PHOMAS.| “WHO WERE THE MOUND-BUILDERS?” 81 
Although additional data will hereafter be obtained and many new 
and important facts be brought to light, yet, as I believe, sufficient evi- 
dence has been collected (though much of it remains unpublished) to in- 
dicate what will be the final result so far as this general question is con- 
cerned. 
We see that already the theory that these remains scattered over the 
face of our country from Dakota to Florida and from New Yorx to 
Louisiana were the work of one people, one great nation, is fast break- 
ing down before the evidence that is being produced. 
The following quotation from the last report of the Peabody Museum, 
which is repeated in substance in Science, June 27, 1884, p. 775, will 
serve not only to indicate the conflict which is going on in the minds of 
some of our most active and progressive archeologists on this subject, 
but also to show the difficulty of finding applicable and well-defined 
terms, and of clearly stating the real question at issue: 
The different periods to which the various mounds and burial places belong can only 
be made out by such a series of explorations as the museum is now conducting in the 
Little Miami Valley, and when they are completed we shall be better able to answer the 
question, ‘‘Who were the mound-builders?” than we are now. That more than one 
of the several American stocks or nations or groups of tribes built mounds seems to 
me to be established. What their connections were is not yet by any means made 
clear, and to say that they all must have been ove and the same people seems to be 
inaking a statement directly contrary to the facts, which are yearly increasing as the 
spade and pick in careful hands bring them to light. That many Indian tribes built 
mounds and earthworks is beyond doubt, but that all the mounds and earthworks of 
North America were made by these same tribes or their immediate ancestors is not 
thereby proved. 
Mr. Carr, in his recent paper published by the Kentucky Geological Survey, has 
taken up the historical side of the question, but it must not be received for more than 
he intended. He only skows from historical data what tne spade and pick have dis- 
closed to the archeologist. It is simply one sideof the shield; the other is still wait- 
ing to be turned to the light ; and as history will not help us toread the reverse, only 
patient and careful exploration will bring out its meaning.! 
This, it is true, is but an incidental paragraph thrown into a report of 
the work of the museum, but I have selected it as the latest expres- 
sion on this subject by one of our most active and practical American 
archeologists, and because it will furnish a basis for the remarks I 
desire to make on this subject. 
In order that the reader may clearly understand the particular points 
to which I shall eall attention, I will introduce here a brief review of 
the leading opinions so far presented regarding the authorship of these 
ancient works. 
It was not until about the close of the eighteenth century that the 
scientific men of the Eastern States became fully impressed with the 
fact that remarkable antiquities were to be found in our country. 
About this time President Stiles, of New Haven, Dr. Franklin, Dr. 

1 Sixteenth and Seventeenth Report Peabody Museum, p. 346, 
5 ETH 6 

