528 MOUND EXPLORATIONS. 



as to show absolute identity of purpose. The niarkod diversity betwee:: the trim- 

 catod pyramidal iiioiiiids of the states on the Gulf, the geometrical inclosures of Ohio, 

 and the symbolic earthworks of Wisctmsin indicate varied usages of distinct com- 

 munities. * * * The Scioto and Ohio valleys, it may be presumed, were the seats 

 of separate states,' 



MacLcan, who lias studied the Ohio works and has had the advan- 

 tage of living in the midst of them, declares it as his opinion that 

 "there could not have been a centnil government, but there must have 

 been separate, although cognate, nations. * » » if the mounds of 

 Wisconsin belong to the same era as those of Ohio we have another 

 distinct nation."- 



The idea of one great nation is very fascinating, but the facts and 

 reason are against it. If allowed to have their due weight on our 

 minds they must lead us to the more prosaic conclusion that the mound- 

 builders were divided into different tribes and peoples, which, though 

 occupying much the same position in the culture scale, and hence resem- 

 bling each other in many of their habits, customs, and modes of life, 

 were as widely separated in regard to their ethnic relations and 

 languages as the Indian tribes when first encountered by the white 

 races. The extent alone of the area over which the ancient works are 

 distributed ought to lead to this conclusion. It is scai'cely possible that 

 there could have been a nation of pre-Columbian times without beasts 

 of burden or domestic animals, not yet sufficiently advanced in the arts 

 to build houses of brick or stone, and evidently not above the Pueblo 

 Indians in their cidtiire status, yet with a central, controlling power, 

 governing villages and communities so widely separated as Wisconsin 

 and Florida, New York and Louisiana. Even if due allowance be made 

 for all the changes and migrations which occurred during the mound- 

 building i)eriod, and for the differences in the ages of the works, it will 

 not do away with this difficulty. 



We are, theri^fore, forced to the conclusion that the mound-builders 

 belonged to several different tribes or nations. Analogy also leads to 

 the same conclusion. History, linguistics, and archeology make it 

 evident that the aiea of the section above mentioned as tlio "Mexican 

 and Central American" was occupied not only by various tribes, but 

 by several distinct ethnic stocks or families. The ruins of Nicaragua 

 and Oaxaca present marked ditferences to those of Yucatan and Ana 

 huac, while the latter otter dissimilarities sufficient without other 

 evidence to justify us in attributing them to different peBples. In addi- 

 tion to tiiese broad distinguisliing features there iire minor variances 

 which we nuxst attribute to tribal peculiarities or local inffuences. If 

 there be just grounds for assigning the works of the section, where 

 culture had reached its highest grade on the continent, to different 

 tribes and peoples, is it reasonable to suppose that the antiquities scat- 

 tered over the broad extent t)f the mound area are attributable to a 

 single nation? 



I Kilitiou IS-li, vol. 1, p. :i20. »lIi)iMiilHiiilcliTa, p. 140. 



