Chapter XLIV: Appendix: I (17)

[1668] Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, i. ch. 2; _Proc. Amer. Acad. Nat. Sciences_, July, 1859; _Amer. Journal of Sci. and Arts_, xxxvi. 199; cix. 335; _Pop. Sci. Rev._, xiv. 278; A. H. Worthen’s _Geol. Survey, Illinois_ (1866), i. 38; Haven in _Smithsonian Contrib._, viii. 142; H. H. Howorth’s _Mammoth and the Flood_ (Lond., 1887), p. 319; J. P. MacLean’s _Mastodon, Mammoth and Man_ (Cincinnati, 1886). Cf. references under “Mammoth” and “Mastodon,” in _Poole’s Index_. Koch represented that he found the remains of a mastodon in Missouri, with the proofs about the relics that the animal had been slain by stone javelins and arrows (_St. Louis Acad. of Sci. Trans._, i. 62, 1857). The details have hardly been accepted on Koch’s word, since some doubtful traits of his character have been made known (Short, _No. Amer. of Antiq._, 116; Nadaillac, _L’Amérique préhistorique_, 37). There have been claims also advanced for a stone resembling a hatchet, found with such animals in the modified drift of Jersey Co., Illinois. E. L. Berthoud (_Acad. Nat. Sci., Philad. Proc._ 1872) has reported on human relics found with extinct animals in Wyoming and Colorado. Dr. Holmes (_Ibid._ July, 1859) had described pottery found with the bones of the megatherium. Lyell seems to have hesitated to associate man with the extinct animals in America, when the remains found at Natchez were shown to him in an early visit to America (_Antiquity of Man_, 237). Howorth, _Mammoth and the Flood_, 317, enumerates the later discoveries, some being found under recent conditions (_Ibid._ 278), and so recent that the trunk itself has been observed (p. 299). In the earliest instance of the bones being reported, Dr. Mather, communicating the fact to the _Philosophical Trans. Roy. Soc._ (1714), xxix. 63, says they were found in the Hudson River, and he supposed them the remains of a giant man, while the colored earth about the bones represented his rotted body. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xii. 263.

[1669] See on this a later page.

[1670] Lyell’s _Antiq. of Man_, 4th ed., 236; Nadaillac’s _Les premiers hommes_, ii. 13; Southall’s _Recent origin of man_, ch. 30. Vogt (_Lectures on Man_) accepts the evidence.

[1671] Cf. Lyell’s _Antiq. of Man_, ch. 5; Huxley’s _Man’s place in nature_; Le Hon’s _L’Homme fossile en Europe_; Leslie’s _Origin and destiny of man_, p. 54, who passes in review these early tentative explorations.

[1672] Cf. Lyell’s description in his _Antiquity of Man_, ch. 8; Quatrefages, _Nat. Hist. Man_ (N. Y., 1875), p. 41; Langel, _L’homme antédiluvien_; Büchner’s _Man_, Eng. transl., ch. 1; Carl Vogt, _Vorlesungen über den Menschen_.

[1673] Rigollot, of Amiens, who had doubted, finally came to believe in De Perthes’s views.

[1674] Büchner’s _Man_, p. 26; Hugh Falconer’s _Palæontological Memoirs_, London, 1868 (ii. 601). Falconer’s essay on “Primæval Man and his Contemporaries,” included in this work, was written in 1863, in vindication of the views which Falconer shared with Boucher de Perthes and Prestwich, and it is an interesting study of the development of the interest in the caves.

[1675] Lyell, _Antiq. of Man_, ch. 8; Lubbock, _Prehistoric Times_, ch. 11; Nadaillac, _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. 122; Leslie, _Origin, etc. of Man_, 56. Southall gives the antagonistic views in his _Recent Origin of Man_, ch. 16, and _Epoch of the Mammoth_, 126.

[1676] This is in dispute, however. That the older cave implements and those of the drift may be of equivalent age seems to be agreed upon by some.

[1677] Cf. also Geikie’s _Great Ice Age_; Lubbock’s _Prehistoric Times_, ch. 10; Evans’s _Anc. Stone Implements of Gt. Britain_; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_; Nilsson’s _Stone Age in Scandinavia_; Figuier’s _World before the Deluge_ (N. Y., 1872), p. 473; Joly, _Man before Metals_, ch. 3; Cazalis de Fondouce’s _Les temps préhistoriques dans le sud-est de la France_; Roujow’s _Etude sur les races humaines de la France_; Peschel’s _Races of Men_, introd.

The scarcity of human remains in the drift and in the caves is accounted for by Lyell (_Student’s Elements_, N. Y., p. 153) by man’s wariness against floods as compared with that of beasts; and by Lubbock (_Prehist. Times_, 349) through the vastly greater numbers of the animals in a hunters’ age.

[1678] The present day is not without a cave people. See _London Anthropolog. Rev._, April, 1869, and Büchner’s _Man_, Eng. transl., p. 270.

[1679] Haven, p. 86.

[1680] Cf. Florentino Amegluno’s _La Antigüedad del Hombre en la Plata_ (Paris, 1880), and Howorth’s _Mammoth and the Flood_, 355, who cites Klee’s _Le Déluge_, p. 326, and enumerates other evidences of pleistocene man in South America, in connection with extinct animals.

[1681] The instances are not rare of mummies being found in caves of the Mississippi Valley; but there is no evidence adduced of any great age attaching to them. Cf. N. S. Shaler on the antiquity of the caverns and cavern life of the Ohio Valley, in _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem._, ii. 355 (1875); and on desiccated remains, see the _Archæologia Amer._, i. 359; Brinton’s _Floridian Peninsula_, App. ii. On the American caves see Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique préhistorique_, ch. 2.

[1682] Abbott’s _Primitive Industry_, ch. 30.

[1683] Lyell, _Antiq. of Man_, 4th ed. ch. 2; Lubbock, _Prehist. Times_, ch. 7; Nadaillac, _Les premiers hommes_, i. ch. 5; Joly, _Man before Metals_, ch. 4; Figuier, _World before Deluge_ (N. Y., 1872), p. 477. Worsaae, the leading Danish authority, calls them palæolithic relics; Lubbock places them as early neolithic. Southall, of course, thinks they indicate the rudeness of the people, not their antiquity. (_Recent Origin_, etc., ch. 12; _Epoch of the Mammoth_, ch. 5.)

[1684] _Am. Naturalist_, ii. 397.

[1685] Cf. Lyell’s _Second Visit_.

[1686] All the general treatises on American archæology now cover the subject: Wilson, _Prehist. Man_, i. 132; Nadaillac, _L’Amérique préhistorique_, ch. 2; Short, _No. Amer. Antiq._, 106; _Smithsonian Reports_, 1864 (Rau), 1866, 1870 (J. Fowler); _Bull. Essex Inst._, iv. (Putnam); _Peabody Mus. Reports_, i., v., vii.; _Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Proc._ 1867, 1875; _Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci. Proc._ 1866; _Pop. Science Monthly_, x. (Lewis); Lyell’s _Second Visit_, i. 252; Stevens, _Flint Chips_, 194. For local observations: J. M. Jones in _Smithsonian Ann. Report_, 1863, on those of Nova Scotia. S. F. Baird in _Nat. Museum Proc._ (1881, 1882), on those of New Brunswick and New England. For those in Maine see _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xvi., xviii.; _Central Ohio Sci. Assoc. Proc._, i. 70; that at Damariscotta, in particular, is described in the _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xx. 531, 546; and in the _Maine Hist. Soc. Col._, v. (by P. A. Chadbourne) and vi. 349. Wyman’s studies are in the _Amer. Naturalist_, Jan., 1868, and _Peabody Mus. Rept._, ii. Putnam (_Essex Inst. Bull_., xv. 86) says that those at Pine Grove, near Salem, Mass., were examined in 1840. The map which is annexed of those on Cape Cod, taken from the _Smithsonian Report_ (1883, p. 905), shows the frequency of them in a confined area, as observed; but the same region doubtless includes many not observed.

For those on the New Jersey coast see Cook’s _Geology of New Jersey_ (Newark, 1868), and Rau in the _Smithsonian Reports_, 1863, 1864, 1865. The Lockwood collection from the heap at Keyport is in the Peabody Museum (cf. _Rept._, xxii. 43). Francis Jordan describes the _Remains of an Aboriginal Encampment at Rehoboth, Delaware_ (Philad., 1880). Elmer R. Reynolds reported on “Precolumbian shell heaps at Newburg, Maryland, and the aboriginal shell heaps of the Potomac and Wicomico rivers” at the _Congrès des Américanistes_ (Copenhagen, 1883, p. 292). Joseph Leidy describes those at Cape Henlopen in the _Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci._, 1866. Those on the Georgia coast, St. Simon’s Island, etc., are pointed out in C. C. Jones’s _Antiquities of the Southern Indians; Smithsonian Repts._, 1871 (by D. Brown); in Lyell’s _Antiq. of Man_, and in his _Second Visit to the U. S._ (N. Y., 1849), i. 252.

The shell heaps of Florida have had unusual attention. Wyman has indicated the absence of objects in them, showing Spanish contact. Dr. Brinton’s first studies of them were in his _Notes on the Floridian Peninsula_ (Philad., 1859), ch. 6, and again in the _Smithsonian Report_ (1866), p. 356. Prof. Wyman’s first reports (St. John River) were in _The American Naturalist_, Jan., Oct., Nov., 1868. He also described them in the _Peabody Mus. Report_, i., v., vii., and in his _Fresh Water Shell Heaps of the St. John River, Florida_ (Salem, 1875), being no. 4 of the _Memoirs of the Peabody Acad. of Science_. There are other investigations recorded in the _Smithsonian Reports_, 1877, by S. P. Mayberry, on St. John River; 1879, by S. T. Walker, on Tampa Bay; also by A. W. Vogeler in _Amer. Naturalist_, Jan., 1879; by W. H. Dall in the _American Journal of Archæology_, i. 184; and by A. E. Douglass in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, vii. 74, 140. On those of Alabama, see _Peabody Mus. Rept._, xvi. 186, and _Smithsonian Rept._, 1877.

On those of the great interior valleys, see the _Second Geological Report of Indiana_, and Humphrey and Abbott’s _Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi Valley_.

For the California coast, there is testimony in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, iv. 709-712; _Smithsonian Rept._, 1874 (by P. Schumacher); _American Antiquarian_, vii. 159; and _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, v. 489. Schumacher covers the northwest coast in the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1873. Those in Oregon are reported to be destitute of the bones of extinct animals, in the _Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey_, iii. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 739, refers to those on Vancouver’s Island. W. H. Dall describes those on the Aleutian Islands in the _Contributions to No. Amer. Ethnology_, i. 41.

[1687] This branch of archæological science began, I believe, with the discovery by Sir Wm. R. Wilde of some lacustrine habitations in a small lake in county Meath. R. Monro’s _Ancient Scotch lake Dwellings_ (Edinburgh, 1882) has gathered what is known of the remains in Great Britain. There are similar remains in various parts of the continent of Europe; but those revealed by the dry season of 1853-54 in the Swiss lakes have attracted the most notice. Dr. Keller described them in _Reports_ made to the Archæological Society of Zurich. A. Morlot printed an abstract of Keller’s Report in the _Smithsonian Report_, 1863. In 1866, J. E. Lee arranged Keller’s material systematically, and translated it in _The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland and other parts of Europe, by Ferdinand Keller_ (London, 1866), which was reissued, enlarged and brought down to date, in a second edition in 1878. The earliest elaborated account was Prof. Troyon’s _Habitations lacustres_ (1860), of which there was a translation in the _Smithsonian Reports_, 1860, 1861. Troyon and Keller have reached different conclusions: the one believing that the traces of development in the remains indicate new peoples coming in, while Keller holds these to be signs of the progress of the same people. A paper by Edouard Desor, _Palafittes or Lacustrian Constructions_, appeared in English in the _Smithsonian Report_, 1865. There is a large collection of typical relics from these lake dwellings in the Peabody Museum (_Report_, v.).

These evidences now make part of all archæological treatises: Lyell’s _Antiq. of Man_; Lubbock, _Prehist. Times_, ch. 6; Nadaillac, _Les premiers hommes_, i. 241; Stevens, _Flint Chips_, 119; Joly, _Man before Metals_, ch. 5; Figuier, _World before the Deluge_ (N. Y., 1872), p. 478; Southall, _Recent Origin_, etc., ch. 11, and _Epoch of the Mammoth_, ch. 4; _Archæologia_, xxxviii.; Haven in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc_., Oct., 1867; Rau in _Harper’s Monthly_, Aug., 1875; _Poole’s Index_, p. 718, and _Supplement_, p. 246. The man of the Danish peat-beds and of the Swiss lake dwellings is generally held to belong to the present geological conditions, but earlier than written records.

[1688] _Senate Doc._; also separately, Philad., 1852. Cf. Bancroft, _Native Races_, iv. 652; Domenech’s _Deserts_, etc., i. 201; _Annual Scient. Discovery_, 1850; Short, _No. Am. of Antiq._, 293. A photograph of the Casa Blanca is given in _Putnam’s Report, Wheeler’s Survey_, p. 370. Cf. Haven in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, 1855, p. 26.

[1689] _Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey of the territories_, 2d series, no. 1 (Washington, 1875), and its _Annual Rept._ (Washington, 1876), condensed in Bancroft, iv. 650, 718, and by E. A. Barber in _Congrès des Américanistes_, 1877, i. 22. Cf. Short, 295, etc.

[1690] _Bulletin_, etc., ii. (1876). Hayden’s _Survey_ (1876). Cf. Short, p. 305; _Kansas City Rev._, Dec., 1879 (on their age); James Stevenson in _Fourth Rept. Bureau of Ethnology_, pp. xxxiv, 284; Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_ (ii. 61), and _L’Amérique préhistorique_, ch. 5; _Scribner’s Mag._, Dec., 1878 (xvii. 266); _Good Words_, xx. 486; _Science_, xi. 257. Those of the Cañon de Chelly are described by James Stevenson in the _Journal Amer. Geo. Soc._ (1886), p. 329. It is generally recognized that the cliff dwellers and the Pueblo people were the same race, and that the modern Zuñi and Moquis represent them. Bandelier in _Archæol. Inst. of Am., 5th Rept._ J. Stevenson (_Second Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, 431) describes some cavate dwellings of this region cut out of the rock by hand. There is no evidence that these remains call for any association with them of the great antiquity of man.

[1691] Cf., for instance, Short, 331.

[1692] Morgan (_Systems of Consanguinity_, 257) finds correspondence to the roving Indian in physical and cranial character, in linguistic traits, and in the similarity of arts and social habits. Their connection with the moundbuilder and cliff-dwelling race is traced in H. F. C. Ten Kate’s _Reizen en Onderzolkingen in Nord America_ (Leyden, 1885). Cushing thinks (_Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._, 481) they got their habit of building in stories from having, as cliff-dwellers, earlier built on the narrow shelves of the rocks. Morgan (_Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii. 550) thinks their architectural art deteriorated, since the ruined pueblos are finer constructions than those inhabited now. Cf. on the origin of Pueblo architecture V. Mindeleff in _Science_, ix. 593, and S. D. Peet in _Amer. Antiquarian_, iv. 208, and _Wisconsin Acad. of Science_, v. 290.

[1693] See chapter vii. of Vol. II.

[1694] Cf. lesser accounts of these earlier notices in E. G. Squier’s paper in the _Amer. Rev._, Nov., 1848; and G. M. Wheeler in the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._ (1874), vol. vi.

[1695] The book is rare. There is a copy in Harvard College library. Cf. Sabin, ii. 4636-38; Ternaux, 518; Carter-Brown, ii.; Leclerc, no. 813 (200 francs). There is a French version, Brussels, 1631; and a Latin, Saltzburg, 1634.

[1696] Not to be confounded with the Casas Grandes, farther south in the Mexican province of Chihuahua, which is of a similar character. Cf. Bancroft, iv. 604 (with references); Short, ch. 7; Bartlett’s _Personal Narrative_, ii. 348. It was first described in Escudero’s _Noticias de Chihuahua_ (1819); and again in 1842, in _Album Mexicano_, i. 372.

[1697] From that day to the present there have been very many descriptions: _Documentos para la historia de Mexico_, 4th ser., i. 282; iv. 804; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 621; Short, 279; Schoolcraft, _Ind. Tribes_, iii. 300; Bartlett, _Personal Nar._, ii. 278, 281; Emory, _Reconnaissance_, 81, 567; Humboldt, _Essai politique_; Baldwin, _Anc. America_, 82; Mayer, _Mexico_, ii. 396, and _Observations_, 15; Domenech, _Deserts_, i. 381; Ross Browne, _Apache Country_, 114; Jametel in _Rev. de Géog._, Mar., 1881; Nadaillac, _Prehist. Amér._, 222. Bancroft groups many of the descriptions, and best collates them.

[1698] Gregg, in his _Commerce des Prairies_ (N. Y., 1844), examined the Pueblo Bonito in 1840.

[1699] Washington, 1848,—30th Cong., Ex. Doc. 41. This includes Lieut. J. W. Abert’s _Report and Map of the Examination of New Mexico_. He visited two pueblos. This and other material afforded the base for the studies of Squier and Gallatin, the former printing “The ancient monuments of the aboriginal semi-civilized nations of New Mexico and California” (_Amer. Rev._, 1848), and the latter a paper in the _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii., repeated in French in the _Nouv. Ann. des Voyages_, 1851, iii. 237.

[1700] This is perhaps the most important of all the ruins. Bancroft, iv. 671. Bandelier’s studies are the most recent. _Congrès des Amér., Compte Rendu_, 1877, ii. 230, and his _Introd. to studies among the sedentary Indians of New Mexico and Report of the ruins of Pecos_ (Boston, 1881,—Archæol. Inst. of America).

[1701] Also in _Rept. of Sec. of War, 1st Sess. 31st Cong._ Cf. Bancroft, iv. 652, 655, 661; Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, 86; Domenech’s _Deserts_, i. 149, 379; Short, 292. The Chaco cañon was visited by W. H. Jackson in 1877, and his report is in the _Report of Hayden’s Survey_, 1878, p. 411. Morgan gives a summary, with maps (see Nadaillac, 229), in his _Houses and House Life_, etc., ch. 7, 8,—holding (p. 167) them to be the seven cities of Cibola seen by Coronado. Cf. on this mooted question our Vol. II. 501-503; and Simpson’s paper in the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._ vol. v.

[1702] _32d Cong., 2d sess., Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 59._

[1703] On the Zuñi region see Bancroft, iv. 645, 667, 673 (with ref.); Short, 288; Möllhausen, _Reisen in die Felsengebirge Nord Amerikas_ (ii. 196, 402), and his _Tagebuch_, 283; Cozzen’s _Marvellous Country_; _Tour du Monde_, i.; _Harper’s Monthly_, Aug., 1875; J. E. Stevenson’s _Zuñi and the Zunians_ (Washington, 1881). Of F. H. Cushing’s recent labors among the Zuñi, see Powell’s _Second_, _Third_, and _Fifth Reports, Bur. of Ethnology_.

[1704] The _Report_ of Lieut. W. H. Emory, directly in charge of the survey (_Ho. Ex. Doc. 135, 34th Cong., 1st sess._), was printed separately in 3 vols. in 1859.

[1705] _Report upon U. S. Geol. Surveys, west of the one hundredth meridian in charge of First Lieut. Geo. M. Wheeler, vol. vii., Archæology_ (Washington, 1879). Ernest Ingersoll, a member of the survey, published some papers on the “Village Indians of New Mexico” in the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, vi. and vii.

[1706] Cf. L. H. Morgan on this ruin in the _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii. 536, and in a paper in the _Trans. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci._ (St. Louis, 1877).

[1707] His notes form a good bibliography. He intends as a supplement an account of the different explorations prior to the seventeenth century.

[1708] Bancroft (_Native Races_, i. 529, 599; iv. 662, etc.) gives the best clues to authorities prior to 1875. Short (ch. 7) condenses more, and Baldwin (p. 78) still more. Nadaillac, _L’Amérique préhistorique_ (ch. 5) also summarizes. Morgan studies the social condition of this ancient people (_Systems of Consanguinity_, Part ii. ch. 6; _Houses and House Life_, ch. 6; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, xii.). Cf. James Stevenson’s “Ancient Habitations of the Southwest” in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, xviii. (1886), and his illustrated _Catalogue of Collections_ in Powell’s _Second Rept. Bureau of Ethnol._; E. A. Barber on “Les anciens pueblos” in _Cong. des Américanistes,_ 1877, i. 23, in which he traces a gradation from the moundbuilders through the old pueblo peoples to the Toltecs; C. Schoebel’s account of an expedition in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, nouv. ser. i., and the references in _Poole’s Index_, i. 1063; ii. 359.

Dividing the remaining references into localities, we note for New Mexico the following: J. H. Carleton in the _Smithsonian Rept._ (1854); W. B. Lyon (_Ibid._ 1871); J. A. McParlin (_Ibid._ 1877); Turner in _Am. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii.; and A. W. Bell in _Journal of the Ethnol. Soc._ (London), Oct., 1869. Carleton describes the ruins also in the _Western Journal_, xiv. 185. Clarence Pullen describes the people in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, xix. 22. For Colorado: E. L. Berthoud in _Smithsonian Repts._, 1867, 1871. G. L. Cannon in _Ibid._ 1877; H. Gannett in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, xvi. 666 (Mar., 1880); _Amer. Naturalist_, x. 31; _Lippincott’s Mag._, xxvi. 54. For Arizona: F. E. Grossmann, J. C. Y. Lee, and R. T. Burr in _Smithsonian Repts._, respectively for 1871, 1872, 1879, with other references in Poole under “Moqui.”

[1709] This scope of treatment is manifest in the large number of papers contained in the _Smithsonian Reports_. See W. J. Rhees’ _Catal. of Publ. of Sm. Inst._ (Washington, 1882), pp. 252-3.

[1710] _Beschreibung der Reise_ (Göttingen, 1764; Eng. transl., Lond., 1772).

[1711] _Journal of two visits_, etc., Burlington, 1774 (Thomson’s _Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 657).

[1712] His account is copied in the _Mass. Mag._, Oct., 1791.

[1713] Cf. _Amer. Mag._, Dec., 1787; Jan., Feb, 1788.

[1714] Repeated in Gilbert Imlay’s _Topog. Descrip. West. Territory_.

[1715] _Journal of a Tour._

[1716] _Voyage dans Louisiane_ (Paris, 1807).

[1717] _Sketches of Louisiana_ (1812).

[1718] _Views of Louisiana_ (Pittsburg, 1814).

[1719] _Account of the History, Manners and Customs of the Indian Nations who once inhabited Pennsylvania and the neighboring States_, in the _Transactions Amer. Philos. Soc._ (1819), and later repeated in other editions and versions (P. G. Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 533, etc., and Pilling’s _Eskimo Bibliog._, 43). Louis Cass’s criticism on Heckewelder is in _No. Am. Rev._ Jan., 1826. Cf. Haven, _Archæol. U. S._, 43.

[1720] _Description of the Antiquities discovered in the State of Ohio and other Western States, with engravings from actual surveys_ (Worcester, Mass., 1820). This was reprinted in the _Writings of Caleb Atwater_ (Columbus, 1833). This volume also included his _Observations made on a tour to Prairie du Chien in 1829_ (Columbus, 1831), where Atwater was sent by the Federal government to purchase mineral lands of the Indians (P. G. Thomson’s _Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 52; Pilling, _Bibl. of Siouan Lang._, p. 2). The part originally published in the _Archæol. Amer._ was translated by Malte Brun in _Nouv. Annales de Voyages_, xxviii., who added a paper on “L’origine et l’époque des monumens de l’Ohio.” Cf. Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, 33, and the memoir of Atwater in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1867.

[1721] Including those of Newark, Perry County, Marietta, Circleville, Paint Creek, Little Miami, Piketon, etc.

[1722] Haven, 117. This publication was anticipated by a condensed statement in Squier’s _Observation on the Aboriginal Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, in the second volume of the _Trans. Amer. Ethnol. Soc._ (N. Y., 1847), and in his _Observations on the Uses of the Mounds of the West, with an attempt at their Classification_ (New Haven, 1847). Cf. also _Harper’s Mag._, xx. 737; xxi. 20, 165; _Amer. Jour. Science_, lxi. 305.

[1723] These went in 1863 to the Blackmore collection in Salisbury, Eng., and are described in Stevens’ _Flint Chips_.

[1724] Cf. _Trans. Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci._, 1873, and a paper “On the weapons and military character of the race of the mounds” in the _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem._, i. 473 (1869).

[1725] _Proceedings_, Oct. 23, 1852, where are plans of those at Crawfordsville, and of others in the dividing ridge between the Mississippi and the Kickapoo rivers. Cf. _Ibid._ Oct., 1876.

[1726] P. G. Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 925.

[1727] As, for instance, Conant’s _Footprints of Vanished Races_ (1879). Cf. T. H. Lewis in the _Amer. Journal of Archæology_, Jan., 1886 (ii. 65).

[1728] _Archæology of the U. S._ (1856).

[1729] M’Culloh in 1829 had come to a similar conclusion, and Gallatin and Schoolcraft have somewhat followed him.

[1730] _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866. Cf. Charlevoix.

[1731] This was Dr. J. C. Warren’s view in 1837, in a paper before the _Brit. Asso. Adv. Science_. Cf. also Blumenbach, Morton, Nott, and Gliddon.

[1732] Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, v. 539) thinks they were connected in some obscure way with these southern nations, and in 1875 could write (p. 787) that “most and the best authorities deem it impossible that the moundbuilders were ever the remote ancestors of the Indian tribes.” Dawson (_Fossil Men_, 55) deems the modern Pueblo Indians to be their representatives. Brasseur supposes the Toltecs came from them. (Cf. also Short, 492; and S. B. Evans, in _Kansas City Rev._, March, 1882.) John Wells Foster, who had for some years written on the subject, gathered his results in a composite volume, _Prehistoric Races of the United States_ (Chicago, 1873, 1878, 1881, etc.), in which he held to the theory of their migrating south and developing into the civilization of Central America. Cf. his paper in the _Trans. Chicago Acad. Nat. Sci._, vol. i., and his abstract of it in his _Mississippi Valley_ (1869, p. 415). J. P. MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_ (Cincinnati, 1879) takes similar ground. Morgan (_Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii. 552) holds that they cannot be classed with any known Indian “stock,” and that the “nearest region from which they could have been derived is New Mexico.” Wills de Haas takes exception to this view in the _Trans. Anthropological Soc. of Washington_ (1881). Cf. R. S. Robertson in _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_ (1877), xi. 39.

[1733] Major Powell says, that years ago he reached the conclusion that the modern Indians must have raised at least some of the mounds in the Mississippi Valley (_Bur. of Ethnol. Rept._, iv. p. xxx). Cf. also Powell’s paper in _Science_, x. 267. In the second of these reports (p. 117) Henry W. Henshaw sets forth the views, which the Bureau maintained; and he defended these views in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, viii. 102. The leading member, however, of the Bureau staff, who is working in this field, is Cyrus Thomas. In the _Nat. Mus. Report_ (1887) he defined the aim and character of the _Work in Mound Exploration of the Bureau of Ethnology_, also issued separately. In this it was stated that over 2,000 mounds had been opened, and 38,000 relics gathered from them; but nothing to afford any clue to the language which the moundbuilders spoke. The conclusions reached were:—

_First_, the mounds are as diversified as the Indian tribes are.

_Second_, they yield no signs of a superior race.

_Third_, their builders and the Indians are the same.

_Fourth_, the accounts of the early European visitors of the Indians found here correspond to the disclosures of the mounds.

_Fifth_, certain kinds of mounds in certain localities are the work of tribes now known; and there are no signs about the mounds to connect them with the Pueblo Indians or those farther south.

Thomas, in the _Fifth Report_ (1888) described the “Burial Mounds of the northern sections of the U. S.” He says that the character of the mounds and their contents indicate the possibility of dividing the territory they occupy roughly into eight districts, each with some prominent characteristic, and he roughly distinguishes these sections as of Wisconsin; the Upper Mississippi; Ohio; New York; Appalachian; the Middle Mississippi; the Lower Mississippi and the Gulf. He holds that the moundbuilding people existed from about the fifth or sixth century down to historic times.

Taking for his texts the mounds of the Appalachian districts, he has presented anew his grounds for believing this region at least to have had the red Indian race for the constructors of its mounds, and that the Cherokees were that race. Carr had already (1876), from investigating a truncated oval mound in Virginia, and comparing it with Bartram’s (_Travels_, 365) description of a Cherokee council-house (_Peabody Mus. Rept._, x. 75), reached the conclusion that that particular mound was built by the Cherokees. Thomas further undertakes to prove that the Cherokees once occupied the Appalachian region, and that implements of the white men are found in some of the mounds, bringing them down to a period since the contact with Europeans. The habits of the builders of these mounds are, as he affirms, known to correspond to what we know from historic evidence were the habits of the Cherokees.

Thomas has also communicated the views of the Bureau in other ways, as in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, vi. 90; vii. 65; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, May, 1884, p. 396; 1887, p. 193; July and Sept., 1888. In these papers, among other points, he maintains that the defensive enclosures of northern Ohio are due to the Iroquois-Huron tribes, and he accepts the view of Peet and Latham, that the animal mounds are more ancient than the simpler forms. Other investigators have adopted, in some degree, this view. Horatio Hale thinks the Cherokees of Iroquois origin, and that they may have mingled with the moundbuilders. C. C. Baldwin holds the Allegheni, Cherokees, and the moundbuilders to be the same.

Prominent among those who have adopted this red-Indian theory are Judge M. F. Force and Lucien Carr. In 1874 Force published at Cincinnati a paper, which he read before the literary club of that city; and in 1877 he prepared a paper on the race of the moundbuilders, which appears in French in the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_ (1877, i. p. 121), and in English, _To what Race did the Moundbuilders belong_ (Cincinnati, 1875). He maintains that the race, which shows no differences from the modern Indians, flourished till about 1,000 years ago, and that some of them still survived in the Gulf States in the sixteenth century, and that their development was about on the plane of the Pueblos, higher than the Algonquins and lower than the Aztecs.

Carr’s _Mounds of the Mississippi Valley historically considered_ makes part of the second volume of Shaler’s _Kentucky Survey_, and was also issued separately (1883). It is the most elaborate collation of the accounts of the early travellers, and of others coming in contact with the Indians at an early day, which has yet been made, and his foot-notes are an ample bibliography of this aspect of the subject. He holds that these early records prove that nothing has been found in the mounds which was not described in the early narratives as pertaining to the Indians of the early contact. He aims also particularly to show that these early Indians were agriculturists and sun-worshippers. Brinton, reviewing the paper in the _American Antiquarian_ (1883, p. 68), holds that Carr goes too far, and practises the arts of a special pleader. Brinton’s own opinions seem somewhat to have changed. In the _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866, p. 35, he considers the moundbuilders as not advanced beyond the red Indians; and in the _American Antiquarian_ (1881), iv. 9, in inquiring into their probable nationality, he thinks they were an ancient people who were driven south and became the moundbuilding Chahta.

Other supporters of the red Indian view are Edmund Andrews, in the _Wisconsin Acad. of Science_, iv. 126; P. R. Hoy, in _Ibid._ vi.; O. T. Mason, in _Science_, iii. 658; Nadaillac, in _L’Amérique préhistorique_; E. Schmidt, in _Kosmos_ (Leipzig), viii. 81, 163; G. P. Thurston, in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1888, xix. 374.

[1734] This is denied in Fred. Larkin’s _Anc. Man in America_ (N. Y.).

[1735] J. D. Baldwin’s _Anc. America_ (N. Y., 1871). D. Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. ch. 10, etc., who holds that “the moundbuilders were greatly more in advance of the Indian hunter than behind the civilized Mexican;” and he claims that the proof deduced from the Indian type of a head discovered in a moundbuilder’s pipe (i. 366) is due to a perverted drawing in Squier and Davis. Short, _No. Amer. of Antiq._, believed they were of the race later in Anahuac. Gay, _Pop. Hist. U. S._, i. ch. 2, believes in the theory of a vanished race. In 1775 Adair thought the works indicated a higher military energy than the modern Indian showed.

[1736] _Antiq. of Man_, 4th ed. 42.

[1737] Putnam’s papers and the records of his investigations can be found in his _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xvii., xviii., xix., xx., etc. _Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist._, xv.; _Amer. Naturalist_, June, 1875; _Kansas City Rev._, 1879, etc.

[1738] _No. Am. Rev._, cxxiii., for “houses of the moundbuilders,” and also in his _Houses and Home Life_, ch. 9. Cf. on the other hand C. Thomas in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1884, p. 110.

[1739] Rhee’s _Catalogue_, p. 252-3.

[1740] S. D. Peet, who edits this journal, has advanced in one of his papers (vii. 82) that some of these earthworks are Indian game drives and screens. (He also contributed a classification of them to the _Congrès des Américanistes_, 1877, i. 103.) The paper by J. E. Stevenson (ii. 89), and that by Horatio Hale on “Indian Migrations” (Jan.-April, 1883), are worth noting. The _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, 1875 (i. 387), has Joly’s “Les Moundbuilders, leurs Œuvres et leurs Caractères Ethniques,” and that for 1877 has a paper by John H. Becker and Stronck. That by R. S. Robertson in _Ibid._ (i. p. 39) is also reprinted in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._ (iv. 174), March, 1880; while in March, 1883, will be found some of T. H. Lewis’s personal experiences in exploring mounds. Some other periodical papers are: W. de Haas, in _Trans. Am. Asso. Adv. Science_, 1868; D. A. Robertson, in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, v. 256; A. W. Vogeles and S. L. Fay, in _Amer. Naturalist_, xiii. 9, 637; E. B. Finley in _Mag. Western Hist._, Feb., 1887, p. 439; _Science_, Sept. 14, 1883; Squier, in _American Journal Science_, liii. 237, and in _Harper’s Monthly_, xx. 737, xxi. 20, 165; C. Morris, in _Nat. Quart. Rev._, Dec. 1871, 1872, April, 1873; Ad. F. Fontpertius on “Le peuple des mounds et ses monuments” in the _Rev. de Géog._ (April and August, 1881); E. Price, in the _Annals of Iowa_, vi. 121; Isaac Smucker, in _Scientific Monthly_ (Toledo, Ohio), i. 100.

Some other references, hardly of essential character, are: H. H. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. ch. 13; v. 538; Gales’s _Upper Mississippi, or Historical Sketches of the Moundbuilders_ (Chicago, 1867); Southall’s _Recent Origin of Man_, ch. 36; Wm. McAdams’s _Records of ancient races in the Mississippi valley; being an account of some of the pictographs, sculptured hieroglyphs, symbolic devices, emblems and traditions of the prehistoric races of America, with some suggestions as to their origin_ (St. Louis, 1887); Brühl’s _Culturvölker des alten Amerika_; J. D. Sherwood, in Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 341; E. Pickett’s _Testimony of the Rocks_ (N. Y.).

[1741] _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866.

[1742] Cf. _Congrès des Amér._, 1877, i. 316; C. Thomas in _Amer. Antiq._, vii. 66; Warden’s _Recherches_, ch. 4; Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, ch. 2.

[1743] Cf. Short, p. 158.

[1744] Force, _To what Race_, etc., p. 63.

[1745] Cf. Henry Gillman’s “Ancient Men of the Great Lakes” in _Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci._ (Detroit, 1875), pp. 297, 317; _Boston Nat. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iv. 331; _Smithsonian Rept._, 1867, p. 412; C. C. Jones’s _Antiq. Southern Indians_; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, iv., vi., xi.; Jos. Jones’s _Aborig. Remains of Tennessee_; Jeffries Wyman in _Am. Journal of Arts_, etc., cvii. p. i.; W. J. McGee in _Ibid._ cxvi. 458; and Dr. S. F. Landrey on “A moundbuilder’s brain” in _Pop. Science News_ (Boston, Oct., 1886, p. 138).

[1746] Cf. Holmes’s “Objects from the Mounds” in Powell’s _Bur. of Ethnol. Repts._, iii.; C. C. Baldwin’s “Relics of the Moundbuilders” in _West. Reserve Hist. Soc. Tract_, no. 23 (1874); Foster on their stone and copper implements in _Chicago Acad. Science_, i. (1869); objects from the Ohio mounds in Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 418; images from them in _Science_, April 11, 1884, p. 437. In the mounds of the Little Miami Valley, native gold and meteoric iron have been found for the first time (_Peab. Mus. Rept._, xvi. 170).

[1747] See, on such impositions in general, MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_, ch. 9; C. C. Abbott in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, July, 1885, p. 308; Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, ii. ch. 19; Putnam in _Peab. Mus. Repts._, xvi. 184; _Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._ 247.

The best known of the disputed relics are the following: The largest mound in the Ohio Valley is that of the Grave Creek, twelve miles below Wheeling, which was earliest described by its owner, A. B. Tomlinson, in 1838. It is seventy feet high and one thousand feet in circumference. (Cf. Squier and Davis, Foster, MacLean, _Olden Time_, i. 232; and account by P. P. Cherry—Wadsworth, 1877.) About 1838 a shaft was sunk by Tomlinson into it, and a rotunda constructed in its centre out of an original cavity, as a showroom for relics; and here, as taken from the mound, appeared two years later what is known as the Grave Creek stone, bearing an inscription of inscrutable characters. The supposed relic soon attracted attention. H. R. Schoolcraft pronounced its twenty-two characters such “as were used by the Pelasgi,” in his _Observations respecting the Grave creek mound, in Western Virginia; the antique inscription discovered in its excavation; and the connected evidence of the occupancy of the Mississippi valley during the mound period, and prior to the discovery of America by Columbus_, which appeared in the _Amer. Ethnological Soc. Trans._, i. 367 (N. Y., 1845). Cf. his _Indian Tribes_, iv. 118, where he thinks it may be an “intrusive antiquity.” The French savant Jomard published a _Note sur une pierre gravée_ (Paris, 1845, 1859), in which he thought it Libyan. Lévy-Bing calls it Hebrew in _Congrès des Amér._ (Nancy, i. 215). Other notices are by Moïse Schwab in _Revue Archéologique_, Feb., 1857; José Perez in _Arch. de la Soc. Amér. de France_ (1865), ii. 173; and in America in the _Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 197; Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, 133, and _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April 29, 1863, pp. 13, 32; _Amer. Antiquarian_, i. 139; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, v. 75.

Squier promptly questioned its authenticity (_Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii.; _Aborig. Mts._, 168). Wilson laughed at it (_Prehistoric Man_, ii. 100). Col. Whittlesey has done more than any one to show its fraudulent character, and to show how the cuts of it which have been made vary (_Western Reserve, Hist. Soc. Tracts_), nos. 9 (1872), 33 (1876), 42 (1878), and 44 (1879.) Cf. on this side Short, p. 419; and _Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._, 250. Its authenticity is, however, maintained by MacLean (_Moundbuilders_, Cinn., 1879), who summarizes the arguments _pro_ and _con_.

What is known as the Cincinnati tablet was found on the site of that city in 1841 (_Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 195). Squier accepted it as genuine, and thought it might be a printing-stone for decorating hides (_Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii.; _Aborig. Mts._ (1847), p. 70). Whittlesey at first doubted it (_West. Res. Hist. Tracts_, no. 9), but was later convinced of its genuineness by Robert Clarke’s _Prehistoric Remains found on the site of Cincinnati_ (privately printed, Cinn., 1876).

The so-called Berlin tablet was found in Ohio in 1876. S. D. Peet believes it genuine (_Amer. Antiq._, i. 73; vii. 222).

On the Rockford tablet, see Short, 44.

The Davenport tablets, found by the Rev. J. Gass in a mound near Davenport, in Jan., 1877, are described in the _Davenport Acad. Proc._, ii. 96, 132, 221, 349; iii. 155. Cf. further in _Amer. Asso. Adv. Science Proc._ (April, 1877), by R. J. Farquharson; _Congrès des Amér._ (1877, ii. 158, with cut). The _American Antiquarian_ records the controversy over its genuineness. In vol. iv. 145, John Campbell proposed a reading of the inscription. The suspicions are set forth in vii. 373. Peet, in viii. 46, inclines to consider it a fraud; and, p. 92, there is a defence. Short (pp. 38-39) doubts. In the _Second Amer. Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, H. W. Henshaw, on “Animal Carvings,” attacked its character. (Cf. _Fourth Rept._, p. 251.) A reply by C. E. Putnam in vol. iv. of the _Davenport Acad. Proc._, and issued separately, is called _Vindication of the Authenticity of the Elephant pipes and inscribed tablets in the Mus. of the Davenport Acad._ (Davenport, Iowa, 1885). Cf. Cyrus Thomas in _Science_, vi. 564; also Feb. 5, 1886, p. 119. The question of the elephant pipes is included in the discussion, some denying their genuineness. Cf. also _Amer. Antiq._, ii. 67; Short, 531; Dr. Max Uhle in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, 1887.

[1748] It has been found convenient to follow an advancing line of geographical succession, but the affiliations of the peoples of the mounds seem to indicate that those dwelling on both slopes and in the valleys of the Appalachian ranges should be grouped together, as Thomas combines them in his section on the mounds of the Appalachian District. (_Fifth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._)

[1749] _Proc._, Oct. 23, 1849, p. 13; Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, iii. 89; Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, 42.

[1750] D. A. Robertson, _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, vol. v., contends that the North American mounds were built by a colony of Finns long before the Christian era.

[1751] It was also issued, with some additional matter, at Buffalo (1851) as _Antiquities of New York State, with supplement on Antiquities of the West_ (1851). Squier has also at this time a paper on these mounds in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1849, p. 41. Cf. _Am. Journal of Science_, lxi. 305, and _Harper’s Monthly_, xx. and xxi. His conclusions, distinct from those pertaining to the Ohio mounds, were that the N. Y. earthworks were raised by the red Indians.

[1752] Cf. W. M. Taylor on a Pennsylvania mound in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1877.

[1753] A few minor references may be given. The _Smithsonian Reports_ have papers by D. Trowbridge (1863); and by F. H. Cushing on those of Orleans County (1874). W. L. Stone held them to have been built by Egyptians, who afterward went south (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, Sept., 1878, ii. 533). Cf. _Ibid._ v. 35, and S. L. Frey in the _Amer. Naturalist_, Oct., 1879. A small book, _Ancient Man in America_ (N. Y., 1880), by Frederic Larkin, takes issue with Squier, and believes the builders were not the modern Indians. He says he found in one of the N. Y. mounds, in 1854, a copper relic, with a mastodon, evidently in harness, scratched upon it! H. G. Mercer’s _Lenape Stone_ describes a “gorget stone” dug up in Buck’s County, Penn., in 1872, which shows a carving representing a fight between Indians and the hairy mammoth, which we are also asked to accept as genuine. What is recognized as an ancient burial mound of the Senecas is described at some length in G. S. Conover’s _Reasons why the State should acquire the famous burial mound of the Seneca Indians_ (1888).

[1754] Contributions to a bibliography and lists of the Ohio mounds are found as follows: Mrs. Cyrus Thomas’s “Bibliog. of Earthworks in Ohio” in the _Ohio Archæol. and Hist. Quarterly_, June, 1887, et seq.; a lesser list is in Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, p. 385. Lists of the works are given in the _Ohio Centennial Rept._ and in MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_, pp. 230-233. J. Smucker, in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, vi. 43, describes the interest in archæology in the State, and instances the results in the numerous county histories, in the Western Reserve Hist. Soc. publications, in those of the Nat. Hist. Soc. of Cincinnati, of the Archæological Soc. at Madisonville, of the Central Ohio Scientific Association (begun 1878), and of the District Hist. Society (beginning its reports in 1877. Cf. P. G. Thomson, _Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 328). The course of the West. Reserve Hist. Soc. is sketched in the _Mag. West. Hist._, Feb., 1888 (vol. vii.).

[1755] _Life of Cutler_, ii. 14, 252.

[1756] _Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc._, iv.

[1757] Their survey is used in Stevens’s _Flint Chips_ by Sherwood.

[1758] Cf. no. 11, 23, 41.

[1759] Some minor references: Whittlesey in _Fireland’s Pioneer_ (June, 1865), and in his _Fugitive Essays_ (Hudson, O., 1852). C. H. Mitchener’s _Ohio Annals_ (Dayton, 1876). _Hist. Mag._, xii. 240. C. W. Butterfield in _Mag. West. Hist._, Oct., 1886 (iv. 777). I. Dille in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1866, p. 359; and Hill and others in _Ibid._ 1877. C. Thomas in _Science_, xi. 314. Thomas J. Brown on artificial terraces in _Amer. Antiquarian_, May, 1888. Howe’s _Hist. Collections of Ohio_, as well as the numerous county histories, afford some material.

[1760] The annexed map of the vicinity of Chillicothe will show their abundance in a confined area. E. B. Andrews on those in the S. E. in _Peabody Mus. Rept._, x. MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_ (Cincinnati, 1879) is of no original value except for Butler County. Squier and Davis give a plan of the fortified hill in this county. Walker’s _Athens County_. Isaac J. Finley and Rufus Putnam’s _Pioneer Record of Ross County_ (Cincinnati, 1871). A plan of the High Bank works in this county is given in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, v. 56. The Highland County works, called Fort Hill, are described in the _Ohio Arch. & Hist. Q._, 1887, p. 260. G. S. B. Hampstead’s _Antiq. of Portsmouth_ (1875) embodies results of a long series of surveys. Cf. _Journal Anthropological Institute_, vii. 132.

[1761] D. Drake’s _Picture of Cincinnati_ (1815); Harrison in _Ohio Hist. & Philos. Soc._, i.; Squier and Davis; Ford’s _Cincinnati_, i. ch. 2.

[1762] The best known of the ancient fortifications of this region is that called Fort Ancient, about 42 miles from Cincinnati. It was surveyed by Prof. Locke in 1843. Cf. L. M. Hosea in _Quart. Journal of Science_ (Cinn., Oct., 1874); Putnam in the _Amer. Architect_, xiii. 19; _Amer. Antiquarian_, April, 1878; Force’s _Moundbuilders_; Warden’s _Recherches_; Squier and Davis, with plan reduced in MacLean, p. 21; Short, 51; and on its present condition, _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xvi. 168. There is an excellent map of the mounds in the Little Miami Valley, in Dr. C. L. Metz’s _Prehistoric Monuments of the Little Miami Valley_, in the _Journal of the Cincinnati Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. i., Oct., 1878. The explorations of Putnam and Metz are recorded in the _Peab. Mus. Repts._, xvii., xviii. (Marriott mound), and xx. Cf. Putnam’s lecture in _Mag. West. History_, Jan., 1888. There are explorations at Madisonville noticed in the _Journal of the Cinn. Soc. Nat. Hist._, Apr., 1880. Others in this region are recorded in L. B. Welch and J. M. Richardson’s _Prehistoric relics found near Wilmington_ (Sparks mound), and by F. W. Langdon in the appendix of Short.

[1763] M. C. Read’s _Archæol. of Ohio_ (Cleveland, 1888), with cut. Col. Whittlesey made the survey in Squier and Davis, and it is copied by Foster. O. C. Marsh in _Hist. Mag._, xii. 240; and in _Amer. Journal of Science_, xcii. (July, 1866). Isaac Smucker, a local antiquary, in _Newark American_, Dec. 19, 1872; in _Amer. Hist. Record_, ii. 481; and in _Amer. Antiq._, iii. 261 (July, 1881). Cf. Nadaillac, 99, and view in Lossing’s _War of 1812_, p. 565.

Other antiquities of the central region are described in no. 11 _Western Res. Hist. Soc. Tracts_ (Hardin Co.); in _Ohio Arch. Hist. Quart._, March, 1888 (Franklin Co.); _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1863 (Fairfield Co., etc.).

[1764] R. W. McFarland in _Ohio Arch. Hist. Quart._, i. 265 (Oxford).

[1765] Cox in _Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci._, 1874 (fort in Clarke Co.).

[1766] _West. Res. Hist. Soc. Tracts_, no. 41 (1877); and for the Cuyahoga Valley in no. 5 (1871), both by Whittlesey. The works on the Huron River, east of Sandusky, were described, with a plan, by Abraham G. Steiner in _Columbian Mag._, Sept., 1789, reprinted in _Fireland’s Pioneer_, xi. 71. G. W. Hill in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1874; E. O. Dunning on the Lick Creek mound in _Peab. Mus. Rept._, v. p. 11; S. D. Peet on a double-walled enclosure in Ashtabula Co. in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1876. Cf. Cornelius Baldwin on ancient burial cists in northeastern Ohio in _West. Res. Hist. Tracts_, no. 56, and Yarrow on mound-burials in _First Rept. Bur. Ethnol._

[1767] Cf. Putnam in _Bull. Essex Inst._, iii. (Nov., 1871), and _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Proc._ (Feb., 1872); Foster, p. 134, with plan. The _Smithsonian Repts._ cover notices by W. Pidgeon (1867), by A. Patton in Knox and Lawrence counties (1873), and by R. S. Robertson (1874).

[1768] _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xii. 473 (1879). For Illinois mounds see Thomas in _Fifth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._; Davidson and Struve’s _Illinois_; E. Baldwin’s _La Salle Co._ (Chicago, 1877); W. McAdams’s _Antiq. of Cahokia_ (Edwardsville, 1883); H. R. Howland in the _Buffalo Soc. Nat. Hist. Bull._, iii.; and in _Smithsonian Repts._, by Chas. Rau (1868); largely on agricultural traces; by Dr. A. Patton (1873); by T. M. Perrine on Union Co. (1873); by T. McWhorter and others (1874); by W. H. Pratt on Whiteside Co. (1874); by J. Shaw on Rock River (1877); and by J. Cochrane on Mason Co. (1877).

[1769] His papers are in the _Smithsonian Repts._, 1873, 1875; _Peabody Mus. Reports_, vi. (1873), on the St. Clair River mounds; _Am. Journal of Arts, etc._, Jan., 1874; _Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Proc._, 1875; on bone relics in _Congrès des Amér._, 1877, i. 65; and on the Lake Huron mounds, in _American Naturalist_, Jan., 1883. Cf. other accounts in _Michigan Pioneer Collections_, ii. 40; iii. 41, 202; S. D. Peet in _Amer. Antiq._, Jan., 1888; and on the old fort near Detroit, _Ibid._ p. 37; and Bela Hubbard’s _Memorials of a half century_.

[1770] The copy in Harvard College library has some annotations by George Gale. Lapham’s survey of Aztlan is reproduced in Foster, p. 102. Lapham’s book is summarized by Wm. Barry in the _Wisconsin Hist. Soc. Coll._, iii. 187. These _Collections_ contain other papers on mounds in Crawford Co. by Alfred Brunson (iii. 178); on man-shape mounds (iv. 365); J. D. Butler on “Prehistoric Wisconsin” (vii.); on Aztalan (ix. 103).

The _Transactions_ of the Wisconsin Acad. of Science are also of assistance: vol. iii., a report of a committee on the mounds near Madison, with cuts; vol. iv., a paper by J. M. DeHart on the “Antiquities and platycnemism [flat tibia bones] of the Moundbuilders.”

[1771] S. D. Peet has discussed this aspect in the _Amer. Antiquarian_ (1880), iii. p. 1; vi. 176; vii. 164, 215, 321; viii. 1; ix. 67. He also examines the evidence of the village life of their builders (ix. 10). Cf. his _Emblematic Mounds_; and his paper in the _Wisconsin Hist. Coll._, ix. 40.

[1772] None of the bones of extinct animals have been found in the mounds; nor has the buffalo, long a ranger of the Mississippi Valley, been identified in the shapes of the mounds. (Cf. Peet on the identification of animal mounds in _Amer. Antiq._, vi. 176.) Peet holds they followed the mastodon period (_Ibid._ ix. 67). The elephant mound, so called, has been often shown in cuts. (Cf. _Smithsonian Rept._, 1877, accompanying a paper by J. Warner, and Powell’s _Second Rept. Bur. of Eth._, 153.) Henshaw here discredits the idea of its being intended for an elephant. The evidence of elephant pipes is thought uncertain. Cf. article on mound pipes by Barber in _Amer. Naturalist_, April, 1882.

[1773] _Second Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, p. 159, where Henshaw thinks it may just as well be anything else. Cf. Isaac Smucker in _Amer. Antiquarian_, vii. 350.

[1774] Cf. _Amer. Antiq._, vi. 254.

[1775] _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xvii., and _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1883. He points out that the Ohio effigy mounds have a foundation of stones with clay superposed; the Georgia mounds are mainly of stone; while the Wisconsin mounds seem to be constructed only of earth.

Further references on the Wisconsin mounds: _Smithsonian Repts._, by E. E. Breed (1872); by C. K. Dean (1872); by Moses Strong (1876, 1877); by J. M. DeHart (1877); and again (1879).

Also: Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, p. 106; W. H. Canfield’s _Sauk County_; DeHart in _Amer. Antiquarian_, April, 1879; their military character in _Ibid._, Jan., 1881; also as emblems in _Ibid._ 1883 (vi. 7); Nadaillac and other general works. There is a map of those near Beloit—some are in the college campus—in the _American Antiquarian_, iii. 95.

[1776] They have been described in the _Smithsonian Reports_ by T. R. Peale (1861); and in _Amer. Antiquarian_, July, 1888, by S. D. Peet. Other mounds and relics are described in the _Smithsonian Repts._ (1863) by J. W. Foster; (1870) by A. Barrandt; (1877) by W. H. R. Lykins; and (1879) by G. C. Broadhead; in _Peab. Mus. Repts._, viii., by Professor Swallow; in _Missouri Hist. Soc. Publ._, no. 6, by F. F. Hilder; in _Cinn. Quart. Jour. of Sci._, Jan., 1875, by Dr. S. H. Headlee; in the _Kansas City Rev._, i. 25, 531; in the _St. Louis Acad. of Science_ (1880) by W. P. Potter; Mr. A. J. Conant has been the most prolific writer in _Ibid._, April 5, 1876; in W. F. Switzler’s _History of Missouri_ (St. Louis, 1879), and in C. R. Burns’s _Commonwealth of Missouri_ (1877). Cf. also Poole’s _Index_, p. 858.

[1777] T. H. Lewis in _Science_, v. 131; vi. 453. On other Iowa mounds, see _Smithsonian Rept._, by J. B. Cutts (1872); by M. W. Moulton (1877), and again (1879); _Annals of Iowa_, vi. 121; and W. J. McGee in _Amer. Journal Science_, cxvi. 272.

[1778] _Smithsonian Rept._, 1863; and for mounds, 1879. Cf. L. C. Estes on the antiquities on the banks of Missouri and Lake Pepin in _Ibid._, 1866.

[1779] _Kansas Rev._, ii. 617; Joseph Savage and B. F. Mudge in _Kansas Acad. Science_, vii.

[1780] _Smithsonian Rept._, by A. J. Comfort (1871) and by A. Barrandt (1872); W. McAdams in _Amer. Antiquarian_, viii. 153.

[1781] _Amer. Naturalist_, x. 410, by E. Palmer; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 715.

[1782] App. to Gleeson’s _Hist. of the Catholic Church in California_ (1872), ii., and Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iv. 695.

[1783] P. W. Norris in _Smithsonian Report_, 1879.

[1784] Cf. George Gibbs in _Journal Amer. Geogr. Soc._, iv.; A. W. Chase in _Amer. Jour. Sci._, cvi. 26; _Amer. Architect_, xxi. 295; and Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 735.

[1785] Cf. S. H. Locket in _Smithsonian Rept._ (1872), and T. P. Hotchkiss in the same, and a paper in 1876; _Amer. Journal Science_, xlix. 38, by C. G. Forshey, and lxv. 186, by A. Bigelow.

[1786] T. H. Lewis, with plan, in _Amer. Journal Archæol._, iii. 375; previously noted by Atwater and by Squier and Davis.

[1787] Cf. Filson’s _Kentucke_.

[1788] _Amer. Philos. Soc. Trans._, iv., no. 26.