THOMAS.) THE MOUND-BUILDERS. 599 



Among the more recent advocates of this view may be classed the 

 following authors: Messrs. Squier and Davis in their "Ancient Monu- 

 ments of the Mississippi Valley" (though Mr. Squier subsequently 

 changed his opinion so far as it related to the antiquities of New York, 

 which he became convinced should be attributed to the Iroquois tribes) ; 

 Mr. John T. Short in his " North Ameri(-ans of Antiquity;" Dr. Daw- 

 son in his ''Fossil Man," who identifies the Tallegwi with the Toltecs; 

 Eev. J. P. McLean in his "Mound Builders, " and Dr. Joseph Jones in 

 his "Antiquities of Tennessee." 



Wilson, in his " I'rehistoriu Man," modifies this view somewhat, look- 

 ing to the region south of Mexico for the original home of the Toltecs 

 and deriving the Aztecs from the mound-builders. 



Another section of this class includes those who, although rejecting 

 the idea of an Indian origin, are satisfied with simply designating the 

 authors of these works a "lost race," without following the inquiry into 

 the more uncertain field of racial or ethnical relations. To this tyjie 

 belong most of the authors of recent short articles and brief reports on 

 American archeology, and quite a number of diligent workers in this 

 field whose names are not before the world as authors. 



J. D. Baldwin, in his " Ancient America," expresses the belief that 

 the mound-builders weie Toltecs, but thinks they came originally from 

 Mexico, or further south, and after occupying the Ohio valley and the 

 Gulf states, probably for centuries, were at last driven southward by 

 an influx of barbarous hordes from the northern region, and appeared 

 again in Mexico.' Bradford, thirty years previous to this, had sug- 

 gested Mexico as their original hoine.^ Lewis n. Morgan, ou the other 

 hand, supposes that the authors of these remains came from the Pueblo 

 tribes of New Mexico.' Dr. Poster^ agrees substantially with Baldwin. 

 In this general class may also be included a number of extravagant 

 hypotheses, such as those advanced by Eafinesque, George Jones, Dela- 

 field, and others. 



The class maintainiug the view that these monuments are the work of 

 Indians found inhabiting the country at the time of its discovery or 

 their ancestors, numbered, up to a recent date, but comparatively few 

 leading authorities among its advocates; in other words, the followers 

 of Bishop Madisou are, or at least were uutil recently, far less numer- 

 ous than the followers of Dr. Harris. The differences between the ad- 

 vocates of this view are of minor importance and only appear when the 

 investigation is carried one step further back, and the attempt made 

 to designate the ijarticular tribe, nation, people, or ethnic family to 

 which they pertained. 



The tradition of the Delawares, as given by Heckwelder, having 

 brought upon the stage tlie Tallegwi, they are made to play a most 

 important part in the speculations of those inclined to the theory of an 



' Ancient America, pp. 70-75, 



* AtuiTican Antiquities, p. 71. 



■• Beaeli, Indian Miscellany, p. 17C. Also, N'ortii Anierican Review, October, 1888. 



« Prehistoric Races, pp. 339-342. 



