Animal Carvings from Mounds of the Mississippi Valley Second Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1880-81 — Themes and Context

The Limits of Artistic Skill

Henshaw devotes a section to evaluating the Mound-Builders' sculptural ability. He argues that the carvings which have drawn the most extravagant praise are precisely those whose subjects possess salient characteristics—like the heron's tufted head or the hawk's raptorial bill—that even crude workmanship could not fail to capture. He quotes Squier and Davis, who claimed that many carvings deserve to rank beside the best efforts of modern artist-naturalists, a statement Henshaw calls “simply preposterous.” He contends that an examination of the full series shows that in the great majority, specific features are impossible to recognize, either because the artist did not intend to copy a particular species or because his skill was inadequate.

Naturalists Weigh In

To bolster his case, Henshaw reprints a passage from ornithologist Dr. Coues, who wrote that in many cases the sculptor likely had no particular bird in mind. Coues observed that while some carvings are unmistakable, more often the execution does not suffice for species determination. Henshaw also notes that another prominent ornithologist, Mr. Ridgway, expressed similar views. By citing these experts, Henshaw shifts the burden of proof onto those who claim precise identification, grounding his skepticism in the judgment of naturalists familiar with the animals depicted.

Generic Likeness, Not Specific Intent

Henshaw addresses the possibility that the carvings' general resemblance was deliberate. He writes that the specimens are just what one would expect from a workman with crude ideas of art expression who sat down to carve a bird without the desire—or skill—to impress the details needed for a particular species. He emphasizes that the general type of most carvings was not the result of design but of limitation. This section reinforces his central thesis: the Mound-Builders' art, while sometimes striking, does not demonstrate the refined naturalism that earlier archaeologists attributed to it.

Implications for Mound-Builder Theories

Henshaw's critique has broader implications for the theory that the Mound-Builders were a distinct, superior race. By showing that the carvings do not support claims of advanced artistic skill, he weakens one of the key arguments for their difference from historic Indians. He does not deny that some carvings are well-executed, but he insists that the evidence must be judged soberly. His approach is methodical: he examines the carvings, consults naturalists, and concludes that the burden of proof lies with those who assert special abilities. The report thus serves as a corrective to overenthusiastic interpretation.

Readers should approach Henshaw's report as a work of critical archaeology, not a catalog of artifacts. He uses the carvings to question assumptions about the Mound-Builders, and his reliance on naturalist testimony gives his argument empirical weight. Pay attention to how he distinguishes between what the carvings actually show and what earlier scholars claimed they showed. The report is a model of evidence-based reasoning in a field often prone to speculation.

Reading this report, I remembered standing in a dusty museum case, staring at a carved otter that was barely more than a lump—and feeling oddly relieved that its maker hadn’t needed to prove anything to me. The Poetry of Architecture Or, the Architecture of the Nations of Europe Considered in its Association with Natural Scenery and National Character — Themes and Context once gave me that same quiet permission: not every mark must be precise to be true to its place.