GOO MOUND EXPLOKATIONS. 



ludiau origin. And a.s this tiaditiou agrees very well with a number 

 of facts brought to light by antiquarian and philological researches, it 

 has had considerable influence in shaping the conclusion even of those 

 who are not professed believers in it. 



One of the ablest early advocates of the Indian origin of these works 

 was Dr. McCulloh ; and his conclusions based, as they were, on the 

 comparatively slender data then obtainable, are remarkable, not only 

 for the clearness with which they are stated and the distinctness with 

 which they are defined, but as being more in accordance with all the 

 facts ascertained than perhaps those of any contemporary. 



Samuel G. Drake, Henry Schoolcraft, Dr. Haven, and Sir .Tohii Lub- 

 bock are also disposed to ascribe these ancient works to the Indians. 

 Among the recent advocates of this theory are the following, who have 

 made known their position in regard to the questicm by their writings 

 or addresses : 



Judge C. C. Baldwin, in a paper read before the State Archeological 

 Society of Ohio, expresses the belief that the mound-builders of Ohio 

 were village Indians. Col. F. M. Force expresses a similar opinion iu 

 his paper entitled "The Mound-Builders," read before the Cincinnati 

 Literary Club. Dr. D. G. Brintoii brings forward, in an article pub- 

 lished in the October number, 1881, of the American Antiquarian, con- 

 siderable historical evidence tending to the conclusion that the Indians 

 were the authors of these aniiient works.' Dr. P. E. Hoy, in a paper 

 entitled "Who built the Mounds?" published in the Transactions of 

 the Wisconsin Academy of Science,'' brings forward a number of facts 

 to sustain the same view. Mr. Lucien Carr, of Cambridge, Mass., in a 

 paper entitled " The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley, historically 

 considered" (contained in the memoirs of the Kentucky Geological 

 Survey), has presented a very strong array of historical evidence, going 

 to .show not only that the Indians east of the Mississippi, at the time 

 tliey were first discovered by Europeans, were sedentary and agricul- 

 tural, but also that several of the tribes were in the habit of building 

 mounds. Several articles and two small volumes have also been pub- 

 lished by the author of this volume, taking the same view. The arti- 

 cles will be found in the ''American Antiquarian," "Magazine of 

 American History," "Scieuce," "American Anthropologist," and else- 

 where. The two small works are " The Cherokees in pre-Columbian 

 Times," and "The Shawnees in pre-Columbian Times." 



These recent papers may justly be considered the commencement of 

 a rediscussion of this (luestion, in which the Indian, after a long exclu- 

 sion, will be readmitted as a possible factor in tlie problem. 



Prof. Dall has likewise taken an advanced step in this direction in 

 the excellent American edition of Marquis de Nadaillac's "Prehistoric 

 America," boldly accepting the results of later investigations; and the 

 same is true in regard to Prof. N. S. Shaler's " Kentucky." 



I Comp.->io Hist. Mag., Feb., 1866, \t. 35, Am. Antiq., IMl. V..1. 4, p. 9 ;lnil Americm Riicc, p. 88. 

 "Vol. VI, 1881-'83, p. 84. 



