716 MOUND EXPLORATIONS. 



witli Ear(>i)eaii civilization, have already been lefeired toiu a previous 

 publication by the Bureau. Articles of iron were also found by the 

 Bureau agents in some two or three mounds in east Tennessee, of 

 wbicli mention is made iu the preceding- report of field works. 



It is possible that Prof. Putnam is ccuTect in assuming that what Dr. 

 Hildreth found in the Marietta mound did not warrant his conclusion 

 that a swovd had been buried there. Butthereare very strong reasons 

 for believing that the corrugated silver band which Dr. Hildreth 

 believed to be part of a sword scabbard was a band for the hair made 

 by white men (some we know were traded to the Indians) or of mate- 

 rial furnished by them.' The brief manner, however, iu which he 

 disposes of Atwater's statement in regard to the articles found by him 

 in the mound at Circleville, Ohio, is by no means satisfactory to arche- 

 ologists. He says: 



The reference to iron in the mound at Circleville ))y Mr. Atwater would not be 

 worthy of consideration were it not for the widesj>read belief that he found a steel 

 sword and piece of cast iron. He sinijily found a piece of antler, iu one eud of which 

 a hole had been bored and around this])art was a liand of silver. This he called ''the 

 handle of either a small sword or a larye knife," and he distinctly states that "no 

 iron wasfound, but an oxide remained of similar shajie and size." This is evidently 

 purely a case of imagination .and misconception. Similar pieces cut from antlers 

 have since proved to be common and are j;enerally believed to be handles for small 

 drills and knives made of stone or co]iper.- 



Notwithstanding this curt dismissal of the subject it is a fact that 

 cau not be disputed that tlie Bureau agent found in one of the North 

 Carolina mounds a similar piece of an antler in which still remained a 

 part of the iron implement of which it fornu'd the handle. It is also 

 true that chemical analysis showed that this was not meteoric iron. 

 Prof. Putnam's assumption is therefore wholly gratuitous. 



In reference to " plate of iron," he remarks : 



In these days, whe.; only the most careful and critical work is of any value, some- 

 thing more definite than this statement is required beforeit c; "i be claimed that cast 

 iron has been found iu Ohio mounds. 



Mr. Atwater says he was present when the mound was removed and 

 " carefully examiued the contents." In speaking of the horn handle he 

 says, " The handle either of a small sword or a large knife, made of 

 elk's horn; around the eud where the blade had been inserted in a 

 ferule, yet no iron was found, but an oxide of similar shape and size."^ As 

 the minuteness of details as to size and relative positions, of articles in 

 themound indicate that he took notes at the time, his statements of facts 

 as to what he saw should not be rejected because they do not agree 

 with a preconceived theory — especially as he was the best qitalifled and 

 most careful observer of his day in this line. The silver ferule and 

 hole in the handle are surticient in themselves to raise a presumption 

 that there was a blade of some kind and to suggest contact witli the 



' Proc. Am. Antiq. Soc. New Series, vol. 2, 1882-'83, \>f. 349-363. 

 - Loc. cit.. p. 350. 2 Trans. .\m. .Viitiq. Soc, vol. l, p. 178. 



