsculptures of human faces are more correct likenesses than are theanimal carvings. 

Fourth. That the state of art-culture reached by the Mound Builders, asillustrated by their carvings, has been greatly overestimated. 

INDEX. 

 Animal carvings from mounds of the Mississippi Valley, by H. W. Henshaw, 117 Bat, Carving of the, 144 Birds domesticated by Indians, 138 Buzzard, Range of the, 142 Carvings, Animal, from mounds, 117 "Cherry Bird", Carving of the, 145 Cincinnati tablet, 133 Conch shell, Range of the, 143 Coues, Dr. E. , on bird carvings from mounds, 148 Cougar, Range of the, 142 Crow, Carvings of the, 136 Cushing, F. H. , on Zuñi fetiches, 145 Dall, W. H. , on the conch shell (_Pyrula_), 143 Eagle, Carvings of the, 146 "Elephant mound", 152 pipes, 155 "Grouce, " Carving of the, 144 Henshaw, H. W. , Animal Carvings from Mounds of the Miss. Valley, 117 Human sculptures, 160 Jaguar, Range of the, 142 Manatee, Sculptures of the, 125 Mound-builders' art _vs. _ Indian art, 164 carvings, 117 skill in sculpture, 148 methods in art, 149 Mounds, Animal, 152 Otter, Carvings of the, 125 Owl, Carvings of the, 144 Panther, Range of the, 142 Paroquet, Carving of the, 139, Range of the, 140 Pipe sculpture of the mounds builders, 124 Pipes, "Elephant", 155, 157 _Pyrula perversa_, Range of the, 143 "Rattlesnake, " Carving of the, 147 Skill in sculpture of the Mounds Builders, 148 Squirrel, Ground, Carving of the, 128 Totemism, 150 Tropical animals known to Mound Builders, 142 "Turkey" Buzzard, Carving of the, 145 White, C. A. , Unios identified by, 129 Wilson on the conch shell (_Pyrula_), 143 carvings of tropical animals, 142 Woodpecker, Carvings of the, 146