NORTH AMERICAN ARCHEOLOGY. 335 



to, covered, as they arc, by at least the second growth, after the primitive forest 

 state was regained 1" 



We get another indication of antiquity in the "garden-beds," which we have 

 ah'eady described. This system of cultivation has long been replaced by the 

 simple and irregular "corn-hills;" and yet,' according to Mr. Lapliam*, the garden- 

 beds are much more recent than the mounds, across which they extend in the 

 same manner as over the adjoining grounds. If, therefore, these mounds belong 

 to the same era as those which are covered with wood, we get thus indications 

 of three periods : the tirst, that of the mounds themselves ; the second, that of the 

 garden-beds ; and the third, that of the forest. 



But American agriculture was not imported from abroad. It resulted from, 

 and in return rendered possible, the gradual development of American semi- 

 civilization. This is proved by the fact that the grains of the Old World were 

 entirely abi^ent, and that American agriculture was founded on the maize, an 

 American plant. Thus, therefore, we appear to have indications of four long 

 periods : 



1. That in which, from an original barbarism, the American tribes developed 

 a knowledge of agriculture and a power of combination. 



2. That in which the mounds were erected and other great works undertaken. 



3. The age of the "garden-beds," which occupy some at least of the mounds. 

 Hence it is evident that this cultivation was not until after the mounds had lost 

 their sacred character in the eyes of tlu; occupants of the soil ; for it can hardly 

 be supposed that works executed with so much care would be thus desecrated 

 by their builders. 



And 4. The period in which man relapsed into barbarism, and the spots which 

 had been first forest, then (perhaps) sacred monuments, and, thirdly, cultivated 

 ground, relapsed into forest once more. 



But even if we attribute to these changes all the importance which has ever 

 been claimed for them, they will not require an antiquity of more than three 

 thousand years. We do not, of course, deny that the period may have been 

 very much greater or very much less, but, in our opinion at least, it need not be 

 greater. At the same time there are other observations which, if they shall 

 eventually prove to be correct, would indicate a very much greater antiquity. 



One of these is an account " given of a mastodon found in Gasconade county, 

 Missouri, Avhicli had apparently been stoned to death by the Indians, and then 

 partially consumed by tire. The pieces of rock, weighing from two to twenty- 

 tive pounds each, which must have been brought from a distance of four or five 

 hundred yards, ' were,' says the narrator, ' evidently thrown with the intention 

 of hitting some object.' Intermixed with burned wood and burned bones were 

 broken spears, axes, knives, &c., of stone." This statement, which, if true, is 

 of the highest importance, is given by Mr. Haven t without a word of caution, 

 and is repeated by Dr. Wilson.t Both these gentlemen refer to the American 

 Journal of Sciences and Art, (first series, vol. xxxvi, p. 199,) as if th(!y were 

 quoting from an article communicated to that respectable journal. Now, the fact 

 is that the only authority for the statement is an anonymous correspondent of 

 the Philadelphia Presbyterian. The editor of the American Journal, while re- 

 printing the communication, inserted a notice requesting the author to make 

 himself known, and to give some more particulars. I cannot, however, ascertain 

 that, in answer to this appeal, any one came forward to take upon himself the 

 responsibility of so important an observation. 



Nor is this all. The original communication to the Philadelphia Presbyterian 

 never alludes to the mastodon at all, but refers the skeleton to the mammoth; 

 and the mastodon was first suggested by the editor of the American Journal. 

 Under these circumstances it certainly seems to us that some better evidence 



* 1,. c, p. 19. tL. c, p. 142. X L. c. v. i., p. 112. 



