THE MOUNDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY. 565 
the statement that the Indias had no tradition as to the origin of 
these structures, or the purpose for which they were built. Nor must 
it be supposed that the Cherokees were alone in this respect; neither 
were these stories confined to any one stock or family of tribes. They 
are found on both sides of the Ohio, and were as current (and for that 
matter as varied and often quite as contradictory) among nations of 
the Huron and Algonquin families as they were among the Cherokees. 
In fact, it is believed to be the exception to find a single prominent 
tribe living within the region of the mounds in which some tradition 
on the subject of their origin was not more or less common. Whether 
these traditions were true or false, or whether the event that was pur- 
ported to be handed down was fact or fable, are points which it is not 
necessary to discuss. All that [am called upon to show is, that the 
Indians had traditions, no matter what their character, upon this sub- 
ject; and in doing this, I shall limit myself to a representative tribe 
from each family, and by way of making the tradition as definite as 
possible, will pick out typical works or groups, situated in different 
portions of the country, so that there can be no doubt as to the par- 
ticular tribe, or the precise kind of earthwork that is meant. 
First of all, let us take up the mounds and inclosures of western New 
York, and see what the Iroquois had to say as to their origin. Accord- 
ing to one account, the country “about the lakes was thickly inhabited 
by a race of civil, enterprising, and industrious people, who were totally 
destroyed, and whose improvements were taken possession of by the 
Seneeas.”* The Rey. Mr. Kirkland, while on a missionary tour to 
this tribe, A. D. 1788, visited several of these “old forts,” one of which, 
situated in Genesee County, near Batavia (Squier), and known to the 
Indians as the “ double-fortified town, or a town with a fort at each end,” 
is thus described: The first of these forts ‘‘contained about 4 acres of 
ground. The other, distant from this about 2 miles, and situated at the 
other extremity of the ancient town, inclosed twice that quantity of 
ground. The ditch around the former was about 5 or 6 feet deep. A 
small stream of water and a high bank circumscribed nearly one-third 
of the inclosed ground. There were the traces of six gates or avenues 
round the ditch, and near the center a way was dug to the water. 
- - - <A considerable number of large thrifty oaks had grown up 
within the inclosed ground, both in and upon the ditch; some of them 
appear to be at least two hundred years old or more. - - - Near the 
northern fortification, which was situated on high ground, he found the 
remains of a funeral pile. - - - The earth was raised about 6 feet 
above the common surface, and betwixt 20 and 30 feet diameter. The 
bones appeared on the whole surface of the raised earth, and stuck out in 
many places on the sides.”+ According to the same author, Indian 
*Yates and Moulton, History of New York, vol. t. p. 40; New York, 1824. 
+t MSS. of Rey. Mr. Kirkland, in Moulton’s New York, vol. 1, p. 16. 
