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 cla.s.sed 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 range of some of the animals mentioned may well be viewed with surprise by naturalists. To begin with, the jaguar or panther, by which vernacular names the _Felis onca_ is presumably meant, is not only found in Northern Mexico, but extends its range into the United States and appears as far north as the Red River of Louisiana. (See Baird's Mammals of North America.) Hence a sculptured representation of this animal in the mounds, although by no means likely, is not entirely out of the question. However, among the several carvings of the cat family that have been exhumed from the mounds and made known there is not one which can, with even a fair degree of probability, be identified as this species in distinction from the next animal named, the cougar.

The cougar, to which several of the carvings can with but little doubt be 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 North America, including of course the whole of the Mississippi Valley. It would be surprising, therefore, if an animal so striking, and one that has figured so largely in Indian totemism and folk-lore, should not have received attention at the hands of the Mound-Builders.

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

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

As to the paroquet, there seems to be no evidence in the way of carvings to show that it was known to the Mound-Builders, although that such was the case is rendered highly probable from the fact that it lived at their 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 are totally unknown, within any part of the North American continent," every one is found in North America, and all but one within the limits of the United States, while three were common residents of the Mississippi Valley.

As a further ill.u.s.tration of the inaccurate zoological knowledge to which may be ascribed no small share of the theories advanced respecting the origin of the Mound-Builders, the following ill.u.s.tration may be taken from Wilson, this author, however, being but one of the many who are equally in fault. The error is in regard to the habitat of the conch sh.e.l.l, _Pyrula (now Busycon) perversa_.

After exposing the blunder of Mr. John Delafield, who describes this sh.e.l.l as unknown on the coasts of North and South America, but as abundant on the coast of Hindostan, from which supposed fact, coupled with its presence in the mounds, he a.s.sumes a migration on the part of the 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 sh.e.l.ls 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 sh.o.r.es 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 extends along the coast up to Charleston, S.C., with rare specimens as far north as Beaufort, N.C. Moreover, archaeologists have usually confounded this species with the _Busycon carica_, which is of common occurrence in the mounds. The latter is found as far north as Cape Cod. The facts cited put a very different complexion on the presence of these sh.e.l.ls in the mounds.

OTHER ERRORS OF IDENTIFICATION.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 20.--"Owl," from Squier and Davis.]

The erroneous identification of the manatee, the toucan, and of several other animals having been pointed out, it may be well to glance at certain others of the sculptured animal forms, the identification of which by Squier and Davis has pa.s.sed without dispute, with a view to determining how far the accuracy of these authors in this particular line is to be trusted, and how successful they have been in interpreting the 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 steat.i.te, upon which is carved, as is stated, "in high relief this figure of an owl, attached with its back to the tube." This carving, the authors state, is "remarkably bold and spirited, and represents the bird with its claws contracted and drawn up, and head and beak elevated as if in an att.i.tude of defense and defiance."

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 21.--"Grouse," from Squier and Davis.]

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

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

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

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 22.--"Turkey Buzzard," from Squier and Davis.]

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

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 23.--"Cherry-bird," from Squier and Davis.]

Fig. 23 (Fig. 173 from Squier and Davis) it is claimed "much resembles the tufted cherry-bird," which is by no means the case, as the bill bears witness. It may pa.s.s, however, as a badly executed likeness of the tufted cardinal grosbeak or red-bird. The same is true of Figs. 174 and 175, which are also said to be "cherry-birds."

Fig. 24 (Fig. 179 from Squier and Davis), of which Squier and Davis say it is uncertain what bird it is intended to represent, is an unmistakable likeness of a woodp.e.c.k.e.r, and is one of the best executed of the series of bird carvings. To undertake to name the species would be the merest guess-work.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 24.--Woodp.e.c.k.e.r, from Squier and Davis.]

The heads shown in Fig. 25, which the authors a.s.sert "was probably intended to represent the eagle" and "are far superior in point of finish, spirit, and truthfulness to any miniature carving, ancient or modern, which have fallen under the notice of the authors," cannot be identified 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 like this without showing the rattle. This is done in another carving, Fig.

196.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 25.--"Eagle," from Squier and Davis.]

The extraordinary terms of praise bestowed by the authors on the heads of the hawks just alluded to, as well as on many other of the sculptured animals, suggest the question whether the ill.u.s.trations given in the Ancient Monuments afford any adequate idea of the beauty and artistic excellence a.s.serted for the carvings, and so whether they are fair objects for criticism. While of course for the purpose of this paper an examination of the originals would have been preferable, yet, in as much as the Smithsonian Inst.i.tution contains casts which attest the general accuracy of the drawings given, and, as the ill.u.s.trations by other authors afford no higher idea of their artistic execution, it would seem that any criticism applicable to these ill.u.s.trations must in the main apply to the originals. With reference to the casts in the Smithsonian collection it may be stated that Dr. Rau, who had abundant opportunity to 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. The latter are, as is well known, in the Blackmore Museum, England.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 26.--"Rattlesnake," from Squier and Davis.]

Without going into further detail the matter may be summed up as follows: 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 by the authors as not being recognizable; nineteen are identified correctly, in a general way, as of a wolf, bear, heron, toad, &c.; sixteen are demonstrably wrongly identified, leaving but five of which the species is correctly given.

From this showing it appears that either the above authors' zoological knowledge was faulty in the extreme, or else the mound sculptors'

ability in animal carving has been amazingly overestimated. However just the 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 in their delineation of the features and characteristics of animals, it is of the utmost importance to note that the carvings of birds and animals which have evoked the most extravagant expressions of praise as to the exactness with which nature has been copied are uniformly those which, owing to the possession of some unusual or salient characteristic, are exceedingly easy of imitation. The stout body and broad flat tail of the beaver, the characteristic physiognomy of the wild cat and panther, so utterly dissimilar to that of other animals, the tufted head and fish-eating habits of the heron, the raptorial bill and claws of the hawk, the rattle of the rattlesnake, are all features which the rudest skill could scarcely fail to portray.

It is by the delineation of these marked and unmistakable features, and not the sculptor's power to express the subtleties of animal characteristics, that enables the ident.i.ty of a comparatively small number of the carvings to be established. It is true that the contrary has often been a.s.serted, and that almost everything has been claimed for the carvings, in the way of artistic execution, that would be claimed for the best products of modern skill. Squier and Davis in fact go so far in their admiration (Ancient Monuments, p. 272), as to say that, so far as fidelity is concerned, many of them (_i.e._, animal carvings) deserve to rank by the side of the best efforts of the artist naturalists in our own day--a statement which is simply preposterous. So far, in point of fact, is this from being true that an examination of the series of animal sculptures cannot fail to convince any one, who is even tolerably well acquainted with our common birds and animals, that it is simply impossible to recognize specific features in the great majority of them. They were either not intended to be copies of particular species, or, if so intended, the artist's skill was wholly inadequate for his purpose.

Some remarks by Dr. Coues, quoted in an article by E. A. Barber on Mound Pipes in the American Naturalist for April, 1882, are so apropos to the subject that they are here reprinted. The paragraph is in response to a request 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 the carvings will thus be seen to coincide with those expressed above.

Another prominent ornithologist, Mr. Ridgway, has also given verbal expression to precisely similar views.

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

GENERALIZATION NOT DESIGNED.

While the resemblances of most of the carvings, as indicated above, must be admitted to be of a general and not of a special character, it does not 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 regarding the mental operations of primitive or semi-civilized man. To the mind of primitive man abstract conceptions of things, while doubtless not entirely wanting, are at best but vaguely defined. The experience of numerous investigators attests how difficult it is, for instance, to obtain from a savage the name of a cla.s.s of animals in distinction from a particular species of that cla.s.s. Thus it is easy to obtain the names of the several kinds of bears known to a savage, but his mind obstinately refuses to entertain the idea of a bear genus or cla.s.s. It is doubtless true that this difficulty is in no small part due simply to the confusion arising from the fact that the savage's method of cla.s.sification is different from that of his questioner. For, although primitive man actually does cla.s.sify all concrete things into groups, the cla.s.sification is of a very crude sort, and has for a basis a very different train of ideas from those upon which modern science is established--a fact which many investigators are p.r.o.ne to overlook.

Still there seems to be good ground for believing that the conception of a bird, for instance, in the abstract as distinct from some particular kind or species would never be entertained by a people no further advanced in culture than their various relics prove the Mound-Builders to have been. In his carving, therefore, of a hawk, a bear, a heron, or a fish, it seems highly probable that the mound sculptor had in mind a distinct species, as we understand the term. Hence his failure to reproduce specific features in a recognizable way is to be attributed to the fact that his skill was inadequate to transfer the exact image present in his mind, and not to his intention to carve out a general representative of the avian cla.s.s.

To carry the imitative idea farther and to suggest, as has been done by writers, that the carver of the Mound-Building epoch sat down to his work with the animal or a model of it before him, as does the accurate zoological artist of our own day, is wholly insupported by evidence derivable from the carvings themselves, and is of too imaginative a character to be entertained. By the above remarks as to the lack of specific resemblances in the animal carvings it is not intended to deny that some of them have been executed with a considerable degree of skill and spirit as well as, within certain limitations heretofore expressed, fidelity to nature. Taking them as a whole it can perhaps be a.s.serted that they have been carved with a skill considerably above the general average of attainments in art of our Indian tribes, but not above the best efforts of individual tribes.

That they will by no means bear the indiscriminate praise they have received as works of art and as exact imitations of nature may be a.s.serted with all confidence.