The animal forms into which the pipe-bowls are carved, are also full of interest. This is not so much on account of animal forms themselves as the insight we gain as to the artistic skill of the people who fashioned the pipes, and in various ways learn of bits of customs and manners peculiar to them. Here we have figured a pipe, the bowl of which is carved to represent a beaver. No one need hesitate as to the animal which the carver had in mind. It is represented in a characteristic attitude, and has the broad, flat tail of its species. It must have required no little skill and patient labor to work a rough stone into this finished pipe, especially when we remember that the maker had no edged tools with which to work.
We can not always determine the animal which the artist had in mind. In this illustration we have figured such a pipe. Considerable discussion has arisen as to the animal represented. Some cases of this nature have been thought to show either migration from a distant country on the part of the maker or else an extended system of trade.
Squier and Davis, who first figured it, supposed it to represent a manatee, or sea-cow. This animal is essentially a tropical species, the only known place where it was found in the United States being Florida. From the presence of this carved specimen, found a thousand miles to the north, some interesting queries, as the origin of the mound-building tribes, and the state of life among them, were raised. It is almost certain, however, that the animal intended to be represented was the otter.92
The most general form of sculpture was that of birds, and we find specimens of almost all the common varieties. In this group we recognize the tufted heron striking a fish; the eagle, or hawk, tearing a smaller bird; the swallow, apparently just ready to fly; and in the last figure, one that has given rise to a good deal of discussion. Some think from the circumstance of its having a very large bill, toes pointing behind as well as before, that it represents a toucan, which, if true, would make it a most interesting specimen. But cautious scholars conclude that the “figure is not of sufficient distinctness to identify the original that was before the artist’s mind.” And therefore it is not wise to make this specimen the subject of a far-reaching speculation.93