ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT. XLV 



topically, four of the paj)ers are contributions to archeology 

 or the prehistoric condition of the native races, while one per- 

 tains to the customs and another to the beliefs of the aborigri- 

 nal tribes; the preponderance of the ai'cheologic material being 

 due ])artly to the fact that one of the branches of research 

 pertaining to this subject is just terminating. Collectively, the 

 papers cover a considerable part of the field of research which 

 it is the province of the liureau to carry on; and while, with 

 the exception perhaps of the report on Casa Grande ruin, none 

 of them can be regarded as exhaustive monographs, several 

 are of such completeness as to represent fairly, and indeed 

 fully, the most advanced knowledge concerning- their subjects. 



PREHISTORIC TEXTILE ART OF EASTERN UNITED STATES 



In 1881 the law under which the Bureau of Ethnology was 

 organized was modified by the addition of a specific provision 

 that a part of the appropriation should "be expended in con- 

 tinuing- archeological investigation relating- to mound-builders 

 and prehistoric mounds." Conformably to this provision, a 

 survey of the prehistoric mounds and other earthworks scat- 

 tered over the Mississippi valley and eastern United States was 

 at once madertaken. At that time the mounds represented a 

 serious problem of American archeology, most students inclin- 

 ing to the opinion that they were constructed by a race ante- 

 rior to, and more highly cultured than, the Indians found in 

 the same districts by explorers. Acccirdiugl}- the surveys and 

 other researches were planned and conducted in such manner 

 as to throw light on the much-discussed question. Who were 

 the mound-builders? To this end the studies were made com- 

 parative; the mounds themselves were compared from locality 

 to locality and from district to district, tlu'oughout the section 

 of the country in which they occur; and they were compared, 

 also, with tumuli, cairns, pyramids, and other works of earth 

 and stone in different countries. This comparison proved sug- 

 gestive but not conclusive; it indicated a close relationship 

 among the American mounds, and a more remote relationship 

 to the earthworks of other countries. In order to render the 



