32 Humani Foot-Prints in Solid Limestone. 



in the intaglio is att ributable to the polishing action of the current 

 of the Mississippi, bearing with it fine gravel and sand. This 

 cause is alone sufficient to explain the removal of any scratches, 

 or other tool marks of an unskilful hand, even if we suppose such 

 to have been left by a native engraver. 



We must admit \\ he probability, that the aborigines of Northern 

 America were unac:;quainted with the use of iron tools,* yet by 

 water itself in the course of time, an impression may be made on 

 the hardest rock. The hardness of flint is 7°, while that of lime- 

 stone is but 3°. 'Where is, then, the improbability, that the pa- 

 tient Indian, who, in the intervals of war or the chase, is known 

 to spend months in carving some favorite weapon or frivolous 

 ornament, should have gradually hollowed out these foot-prints? 

 How incomparably easier such a task, than to produce t?iose com- 

 plicated ornaments on altar-pieces and idols in Central America, 

 which the enterprise of Mr. Stephens has recently submitted to 

 the inspection of the curious ? The Western hemisphere once 

 produced its sculptors, persevering, skilful, even tasteful and del- 

 icate. If they have left their handiwork in Guatimala and Yu- 

 catan, why not; also on the banks of the Mississippi. 



The slab wljiich is the subject of these enquiries was quarried, 

 it will be recollected, from a ledge of rock at a point on the very 

 edge of the stiream when at its lowest stage. The present site 

 of St. Louis, it will also be borne in mind, was a common gath- 

 ering place ofj the neighboring Indians, as the adjacent mounds 

 abundantly tejstify. May we not, then, with some degree of con- 

 fidence, hazard the conjecture, that our impressions were an abo- 

 riginal record of extreme low water, as observed by the Indian 

 race, at their {favorite resort on the banks of the Father of Waters 

 • — their own ,bnequalled and magnificent Me-scha-si-pi 7 



* Yet it is possible that our specimen might have been chiselled by the aid of 

 iron or steel tools. Neither tradition nor its present appearance may justify us in 

 positively dating its origin back beyond a couple of centuries. But Bancroft, 

 in his History of the United States, reminds us, that Soto and a party of Spaniards 

 ascended the Mississippi above New Madrid in the year 1541; and dispatched an 

 exploring party to examine the regions farther north. This or some other party— 

 perhaps some of the persevering Jesuits, who at a very remote period penetrated 

 these wilds— may have reached St. Louis at that early day, and introduced iron 

 tools among the Indians. Nay, it is within the bounds of possibility, though cer- 

 tainly improbable enough, that some of these adventurers themselves were the 

 sculptors. 



