[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 X^e 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.