THOMAS.) MAP OF MOUND DISTRIBUTION. 525 



published as a bulletin by the Bureau, it is ouly necessary to introduce 

 here such of the maps as may serve to illustrate the text. PI. xx 

 is the general map, showing by means of dots the distribution over the 

 whole area. As each dot indicates the site of one or more, generally 

 several, ancient works, the relative number of dots in the diflerent 

 areas will show approximately the relative frequency of these works 

 in the different sections. On this, therefore, we may study the general 

 distribution of the antiquities without reference to types. 



This study reveals some important facts, but at the same time pre- 

 sents some features which are calculated to mislead. In the first place 

 it shows that the ancient works, instead of being distributed uniformly 

 over the face of the country, are found chiefly along the larger water 

 courses and in the vicinity of the lakes. The ])rincipal apparent excep- 

 tions to this rule are seen in Wisconsin, Ohio and eastern Tennessee, 

 but these, when examined on maps of a larger scale, are found to con- 

 form mostly to the rule and can scarcely be considered exceptions. The 

 larger groups or masses, as the map shows, are in southern Wiscon- 

 sin; along the Mississippi river from the southeast corner of Minne- 

 sota to the mouth of Red river; along the Wabash and extending from 

 the mouth of that river across western Kentucky into middle Teunes 

 see; along the eastern side and across the southern portion of Michi- 

 gan; in southern and eastern Ohio; central and southwestern New 

 York ; in eastern Tennessee and along the eastern coast of Florida, 

 though the antiquities in the last named section consist chiefly of shell- 

 heaps. 



While this presentation gives a substantially correct idea of the gen 

 eral distribution of the works, it must not be accepted as wholly correct, 

 as it indicates to some extent the more thoroughly explored areas rather 

 than the true proportion of the ancient works in the different sections. 

 There is little doubt that when Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia have 

 been thoroughly explored many localities will be added to those indi- 

 cated on the map, but it is not likely that the number will be found to 

 equal those in the area drained by the Ohio and its affluents or in the 

 immediate valley of the Mississippi. 



One somewhat singular feature is found in the lines of former occu- 

 pancy indicated by the archeological remains. The chief one is that 

 reaching fi'om New York through Ohio along the Ohio river and onward 

 m the same direction to the northeastern corner of Texas; another 

 follows the Mississippi river; another extends from the region of the 

 Wabash to the headwaters of the Savannah river, and another across 

 southern Michigan and southern Wisconsin. The inference, however, 

 which might be drawn from this fact — that these lines indicate routes of 

 migration — is not to be taken for granted. It is shown by the explora- 

 tions of the Bureau, and a careful study of the diflerent types of mounds 

 and other works, that the generally received opinion that the lines of 

 migration of the authors of these works were always along the princi- 



