Decembee 1, 1905.] 



SCIENCE. 



713 



peared in Science during the present year/ 

 the writers have quoted and advanced many 

 and varied theories, none of which, however, 

 appear to be entirely acceptable even by them- 

 selves. But why should all these small eleva- 

 tions which evidently occur in large numbers, 

 scattered over widely separated areas between 

 the Mississippi and the Pacific, be considered 

 as having been caused by the same agency? 

 It is impossible to imagine any one natural 

 cause which could have resulted in the forma- 

 tion of all. One theory attributed their origin 

 to glacial action, another considers them to 

 be «the work of ants. 



Some of the mounds — those in the far north- 

 western part of the country — may be of glacial 

 origin; if so it should not be a difiicult ques- 

 tion for a competent geologist to determine. 

 But the same theory can not, of course, be 

 applied to those in the lower Mississippi Val- 

 ley, for the obvious reason that the glaciers 

 did not extend that far south. Likewise the 

 * ant hill ' theory, when the mounds are con- 

 sidered as a whole, is as equally inapplicable, 

 not only on account of their wide distribution 

 and occurrence far north, but also by reason 

 of the various soil formations of which they 

 are composed. Were they the work of ants 

 some traces or indications of the cavities and 

 passages would certainly be discernible, but 

 such is not the case. The mounds which I 

 have examined in Missouri show no such indi- 

 cations, and Mr. Branner, referring to those 

 on the Pacific coast, writes: 



In California hundreds of mounds have been 

 cut through by railways and by common roads, 

 and many such sections have been examined. The 

 cuttings, being made without any special care 

 exhibit on]y a compact clayey hard-pan that 

 shoAVS no signs of burrows or anything that has 

 been recognized thus far as different from the 

 soil of the adjacent areas.- 



Other theories, such as the ' spring and gas 



^ February 24, 1905, p. 310. A. C. Veatch: 

 ' The Question of Origin of the Natural Mounds of 

 Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas.' Also March 31, 

 1905, p. 514, ' Natural Mounds or Hog-wallows,' 

 J. C. Branner. 



== Science, March 31, 1905, p. 515. 



vent ' and the ' dune,' are without foundation 

 and are scarcely worthy of being mentioned. 

 Both papers to which I have referred men- 

 tion the mounds as existing as" far north as 

 the Arkansas, but do not allude to the numer- 

 ous groups which occur in Missouri. These 

 are of a similar form and size and the descrip- 

 tion of one group appears to be applicable to 

 all. 



About four years ago I had occasion to 

 excavate many small mounds that stood on the 

 site of the World's Pair in St. Louis. They 

 formed two groups, one on the ridge, the other 

 not more than six hundred yards distant, was 

 in the lowland on the bank of the small Eiver 

 des Peres. All the mounds of both groups 

 were of a uniform size and were considered 

 as being the same in every respect. But when 

 excavated those on the ridge were found to be 

 ruined habitations. The original surface 

 which served as the floor was readily distin- 

 guished. J^ear the center was the fire bed 

 with ashes and charred wood, worked flint and 

 many small fragments of cloth. Marked pot- 

 tery were also found on the same level. The 

 mounds of the lower group were likewise ex- 

 amined, but, unlike the others, nothing was 

 found to indicate their origin or use. It will 

 thus be seen that the same theory of origin 

 will not apply to mounds of the same size and 

 appearance when only a third of a mile apart. 

 How unreasonable it is, therefore, to attempt 

 to apply the same theory to those several thou- 

 sand miles from one another. 



I have already mentioned the large groups 

 that exist in Missouri.^ In Dallas County, in 

 the southern part of the state, they are par- 

 ticularly numerous; many extend in parallel 

 rows along the water courses in the lowlands 

 and others, hundreds, occur in rows on the 

 western slopes, while comparatively few are 

 found on the eastern. Many of these mounds 

 were examined, but nothing was discovered to 

 shed light on their origin; they resembled the 

 lower of the two groups on the fair site, to 

 which I have already referred. 



Near the center of one large group of these 

 mounds- was one which, although of the same 



^ American Anthropologist, 1904, p. 294. 



