AFT'F\1>IX; F.I.KIMl \\ r I'lHKs AMI 1XS(RM;K1> IAHIKTS. iS() 



It thus becomes quite evident, from this review, that it is a principal 

 object of the present management of the Smithsonian Institution, 

 through its Bureau of Ethnology, to reexamine these early explorations 

 of Squier and Davis, and to reconsider, and, if ])ossible, reverse, their 

 important deductions. 



The work of Squier and Davis was issued by the Smithsonian Insti- 

 tution, in 1847, as the first of its "Contributions to Knowledge." As 

 its publication was to be the inauguration of that great enterprise, 

 unusual care and caution were observed in the examination into its 

 scientific merits and deciding upon its acceptance for publication. 

 The work was well received by the illustrious Joseph Henry, then Sec- 

 retary of the Smithsonian Institution, and was by him referred to the 

 American Ethnological Society, of New York, for further examination. 

 The favorable report of that institution was subscribed with such re- 

 spectable names as Albert Gallatin, John R. Hartlett, Cieorge P. Marsh, 

 Samuel C. Morton, Edward Robinson, and W. W. Turner. The pro- 

 posed publication of this important work was still further approved by 

 the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and is mentioned with 

 approbation in a report made on December 7th, 1847, to Prof. Henry, 

 by a committee embracing such notable names in American scholar- 

 ship as Edward Everett. Jared Sparks, Benjamin Pierce, Henry W. 

 Longfellow, Asa (jray, and O. W. Holmes. Thus strongly recom- 



is well-nig-h impossible to believe thev ;ill belonsft-d to the same race. In fact, no people like our 

 wild Indians of North America have ever been found in Mexico, Central America, or South 

 America." In claiminij for these " wild Indians " a degree of semi -civilization and artiijtic skill 

 equal to, if not beyond, that displayed by the Mound-builder, Major Powell finds himself in sjood 

 company: Schoolcraft, I.apham, Brinton, Lucien Carr, and a larsje number of cultured archa'- 

 olog-ists adopt the same view. In his work upon the "Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,'" Mr. 

 Carr has carefully collected, in a note on pajre 4, the authorities supportinsf this Indian theory, 

 and Mr. Dall has incorporated this note into his recent edition of Xadaillac's " Prehistoric 

 .\nierica," pp. 131-132. This list embraces the names of many eminent scholars and carries with 

 it a griint weisfht of authority. On the other hand, however, we find arrayed in support of the 

 theory that the Mound-builders were a distinct race from the Red Indians, and of a hiifher j^rade 

 of civilization, the sp-eat names of Squier and Davis, Morg-an, Morton, Harrison, Prescott, the 

 Bancrofts, Baldwin, Foster, Winchell, Peet, MacLean, Short, Whittlese}', Joseph Jones, Vining^, 

 with many other profound scientists in this country and Kurope. It is to this g^reat company of 

 cultured archseolocrists that Major Powell refers when he says: "Those who have hitherto con 

 ducted these researches have betrayed a predetermination to find something inexplicable, on the 

 simple hypothesis of a continuous Indian population, and were swept by blind zeal into serious 

 errors." And because of these alleged repeated and momentous failures, Major Powell consoles 

 the world of science with the assurance that, in future, " it will be the duty of the Bureau of Eth- 

 nology to devote special attention to this interesting field of archieologv! " While the weight of 

 argument and authority, however, appears to be on the opposite side, and in favor of a Mexican 

 origin for the Mound -builder, it must be conceded that the question is still an open one. ("An- 

 cient America," I'y John D. Baldwin, pp. 217-21S; "Mounds of the Mississippi Valley;" 

 "Memoirs of the Kentucky Geological Survey,"- Vol. II., 1SS3; "Prehistoric America," by 

 Marquis de Xadaillac, p. 131, note 3. 



