S4 BURIAL MOUNDS OF THE NORTHERN SECTIONS. 
the particular tribe, nation, people, or ethnic family to which they ap- 
pertained. 
The traditions of the Delawares, as given by Heckewelder, in his ‘ His- 
tory of the Indian Nations,” having brought upon the stage the Tallegwi, 
they are made to play a most important part in the speculations of those 
inclined to the theory of an Indian origin. As this tradition agrees very 
well with a number of facts brought to light by antiquarian and philo- 
logical researches, it has had considerable influence in shaping the con- 
clusions even of those who are not professed believers in it. 
One of the ablest early advocates of the Indian origin of these works 
was Dr. McCulloch; and his conclusions, based as they were on the 
comparatively slender data then obtainable, are remarkable not only 
for the clearness with which they are stated and the distinetness with 
which they are defined, but as being more in accordance with all the 
facts ascertained than perhaps those of any contemporary. 
Samuel G. Drake, Schooleraft, and Sir John Lubbock were also dis- 
posed to ascribe these ancient works to the Indians. But the most re- 
cent advocate of this view is Prof. Lucien Carr, of Cambridge, Massa- 
chusetts, who has presented, in a recent paper entitled “The Mounds of 
the Mississippi Valley historically considered” (contained in the Memoirs 
of the Kentucky Geological Survey), a very strong array of historical 
evidence going to show not only that the Indian tribes at the time of 
the discovery were capable of producing these works, but also that 
several of the tribes were in the habit of erecting mounds. 
3ut it is proper that we should mention an article by Dr. D. G. Brin-- 
ton in the October number, 1881, of the American Antiquarian, bearing 
upon the same subject, in which considerable historical evidence tend- 
ing to the same conclusion is given. These two papers may justly be 
considered the commencement of a rediscussion of this question, in which 
the Indians, after a long exclusion, will be readmitted as a possible fac- 
tor in the problem. 
The reader will observe from the foregoing brief review that the opin- 
ions regarding the authors of the mounds — or, as Dr. Brinton expresses 
it, “‘ the nationality of the mound-builders” —as heretofore given to the 
world, may be divided into two classes— those holding that the builders 
were “ Indians,” and those holding that they were not “Indians.” But 
the paragraph we have quoted from the Report of the Peabody Museum 
introduces other considerations, which render it necessary not only to 
define the terms used but to restate the question at issue in a more exact 
and definite form. 
What mounds? Whatearthworks? The authority quoted remarks, 
“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.” 
That the term ‘“imound-builders” is as applicable to the people who 
constructed the mounds of Siberia, Japan, or elsewhere as those who 
