644 MOUND EXPLOKATIONS. 



On the other hand, there is no liistorical or other evidence, ixnless it 

 be derived from the antiquities themselves, that any other race or peo- 

 ple than the Indians ever occupied this region or any part of it pre- 

 vions to its discoverj^ by Europeans, at the close of the fifteenth century. 

 The discovery in the eleventh century by the Northmen is not denied, 

 but, as this left no permanent result, it can have no bearing upon the 

 question, and hence is not taken into consideration. 



We enter the discussion, therefore, with at least a presumption in 

 favor of the view that these works were built by the Indians, apresump- 

 tion which has not received the consideration it is entitled to, as every 

 fact ascertained by the exploration of these works which indicates a 

 similarity between the "mound-builders'' and Indians in customs, arts, 

 religion, government, or mode of life is an argument in favor of the 

 theory of an Indian origin. In fact, the presumption is so strong, that 

 it can be overcome only by showing that these works, or the specimens 

 of art found in them, which are unquestionably the work of the build- 

 ers, are beyond the capacity of the Indians before their habits, cus- 

 toms, etc., were modified by contact with Europeans. Even should a 

 few specimens of art of undoubted ante-Columbian origin be found in 

 them, which are evidently beyond the capacity of any of the tribes 

 known to have inhabited this section, this will not be sufficient to 

 establish the theory that these works, or any of them, were built by a 

 *' lost race," or by the cultured races of Central America or Mexico, as 

 they may have been obtained by intercourse with these cultured races, 

 or may be relics wafted by winds and waves, in wrecked vessels, from 

 the eastern continent. 



Suppose, for example, that a mound is found in Tennessee, which in 

 appearance, construction, and contents — with a single exception — is 

 in every respect i^recisely like those attributed to the so-called " veri- 

 table mound-builders," and that this single exception is an ordinary, 

 old-fashioned, steel-bladed -'case knife" with a bone handle, found at 

 the bottom of the tumulus, where it could not reasonably be attributed 

 to an intrusive burial, must we conclude that the " veritable mound- 

 builders" manufactured knives of this class? Yet a case precisely of 

 this kind in every particular occurred during the investigations carried 

 on by the Biu'eau of Ethnology in 1884. 



Unless there should be corroboratory proof to connect them with the 

 mound-builders, and other evidence indicating a corresponding advance 

 in art, these anomalous waifs, such as the tablets with letters engraved 

 upon them, even if genuine, are of no value in the question now under 

 discussion. The whole of the testimony fiumished by an examination 

 of these ancient works and the specimens of art contained in them 

 nnist be taken into consideration and must decide the question. 



