Ohio History Journal

Fowke's Book Reviewed.                143

which seem to be very real and very correct. This should also

be the case with the person who studies the earthworks of Ohio.

He should be so familiar with ancient Society as to make the

monuments speak and interpret the works and relics so that they

will be suggestive of the people who used them. A negative

criticism does not serve any good purpose. Every writer should

rise to a plane higher than the ordinary observer, and should

put into the works the very life that once existed.

The perfunctory examination of the works and relics by a

single irresponsible and unreliable person certainly is a very poor

foundation for a book of 760 pages - and when this is attended

with such negative evidence as may come from denying the testi-

mony of nearly all who have been in the field and have written

on the subject-it destroys confidence in the book itself but

confirms the testimony of preceding writers. The archaeological

history should be based on the testimony of previous writers and

explorers, and is in this respect, different from an archaeological

report. As it is, this socalled history tends to overthrow archae-

ology-but fails to establish history-and yet both must go

together if we are to have a complete record of the state, which

is so celebrated for the achievements of both the historic and

prehistoric people who have dwelt in it.

 

 

 

 

FOWKE'S BOOK REVIEWED.

 

BY J. P. MACLEAN, FRANKLIN, OHIO.

[Prof. Mac Lean is one of the Trustees of the Ohio State Archaeo-

logical and Historical Society and the author of several archaeological

and historical volumes, in both of which subjects he takes high rank.

He was for some years Curator and Librarian of the Western Reserve

Historical Society. The following article was in the form of a com-

munication to the Editor of the Quarterly.-E. O. R.]

I have made a very thorough examination of Fowke's Arch-

aeological History of Ohio and I am pained to say I never before

experienced so great a disappointment in a book. Without hes-

itation I pronounce it the most dogmatic, arrogant, intollerant,

• 1
 

144        Ohio Arch. and His. Society Publications.

 

warpish, cruel, brutal and virulent book I ever had the misfor-

tune to read.

A book of so pretentious a nature should be judicious, fair,

manly and dignified, all of which elements it is sadly deficient

in. Its errors are so numerous that to point out each separate

one would be to eliminate more than half the pages. I will

trouble you with the following particulars:

First. The spirit of the book is very bad. Even if the views

of certain authors are wrong, it is poor taste and exhibits a want

of culture to apply such epithets to the persons and writings of

gentlemen as the following: Simple (p. 33), paradoxical sur-

mises (p. 52), ridiculous, fanciful (p. 58), unwarranted opinions,

assumptions (p. 59), wonder mongers (p. 72), hysterically (p.

73), equally ridiculous (p. 74), rhapsodies (p. 75), abundant

theorizing, tendency towards the marvellous (p. 76), silliness

(p. 79), delusive (p. 86), ridiculous (p. 87), the next is a gem

(p. 88), pure fancy (p. 100), dubious feature (p. 108), funny twist

(p. 112), twaddle (p. 115), groundless assumption (p. 122), silly

(p. 135), perverted (p. 274), very foolish theories, conceit (p.

320), lucubratious (p. 425). One paragraph of less than nine

lines contains "ridiculous," "fanciful conclusions," "height of ab-

surdity," and "venal charlatan," (p 58), and another of less than

seven lines, "turgid emanations," "sort of stuff," and "vagaries"

(p. 71). This vituperation might also do for school boys practic-

ing the use of invectives, but it is certainly out of place in a

scientific book.

Second.   Ridicule is another objectionable feature which

mars many pages of the book. No man desires to be ridiculed,

and when one engages in that pastime he displays both a want of

judgment and kindly feeling. I will not note all the sentences

of this description. On one page (63) both Prof. Short and Col.

Whittlesy are subjected to this brutal treatment, although both

are hushed in death. The former is brought through the fire on

account of his opinion concerning the Cincinnati Tabulet, and

the latter for his investigations into the metrical system of the

Mound Builders. Peck (p. 70) is advised to restrain his impa-

tience, while Squier and Davis are accused of seeing "an altar in

every spot of burned earth" (p. 309). Perhaps Dr. Peet receives

• 2
 

Fowke's Book Reviewed.                145

 

that greatest balm, which certainly borders closely to the line

of libel. "Peet possesses a peculiar faculty for seeing snakes.

But he is justified in exploiting this discovery; in fact, he should

give it more prominence than he has done, for there is prob-

ably not another work in the world where two snakes are repre-

sented as the proud possessors of five tails - or five sets of rattles,

whichever it is" (p. 279). Equally significant is the misrepre-

sentation of Prof. Newberry's remarks on the age of forest

trees (p. 118).

If it be granted that the epithets applied and the ridicule per-

petrated are warranted by the facts in the case, that would be

no justification of their use in the present volume.

Third. I desire to call your attention to such uncalled for

expressions or sentences as these: "Strangely enough, he makes

no mention of the tall man with heavy whiskers and an unu-

sually large jaw" (p. 73) ; "the trunk of the mastodon to one, is

the tail of the coon to the other" (p. 92).

Fourth. While no one would seriously object to Mr. Fowke's

right to maintain a theory, yet reckless statements should not be

hastily made. His power of stating a fact or grasping one, he

presents (pp. 59, 60) in the following computation: "The most

complete and convenient catalogue of writers on aboriginal re-

mains, accessible to the public, is that contained in the American

Antiquarian," for July, 1887, and March, 1893. From these

books Mr. Fowke marked over one hundred volumes of quota-

tions. The reference here cited, including letters, papers in soci-

eties' reports, as well as separate volumes, number eighty-one in

all. The hundred volumes of Mr. Fowke must necessarily shrink

into insignificant ones.

Fifth. Mr. Fowke makes some very serious charges.

Squiers and Davis, "Ancient Monuments" (p. 57), state that they

carefully surveyed in person an ancient work in Ross county.

Mr. Fowke says, in reference to this averment, that "it is not

probable they ever made any such survey as that set forth in

their note" (p. 57). My understanding is that the literary work

of "Ancient Monuments" was performed by Dr. Davis. This is

Vol. XI-10

• 3
 

146       Ohio Arch. and His. Society Publications.

 

the only instance known to me of his veracity being called in

question.

On a par with the above is his assault on the Bureau of

Ethnology. Even if he is correct, the impeachment has no place

in the book in question. He asserts (p. 303) that the former

chief of the division of mound explorations was without prac-

tical experience and employed only men without experience or

knowledge in archaeological works. (It must be remembered

that some years ago Mr. Fowke engaged in field work for the

Bureau.)  The Ohio Archaeological Society cannot afford to

cast opprobrium on any other society, especially when there has

been no provocation. Whatever spleen Mr. Fowke may have

against the Bureau, our society cannot afford to be the means

of conveyance.

Regarding the Elephant Pipes, owned by the Davenport

Academy of Science, we are blandly informed (p. 112) that all

the evidence for and against their genuineness is in the Second

Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology. It is charity to as-

sume that Mr. Fowke is ignorant of Col. Putnam's paper, in

vindication, published in Vol IV. of the Society's Proceedings.

Sixth. Mr. Fowke shows his incapacity of holding former

statements. As an instance, in one place (p. 83), speaking of

Ft. Ancient, he declares that such statements as "at numerous

places are found large quantities of water-worn stone which,

after an incredible amount of labor, have been carried from the

river below," are not true; while speaking of the same structure,

on another page (239), he avers that "at every opening where the

wall is worn away, stone may be seen cropping out at the base."

Seventh. The author exercises a wonderful faculty of con-

fusion. As an instance he treats of glacial man in the second

chapter, and near the close of the third tackles the same propo-

sition again (p. 43). The graded way at Piketon is summarily

dismissed (p. 126) as a natural product, and resurrected for

further operation (p. 274). All the excavated graded ways pass

away except the one at Marietta which was formed by digging

earth for the mounds and embankments in the vicinity! !!

Eighth. In order to suit his caprice "physiological fact" (p.

287) is made to play an important part. The symmetry of pro-

• 4
 

Fowke's Book Reviewed.                147

 

portion in the effigy mounds is nowhere preserved. As an

evidence that the same is sometimes adhered to in carvings ref-

erence need only be made to the effigy pipe that forms the frontis-

piece of Mr. Fowke's book.

Ninth. Mr. Fowke essays a list of books some of which

he recommends "for careful reading." Among those which do

not receive his seal of approval are such works as Bancroft's

History of the United States, Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the

Roman Empire, etc., etc. On the other hand, abusing Squiers

and Davis' "Ancient Monuments," most shamefully, and charg-

ing it with being the foundation of the misconception and erro-

neous beliefs so generally acceped, yet he recommends the book

for careful perusal!!!

Tenth. The book is largely made up of quotations, massing

together the sayings of the amateur with those of the professional.

Not satisfied with this, newspaper clippings (p. 288) are drag-

ged in that they may be disposed of.

Unfortunately the quotations from authors are perverted in

such a way that the true index to their works is lost sight of. In

short it is a work of destruction. Yet I do not believe that any

of the flaggelated books will be injured thereby. The animus

of the work is so transparent as to be reactionary. Mr. Fowke

has lost a golden opportunity. If he had listened to the advice

of the secretary of the society he might have done honor to him-

self. He dug the pit into which he has fallen. Mortal man can

never extricate him.

Eleventh. The book on its face shows that it consists simply

of Mr. Fowkes' opinions of the writings of others, and what he

pretends to know of antiquities. He displays a want of famil-

iarity with the earth works of Ohio, or else a want of a clear

conception concerning them. It is a disappointment that he has

not given even a cut of the enclosures of Ohio. Many of Ohio's

interesting remains are passed over in silence, and hence the book

cannot be a guide to the uninformed who might be interested in

the prehistoric remains of this state. Some of these remains have

been figured and described. Among them reference might be

made to the Annual Reports of the Smithsonian Institution for

1881, 1883, 1885. Probably Mr. Fowke never heard of them.

• 5
 

148       Ohio Arch. and His. Society Publications.

 

Really of what value to any one are the opinions of Mr.

Fowke ?

The society cannot afford to become sponsors for Mr.

Fowkes' eccentricities. It is far better that the entire edition be

suppressed and all the books sent out recalled, than that the soci-

ety should suffer from this most inconsiderate of books.

If the Executive Committee will take such action it will not

only meet with my approval but I will advocate the same before

the entire Board of Trustees.

 

 

 

THE MOUND BUILDERS OF OHIO.

 

S. S. KNABENSHUE, TOLEDO, OHIO.

[The following interesting review of Mr. Fowke's ARCHAEOLOGICAL

HISTORY OF OHIO, is from the Toledo Blade of June 26, 1902.]

Archaeology, in its widest sense, is the science of antiquities.

It investigates the relics of man and his industries, and classifies

his remains and records of every kind from the past. In the

United States the domain of archaeology covers everything con-

nected with the inhabitants down to the period when the whites

came upon the scene.

The Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society has just is-

sued a volume of 760 pages, entitled Archaeology of Ohio: The

Mound Builders and Later Indians. It is written by Mr. Gerard

Fowke, of Chillicothe, whose name and work are well known to

all who are familiar with the archaeological and scientific progress

of the past score of years.

Mr. Fowke's book is written for the general reader, not for

the specialist or scientist. There are very many persons inter-

ested in American antiquities who have neither time nor oppor-

tunity to obtain and read the vast amount of literature which has

accumulated, especially since the publication of Squier and Davis's

researches in the Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, over

a half-century ago. In the present work, so much of this matter

as relates to Ohio antiquities will be found in compact form. As

certain features of Ohio achaeology, however, can not be well

• 6