THOMAS. | THE TERM “INDIAN.” 85 
built the tumuli of the Mississippi Valley must be admitted, but the 
term, when used in this country with reference to the mounds of this 
country, has, as is well known, been generally understood to include only 
those found in that part of the United States east of the Rocky Mount- 
ains unless otherwise stated; and Mr. Carr’s paper, to which allusion 
is made in the next sentence of the quotation, is expressly limited to 
the “mounds of the Mississippi Valley.” North America is therefore a 
broader field than is generally understood by those who enter upon the 
discussion, and I may add that “these same tribes,” unless with explicit 
definition, is a limitation claimed by no one. 
The term “Indian” is so indefinite and so variously applied that more 
or less uncertainty must ensue, unless the writer discussing this ques- 
tion makes clear the sense in which he uses it. It was probably an 
appreciation of this fact that caused the author of the report referred 
to tomake use of the terms ‘American stocks,” “nations,” and “ groups 
of tribes.” We can fully appreciate the difficulty he and all others writ- 
ing upon this subject experience from the want of an adequate and deti- 
nite nomenclature that is applicable. But his expansions in one direc- 
tion and limitations in another, in the paragraph quoted, as it seems to 
me, have left the statement of the question in worse confusion than it 
was before. 
In what sense does he use the terms ‘Indians,” “Indian, tribes,” 
“American stocks,” and “groups of tribes”? Are the cultured Central 
American and Mexican nations and the Pueblo tribes to be included or 
excluded? Professor Carr evidently proceeds upon the idea that they 
are to be excluded, and that the mounds and other ancient works of the 
Mississippi Valley are to be attributed to one or more of the American 
stocks found in possession of this region at the time of its discovery by 
Europeans. 
This I believe to be the correct view, except in this: Professor Carr 
fails to clear his work of the idea of one people, one stock, when the 
evidence is conclusive that the mound-builders were divided into tribes 
and stocks, as were the Indians when first encountered by the whites. 
Hence when I[ use the terms “ Indians,” “ Indian tribes,” and ““American 
stocks” in this connection, they are to be understood as thus limited. 
I do not claim that this use of these terms is correct, but it is not my 
intention at present to discuss the question “‘ What is the proper use of 
the indefinite term Indian?” My only object in referring to it and the 
other equivalent terms is to explain the sense in which I use them in 
this connection, because I can find no better ones. 
As thus limited the question for discussion may be stated as follows: 
Were all the mounds and other ancient works found in that part of 
the United States east of the Rocky Mountains (except such as are 
manifestly the work of Europeans of post-Columbian times) built by 
the Indians found in possession of this region at the time of its discoy- 
ery and their ancestors, or are they in part to be attributed to other 
