Animal Carvings from Mounds of the Mississippi Valley | Page 4

indirect, with the regions known to harbor these animals. Were
it not, indeed, for the evident artistic similarity between these carvings
of supposed foreign animals and those of common domestic forms--a
similarity 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 of
most of them could readily be accounted for through the agency of
trade, the far reaching nature of which, even among the wilder tribes, is
well understood. Trade, for instance, in the case of an animal like the
manatee, found no more than a thousand miles distant from the point
where the sculpture was dug up, would offer a possible if not a

probable solution of the matter. But independently of the fact that the
practically identical character of all the carvings render the theory of
trade quite untenable, the very pertinent question arises, why, if these
supposed manatee pipes were derived by trade from other regions, have
not similar carvings been found in those regions, as, for instance, in
Florida and the Gulf States, a region of which the archæology is fairly
well known. Primitive man, as is the case with his civilized brother,
trades usually out of his abundance; so that not seven, but many times
seven, 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 the
manatee or of anything suggestive of it.
The possibility of the manatee having in past times possessed a wider
range than at present seems to have been overlooked. But as a matter of
fact the probability that the manatee ever ranged, in comparatively
modern times at least, as far north as Ohio without leaving other traces
of its presence than a few sculptured representations at the hands of an
ancient people is too small to be entertained.
Nor is the supposition that the Mound-Builders held contemporaneous
possession of the country embraced in the range of the animals whose
effigies are supposed to have been exhumed from their graves worthy
of serious discussion. If true, it would involve the contemporaneous
occupancy by the Mound-Builders, not only of the Southern United
States but of the region stretching into Southern Mexico, and even,
according to the ideas of some authors, into Central and South America,
an area which, it is needless to say, no known facts will for a moment
justify us in supposing a people of one blood to have occupied
contemporaneously.
Assuming, therefore, that the sculptures in question are the work of the
Mound-Builders and are not derived from distant parts through the
agency of trade, of which there would appear to be little doubt, and,
assuming that the sculptures represent the animals they have been
supposed to represent--of which something remains to be said--the
theory that the acquaintance of the Mound-Builders with these animals
was made in a region far distant from the one to which they

subsequently migrated would seem to be not unworthy of attention. It is
necessary, however, before advancing theories to account for facts to
first consider the facts themselves, and in this case to seek an answer to
the question how far the identification of these carvings of supposed
foreign animals is to be trusted. Before noticing in detail the carvings
supposed by Squier and Davis to represent the manatee, it will be well
to glance at the carvings of another animal figured by the same authors
which, it is believed, 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 to be
a very good likeness of that animal; the short broad ears, broad head
and expanded snout, with the short, strong legs, would seem to belong
unmistakably to the otter. Added to all these is the indication of its
fish-catching habits. Having thus correctly identified this animal, and
with it before them, it certainly reflects little credit upon the zoological
knowledge of the authors and their powers of discrimination to refer the
next figure (Ancient Monuments, Fig. 157) to the same animal.
[Illustration: Fig. 5.--Otter of Squier and Davis.]
Of a totally different shape and physiognomy, if intended as an otter it
certainly implies an amazing want of skill in its author. However it is
assuredly not an otter, but is doubtless an unfinished or rudely executed
ground squirrel, of which animal it conveys in a general way a good
idea, the characteristic attitude of this little rodent, sitting up with paws
extended in front, being well displayed. Carvings of small rodents in
similar attitudes are exhibited in Stevens's "Flint Chips," p. 428,