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.

    84/100 (page 82)
    Criticisms of Scientific Journals. The controversy forced upon the Davenport Academy by the accu- sations of the Bureau of Ethnology has attracted very-general attention and been made the subject of frequent newspaper comment. It is not, however, our intention to include herein the many kindly notices we have received from the popular press, and we shall now strictly limit ourselves to a brief presentation of the views and statements of the more conservative scientific journals : The American Antiquaria7i. “We next read the article by Mr. Henry W. Henshaw, ‘Animal Carv- ings from the Mounds of the Mississij^pi Valley.’ We recognize the cuts, which have become so familiar, and agree with the writer in many of his conclusions, but prefer to leave some questions open. He is cer- tainly insinuating a great deal when the writer says that the discoverer of the elephant pipes and inscribed tablets at Davenport had a remark- able ‘ archmologic instinct and the aid of his divining-rod’ when making his discoveries, as if he was guilty of an intentional fraud. We should consider it a libel if it was said of us.”^—Rev. Stephen D. Peet, March^ 1885. . “Mr. Henshaw And Mound-Buii.ders’ Pipes.—The pamphlet on Mound-builders’ jfipes, by Mr. C. E. Putnam, has awakened very much interest among archaeologists of this country and Europe. The attack upon the society by Mr. Henshaw, which was published in the second report of the Ethnological Bureau, seems to have aroused indignation in many different quarters. The letters which have been received by Mr. Putnam, congratulating him on the boldness of his defense, are not only numerous, but from the very best sources. The more we read Mr. Henshaw’s article, the more pretentious and groundless do the ])o- sitions of the writer seem. 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. Mr. Henshaw would better have confined his attention to his own department of ornithology, or else have been a little more modest in entering upon the department of archccology. The arrogance which he has exhibited is certainly not a good introduction for him in the new field. The wonder is that Major Powell, the chief of the Bureau, should not have seen the carelessness of his statements and noticed the supercilious air with which he has treated archaeologists generally. Written by assistant and endorsed by