iHuMAs.) ■ OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. _ 611 



explorers he was the same restless, roving, unsettled, unhoused, and 

 unagrifultural savage, wherever found, as we have learned to consider 

 him ill more modern times. 



As it is conceded that the mound-builders, judging by the extent 

 and magnitude of their works, must have been to some extent a seden- 

 tary people, having fixed villages and depending very largely for sub- 

 sistence u])on the' products of the soil, it is assumed as a necessary 

 inference that they could not have been Indians, as these were nomads 

 depending for subsisteuce almost wholly upon the chase, spurning the 

 restraints of settled life and agricultural pursuits. 



Although this idea had been advanced previous to his time, yet Gal- 

 latin may be considered the father of the theory, as he was the flrst to 

 clearly formulate it, and it is largely through the influence his writings 

 exerted upon the scientitic world that it has taken such hold on the 

 minds of subsequent writers. 



It is apparent that Messrs. Squier and Davis took the work of this 

 author as their chief guide in forming their theories, so far as they re- 

 late to the points on which he touched. As most authors of general 

 works on American arclneology, .written since the publication of the 

 '' Ancient Monuments," have taken therefrom the larger portion of their 

 material as well as their conclusions in regard thereto, so far as these 

 relate to the region under consideration, Gallatin may be considered 

 the father of the theory to which we have alluded. Even in one of 

 the latest works on American archeology — Nadaillac's ''Prehistoric 

 America " — this statement occurs: ' 



Between 1845 auA 1847 more thau two hundred mounds were excavated by them 

 [S(iuier and DaviesJ.and the description they give, iiublishod by the Smithsonian 

 Institution, is still our l)est guide with regard to these remains. 



Attention is therefore called for a moment to Gallatin's reasons for 

 concluding that the Indians could not have been the mound-builders, 

 as these are based almost wholly on the theory above mentioned. 



1 quote the following from the general observations in the " Intro- 

 ductory Essay" to his justly celebrated " Synopsis of the Indian Tribes 

 of North America." ^ 



But we know that north of the latitude of the Kio Gila there is nothing west of 

 the Rio Colorado but a sandy desert, nothing between that river and the Rio Norte, 

 but accumulated ridges of mountains; nothing east of the last river but the buffalo 

 plains. In fact we find in no part of the country, whether east or north, adjacent 

 to the northern (jvilized jiroviuces of Mexico, any trace or any probability of the 

 former existence of an agricultural people. But we may easily understand that the 

 civilization of Mexico gradually extended its inliuence, as from a common center, 

 northwardly as well as southwardly; that the northerly tribes, as far north iis the 

 thirtieth degree of latitude, and perhaps the Rio Gila, without having made the 

 same progress in arts or attained the same degree of wealth as the ancient inhal>it- 

 ants of Mexico, may have been gradually converted into an agricultural people, and 

 that, like the German nations in Europe, they may ultimately have conquered their 

 less warlike southern neighbors. 



' Am. Ed. 1884. p. 81. ' Trans. Am. Autiq. Soc. (1838) Vol.2, pp. 146-151. 



