&0 BURIAL MOUNDS OF THE NORTHERN SECTIONS. 
Fourth. The statement of the result of our explorations of these 
works (especially the burial mounds) will, as I conceive, be incomplete™ 
without some intimation of the bearing they have had on my own mind 
in reference to their authorship. This it is true will apply witb equal 
force to the works of other districts. I have already briefly stated my 
conclusions in this respect regarding the antiquities of Wisconsin, but 
have refrained from entering at length upon the question as to the Ohio 
and West Virginia works, as I confess and have already intimated that 
these present more difficulties in the way of explanation than most of 
the other sections. 
It may be thought premature to speculate in this direction, and some 
of our ablest scientific journals appear to deprecate any such attempts 
until more data have been obtained and the materials already collected 
are more thoroughly digested. I admit that,as avery general and 
almost universal rule, such a course is the proper one in respect to sci- 
entific investigations, but must dissent from its application in this in- 
stance, for the following reasons : 
The thought that a mighty nation once occupied the great valley of 
the Mississippi, with its frontier settlements resting on the lake shores 
and Gulf coasts, nestling in the valleys of the Appalachian Range and 
skirting the broad plains of the West, a nation with its systems of goy- 
ernment and religion, its chief ruler, its great central city, and all the 
necessary accompaniments, but which has disappeared before the in- 
roads of savage hordes, leaving behind it no evidences of its existence, 
its glory, power, and extent save these silent forest-covered remains, 
has something so fascinating and attractive in it, that when once it has 
taken possession of the mind, it warps and biases all its conclusions.! 
So strong, in fact, is the hold which this theory (in the broad sense, 
including also the Toltee and Aztee theories) has taken of the minds 
of both American and European archeologists, that it not only biases 
their conclusions, but also molds and modifies their nomenclature, and 
is thrustinto their speculations and even into their descriptions as though 
ho longer a simple theory but a conceded fact. Hence it is necessary, 
before a fair and unbiased discussion of the data can be had, to call at- 
tention to the fact that there is another side to the question. 
Unless some protestis presented or some expression of opinion is made 
on this point in my paper, the facts I give will be viewed through the 
medium of this “lost race” theory. This I desire, if possible, to pre- 
vent, and whether the “ Indian theory” proves to be correct ornot, I wish 
to obtain for it at least a fair consideration. I believe the latter theory 
to be the correct one, as the facts so far ascertained appear to point in 
that direction, buf I am not wedded toit; on the contrary, I am willing 
to follow the facts wherever they lead. 
a See, for example, Foster’s “ Prehistoric Races,” p. 97; Squier and Dayis’s, “Ancient 
Monuments,” p. 30; Baldwin’s ‘‘Ancient America,” p. 57; Bancroft’s ‘‘ Native Races,” 
Jy 385 A Conant’s ‘‘ Foot-Prints of Vanished Races,” p. 388; Marquis de Nadaillae’s 
“L’Amérique Préhistorique,” p. 155, ete. 

