572 THE MOUNDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY. 
whilst in New York* and Florida these * finds,” as they are commonly 
called, have been so frequent as to make it unnecessary to refer to them 
in detail, and I content myself with the following extract from the four- 
teenth annual report of the Peabody Museum,t which it is needless to 
say is heartily indorsed. Speaking of some discoveries made by Dr. 
David Mack, jr., in the course of his explorations in Orange County, 
Fla., Mr. Putnam holds the following emphatic language: ‘One group 
of mounds was inclosed by an embankment, and was very likely the 
site of an Indian village. In a burial mound in this group a number of 
ornaments made of silver, copper, and brass were found, also glass beads 
and iron implements, which were associated with pottery and stone 
implements of native make. This furnishes conclusive evidence that 
the Indians of Florida continued to build mounds over their dead after 
European contact; for the care with which the exploration was made, 
and the depth at which the skeletons and their associated objects were 
found are conclusive as to the burials being the original ones and not 
those of an intrusive people.” It is unnecessary however to pursue 
this branch of the subject any farther. The instances quoted above, 
admitting them to be true (and I do not see how it can be doubted), 
prove very clearly the recent origin of the particular mounds and works 
to which they refer. To increase the number of such extracts is simply 
to accumulate evidence upon a point about which there can not be two 
opinions. 
Having thus cleared our minds of some of the illusions in which 
this subject has been enveloped, let us now turn to the early chroniclers) 
and see what they really do tell us of the origin of these works. In 
examining into this evidence, the division heretofore made of these 
remains, into mounds and embankments or inclosures, will be adhered 
to, though the order in which they are to be taken up will be reversed, 
and the mounds will be first considered. These will be treated under 
the heads of (1) Stone heaps or cairns; (2) Conical mounds of earth or 
burial mounds, and (3) Truncated or temple mounds. There are, of 
course, other divisions, but for my purpose these are believed to be 
sufficient, as, with the exception of the animal mounds, about which 
TE definite is Oey all the lores, So far as size and mode of con- 
différe parla forme de toutes ioe. armes de cette espece dont onse soit servi depuis 
Parrivée des Européens. Des débris de vaisselle et plusieurs briques entiéres de 
neuf pouces carrés et de trois pouces d’épaisseur ont été trouyés au méme lieu:” 
Warden, Antiquitiés de ? Amérique Septentrionale, p.51: Paris, 1827. 
*For an account of these works see Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois, Clark’s 
Onondaga, and Squier, Aboriginal Monuments of New York, in vol. 11, Smithsonian 
Contributions to Knowledge. 
t Page 17, Cambridge, 1881. See also Report Smithsonian Institution for 1877, pp. 
298 and 305; Jones, Antiquities of the Southern Indians, p. 131, and Twelfth Annual Re- 
port of the Peabody Museum, in vol. 11, p. 468. 
{ Unless the explanation given in that curious book, ‘‘The Traditions of Decoodah,” 
should be accepted as authority, and this is scarcely advisable in the present state 
