660 MOUND EXPLORATIONS. 



evidence in support of the view here maintained, a fact which the 

 reader shouhl constantly lieep in mind as he proceeds. Every com- 

 parison and every fact which tends to eliminate from consideration, as 

 the possible authors of these monuments, the Mexican and Central 

 American peoples, is, to this extent at least, an argument in favor of 

 the theory that they are due to Indians in the sense in which this term 

 is here used. 



ARCHITECTURE OF THE MOUND-BUILDERS. 



One of the first things which strikes the mind of the archeologist 

 who carefully studies these works, as being very significant, is the 

 entire absence in them of any evidence of architectural knowledge and 

 skill approaching that exhibited by the ruins of Mexico and Central 

 America, or of that exhibited by the structures of the Pueblo Indians. 



It is true that truncated, xjyramidal mounds of hirge size and some- 

 what regular proportions are found in the region designated ; and that 

 some of these have ramps or roadways leading up to them. But when 

 compared -with the teocalli or pyramids of Mexico and Yucatan the 

 diU'erences in the manifestations of architectural skill are so great and 

 so fundamental, and the resemblances so faint and few, as to furnish 

 no giouuds whatever for attributing the two classes of works to the 

 same people. The fact that the works of the one people consist chiefly 

 of wrought stone, and that such materials as worked stones are wholly 

 unknown to the otlier, forbids the idea of relationship. 



Mexico, Central America, and Peru are dotted with the ruins of 

 stone edifices, but in all the mound-building area of the United States 

 not the slightest vestige of one attributable to the people who left 

 these earthen structures, is to be found. The utmost they attained to 

 in this direction was the construction of stone cairns, rude stone walls 

 and stone vaults of cobblestones and undressed blocks. This fact is 

 too significant to be overlooked in this comparison and should have its 

 weight in forming a conclusion, especially when it is backed by numer- 

 ous other corresponding differences. 



If, as some authorities maintain, the mound-builders came from Mex- 

 ico or the Pueblo region, where the custom was to use stone in their 

 structures, it is remarkably strange that they should so suddenly and 

 completely abandon the use of this material as to leave not a single 

 edifice to bear testimony to their knowledge of its use. If, on the other 

 hand, as maintained by others, the mound-builders, after abaiuloning 

 the Mississippi valley passed into Mexico and Central America, it is 

 strange that they should have so suddenly become proficient masons 

 without leaving in their original home or marking their line of march 

 with some indications of their budding architectural proclivities. It is 

 true that the same question may be raised in regard to other customs 

 which seem to have developed, flourished, and died out in particu- 



