THOMAS.] REVIEW OF THE HISTORY. 645 



THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 



One serious objectiou iirged against the theory that the Indians 

 were the authors of the ancient works is that the great number of them, 

 tlie magnitude of some of them, and the art displayed in their con- 

 struction, indicate a centrahzed and systematic form of government 

 and a skill foreign to and entirely above the culture status of the 

 Indians.' 



This opinion is based largely upon the statements made in regard to 

 these works and their contents, which a more careful examination has 

 shown to be in many cases erroneous and overdrawn. 



For example, the estimates as to size, where given without careful 

 measurements, are, as a very general rule, largely in excess of the true 

 dimensions. The statement so often made that many of these monu- 

 ments have been constructed with such mathematical accuracy as to 

 indicate not only a unit of measure, but also the use of instruments, is 

 found uijon a reexamination to be without any basis, unless the near 

 approach of some three or four circles and as many squares of Ohio to 

 mathematical correctness be sufficient to warrant this opinion. As a 

 very general, and in fact almost universal, rule the tigure.s are more or 

 less irregular, and indicate nothing higher in art than an Indian could 

 form with his eye and by i)acing. Circles and squares are simple 

 figures known to all savage tribes and easily formed ; hence the fact 

 that a few, and a very few, approach mathematical accuracy is not 

 sufBcient to counterbalance the vast amount of evidence on the other 

 side. 



The size of a few of the mounds and extent of some of the works 

 are therefore the only difliculties to be explained in attributing these 

 monuments to the Indians, unless the specimens of art or remains found 

 in them are incompatible with such a conclusion. 



If it can be shown that any of the tribes found occupying that part 

 of the country where these works arc located did, at the time they 

 were first visited, occupy and use mounds of the same kind as those 

 now seen, as though accustomed to them, and also did in many in- 

 stances bnild them, we shall be justified in ascribing all these struc- 

 tures to the same race. At least this will be a fair and reasonable in- 

 ference until some fact is presented which is irreconcilable with such 

 conclusion, or some certain proof is brought forward showing that 

 other races have, at some time in the past, occupied this region. 



As has been justly remarked by Mr. Lucien Carr,- " In pursuing this 

 branch of our inquiry the only method open tons is to proceed by com- 

 parison." Should evidence be produced showing that Indians did erect 



'Squier and Davi3, Ancient Mouunu*nla. pp.45 and ^01; Foster Prehistoric Races, pp. 97 and 300; 

 Baldwin Ane. America, p. 34: ilcLean. Mounil liuilders, pjt. 88, 89; Couant. Footprints of a Vanished 

 Race, p. 14: Bancroft Native Races, \ol. iv. p. TSti- Xadaillac. Kevue de Authrop. 



"Mounds of the Mississiii[>i \'allH\'. ji. .'w. 



