Chapter XXIX: Appendix: A (2)

Nezahualcoyoth, King of Tezcuco, poems of, 470.

Niche stairway, 315.

Nootkas, Aztec traces among, 486.

Norse discovery of America, 153.

North-west, antiquity of man in, 128–9.

Nott and Gliddon on the origin of nations, 159.

O.

Oajaca, antiquities of, 360–64.
languages of, 479.

Observations on places of sanctuary, 80.

Obsidian in mounds, 85.

Occupancy of Mississippi valley by Mound-builders, 106.

Ocean currents, 505.

Ococingo, ancient city in Chiapas, 211.
site of, 226.

Ohio Archæological Society report, 82, n. 1.

Ohio mound crania, 170–1.

Ohio mound-works, 47.
estimated number of, 48.

Ojo del Pescado, ruins at, 289.

Oldtown art, 64.

Oldtown, Tennessee, mounds, 61–3.

Olmecs, First Nahuas, 232–4, 518.
destroy the giants, 235.
build Chohila, 235, 248, 264.

Opata-Tarahumar-Pima family of languages, 488.

Ophir, 145.

Oraybe, Moqui town, 330.

Ordoñez, history of, 207.

Oregon, traces of Aztec in, 490.

Origin of the Americans, Autochthonic, 192 _et seq._

Origin of Americans reviewed, 516.

Origin of Ancient Americans, 134, 153.
views of Duran, 135;
L’Estrange, 136;
Thorowgood, 136;
Garcia, 136–7;
Herrera, 137;
Torquemada, 137;
Pineda, 138;
Echevarria y Veitia, 138;
Ulloa, 139;
Domenech, 139;
Clavigero, 139.
Bancroft’s summary of views cited, 139;
views of modern authors, 201–2, notes;
of old world origin, 202.

Origin of the Nahuas, according to Sahagun, 242.

Origin tradition of Mayas, 204.
of Quichés, 211–12.

Orton, President Edward, on inter-glacial relics in Ohio, 126–7.

Otomi language compared to Chinese, 494–5.

Oztotlan, home of Aztecs, 248.

P.

Pacific Continent, 508.

Page, J. R., explorations by, 67.

Painted desert, 332.

Painting practised by Mound-builders, 65.

Palæolithic age in America, 23.

Palenque art compared with Egyptian, 418.

Palenque, centre of the earliest American civilization, 204, 208–9.

Palenque, situation, 340;
antiquities, 340;
palace, 342;
architectural features of, 343;
Tau at, 343;
roofs, 344;
arch, 345–6;
tower, 345;
sculpture at, 384–92;
statue, 391.

Panuco (Panco, Panutla or Panoaia, Pantlan) Mexican port, 242.

Papantla, pyramid of, 367.

Patton, Dr., on Indiana mounds, 57, n. 2.

Pecos, New Mexico Pueblo, 331.

Pentateuch, true chronology of, 199.

_Peresianus Codex_, 427.

Peruvian crania, 175.

Petit Anse Island, remains from, 115.
Foster’s observations on, 115.
Hilgard and Fontaine’s report on, 115.

Physiognomy of ancient Americans, 186.

Phœnician colonization of America, 145–6.
George Jones on, 145–6.

Picture-writing of Aztecs, 428–33;
specimen from _Codex Mendoza_, 431–2.

Pimentel on Chichimec language, 255.

Pimentel’s classification of Maya languages, 472;
epitome of Aztec Grammar from, 482–83.

Pineda on origin of Americans, 138.

Plastered room in mound, 75

Platycnemism, 183;
Gillman’s discoveries of, 185, n. 2.

Plato’s Atlantis, tradition of, 142.

Polynesia, ancient empire of, 508.
Baldwin on, 508.

Polysynthesis, a law of American language, 471.

Pomme-de-Terre River, Dr. Koch’s discoveries at, 118–19.

Pontonchan, 234.

_Popol Vuh_ (national book of the Quichés), 212, n. 2.
second division of, 221.

Pottery from the cliff-houses, 327.

Powell, Major J. W., explorations, 285–287.

Pratt, W. H., explorations by, 42, n. 2.

Pre-Columbian colonization, views on, 141–154.

Progress, architectural, in mound-works, 79–80.

Prophecy, analogies of, 464.

Ptolemy cited, 497.

Pueblo civilization, extent of, 283.
architecture, chap. vii.
transition in style, 284.

Pueblos of New Mexico, 330–1.
in ruins, 331.

Pueblo Pintado, 291.

Pueblos, the, and Aztecs, 331;
and mound-builders, 332;
architecture and remains compared, 333;
creation and flood and Babel myths of, 335–6.

Puente Nacional, pyramid at, 365.

Putnam, F. W., explorations by, 57, 65, 67.
explorations in Tennessee, 173.

Pyramid, the American, 341.
structure according to Bancroft, 341.
of Tehuantepec, 360.
of Puento Nacional, 365.
of Centla, 366.
of El Castillo, 366.
of Tusipan, 367.
of Papantla, 367.
of Cholula, 368.
of Xochicalco, 370–73.
of Mexico, 374.
of Teotihuacan, 375–9.

Q.

Quemada, Los edificios of, 379–81.

Quiché architecture, 355–9.

Quiché-Cakchiquel languages, 476.

Quinames (Quinametin), 282;
first inhabitants of Mexico, 245;
their destruction, 233.

Quiché poetry, 515.

Quichés reputed to be Carthaginians, 226.

Quichés, Maya nation, 211;
origin tradition, 211–12;
creation myth, 213;
creations of men, 214;
migrations, 215;
deities of, turned to stone, 216;
heroic age of, 220.

Quetzalcoatl, culture hero, 219, 237;
traditions of, 267–71;
from Hue hue Tlapalan, 267;
priest and God of Toltecs, 268;
habits, 268;
author of letters and Mexican calendar, 268;
his enemy, 269;
departure from Tulla, 270;
reign at Cholula, 270;
departure to the East, 271;
expectation of his return, 271;
origin of legends concerning him, 272, 394, 457;
nationality, 464;
positive morality, 515;
discovery of maize, 242.

Quiyahuitztlan, Anahuac, Toltec station, 245.

R.

“Raised Beeches,” discovered by Alexander Agassiz, 504.

Ramirez, on Aztec migration map, 263.

Rau, Charles, on Mexican copper mining, 94, n. 2.
on aboriginal trade, 98.

Red Man, antiquity of, 22;
traditions, 22.

Read, M. C., on Grave Creek Tablet cited, 87, n.

Religious analogies, 459–68.

Religion of the Quichés, 212.
a war of, 226.

Remains at Santos River, Brazil, Lyell and Meigs on antiquity of, 113.

Reviellagigedo, viceroy to Mexico, 453.

Report of Ohio Archæological Society, 82, n. 1.

Retzius, on Morton’s measurements, 165.
on Mexican crania, 175, n.

River Rouge mound, 29.
crania from, 167–8.

River Terraces, mound-works on, 103.
Mr. Baldwin’s views, 103.
Foster’s view, 104. n. 1.

Rock shelters in San Juan Cañon, 309.
in Montezuma Cañon, 316.

“Rockford Tablet,” 44.

Room plastered in mound, 75.

Rosny, M. Leon de, essay by, 425–26.
key to hieratic writings of Mayas, 427.

Ross County (Ohio) works, 48.

Roque, Father, observations on Aztec, 486.

Russell, G. P., explorations by, 87–89.

S.

Sabine worship, 40–85.

Sacrifices, human, 273, 452–53.

Sacrificial mounds, 83–6;
stratified according to Squier and Davis, 84;
stratification denied by Prof. Andrews, 83.

Sacrifices, probably human, 39.

Sahagun’s account of the first Nahuas, 240–6.

Salado Rio, antiquities of, 283.

Salinas River, 283.

Sadelmair, discoveries of, 283.

Salisbury, Stephen, cited, 396–401.

Salish family of languages, Aztec element in, 492.

Sanctuary, places of, 80.

Sandals of Chaac-Mol, 398.

San Juan Cañon, cliff-dwellings of, 307.
Echo Cave in, 310–11.

San Miguel Valley, antiquities of, 275–7.

Savage Art, unity in style of, 196.

Scandinavian and Mexican analogies, 466.
discovery of America, 22, 153;
Prof. Rafn on, 153.

Schools of Tezcuco, 481.

Sculpture, from mounds, 382;
at Palenque, 384–92;
Uxmal, 393–95;
Chichen-Itza, 398–403;
Copan, 405;
Monte Alban, 406;
at Tusapan, 407;
Xochicalco, 408;
at Mexico, 409–10.

Sculptures from the mounds, 187–9.

Seltzertown pyramidal mound, 72.

Separate creation theory, Morton and Agassiz’s views of, 157–9;
groundless, 191.
Sepulture, mounds of, 86–88.

“Serpents,” kingdom of, 222.

Serpent Temple, 394;
symbol, 419, 272;
Serpent-work, Adams county, Ohio, 34.

“Seven Caves,” 215, 219, 248, 264–66.

Shaler, Prof., on Dr. Abbott’s discoveries, 128.

Shell-heaps on Atlantic sea-board, 28, 106–7.
fresh-water of, 107–9;
in Florida, 107.
Prof. Wyman on, 106–8;
Dr. Brinton on, 107;
on Pacific coast, 109;
examination by Paul Schumacher, 109.

Shoshone-Comanche languages, 489;
Aztec elements in, 492.

Signal Systems of the Mound-builders, 52.
on Great Miami River, 52.
Squier and Davis on, 53.

Skrellings, 22.

Sorcery practised upon Xibalban kings, 225.

Spain’s state of learning in 17th century, 133, n. 2.

Squier and Davis, estimate of number of mound-works in Ohio, 48;
classification of mound-works by, 81.

Squier on Newark works, 53.

Stations, of Toltec migration, 244–46;
of Aztec migration, according to Veytia, Tezozomoc and Clavigero,
260;
names interpreted by Humboldt, 261, n. 3.

Statuettes in National Museum, 415.

St. Clair River mounds, 30.

Stephens and Catherwood, explorations, chap. viii., _passim_.

Steinthal, Prof., classification of languages by, 471, n. 4.

Stevenson, M. F., description of mounds by, 72.

St. Francis Valley mounds, 74.

St. Louis, mound-works at, 40, 73.

Stone Age in New Jersey, 26;
Dr. Abbott on, 26.

Stone coffins, burial in, 60.

Stone graves in Tennessee, 60;
in Indiana, 57.

Stone implements from Bridger basin, Wyoming, 24, n. 1.

Stone tubes used by Mound-builders, 96.

St. Patrick in America, 152.

Stucco reliefs at Palenque, 384–88.

Sun-dried brick, 75;
wall of at Seltzertown, 72;
in Phillips County, Missouri, 75.

Sun, tablet of, 392.
symbol of, 395.

Sun worship, 40, 85.

Swallow, Prof., explorations by, 75.

Syphilis among Mound-builders, 184.

T.

Tabasco, ancient civilization of, 203.

Tablet of cross, 390;
of sun, 392;
at Chichen-Itza, 398.

Tablet, Rockford, 44; Cincinnati, 44.

Tablets at Palenque, 384–90.

Table Mountain, cranium from, 125.

Tamoanchan, city of Tobasco, 241, 243.

Tarahumara, language of North Mexico, 487.

Tarascos, migrations of, 261.

“Taylor mound,” the, 87–89.

Tehuantepec, antiquities of, 350–60;
language of, 479.

Tegua, Moqui pueblo, 326.

Temple base near Nashville, 62.

Temple of Mexico, 374.

Tennessee mound-works, 58;
explorations of Prof. Jones in, 58–65;
of Prof. Putnam, 65–67.

Tennessee mound crania, 171–4.

Tennessee Valley mounds, 71;
Mr. Fountain on, 71.

Teo-Culhuacan, 250–60, 265, 266.

Teotihuacan, pyramids of, 375–79;
compared with Egypt, 375, 382, 383.

Teotihuacan, sacred city of, 234, 343, 266.

Tepanecs, Nahua tribe, 256.

Tepetla, Toltec station, 246.

Tepehuana, language of North Mexico, 487.

Terra-Cotta, figure from Isla Mugeres, 403.

Terminos, Laguna de, 234.

Texas mounds, 78.

Tezcatlipoca, bloody god of the Nahuas, 269–70;
sorcery of, 269.

Tezcuco, schools of, 481.

Tezpi, flood myth, 263, n.

Tezquil nation, 208.

Theban calendar compared to the Aztec, 459.

Thomas, Dr., on Dakota mounds, 31–2.
Gen. H. W. on same, 32;
low type skull cited, 128, n. 5, 167.

Thomson, Sir C. Wyville, on Atlantic land ridge, 502–3.

Thompson, Dr. J. P., on Usher’s chronology, 201.

Thorowgood on origin of ancient Americans, 136.

Thorwald, Ericson, 22.

Tibiæ, flattened, 30.

Time, Absolute and Relative, 200.

Tlacamitzin, Toltec chief, 244.

Tlachicatzin, city in Hue hue Tlapalan, 245.

Tlahuicas, Nahua tribe, 256.

Tlaloc, Aztec rain-god, 457.

Tlapalans, four, 252;
Bancroft and Brasseur’s views upon, 251–2.

Tlapallan de Cortes, 251;
location of examined, 251.

Tlapallanconco, Toltec station, 245.

Tlascatecs, Nahua tribe, republic of, 257.

Tohil (Quiché deity), 215.

Tollan, Toltec capital, 218, 246.

Toltec migration, 244, 251;
migration according to Becker, 248–50;
according to Ixtlilxochitl, 244–46, 250;
account examined, 246.

Toltec flood myth, 238.

Toltecs, origin according to Ixtlilxochitl, 239.
southern origin considered, 252;
outlines of history, 254;
annals, Bancroft’s resumé of, 255.

Tomlinson’s report on Grave Creek mound, 87.

Tongues, confusion of, 238.

Totonacs, Mexican nation, 234.

Totzapan, 246.

Tower of Mancos Cañon, 297–300;
McElmo, 324;
at Chichen, Mayapan and Tuloom, 355.

Toxpan, Toltec station, 245.

Trade-winds, 508;
agents in the discovery of America, 506.

Tradition (Indian) valueless, 102.
Dr. Foster on, 102.
of Nahua Mound-builders, Becker on, 102–3, n.

Tradition and History and their scope, 109–10.

Tradition of uncertain value, 204.

Trinity myth in Yucatan, 231.

Troano MS, 422.

Tula (Tulha or Tulan), 211.
sculptured column from, 413.

Tulan, 215–16;
four in number, 217–18.

Tulancingo (Tollancingo), Mexican city, 246.

Tulan-Zuiva, 215, 264–66, 248.

Tumuli of Vera Paz, 359;
Tehuantepec, 360.
Vera Cruz, 364.

Tusapan, antiquities of, 367.

Typical mound skull, 166.

Tzendal, language of Chiapas, dialect of the Maya, 206.

Tzendel, a Maya dialect, the oldest American language, 473.

U.

_Uraeus_, Egyptian symbol, 467.

Ural-Altaic languages compared to Indian tongues, 496.

Usher, Bishop, chronology of faulty, 199.

Usumacinta Valley, the seat of most ancient American civilization,
208.

Utah languages, 489–90.

Utatlan, Quiché city, 227;
antiquities of, 358.

Utes, the enemies of the cliff-dwellers, 303.

Uxmal, architectural remains, 347–52.
arches and roofs, 349–50.
sculpture, 393;
Façades at, 394.
Le Plongeon’s observations on, 457.

V.

Valentini, Dr. Ph., interpretation of Mexican Calendar Stone, 453–59;
on analogies in geographical names, 497.

Vancouver’s Island, Aztec termination used, 490;
elements in, 491.

Vases from Casas Grandes, 278;
burial from Mexico, 410;
after Waldeck, 410;
from National Museum, 414–15.

Vater, on the Aztec language, 480–90.

Vega, Bishop Nuñez de la, 200.

Vegetation, age of on mounds, 104;
relation between American and Asiatic, 513.

Vera Paz, mounds of, 359.

Verda Rio, antiquities of, 284.

Verrezano, 22.

Vespucius, 22.

Voc, mythical personage, 222.

Votan (culture hero), tradition of cited, 133–9, 145, 204.
document written by, 206–10.

Vucub-Cakix, Xilbalban monarch, 222.

Vucab-Came, 224.

Vukub-Hunapu, Quiché chief, 222.

W.

Wabash Valley, mounds in, 57, n. 2.

Watch-tower of the Mancos, 300.

Waterbury Mine, 91.

Waynesville, Ohio, inter-glacial relics from, 126.

Welsh discovery of America, 154.

Whipple, Lieut., explorations by, 284.

“White-man’s land,” 152.

Whittlesey, Col., on Shelter Caves, 26.
on ancient copper mines, 91, 94.

Wilson, Dr. Daniel, cranial measurements tabulated, 164;
observations by, on Morton’s theory, 165, n. 2;
examinations of Peruvian crania by, 176;
on head-flattening, 180–2;
on Cincinnati Tablet, 47.

Wisconsin mound-works, 33;
effigy and animal mounds of, 33.

Worship of sun, 40.

Writing, systems of, see Hieroglyphics.

Wyman, Jeffries, on shell-heaps of Florida, 155–8.

X.

Xalisco, Toltec station, 245.

Xan, Quiché messenger, 224.

Xbalanque, Quiché hero, 222–3.

Xelhua, builder of Cholula, 236.

Xibalba, kingdom of Votanites, tradition of fall, 220–26;
date of, 227;
fall of, a theme for poetry, 515;
hatred of, 221.

Xicalancas, 234;
origin of, 234.

Xicalanco, Mexican city, 234.

Xmucane, 222–3.

Xochicalco, pyramid of, 370–3.

Xochimilcos, Nahua tribe, 256.

Xpiyacoc, 222.

Xquiq, Xibalban princess, 223.

Y.

Yamkally language, traces of Aztec in, 490.

Yaqui, Mexican tribe, 219.

Yazoo Valley mounds, 71.

Yellowstone, mounds of, 31.

Yond Mountain, 73.

Yucatan, origin of population, 229–30;
Greek gods in, 467.

Yztachnexucha, 246.

Z.

Zacotlan, Toltec station, 246.

Zamna, Maya culture hero, 229–30.

Zapotecs, Mexican nation, 234;
antiquities of, 360–64.

Zárate, on the Aztec, 486.

Zayi, Casa Grande of, 353.

Zipacua, Xibalban warrior, 222.

Ziuhcohuatl, Toltec station, 246.

Zumárraga, destruction of Aztec MS. by, 429.

Zuñi, description of, 288–89;
Valley, Pueblos of, 288.

Zutugil, language, 476.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Las Casas: _Historia de Indias_, lib. I, cap. 40, tom. I, MS. Irving: _Columbus_, vol. I, p. 158 (N. Y., 1851 ed.). Navarrete: _Coleccion de los viajes_, tom. I, p. 176. Grynaeus: _Novus Orbis_, p. 66, Basil, 1555, fol. Herrera: _Historia General_, Dec. I, lib. I, cap’s ii et vi, Madrid, 1730.

[2] Rafn: _Antiquitates Americanæ_, p. 45, note. Rafn: _Op. cit._, pp. xxx–xxxiii.

[3] Rafn: _Historia Thorfinni Karlsefnii_ (in Ant. Am.), pp. 149, 181; also, De Costa: _Pre-Columbian Discovery of America_, pp. xxxii, xxxiii, 21, 41, 57, 58, 69, 70, 73, 74, 110; Gravier: _Découverte de l’Amérique par les Normands au Xᵉ Siècle_, p. 83. Paris, 1874, 4to.

[4] Prof. Jos. Leidy, in _Hayden’s 6th Ann. Report of the U. S. Geological Survey of the Territories_ (1872), pp. 652–3, describes the stone implements found in the Bridger basin in southern Wyoming. He remarks, “The question arises, who made the stone implements and when, and why should they occur in such great numbers in the particular localities indicated. My friend, Dr. J. Van A. Carter, residing at Fort Bridger, and well acquainted with the language, history, manners, and customs of the neighboring tribes of Indians, informs me that they know nothing about them. He reports that the Shoshones look upon them as the gift of God to their ancestors. They were no doubt made long ago, some probably at a comparatively late date, that is to say, just prior to communication of the Indians with the whites, but others probably date centuries back.”

[5] It would be foreign to the object of this work to enter upon a discussion of the antiquity of man in Europe. Were we to follow the example of several writers on the antiquities of America, we might present a resumé of the splendid achievements of science in determining the approximate age of man, as an inhabitant of different portions of the old world, but such condensed accounts at best are unsatisfactory and often detrimental to science because of their very slenderness. The evidences of man’s antiquity being far more remote than the generally accepted historic period, antedating its beginning by several thousand years, no doubt exist. The discoveries in the Liége caverns, in the caves of Languedoc and in the cave of Engihoul in Belgium; in the Neanderthal and Engis caves; at Abbeville and Amians; the valley of the Somme; the basin of the Seine; of the Thames; and of the lake dwellers of Switzerland, as well as the shell-heaps of Denmark, point to an antiquity which half a century ago it would have been heresy to have dreamed of. We have but to refer to the admirable work of Sir Charles Lyell: _The Antiquity of Man_ (Phil., 1863), and to the well-known works of Lubbock, Tylor, Vogt, and others. A good treatment of the subject in brief will be found in Foster: _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._ (1873), and a pointed and popular reference to it in Bryant’s _History of the U. S._, vol. I. N. Y., 1876.

[6] _Evidences of the Antiquity of Man in the U. S._, by Col. Charles Whittlesey. A memoir of 20 pp. Perhaps the chief importance of the above-cited cave discoveries is derived from the eminence of the antiquarian who cites them, rather than in their real value to science. In the case of the Elyria cave—examined by Dr. E. W. Hubbard, Prof. J. Brainerd, and the author of the memoir—“the grindstone grit,” resting on shale, formed a grotto of considerable size. Four feet of the floor of the cave, consisting of charcoal, ashes and bones of the wolf, bear, deer, rabbit, squirrels, fishes, snakes and birds (“all of which existed in this region when it became known to the whites”), was removed and three human skeletons discovered. The author states that the three had been crushed by a large slab of the overhanging sandstone falling on them, but fails to state how much of the overlying material consisted of this sandstone slab. He remarks: “Judging from the appearance of the bones, and the depth of the accumulations over them, two thousand years may have elapsed since the human skeletons were laid on the floor of this cave.” The Louisville cave discovery is no more satisfactory than the above. It is scarcely necessary to remark that all the evidences are of a comparatively recent interment, and much less than two thousand years would have been sufficient to produce the conditions described. See also discoveries at High Rock Spring, Saratoga, N. Y., cited by Col. Whittlesey, p. 10, and more fully treated by Dr. McGuire in the “_Proceedings of the Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._,” vol. xii, p. 398, May, 1839, in which the latter claims to find traces of the Red man 5470 years ago. It is not probable that Dr. McGuire’s _traces_ are those of the Indians, nor is it certain that they were left by human beings at all, since the pine tree (found at a considerable depth and worn as he supposes by the feet of Indians) was as liable to have been worn by the feet of animals as of men. See also Dr. Abbott, _The Stone Age in New Jersey_, Smithsonian Report, 1874, p. 246 _et seq._ See this work, pp. 127–8.

[7] _Squier and Davis: Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, Washington, 1848, 4to, 1st vol. of Smithsonian Contributions; _Dr. J. A. Lapham: Antiquities of Wisconsin_, Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 1855. More recently—_The Upper Mississippi_, by _George Gale_, Chicago, 1868; _The Mississippi Valley_, by _Dr. J. W. Foster_, Chicago, 1869, 8vo, and his _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, Chicago, 1873, 8vo. We might add a list of names scarcely less eminent, of authors who have written upon special fields and examined particular works. A reliable bibliography of literature on the Mound-builders is a desideratum which we trust some enterprising Americanist may soon supply.

[8] Described by Dr. Wm. Blanding in a letter to Dr. Morton, of Philadelphia. Foster: _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, p. 148, and _Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, p. 105. Foster: p. 151.

[9] Squier: _Antiquities of Western New York_, vol. ii, Smithsonian Contributions, 1851. See an interesting account of the _Antiquities of Orleans County, New York_, by F. H. Cushing, in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, p. 375.

[10] _Antiquity of Man in U. S._, p. 12; also, _Ancient Earth Forts of the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio_, by _Col. Charles Whittlesey_, Cleveland, O., 1871, pp. 40 and plates.

[11] _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, p. 145.

[12] _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873, p. 364 _et seq._, from which we draw the above. _The Proceedings of the American Ass. for the Adv. of Science_ for 1875.

[13] See Mr. Gillman’s in _Sixth Annual Report of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum of Archæology and Ethnology_, p. 12 _et seq._, Cambridge, 1873, and _Am. Jour. of Arts and Sciences_, 3d ser., vol. vii, pp. 1–9, Jan., 1874.

[14] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 151. “There is a large mound, three hundred feet high and three hundred yards in diameter at the base, at the southern end of the prairie, about twenty-five miles from Olympia; and scattered over the prairie for a distance of fifteen miles are many smaller mounds, not more than four feet high and twenty or thirty in diameter. * * * A few days ago one of the engineers of the Northern Pacific Railroad opened one of them and found the remains of pottery; and a more thorough examination of others revealed other curious relics, evidently the work of human hands; in fact, in every mound that has yet been opened there is some relic of a long-forgotten race discovered.” In quoting the above, Dr. Foster remarks that the great mound was no doubt a natural eminence artificially rounded off.

[15] _Narrative of the U. S. Exploring Expedition during the Years 1838–42._ Phila., 1844. Tom. IV, p. 334. “We soon reached the Butte prairies (on Columbia River) which were extensive, and covered with _tumuli_ or small mounds, at regular distances asunder. As far as I could learn there is no tradition among the natives relative to them. They are conical mounds thirty feet in diameter, about six to seven feet high above the level, and many thousands in number. Being anxious to ascertain if they contained any relics, I subsequently visited these prairies, and opened three of the mounds, _but found nothing_ in them but a pavement of round stones.”

[16] _Baldwin_ (_Ancient America_, pp. 31–2) remarks: “Lewis and Clark reported seeing them on the Missouri River a thousand miles above its junction with the Mississippi River; but this report has not been satisfactorily verified.”

[17] See Mr. A. Barrandt in _Smithsonian Report_, 1870, for an account of discoveries on Clark’s Creek in Dakota; on the Bighorn River; on the Yellowstone; on the Morean and the banks of the Great Cheyenne. See Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 153–4. The proof is conclusive that the head-waters of the Missouri was one of their ancient seats. The same gentleman (Mr. Barrandt) describes a remarkable mound in Lincoln County, Dakota, situated eighty-five miles north-west of Sioux City, on the west fork of the Little Sioux of Dakota or Turkey Creek. The mound is known as the “Hay Stack.” Its dimensions are 327 feet in length at the base on the north-west side, and 290 on the south-east side, and 120 feet wide. It slopes at an angle of about 50°, is from thirty-four to forty feet in height, the north-east end being the higher. To the summit, which is from twenty-eight to thirty-three feet wide, there is a well-beaten path. The remarkable feature of the mound is the fact that part of the north-east side is walled up with soft sandstone and limestone, brought a distance of at least three miles from an ancient quarry. The remainder of the surface is pronounced to be of calcined clay. The mound contained a large interior circular chamber, in which the bones of animals, thirty-six pieces of pottery, and a mass of charcoal and ashes were found.—_Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, pp. 413 _et seq._

[18] Since this is a contested point, both as to the presence of the works of the Mound-builders in the North-west and as to their great antiquity, I subjoin a portion of a report on these mounds made by Gen. H. W. Thomas, U. S. A., to Dr. Thomas of the Surveying Expedition, in the _Sixth Annual Report of the U. S. Geological Survey_ under Dr. Hayden in 1872, pp. 656–7:

“‘Lewis and Clarke reported seeing Indian mounds 1000 miles above
the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri, but this report
is not verified.’ So says Mr. John D. Baldwin, A. M., in his work
entitled ‘Ancient America.’

“I now and here propose to contribute my mite toward the
verification of the statement of Lewis and Clarke.

“The few men whom duty or wild inclination have from time to
time brought into this, for the most part, uninhabited region of
treeless prairie, have all known of the existence of thousands of
artificial mounds. What was in them they knew not, and but two or
three, to my knowledge, have ever been opened. On August 16, 1872,
I opened one on the high table-lands that spread out on both sides
of a little stream called the James. The point is about 47° north
latitude, and 98° 38´ longitude west from Greenwich. It is within
three miles of the line of the North Pacific Railroad. The mound is
circular in form, 30⁸⁄₁₀ feet in its shorter, and 35³⁄₁₀ feet in
its longer diameter, and five feet high. I opened four trenches,
three feet wide, from the outer edge, meeting in the centre,
forming a cross when finished. I then excavated the entire mound
from the centre outward, until there was nothing more to find.
For results I had several two-bushel bags full of bones, eight
skulls, many pieces of skulls too small to be of value (there must
have been at least twenty-five bodies buried there), a rough-hewn
stone ten inches high and five and a half inches in diameter, in
shape resembling closely a conical shell, a cutting half an inch
deep around the centre. (This was evidently tied with thongs to a
stout handle, and used in pulverizing their maize.) A portion of a
shell necklace, two flints, two heads of beaver, and some bones of
animals unknown, and a large quantity of bivalves, much like the
clam (_Mya oblongata_) of our Atlantic coast, but thicker, and the
interior surface much more pearly.

“The mounds and their contents are apparently of great antiquity.
They are, in every case, on the very highest point in their
immediate neighborhood, and perfectly drained. The climate is
excessively dry; so dry that the James River is entirely dry at
a point about 500 feet above the contemplated railroad-bridge
across the river. Notwithstanding this, many of the bones crumbled
into white dust on being brought to the air, like those found in
Herculaneum and Pompeii, and it was absolutely impossible to get
out a single one in anything like perfection. Around and over
these bodies stones and sticks were placed, doubtless to preserve
the remains from the coyote and the fox. The wood could be rubbed
into fine yellow-brown dust between the thumb and forefinger. Any
trace of excavation around the mound for dirt to heap it with had
been entirely obliterated. The upright position of the skulls also
indicated that the bodies were buried in a sitting posture. The
leg-bones, however, lay lower and horizontal.

“The number of mounds indicates a denser population than ever has
been known here, or than the natural resources of this region can
now support by the chase. At the same time the number of dry lakes
scattered all over would indicate that at some remote period the
country may have been a better one than now, and supported a larger
population.”

[19] “_Antiquities of Wisconsin_,” _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. vii, 1855.

[20] _Squier and Davis: Ancient Monuments_, pp. 97–99. Recent and possibly more exact surveys of the Alligator give the figures as somewhat less than the above. Isaac Smucker, a very reliable antiquarian of Licking Co., Ohio, in an address before the Ohio State Archæological Convention, held at Mansfield in September, 1875, corrects the figures in the following statement: “The Alligator mound is upon the summit of a hill or spur, which is nearly 200 feet high, six miles west of Newark, and near the village of Granville. The outlines of the Alligator (or Crocodile) are clearly defined. His entire length is 205 feet. The breadth of the body at the widest part, twenty feet, and the length of the body between the fore-legs and hind-legs is fifty feet. The legs are each about twenty feet long. The head, fore-shoulders and rump have an elevation varying from three to six feet, while the remainder of the body averages a foot or two less.”

[21] _Lapham’s Antiquities of Wisconsin_, pp. 18, 20, 36, 37, 39, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 62, 69.

[22] _W. H. Canfield’s Sketches of Sauk County, Wisconsin_; _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 101. On the copper remains of the Mound-builders, see _Pre-Historic Wisconsin_, by _Prof. James D. Butler, LL.D._, annual address before the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Feb. 18, 1876. Wisconsin Hist. Col., vol. vii. Privately printed.

[23] _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, figured and described on p. 416 by Jared Warner of Patch Grove, Wis. (Oct. 1872). A further description of mounds in the same locality, by Moses Strong, M. E., will be found in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1876, p. 424.

[24] _Antiquities of Wisconsin_, pp. 42–5: “The main features of these remains is the enclosure or ridge of _earth_ (not brick, as has been erroneously stated), extending around three sides of an irregular parallelogram; the west branch of Rock River forming the fourth side on the east. The space thus enclosed is seventeen acres and two-thirds. The corners are not rectangular, and the embankment or ridge is not straight. The earth of which the ridge is made was evidently taken from the nearest ground, where there are numerous excavations of very irregular form and depth; precisely such as may be seen along our modern railroad and canal embankments. These excavations are not to be confounded with the hiding-places (caches) of the Indians, being larger and more irregular in outline. Much of the material of the embankment was doubtless taken from the surface without penetrating a sufficient depth to leave a trace at the present time. If we allow for difference of exposure of earth thrown up into a ridge and that lying on the original flat surface, we can perceive no difference between the soil composing the ridge and that found along its sides. Both consist of a light yellowish sandy loam. The ridge forming the enclosure is 631 feet long at the north end, 1419 feet long on the west side, and 700 feet on the south side; making a total length of wall 2750 feet. The ridge or wall is about twenty-two feet wide, and from one foot to five in height.” * * * After describing one of the mounds of this enclosure, he remarks: “The analogy between these elevations and the ‘temple mounds’ of Ohio and the Southern States, will at once strike the reader who has seen the plans and descriptions. They have the same square or regular form, sloping or graded ascent, the terraced or step-like structure, and the same position in the interior of the enclosure. This kind of formation is known to increase in numbers and importance as we proceed to the south and south-west, until they are represented by the great structures of the same general character on the plains of Mexico.”

[25] D. Gunn in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1867.

[26] Dr. Farquharson in _Proceedings of Am. Ass. for the Adv. of Science_, vol. xxiv, p. 305.

[27] Through the courtesy of Dr. R. J. Farquharson I am enabled to append the original report made by Mr. Gass to the Davenport Academy, Jan. 26, 1877. It is as follows:

“We broke the surface on the north-east slope of the mound about
ten or twelve feet from the opening on the west side made in
1874. The earth was frozen to a depth of about three and a half
feet. Five or six inches below the surface we came upon a layer
of shells one or two inches in thickness, which sloped downward
toward the south-east, reaching a depth of two feet or rather more
below the surface, and extending for a distance of ten or twelve
feet. Between the surface and this first layer of shells a number
of small fragments of human bones were found scattered through
the soil. Under this shell layer was a stratum of earth of from
twelve to fifteen inches in thickness, resting on a second layer of
shells, from three to four inches in thickness. Both shell layers
sloped downward nearly parallel with each other.

“Below the second shell layer the earth was of the nature of a
light mould, darker in color than the earth above and thickly
interspersed with fragments of human bones. These circumstances
arrested my attention and caused me to proceed from this time on
with the greatest caution. At a depth of about fifteen inches under
the lowest part of the shell layer exposed in this excavation—the
shell stratum at this point being five or six inches thick—the
inscribed slates were found. The slate is the same as that usually
found overlying coal beds in this vicinity, and is such as is
frequently seen cropping out from the hill-sides or in isolated
slabs in the beds of streams. Both plates lay close together on the
hard undisturbed clay bottom of the mound.

“The engraved side of the smaller tablet was upward, and also
that side of the larger one presenting the heavenly bodies,
hieroglyphics, etc. The larger plate being partially divided by
natural cleavage, its upper layer was unfortunately broken in
two by a slight stroke of the spade. The two plates were closely
encircled by a single row of weathered limestones. These stones are
irregular in shape, but almost of the same size, their dimensions
being about three by three by seven or eight inches, and the
diameter of the circle about two feet.

“In the immediate vicinity were found a number of fragments
of human bones, one being a portion of a skull saturated with
carbonate of copper. A small piece of copper was found; also many
fragments of slate and a piece of bone artificially wrought.”

Also see _Proceedings of the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences_ for _Account of the Discovery of Inscribed Tablets_, by Rev. J. Gass, with _A Description_ by Dr. R. J. Farquharson. Davenport, Iowa, July, 1877. Cuts and views.

[28] _Pre-Historic Paces of the U. S._, p. 107. See especially _12th Annual Report Peabody Museum_.

[29] In a paper, _A Deposit of Agricultural Flint Implements Found in Southern Illinois_, _Smithsonian Report_, 1868, Dr. Chas. Rau treats the subject of Aboriginal Agriculture at considerable length. In the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873, p. 413 _et seq._, Dr. A. Patton describes the exploration of several remarkable mounds in Lawrence Co., Illinois. In the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, p. 351, Taylor McWhorter describes a number of mounds in Mercer Co., Illinois. He estimates the number in the county at one thousand, mostly on the Mississippi River bank. _The Antiquities of Whiteside County, Ill._, by W. H. Pratt, of Davenport, Iowa, printed in the same Report, p. 354 _et seq._, is a most valuable contribution to our knowledge of the mounds. The first mound examined yielded eight skulls, two of which were preserved. The third mound opened yielded the skeletons of four adults and several articles of interest, such as pieces of mica, a lump of galena and a dove-colored arrow-head. From the fifth mound opened, a remarkably well-preserved skeleton was recovered. Dr. Farquharson, of the Davenport Academy of Sciences, has contributed one of the most valuable tables of mound-cranial measurements ever published.

[30] The best and most exhaustive treatment of the above is by _Mr. Robert Clarke: The Pre-Historic Remains which were Found on the Site of Cincinnati, Ohio, with a Vindication of the Cincinnati Tablet_. Cincinnati, 1876. 8vo, 34 pp. It is to be regretted that this valuable discussion of the genuineness of one of the most important Mound-builder relics is only “privately circulated.” Mr. Clarke has fully accomplished the design for which he wrote.

[31] _Dr. Daniel Drake’s Picture of Cincinnati_, Cincinnati, 1815. _Squier and Davis in Ancient Monuments_. _Gen. Harrison: Ohio Hist. and Phil. Society Trans._, vol. i, and others.

[32] _Dr. Daniel Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man_, 3d ed., 1876, vol. i, pp. 274–5. The following description is given in _Squier and Davis’s Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_: “The material is fine-grained, compact sandstone of a light-brown color. It measures five inches in length, three in breadth at the ends, and two and six-tenths at the middle, and is about half an inch in thickness. The sculptured face varies very slightly from a perfect plane. The figures are cut in low relief (the lines being not more than one-twentieth of an inch in depth), and occupy a rectangular space four inches and two-tenths long by two and one-tenth wide. The sides of the stone, it will be observed, are slightly concave. Right lines are drawn across the face near the ends, at right angles, and exterior to these are notches, twenty-five at one end and twenty-four at the other. The back of the stone has three deep longitudinal grooves, and several depressions, evidently caused by rubbing—probably produced by sharpening the instrument used in the sculpture.” [Mr. Gest, however, does not regard these as tool marks, but thinks they are of peculiar significance.] “Without discussing the singular resemblance which the relic bears to the Egyptian _Cartouch_, it will be sufficient to direct attention to the reduplication of the figures, those upon one side corresponding with those upon the other, and the two central ones being also alike. It will be observed that there are but three scrolls or figures—four of one and two of each of the others. Probably no serious discussion of the question whether or not these figures are hieroglyphical is needed. They more resemble the stalk and flowers of a plant than anything else in nature. What significance, if any, may attach to the peculiar markings or graduations at the end, it is not undertaken to say. The sum of the products of the longer and shorter lines (24 × 7 + 25 × 8) is 368, three more than the number of days in the year; from which circumstance the suggestion has been advanced that the tablet had an astronomical origin, and constituted some sort of a calendar.” We may here add that Col. Chas. Whittlesey published at Cleveland, Ohio, in _Historical and Archæological Tract No. 9_ (Feb. 1872) of the Western Reserve Historical Society, a statement that the “Cincinnati Tablet” was a fraud. But we are informed that he is since convinced of its genuineness.

[33] Judge M. F. Force: _Mound-Builders_. Cincinnati, 1872. Rev. S. D. Peet in the _American Antiquarian_ for April, 1878, refers to the visit of the Ohio Archæological and the National Anthropological Conventions to Fort Ancient in September, 1877, and states that during the visit the significance of the walls of the lower enclosure was discovered. “They bear a resemblance,” he remarks, “to the form of two massive serpents, which are apparently contending with one another. Their heads are the mounds, which are separated from the bodies by the opening which resembles a ring around the neck. They bend in and out and rise and fall, and appear like two massive green serpents rolling along the summit of this high hill. Their appearance under the overhanging forest trees is very impressive”—p. 50. See also Mr. Peet’s memoir on a Double-walled Earthwork in Ashtabula County, Ohio, in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1876, pp. 443–4.

[34] Dr. Foster, _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 145, cites a letter from Prof. E. B. Andrews, of the Ohio Geological Survey, describing an earthwork discovered by him in Vinton County with the ditch _outside_ the parapet. In his _Report of Explorations of Mounds in Southern Ohio_, published in _Tenth Ann. Report of the Peabody Museum of Am. Arch. and Eth._, p. 53 (Camb., 1877), the Professor remarks: “On a spur of a ridge about two miles east of Lancaster is an earth wall, evidently for defence. The ditch is on the outside of the wall, where it should be according to modern ideas of defence. In this particular the earthwork differs from all the circles and so-called ‘forts,’ either circular or square, which I have seen, these having the ditch on the inside.”

[35] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 128: “No one, I think, can view the complicated system of works here displayed and stretching away for miles without arriving at the conclusion that they are the result of an infinite amount of toil expended under the direction of a governing mind, and having in view a definite aim. At this day, with our iron instruments, with our labor-saving machines, and the aid of horse-power, to accomplish such a task would require the labor of many thousand men continued for many months. These are the work of a people who had fixed habitations, and who, deriving their support in part at least from the soil, could devote their surplus labor to the rearing of such structures. A migratory people dependent upon the uncertainties of the chase for a living, would not have the time, nor would there be the motive, to engage in such a stupendous undertaking.”

[36] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 129.

[37] _North American Review_, July, 1876.

[38] Robert Clarke’s _Pre-Historic Remains at Cincinnati_, p. 18: “I believe I am correct in saying that there is no clay in Ohio which could be applied in this way and resist for any length of time the washing rains and sudden winter changes of temperature of our climate,” _et seq._

[39] See A. B. Tomlinson’s _Grave Greek Mound_ (1838). _Schoolcraft in American Ethnological Soc. Transactions_, vol. i. Especially Squier and Davis.

[40] Dr. Patton has described some interesting mounds near Vincennes, Indiana. A giant mound, which towers above many others of considerable proportions, is called the Sugar-loaf Mound, and stands on a promontory which overlooks the rich valley of the Wabash. The height of the Sugar-loaf is seventy feet, with a circumference at the base of one thousand feet. Dr. Patton in June, 1873, sank a shaft in this mound to the depth of forty-six feet. The composition of the mound was of siliceous sand, nowhere found in the region except in other mounds. At ten feet below the summit bones were found, but much decayed. Immediately below them was a layer of charcoal and ashes. Thirty feet deeper the same conditions were repeated, and the bones again were so brittle as to render it impossible to save them. A bed of calcined clay was next entered which could not be penetrated with the instruments at command. One mile south of the Sugar-loaf is a pyramidal mound forty-three feet high, with a circumference of 714 feet at the base and a platform on top fifteen feet wide and fifty feet in length. Others of as great proportions are described. _Smithsonian Report_, 1873, pp. 411 _et seq._ See also _Antiquities of La Porte County, Indiana_, by R. S. Robertson in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, pp. 377 _et seq._ A very low type of cranium was exhumed from one of the mounds in this county. Also see _Mounds at Merom and Hutsonville on the Wabash_, by F. W. Putnam—_Proceedings of the Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xv, 1872. Fifty-nine mounds were examined, and three stone graves discovered.

[41] For an excellent treatment of this part of the subject, see _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 130–144 inclusive.

[42] In _Ancient Monuments of Mississippi Valley._

[43] _Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee._ _Smithsonian Contribution No. 259._ Oct. 1876, p. 100.

[44] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 39, and other places.

[45] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 138.

[46] _Eleventh Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 348–360. Cambridge, 1878. See also _Antiquities of Jackson County, Tenn._, by Rev. Joshua Hale, in _Smithsonian Reports_ for 1874, p. 384. Very interesting and valuable explorations have been conducted in Tennessee by Mr. E. O. Dunning for the Peabody Museum of Am. Arch. and Eth. See _Reports_, 3d, p. 7; 4th, p. 7; 5th, p. 11.

[47] _Mr. Jas. R. Page’s Results of Investigations of Indian Mounds_, in _Transactions of St. Louis Acad. of Science_, vol. iii, p. 226, and copied in _Cincinnati Quar. Journal of Science_, Oct. 1875, vol. ii, No. 4, pp. 371 _et seq._

[48] In _Cincinnati Quar. Journal of Science_, Oct. 1875, p. 378. Also see _Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man_, vol. i, p. 318.

[49] See _Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man_, vol. i, p. 317.

[50] _Fontaine’s How the World was Peopled_, p. 278, and _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 111 _et seq._

[51] _How the World was Peopled_, p. 278.

[52] _Squier and Davis’s Ancient Monuments_, pp. 117 _et seq._ _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 112.

[53] _E. Cornelius_ in _Silliman’s Journal_, vol. i, p. 223, and _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 122.

[54] _Smithsonian Report_, 1870, and _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 123. A further description of works on Etowah River in Bartow Co., Ga., by _Mr. Stephenson_ in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, p. 421. A full and elaborate treatment is also that by Charles C. Jones, Jr., entitled _Monumental Remains of Georgia_. Savannah, 1861. 12mo, p. 118.

[55] _Smithsonian Report_, 1872.

[56] _Smithsonian Report_, 1874, pp. 390 _et seq._

[57] These measurements were carefully made by Dr. S. H. Headlee, of St. James, Missouri, and communicated to the editors of the _Cincinnati Quar. Jour. of Science_, published in January number, 1875, pp. 94–5.

[58] A sensational description of this mound which appeared in the _St. Louis Times_ is used by Mr. S. M. Hosea as the basis of an article on Sacrificial Mounds in the above number of the _Cincinnati Quarterly Jour. of Science_, p. 62. The account contains some wonderful statements, which are evidently made by some unscientific person, and hence are utterly worthless. Although, judging from internal evidence, we have little faith in the reliableness of the correspondent, we give a paragraph for what it is worth: “The approach or causeway which leads across the trench from the north is ten feet in width. Ascending from this causeway to the summit of the mound are the remains of a rude flight of stairs, constructed originally of roughly-hewn stones. Most of these steps are now displaced, and quite a number have rolled down into the trench below, but there is unmistakable evidence that they were at one time arranged in regular order of ascent, and could doubtless be again replaced in position by an intelligent architect.” “By a series of investigations, I found that about a foot beneath the surface there was a regular solid platform of stone covering the entire top of the mound. This platform, though constructed by rude and unmechanical hands, is placed in position with a precision and firmness that might well defy the ravages of the elements in all coming ages. About twelve feet from the northern edge of the mound, and directly on a line with the approach and stairway, I noticed a very perceptible elevation of the earth, covering an area of about twenty by fifteen feet; and driving a pick into the elevated ground, the point struck upon solid rock a few inches below the surface. * * * Pushing our work, we soon unearthed a piece of workmanship that an antiquarian would have worked a week to bring to light. The newly-discovered curiosity consisted of a flat rock twelve feet long, ten feet wide, and eleven inches thick. The centre of the stone was hollowed to a depth of six inches, with a margin of about one foot around the edge.” “At the south end of the stone, a round hole five inches deep and four in diameter was drilled. Amongst the dirt taken out of this place hewn in the stone, was a large fossil tooth and a piece of small broken stone column, and several bits of pottery ware.” This description is very suggestive of the Mexican Temple or Teocalli, but unfortunately for the facts, Dr. Headlee, who made the measurements given in the text a short time subsequently, failed to find any certain evidences that either a stairway or temple had existed on the mound.

[59] _Report on the Geology of Arkansas_, vol. ii, p. 414—cited by Foster.

[60] See on chambered mounds similar to English barrows, Curtiss in _Peabody Museum Reports_, vol. ii, p. 717; Broadhead in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1879, pp. 350 _et seq._ (with cuts).

[61] “Within the State, from Pulaski County to Arkansas, in all the little valleys which wind in and out among the flint-crowned hills of the Ozarks, are seen what may be termed garden mounds. These are elevated about two or three feet above the natural surface of the land, and are from fifteen to fifty feet in diameter, varying thus in size according to the amount of richer soil which could be scraped together. Their presence may always be detected in fields of growing grain by its more luxuriant growth and deeper green.”—_A. J. Conant_ in the _Transactions_ cited above, p. 354. The same writer has treated the subject more fully in a recent work published at St. Louis, entitled, “_The Commonwealth of Missouri_.”

[62] _Ancient Monuments_, p. 115, and _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 120.

[63] _Baldwin’s Ancient America_, p. 72.

[64] Prof. Forshey, in _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 121, 122, remarks: “There is a class of mounds west of the Mississippi Delta and extending from the Gulf to the Arkansas and above, and westward to the Colorado in Texas, that are to me, after thirty years’ familiarity with them, entirely inexplicable. In my Geological Reconnoissance of Louisiana in 1841–2, I made a pretty thorough report upon them. I afterwards gave a verbal description of their extent and character before the _New Orleans Academy of Sciences_. These mounds lack every evidence of artificial construction based on implements or other human vestigia. They are nearly all round, none angular, and have an elevation hemispheroidal of one foot to five feet, and a diameter from thirty feet to one hundred and forty feet. They are numbered by millions. In many places, in pine forests and upon the prairies, they are to be seen nearly tangent to each other as far as the eye can reach, thousands being visible from an elevation of a few feet. On the gulf-marsh margin, from the Vermillion to the Colorado, they appear barely visible, often flowing into one another, and only elevated a few inches above the common land. A few miles interior they rise to two and even four feet in height. The largest I ever saw were perhaps one hundred and forty feet in diameter and five feet high. These were in Western Louisiana. Some of them had abrupt sides, though they are nearly all of gentle slopes. There is ample testimony that the pine trees of the present forests antedate these mounds. The material for their construction is like that of the vicinity everywhere, and often there is a depression in close proximity to the elevation.” We can make no conjecture concerning the use of those mounds described by Prof. Forshey, except to suggest that they in all probability served as foundations for dwellings in a low country, which at that time may have been moister and more marshy than at present. If such was the case, the whole region must have presented the appearance of a continuous community instead of the proper proportion of country and village. This crowded state of affairs could have been produced by the pressure from enemies in the north, and the lack of agricultural lands evidently was sufficient alone to cause a migration to the south.

[65] A number of the cuts in this chapter illustrative of the Arts of the Mound-builders, are copies of those used by Dr. Charles Rau in his _Catalogue of the Archæological Collection of the National Museum_, Washington, Smithsonian Contribution No. 287 (1876), granted me through the courtesy of Professor Henry. A few also are from the memoir by Prof. Jos. Jones on the _Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee_. Smithsonian Contribution No. 259 (1876). For an able classification of these Mound Relics (a work which I could not undertake in a volume not devoted exclusively to the Mound-builders), I refer the reader to Rau’s Memoir above cited, as being altogether the most satisfactory attempt of the kind of which I have any knowledge. For a classification of works in Ohio, see _Antiquities of Ohio_: Report of the Committee of the State Archæological Society to the Centennial Commission of Ohio (Columbus, Ohio, 1877, 8vo). The incompleteness of the work is to be regretted. Ohio, out of its vast fund of material, certainly ought to furnish a more satisfactory contribution to the subject of archæology. The work comprises seven chapters, of which the last is the least satisfactory of all, for while bearing the title “Location of Ancient Earthworks in Ohio,” it enumerates only one hundred and sixteen out of the ten thousand mound-works in the State. Still the memoir is not without value. Its chapters on Stone Relics, Copper Relics, and Insignia and Ornaments are comparatively thorough.

[66] _Ancient Monuments_, p. 143. Prof. E. B. Andrews has shown that the supposed uniformity of stratification in altar mounds is a fallacy. In many instances the earth has been dumped together indiscriminately.