252 SCIENCE. 
modified by new environment? For the pres- 
‘ent this question should be held in abeyance. 
To declare that the resemblance of this. art 
to both Asiatic and Egyptian art is simply a 
proof of the psychical unity of man is as- 
‘suming too much and is cutting off all 
further consideration of the subject. 
The active field and museum archzeolo- 
gist who knows and maintains the associa- 
tion of specimens as found, and who ar- 
ranges them in their geographical sequence, 
becomes intimately in touch with man’s 
work under different phases of existence. 
Fully realizing that the natural working of 
the human mind under similar conditions 
will to a certain extent give uniform re- 
sults, he has before him so many instances 
of the transmission of arts, symbolic ex- 
pressions, customs, beliefs, myths and lan- 
guages that he is forced to consider the 
lines of contact and migration of peoples 
as well as their psychical resemblances. 
It must be admitted that there are im- 
portant considerations, both physical and 
mental, that seem to prove a close affinity 
between the brown type of eastern Asia 
and the ancient Mexicans. Admitting this 
affinity, the question arises: Could there 
have been a migration eastward across the 
Pacific in neolithic times, or should we look 
for this brown type as originating in the 
Eurafrie region and passing on to Asia 
from America? ‘This latter theory cannot 
be considered as a baseless suggestion when 
the views of several distinguished anthro- 
pologists are given the consideration which 
is due to them. On the other hand, the 
theory of an early migration from Asia to 
America may also be applied to neolithic 
time. 
However this may have been, what in- 
terests us more at this time, and in this 
part of the country, is the so-called ‘ Mound 
Builder’ of the Ohio Valley. Let us first 
clear away the mist which has so long pre- 
vented an understanding of this subject by 
[N. 8S. Von. X. No. 243. 
discarding the term ‘ Mound Builder.’ Many 
peoples in America, as well as on other con- 
tinents, have built mounds over their dead, 
to mark important sites and great events. 
It is thus evident that a term so generally 
applied is of no value as a scientific desig- 
nation. In North America the term has 
been applied even to refuse piles: the 
kitchen-middens or shell-heaps which are 
so numerous along our coasts and rivers 
have been classed as the work of the 
‘Mound Builder.’ Many of these shell- 
heaps are of great antiquity, and we know 
that they are formed of the refuse gathered 
on the sites of the early peoples. From the 
time of these very early deposits to the 
present such refuse piles have been made, 
and many of the sites were reoccupied, 
sometimes even by a different people. 
These shell-heaps, therefore, cannot be re- 
garded as the work of one people. The 
same may be said in regard to the mounds 
of earth and of stone so widely distributed 
over the country. Many of these are of 
great antiquity, while others were made 
within the historic period and even during 
the first half of the present century. Some 
mounds cover large collections of human 
bones; others are monuments over the 
graves of noted chiefs ; others are in the 
form of effigies of animals and of man ; 
and, in the South, mounds were in use in 
early historic times as the sites of cere- 
monial or other important buildings. Thus 
it will be seen that the earth-mounds, like 
the shell-mounds, were made by many peo- 
ples and at various times. 
There are, however, many groups of earth- 
works which, although usually classed as 
mounds, are of an entirely different order 
of structure and must be considered by 
themselves. To this class belong the great 
embankments, often in the form of squares, 
octagons, ovals and circles, and the fortifi- 
cations and singular structures on hills and 
plateaus, which are in marked contrast to 
