THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 23 



first class, which are ascribed to the Indians, we observe almost every 

 type of stone articles found in the mounds and mound area ; not only 

 the rudely chipped scrapers, hoes, celts, knives, and spear and arrow 

 heads, but also the polished or ground celts, axes, hammers, and chisels, 

 or gouges. 



Here we also find drills, awls, and perforators, slick stones and 

 dressers, pipes of various forms and finish, discoidal stones and net 

 sinkers, butterflys tones aud other supposed ceremonial objects, masks or 

 face figures and bird-shaped stones, gorgets, totems, pendants, trink- 

 ets, etc. jSTor does the resemblance stop with types, but it is carried 

 down to specific forms and finish, leaving absolutely no possible line of 

 demarkatiou between these and the similar articles attributed to the 

 mound-builders. So persistently true is this that had we stone articles 

 alone to judge by, it is probable we should be forced to the conclusion, 

 as held by some writers, that the former inhabitants of that x)ortiou of 

 the United States east of the Rocky Mountains pertained to one nation, 

 unless possibly the prevalence of certain types in i^articular sections 

 should afford some data for tribal districting. 



This strong similarity of the stone articles of the Atlantic coast to 

 those of the mound area was noticed as early as 1820 by Caleb Atwater, 

 who, knowing that the former were Indian manufactur es, attributed the 

 latter also to the same people although he held that the mounds were the 

 work of the ancestors of the civilized nations of Mexico and Central 

 America. 



Mound and Indian pottery. — The pottery of the mound-builders has 

 often been referred to as proof of a higher culture status, and of an 

 advance in art beyond that reached by the Indians. The vase with a 

 bird figure found by Squier and Davis in an Ohio mound is presented 

 in most works on American archaeology as an evidence of the advanced 

 stage of the ceramic art among the mound-builders; but Dr. Eau, who 

 examined the collection of these authors, says: 



Having seen the best specimens of "nionud" pottery obtained during the survey 

 of Messrs. Squier and Davis, I do not hesitate to assert that the cLay vessels fabricated 

 at the Cahokia Creek were in every respect equal to those exhumed from the mounds 

 of the Mississippi Valley, and Dr. Davis himself, who examined my specimens I'rom 

 the first-named locality, expressed the same opinion. ' 



The Cahokia pottery which he found along the creek of that name 

 (Madison County, 111.) he ascribes to Indians, and believes it to be of 

 comparatively recent origin. 



Most of the mound pottery is mixed with pulverized shells, which is 

 also true of most Indian pottery .^ Du Pratz says that " the Natchez 

 Indians make pots of an extraordinary size, cruses with a medium-sized 

 opening, jars, bottles with long necks holding two pints, and pots or 



'Smithsonian Eept., 1866, p. 349. 



-Diimont, M<jm. Hist. La., vol. 2, 1753, p. 271; Adair, Hist. Am. Indians, p. 424; 

 Loskiel, Gesell. der Miss., p. 70, etc. 



