632 MOUND EXPLORATIONS. 



the large works were built by additions made duriug successive genera- 

 tions. But the best evidence that they could build such structures is 

 the fact that they did build them, that iu truth they made every form 

 of ancient works known to exist in the bounds of our country, even to 

 the large canals of which there are yet traces. Nor should this astonish 

 us, since it is known that the cyclopean works of the old world, the dol- 

 mens, great stone circles, etc., were built by the earliest inhabitants of 

 these countries, who had n(it advanced beyond the stage of barbarism.' 



INSCRIBED TABLETS. 



Another objection to the Indian origin of these ancient monuments 

 is based upon certain inscribed tablets bearing supposed letters or 

 hieroglyphs, which are claimed to have been found in mounds. For 

 example, the " tablet of tlie Grave creek mound." over which School- 

 craft exercised all liis linguistic knowledge, and after corresponding 

 with Prof. Page, of Copenhagen, and M. Jomard, of Paris, arrived at 

 the conclusion that, though mainly Celtiberic, the twenty-two alpha- 

 betic characters include fimr corresponding with ancient Greek letters, 

 four with Etruscan, five with old northern runes, six with ancient 

 Gaelic, seven with the old Erse, ten with the Phoenician, fourteen with 

 the Anglo-Saxon, and sixteen with the Celtiberic. Prof. Jomard, after 

 a laborious investigation, pronounced the iuscription Lybian, and Mr. 

 W. B. Hodg.son, Numidian. 



The folly of relying upon such relics as this Grave creek tablet as 

 evidence of a written language is apparent from the above conclusions. 

 That Schoolcraft and the other savants mentioned could have believed 

 the inscription to be alphabetic, and a genuine mouud-builder's relic, 

 and yet made up of several alphabets, would be inconceivable but for 

 the undeniable evidence. This simple fact ought to be sufdcient to 

 cast it aside as unworthy of consideration. However, it may be added 

 that since Dr. Daniel Wilson's sharp criticism,^ and Prof Bead's critical 

 examination of the evidence,' this relic is discarded by most archeolo- 

 gists. 



Other tablets have been accepted by some of our archeologists and 

 linguists as conclusive evidence that the mound-builders had a written 

 language, one author even going so far as to give to the world a (sup- 

 posed) translation of an entire inscription.^ 



If the marks upon these tablets are true letters or alphabetic signs, 

 and are the work of the veritable mound -builders, it must be admitted 

 that those who made them were not Indians, but a people much farther 



' This, being the point at issue, must of rourse lie maintained with satisfactory evidence, which 

 will Ije attempted further on. 

 ■' Prehistoric Man. 3d ed. (1876), vol. u, pp. I11O-IO2. 

 ■'Am. Antiq., vol. I, pp. 139-14!!. 

 « Ibid., vol. IV, 1882, pp. 145-153. 



