ARCHEOLOGICAL MOUND DISTRICTS. 529 



ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICTS OF THE MOUND AREA. 



Any attempt to iii;iik out aiid detiiie iiiclieologii'al districts iniist bo 

 based upon two assumptions: First, tliat tlie mound builders pertained 

 to various tribes differing iu customs, habits, arts, and bcliets to a suf- 

 ficient extent to be niauifest iii their enduring works, aud, second, that 

 these tribes had tixi-d seats and were (•oniparativoly sedcutary, occu])y- 

 iug their respective areas for periods of considerable length. In other 

 words, it would be scarcely possibh^ to ascertain aud mark out such 

 districts if the aboriginal ]»oi)ulatiou which left behind these monu- 

 ments was constantly shifting. The number and magnitude of the 

 monuments afford in themselves ample pi'oof that the builders were 

 •sedentary and long occui)ied their respective seats. It is because of 

 this fact that so many writers have rejected the iilea that the Indians 

 could have beeu the authors, judging the character of the latter errone- 

 ously by their lif(> after they had been disturbed by the Eui()])ean set- 

 tlements. 



That the people who built the mounds belonged to different tribes is 

 being generally admitted by archeohjgists of the preseut <lay, aud that 

 these tribes were sedcutary is conceded by all. Nevertheles*, the con- 

 clusions ujjon these points, to be entirely satisfactory, must be reached 

 by a careful study of the monuments. If they afford data by wliicli 

 archeological districts can be satisfactorily outlined the just inference 

 is that the people who left behind them these monuments were substan- 

 tially sedentary and belonged to different stocks. 



Although this be true in a general wiiy it docs not follow as a neces- 

 sary conclusion that these districts corres])ond in all cases with the areas 

 occupied by different tribes, fandlies of cognate tribes of the different 

 linguistic stocks. The study of art in its relation to ethnology has 

 shown too clearly for anyone to doubt the conclusion that lines of art 

 are not governed wholly by ethnic or racial identity. There are numer- 

 ous agencies equally potent with racial peculiarities and ethnic charac- 

 teristics, in directing and intlueiu'iiig the.se lines; such, for example, as 

 necessity, environment, materials, vicinage, etc. The mind and recpiire- 

 ments of man being substantially the same everywhere and in all ages, 

 the primitive works of art which relate to sui)plying these recpiirements 

 will be substantially the same where the conditions are alike. Hence 

 we see the stone arrow-point, the stone celt, and tlie clay vessel common 

 to most uncivilized peoples throughout the world. Nevertheless, racial, 

 tribal, and even more restricted peculiarities will manifest themselves 

 to a certain extent in the structures, burials, and works of art of all 

 peoples in a savage, barbarous, or even seinicivilized state. There ai'e 

 minoi' differences, dependent u|)on traditional usages or tiibal customs, 

 which in most cases manifest theinsehes in some way njxm llie works 

 of the most savage and barl)ar(nis peoples. These may l)e discovered 

 by close and careful study. 

 11' ETll .54 



