82 BURIAL MOUNDS OF THE NORTHERN SECTIONS. 
Barton, anda few other leading minds of that day, becoming thoroughly 
convinced of the existence of these antiquities, and having received de- 
scriptions ef a number of them, began to advance theories as to their 
origin. William Bartram had come to the conclusion, from personal ob- 
servation and from the statement of the Indians that “ they knew noth- 
ing of their origin,” that they belonged to the most distant antiquity. 
Dr. Franklin, in reply to the inquiry of President Stiles, suggested 
that the works in Ohio might have been constructed by De Soto in his 
wanderings. This suggestion was followed up by Noah Webster with 
an attempt to sustain it,! but he afterwards abandoned this position 
and attributed these works to Indians. 
Captain Heart, in reply to the inquiries addressed to him by Dr. Bar- 
ton, gives his opinion that the works could not have been constructed 
by De Soto and his followers, but belonged to an age preceding the dis- 
covery of America by Columbus; that they were not due to the Indians 
or their predecessors, but to a people not altogether in an uncultivated 
state, as they must have been under the subordination of law and a well- 
governed police. * 
This is probably the first clear and distinct expression of a view which 
has subsequently obtained the assent of so many of the leading writers 
on American archeology. 
About the commencement of the nineteenth century two new and im- 
portant characters appear on the stage of American archeology. These 
are Bishop Madison, of Virginia, and Rey. Thaddeus M. Harris, of Mas- 
sachusetts. 
Dr. Haven, to whose work we are indebted for reference to several of 
the facts above stated, remarks: 
Tkese two gentlemen are among the first who, uniting opportunities of personal ob- 
servation to the advantages of scientific culture, imparted to the public their impres- 
sions of western antiquities. They represent the two classes of observers whose op- 
posite views still divide the sentiment of the country ; one class seeing no evidence 
of art beyond what might be expected of existing tribes, with the simple ditterence 
of a more numerous population, and consequently better defined and more permanent 
habitations; the other finding proofs of skill and refinement, to be explained, as they 
believe, only on the supposition that a superior race,or more probably a people of 
foreign and higher civilization, once occupied the soil.* 
Bishop Madison was the representative of the first class. Dr. Har- 
ris represented that section of the second class maintaining the opinion 
that the mound-builders were Toltecs, who after leaving this region 
moved south into Mexico. 
As we find the principal theories which are held at the present day 
on this subject substantially set forth in these authorities, it is unneces- 
sary to follow up the history of the controversy except so far as is re- 
quired to notice the various modifications of the two leading opinions. 
‘Referred to by Dr. Haven, Smithsonian Contributions, VIII, p. 25. 
*Transactions of the American Philological Society, Vol, III. 
%’ Archeology of the United States, Smithsonian Covtributions, Vol. VIII, p. 31. 
