THE MOUNDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY. 568 
not, the fact that the Indians could not give any account of these 
structures would carry but little if any weight, for the reason that it 
is negative evidence pure and simple, and as such must give way to 
the well-authenticated instances of mound-building among the Natchez 
and other historic tribes. Upon this point there can be no difference 
of opinion, and though it clearly shows the worthlessness of tradition 
as the basis for an argument in the present discussion, yet the state- 
ment as to the absence of all accounts of the origin of these works is 
so often repeated, and with such seeming confidence, that the investi- 
gation would be incomplete without some inquiry into its truth. Espe- 
cially is this so in view of the fact that like all wholesale generalizations 
it has a certain foundation in truth, though this is believed to be en- 
tirely too slight to justify us in accepting the statement in the shape 
in which it has come down to us. That certain Indians—the number 
is immaterial—were without any tradition upon the subject of these 
mounds is extremely probable; and if the early writers had confined 
themselves to a statement of this fact, there would have been no ques- 
tion as to its acceptance. But when generalizing (as was too often 
their wont) from the few instances that came under their observation, 
they tell us that “the Indians” or that * certain tribes” were equally 
ignorant, then it is time to call a halt, and inquire into the validity of 
the evidence upon which the statement rests. To do this thoroughly 
involves no little labor. Trustworthy authorities must be examined— 
the more the better,—and if they fail to bear out the general coneclu- 
sion, as will almost always be found to be the case, there is no 
alternative but to so modify this conclusion as to bring it in accord 
with the newly-discovered evidence. As an instance of the good re- 
sults that sometimes follow this method of interpreting the old chron- 
iclers, take the assertion of the younger Bartram that “the Cherokees 
are as ignorant as we are, by what people or for what purpose these 
artificial hills were raised.”* He is speaking of the mound upon which 
stood the council house in their town of Cowe,t and it is of course very 
probable that the Indians of whom he made the inquiry did not know 
who built this particular mound; at least there can be no doubt that 
they told him so, and that he believed them. 
Now Bartram’s visit to the Cherokees was a hurried one; he saw 
but few of their towns, and could not possibly have conversed with but 
a small portion of their people, and yet his statement is couched in the 
*Bartram’s Travels, p. 367: Philadelphia, 1791. He adds: ‘“ But they have a tra- 
’ dition common with the other nations of Indians, that they found them in much the 
same condition as they now appear, when their forefathers arrived from the West 
and possessed themselves of the country after vanquishing the nations of red men 
who then inhabited it, who themselves found these mounds when they took posses- 
sion of the country, the former possessors delivering the same story concerning 
them.” 
t This distinetion must be kept in mind, as /. ¢., p. 348, he speaks of “vast heaps 
of stones” that were ‘ Indian graves, undoubtedly.” 
