THOMAS.] OTHER OBJECTIONS ANSWEKED. 625 



Brasll as great ami somewhat bigger tliaii small peasou wherewith they live even as 

 we doe with ours. In the midst of the fieldes is the citie of Hoehelaga [site of Mon- 

 treal] placed neere and as it were joined to a great mountain that is tilled round 

 about very fertill, on the top of which you may see very farre, wo named it Mount 

 Roiall. The citie of Hoehelaga is round, compassed about witli timber with three 

 courses of rampires, one ■within another, framed like a sharpe spire but laidc? acrosse 

 above. The middle most of them is made and built as a direct line, but perpendicu- 

 lar. The rampires are framed and fashioned with peeces of timber, layed along on 

 the ground, very well and cunningly joined together after their fashion. This 

 enclosure is in height about two rods. It hath but one gate or entree thereat which 

 is shut with piles, stakes and barres. Over it, and also iu many places of the wall, 

 there l)e places to runne along and ladders to get up, all full of stones for the defence 

 of it. There an^ in the towne about fiftie houses about tiftie paces long and twelve 

 or iifteeue broad, built all of wood covered over with the barke of the wood as broad 

 as any boord, very tinely and cunning joined together. Within the said houses there 

 are many roomes lodgings and chambers. Iu the middle of every ime there is a great 

 court in the middle whereof they make their fire. -> <f * They liave also on the 

 top of their houses certaine garrets withiu which they keep their I'orn to make their 

 bread withall.' 



Further reference to the houses of th<^ Indians will be made when we 

 come to speak of the dwellings of the mound-bnilrters. 



It is evident, therefore, from the abundant evidence relating thereto, 

 that the statement iu regard to the habits and customs of the Indians, 

 found in most works on the archeology of the United States, and on 

 which the objection to the theory that the jjeople of this race were the 

 mound-builders is founded, are incorrect and not justified by the facts. 

 That most of the tribes were savage and cruel in some of their customs 

 and practices must be admitted; but this is e({ually true of the more 

 civilized. people of Mexico and Central America. 



OTHER OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



Another objection which was formerly urged, but is now giving way 

 before the light of more recent investigation, is the supposed great 

 antiquity of the mounds and other ancient works, as indicated by the 

 assumed fact that they are always found, when near streams, on the 

 upper or older river terraces. This assumption, which has been fol- 

 lowed by most writers on the subject of our antiquities down to a very 

 recent date, was first clearly stated by Squier and Davis in the closing 

 paragTai)h of their oft-quoted and standard work on the '' Ancient 

 Monuments of the Mississippi Valley," but was hinted at by Atwater 

 as early as 1820.' The theory, as given by Squier and Davis, is as fol- 

 lows: 



The fact that none of the ancient monuments occur upon the latest formed terraces 

 of the river valleys of Ohio, is one of much importance in its bearings upon this 

 question (the antiquity of these works). If, as we are amply warranted in believ- 

 ing, these terraces mark the degrees of subsidence of the streams, one of the four 

 which may be tracedhas been formed since those streams have followed their present 



' Haklnyt, vol. 3 (Loudon id., 1810), p. 272. ' Trans. Amer, Antiq, Soc, vol, i, p. 219. 



12 ETH 40 



