Elephant pipes and inscribed tablets in the Museum of the Academy of natural sciences, Daveport, Iowa / by Charles E. Putnam.

  • Charles Edwin Putnam
Date:
1885
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Elephant pipes and inscribed tablets in the Museum of the Academy of natural sciences, Daveport, Iowa / by Charles E. Putnam. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    82/100 (page 80)
    “It is impossible in most cases to verify the statements of an anthor, and therefore neither the Com??iission nor the l7istitutio7i ca7i be responsi- ble for 77iore tha7i the ge7ieral character of a 77ie7noirl' Your Institution therefore accepts responsibility for the 'fe7ieral characte7' of its publications, and this, you will concede, would re- quire the exclusion of all libelous, scurrilous, and unscientific papers. Now, therefore, should there appear among your publications an arti- cle assailing a scientific society without reason, charging fraud upon its members without proof, made vip of second-hand information without scientific merit, the American public would be justified in holding your Institution derelict in duty. That such was the “general character” of Mr. Henshaw’s paper must be evident when so excellent an archaeolo- gist as Professor Peet, of the A7nerica7i A7itiquaria7i^ says of it: “We should have considered it a libel if it was said of us.” And again: “There is scarcely a truthful or convincing paragraph in the whole article, and many of the remarks are as careless and groundless as they can well be.” And when so exact and careful a writer as Dr. U. G. Brinton thus condemns it: “A would-be critical article on ‘Animal Carvings from Mounds in the Mississippi Valley’ is inserted from the pen of Henry W. Henshaw. It would have been of more weight had the writer known more of his topic from personal observation, and de- pended less on second-hand statements. The Bureau should confine its writers to what they know of their own knowledge.” And again: “From my first reading of his article I concluded it a paper not com- posed in the true spirit of science, and out of place in the publications of the Bureau.” And when so eminent an authority in anthropology as Prof. Otis T. Mason, of the National Museum, hurls at it this sting- ing anathema: “ The last word that should fall fro7n the lips of a brother 7iaturalist is '■fra7(dT'' These few citations, from the vast number at hand, will justify me in assuming that, without the aid of a “Commis- sion,” the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, on account of its faulty “general character,” must have promptly condemned this paper as wholly unworthy of publication. In your closing paragraph you fail to distinguish between the “an- tiquity” and the “authenticity” of the relics in question. This distinc- tion has been carefully observed in the statements we have made, and, so far as our Academy is concerned, the “authenticity” of our relics is the only question under discussion. Among ex])erienced archaeolo- gists the “antiquity” of all mound relics is yet an open question, upon which widely conflicting views are entertained. The “authenticity” of the relics in question we consider fully established; but, reversing your own expression, we cheerfully concede that the results of further mound explorations will probably within a few years give evidence of great weight for or against the “antiquity’^’ of the Davenport pipes. Their “authenticity” established, they certainly bear strong internal evidence of great antiquity, and should it be established by other discoveries that man and the mastodon were contemporary on this continent, scientific skej)tics will then have no further occasion to (question either their authenticity or antiquity.