THOMAS! OTHER TESTIMONY. 643 



made to deceive. It is by no means a pleasant task to present this 

 subject to tlie ijublic in what we believe to be its true lij^ht. It is 

 pi-oper, however, to add that the members of the Davenport Academy 

 are, with the single exception named, so far as known, firm believers 

 in the genuineness and authenticity of these liuds. , 



Mr. Gass, the finder, we understand, has always, in the sectious 

 where he has lived, been considered a man of honesty and truthful- 

 ness. If these have ev^er been questioned, it has been in regard to 

 his archeological transa^-tioiis. Nor is there any reason to donbt that 

 these tablets were taken from the mounds substantially in the manner 

 recorded. Admitting this to be true (and it is the evidence on which 

 members of the Academy seem to hang their faith), it falls far short of 

 proving them to be genuine monnd-builder relics. 



Such remains should therefore be put aside as not entitled to any 

 other consideration than as simple curiosities, unless supported here- 

 after by other and well authenticated finds of a similar character. 

 Whether found as stated or not, they ought uot to have any weight in 

 determining the status of the mound-builders unless more like them are 

 discovered. There is an immense mass of undoubted data to be stud- 

 ied, upon which our conclusions may be safely based. 



OTHER TESTIMONY. 



Another objection to the theory that the mound-builders were Indians 

 is based upon the oft-reiieated statement of the Indians that they know 

 nothing of the origin of these works; that when they first entered the 

 territory they found them already built and abandoned. This objection 

 has already been sufficiently answered by others, by calling attention 

 to the fact that these same Indians have not the faintest tradition of 

 some of the most important events in their own history dating back 

 less than two centuries. For example, De Soto's expedition, although 

 it must have been the most remarkai)le event in the past history of the 

 southern tribes, seems to have been forgotten by them when the French 

 adventurers, one hundred and thirty years later, appeared on the scene. 

 It is pro])er, however, to state that Thomas S. Woodward, in his " Eem- 

 iniscences of the Creek or Muscogee Indians," asserts that the Indians 

 of this tribe did have a traditionary remembrance of this expedition. 

 Other similar instances have been referred to by recent authorities and 

 need uot be rci)eated here. However, as will be showi'i lierealtcr, the 

 Indians were not wholly without traditions in regard to the mounds. 

 It is apparent, therefore, that when the real facts are ascertained most 

 of these objections will disappear as being without foundation. 



The historical evidence is clear and undis])utcd that when the region 

 under consideration was discovered by Europeans it was inhabited by 

 Indians only, of whose previous history nothing is known except what 

 is given in vague and uncertain traditions and what has been gleaned 

 by a study of their languages, customs, folklore, and beliefs. 



