610 MOUND EXPLORATIONS. 



to build lip theories and arrive at conclusions based upon theni; and 

 also against tlie pernicious practice of grafting into our archeological 

 nomenclature terms which involve these assumptions. 



For example, it has been assumed that the mound-builders were sun 

 worshippers, and this theory is given such prominence and intluence 

 that legitimate conclusions from material data are set aside because 

 they seem to contradict it. So strong is the hold that these assump- 

 tions have taken ui>on the minds of many students of American arche- 

 ology that it is well nigh impossible to persuade tbem to examine care- 

 fully a theory which seems to contravene them. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



As it is necessary to a proper and legitimate discussion of the (jues- 

 tion before us to free ourselves, as far as possible, from the unwar- 

 ranted assumptions mentioned in the previous pages, it may be well 

 to examine briefly a few tif the more imi)ortant ones — which are pre- 

 sented as objections to the theory that the authors of the mounds were 

 Indians — before entering upon the direct discussion. 



It is proper to state at this point, however, that the author believes 

 the theory which attributes these works to the Indians (using this term 

 in the limited sense heretofore explained) to be the correct one. Ex- 

 cluding such remains as pertain to civilized European races of a date 

 subsequent to the discovery of America by Columbus, he attributes aP 

 the ancient artificial works found in the Mississippi valley and Gull 

 states, or in that part of the United States east of the Rocky mountains, 

 to the Indian tribes found in possession of this region at the time of 

 its discovery, and their ancestors. This limitation excludes from con- . 

 sideration the cultured tribes of Mexico and Central America, and also 

 the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and Arizona. That there may have 

 been intercourse between some of the tribes who occupied this region 

 and the people of Mexico and Central America and the Pueblo tribes 

 of the southwest is not only possible, but very probable. It is to be 

 understood, therefore, while the position the avithor takes on this ques- 

 tion does not exclude the idea of such intercourse, it does exclude the 

 supposition that these works are due in whole or in part to the more 

 cultivated people of Mexico or Central America, as well as all theories 

 which attribute them to any other people than the Indians in the limited 

 sense heretofore mentioned. That some of the tribes may have become 

 extinct or merged into others in the past is more than i)robable, but 

 this in no way affects the proposition. 



One reason why the Indian has been so generally, so persistently, 

 and so unceremoniously refused admission as a possible factor in this 

 problem is because of the opinion, which seems to be almost univer- 

 sally held, that when first encountered on our continent by the European 



