634 MOUND EXPLOKATIONS. 



tlie antlieuticity of one is tine of all. We shall tlierefore proceed upon 

 this basis. 



At the outset, doubts of their authenticity are raised in the mind by 

 their anomaluus character; nothing in any respect like them haviug 

 been found which has stood the test of criticism for a moment save, 

 perhaps, the Grave creek tablet, and even this, since the examination 

 by Whittlesey and the scathing criticism by Dr. Wilson, heretofore 

 alluded to, can no louger be considered an accepted antiquity. This 

 doubt is somewhat intensified by the fact that the discoveries are made 

 in one locality, in quick succession, and through the same instrumen- 

 tality which brought to light other anomalous relics. This feeling of 

 doubt and uncertainty seems to have been entertained at first by mem- 

 bers of the Academy, if we may judge by the language of one of their 

 leading and ablest scientists, Dr. Farquharson,' who say.s: 



It is objected, aud seriously, too, that this discovery comes too apuopos, too pat, in 

 fact, and so partakes in the mind ol'some too much of the nature of a stage trick, a Deitx 

 ex- maclnna. However, if it is a true, a bona fide discovery, some one else among 

 the great army of searchers, in tlie I'ourse of time and from the very necessity of the 

 case, mnst have made the same or a like one ; nor need we fear that our find, remarka- 

 ble as it is, will loug remain uni(iue aud solitary, for, as Mr. Haven truly says, 

 " Science and civilization do not leave solitary monuments.'' 



But it is prox^er to remark that, notwithstanding these seeming 

 doubts at the outset. Dr. Farquharson and all the other members of the 

 society (with possildy one exception), after examination and discus- 

 sion, settled down into the firm belief in the autlienticity and genuine- 

 ness of the tablets as veritable mound relics, and as entitled to accept- - 

 ance on the part of archeohigists. 



The characters on these tablets render it absolutely certain that they 

 can not be ascribed to any American tribe or people of ante-Columbian 

 time of whose work aud art we possess any knowledge. A few of the 

 inscribed characters and several of the figures can be found in the 

 in.scriptions and rock carvings by In<lians, but there are others which 

 can not be attributed to them unless after long intercourse with Euro- 

 pean civilization. It will doubtless be admitted by all that, if genuine 

 relics of tlie mound builders of pre-Columbian times, they must be 

 attributed to a lost race or people of whom we i)ossess no knowledge, 

 or that they are waifs from the eastern continent. 



A still more serious objection to their acceptance as genuine is the 

 foct that the characters on the '' cremation scene," if true letters, must 

 belong to not less than half a dozen ali)habets. 



Dr. Seyffarth, in his attempt at an explanation, published in volume 

 •i of the Proceedings, was forced to go to at least half a dozen different 

 alphabets to find tlie letters given in this single short inscrijition. The 

 remarks of Di-. Wilson in regard to the Grave creek tablet '' are so 

 applicable here that we can not refrain from quoting them: 



' Prot:. Dav. Acad. Xat. Sci., vol. ll. p. 103. 

 ' Preli. Mail, :iil od.. vol. u, p. 100. 



