THE MOUNDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY. D5 
criticism; and that to-day it looks very much as if it would be neces- 
sary to fall back upen what a recent writer terms ‘“ indefinable marks” 
and “resemblances that cannot be described,” in order to find a foun- 
dation for the theory of a difference in the character of these works, 
and consequently im the civilization of the people who built them. 
Indeed, the advocates of this theory do not agree among themselves as 
to where this line should be drawn; and from the very nature of the 
case it may well be doubted whether itis possible for themever to attain 
any very great degree of harmony. The mound-builders are at best 
a mythical people, who owe even their imaginary existence to the nec- 
essity of accounting for a state of affairs that is in great part assumed; 
and of course any standard by which to judge the works they are sup- 
posed to have executed must vary with the fancy of the writer or the 
exigencies of the argument. But even if this were not the case, and 
there were no subjective obstacles in the way of uniformity of opinion 
upon this vital point, it would still be impossible to establish any test 
or Standard, for the reason that, except in the fact that a large major- 
ity of the mounds and embankments “ are made of earth simply heaped 
up, with little or no care in the choice of material, and none at all in 
the order of deposit,” * there are no two of them that are alike; and 
without the presence of some conformation that is at least constant, 
it is of course idle to speak of a type or standard. 
To make this point clearer, let us glance at these remains as they 
have come down to us, and putting aside, as far as possible, all theories 
and speculations as to their origin and use, let us question them as to 
the civilization of which they are the silent witnesses. ‘To this end, it 
will be advisable to discard, as far as may be consistent with clearness, 
the descriptive nomenclature that has been used in the classification 
of these works, and to adopt.one that will be less productive of false 
and erroneous ideas as to the object or purpose for which many of them 
were intended. As an instance of the errors arising from this source, 
take the term “sacred inclosure,” which has been applied to a class of 
works that is usually found upon the broad aud level river terraces, 
and is composed of mounds and embankments or inclosures, sometimes 
standing alone, but more frequently grouped together in a more or less 
complicated manner. This term has been long in use, and by a sort of 
preseriptive right is sometimes regarded as describing accurately the 
character of the works to which it has been applied, when in point of 
fact it does nothing of the kind. A few of these inclosures may pos- 
sibly owe their origin to a religious sentiment, but of the large majority 
of them it may be safely said, in view of recent investigations, that they 
were simply fortified villages. Seff-protection was the primary object 
of the people who lived behind these walls, and except in the single 
fact that some of the truncated mounds qeusstonally found associated 
Siancrate vate Races of the Pacific ies vol. Iv, p. 766: New sone 1875. 
