THOMAS.] SIMILAE PIPES. 703 



not only on this slate knife, but on a bone implement also, similar beads 

 of birds are engraved, it is i)robal)le that tlie identity of the desi<in is 

 not a mere coincidence, but that it nuist be explained either in accord- 

 ance with the statements of Heckwelder or be considered as the work 

 of southern Shawnees after their arrival in New Jersey. In the 

 latter event the theory that these (shell) disks are the work of a people 

 different from and anterior to the Indians found in the Cumberland 

 valley at the time of the discovery of that region by th<^ whites, is 

 apparently not sustained by the facts." ' 



That engraved shell gcu'gets were in use among tlie Indians, both of 

 North Carolina and Virginia, is already established by the historical 

 references given, and that they were comnu)n among the people who 

 buried in stone graves and built mounds is known to and admitted by 

 all recent authorities on American archeology and proved beyond ques- 

 tion by the evidence furnished in the preceding Held report. The 

 only reasonable explanation of these facts is that the Indians were 

 the authors of these stoue graves and the builders of tlie mounds 

 associated therewith. If this be admitted, the conclusion is inevitable 

 that the Cherokees :iud Shawnees were mound-builders and thus as 

 investigatidu proceeds stei» by step the vision of a "lost race"' and a 

 Toltec occupation gradually iades from view. 



The chief ditticulty which arises in connection with these shells is 

 tlie fact that a few of them bear undoubted Mexican designs which 

 pertain to pre-Columbian times. Take, for example, those found in 

 the "Big Toco mound," described and tigured in the preceding part of 

 this volume. The Mexican origin of the designs is admitted by every 

 one who sees them, yet the proof that this mound w;is built and used 

 by the Cherokees is so strong as scarcely to admit of a d<iul>t. How 

 these two facts are to be reconciled is a i^roblem not easily solved. As 

 this lias no si)ecial bearing on the particular point now under discussion, 

 its considerati(Ui is uuiu'cessary at present. 



The iiucient works of Ohio, with their " altar mounds," " sacred 

 inclosures," and their " mathenuitically accurate," but mysterious cir- 

 cles and squares, are still pointed to as imi)regnable to the attacks of 

 this Indian theory. That the rays of light falling upon their origin are 

 few and dim is admitted; still we aie not left wholly in the dark on this 

 ])oint. 



If the proof is satisfactory that the mound.s of tlic southern half of 

 tlie United States and a large portion of those of the upper Missis.-<ip|)i 

 valley are of Indian origin, in the sense heretofore defined, there should 

 be very strong evidence in the opposite direction in regard to these 

 to lead to the belief that they pertain to a different race. Even should 

 the evidence fail to indicate the tribe or tribes by whom they were 



2 Op. cit.. p. 73. 



