368 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XV. No. 385 



influence. Their government may have been, for aught we 

 know, a government of the priesthood, — one in which the 

 priestly and civil functions were jointly exercised, and one 

 suflBciently powerful to have secured in the Mississippi val- 

 ley, as it did in Mexico, the erection of many of those vast 

 monuments which for ages will continue to challenge the 

 wonder of men." 



Dr. Daniel Wilson not only takes the same view in his 

 '' Prehistoric Man," but expands and emphasizes it. He 

 even goes so far as to assert that the earth-woi'ks of the 

 Iroquois present, in some respects, a greater contrast to 

 those of the mound-builders (of Ohio) than the latter do to 

 the elaborate architecture of Mexico and Yucatan. "They 

 form groups," he continues, "of symmetrical enclosures, 

 square, circular, elliptical, and octagonal, with long connect- 

 ing avenues suggesting comparisons with the British Ave- 

 bury, or the Hebridean Callernish ; with the Breton Carnac, 

 or even with the temples and sphinx avenues of the Egyp- 

 tian Karnak and Luxor." 



If we lay aside all preconceived notions of a highly cul- 

 tured race of mound-builders with a priestly hierarchy, and 

 study these remains in the light of such data as we possess, 

 instead of looking at them through the halo of a finely 

 wrought theory, the inappropriateness of such comparisons 

 becomes apparent. What shall we say of the attempt to 

 compare the dirt walls of these groups of combined circles 

 and squares with the great temple of Karnak, termed by 

 Fergusson " the noblest effort of architectural magnificence 

 ever produced by the hand of man "? of likening the simple 

 earthen parallels, thrown up perhaps with wooden spades, 

 to the avenue of crio sphinxes, and the magnificent, columned 

 hall of the Egyptian temple ? In what respect do these 

 earth-works of the mound-builders resemble the palace at 

 Palenque, or Casa del Gobernador and House of the Nuns at 

 Uxmal? It is only necessary to put the question: the reply 

 is self-evident. Yet the writer just quoted, who may be 

 taken as the leading representative of the school to which he 

 belongs, sees, in some respects, less contrast between these 

 two classes of structures than between the earth- works of the 

 Iroquois and those of the mound- builders of Ohio. 



Omitting, perhaps, a dozen geometrical works, the enclos- 

 ures of Ohio, New York, and other sections, are admitted 

 to be for defensive purposes, and are of a character conform- 

 able to savage life. And in reply to Dr. Wilson it may be 

 truly affirmed, that if we compare the larger work on Plate 

 XIX. of " Ancient Monuments " — which is in the immediate 

 vicinity of the celebrated " Mound City," Ross County, O. — 

 with that on Plate II. of Squier's "Aboriginal Monuments 

 of New York," the similarity is so marked (except in size) 

 that one might be substituted for the other without bringing 

 into, or omitting from, the former group any important char- 

 acter. Yet here is what was considered by the authors of 

 " Ancient Monuments " pre-eminently the sacred or religious 

 city of the Ohio mound-builders; and, what is worthy of 

 mention, the accompanying enclosure, so like that of New 

 York, has a central mound, which was examined by Messrs. 

 Squier and Davis, and pronounced by them " clearly a place 

 of sacrifice." 



A number of such general resemblances between the 

 works of the two sections could be pointed out ; yet it is ad- 

 milted that the two classes of remains bear evidence of being 



the works of differe^jt tribes, but not of different races, or of 

 peoples in such widely different culture states as to justify 

 Dr. Wilson's extravagant statement. 



The complicated group, consisting of circles, a square, octa- 

 gon, and parallels at Newark, is unquestionably the most noted, 

 as well as the most extensive, of its class in the mound section. 

 As these cover an area estimated at two miles square, what, 

 it may well be asked, must be the estimate of the size and 

 population of the village that required such an extensive 

 system of works devoted to religious services and supersti- 

 tious rites ? The great circle at Avebury, England, the most 

 extensive of the so-called druidical structures of Europe, 

 embraces only about thirty-six acres; while here is an octa- 

 gon enclosing fifty acres, one circle including twenty, 

 another thirty, and a square embracing twenty acres. The 

 race-track, buildings, and other appurtenances of the Fair 

 Association of a county containing probably a hundred 

 thousand inhabitants are enclosed in a single one of these 

 circles. If these were but places where games were held 

 and religious ceremonies performed, where are we to find 

 the indications of the immense village that required such 

 vast amphitheatres ? 



It is remarkably strange that the mound-builders of cen- 

 tral and southern Ohio alone, of all the ancient peoples of 

 the mound region, should erect such extensive structures 

 devoted to religious observances; that here alone the priestly 

 influence should have been sufficiently powerful to produce 

 such results. How is the development of this sacerdotal 

 element in this limited area to be accounted for? 



It is true that a few of these enclosures are remarkably 

 correct geometrical figures, and present a puzzling question 

 to the archasologist; but the usual explanation, that the 

 authors were a people in a much higher state of culture 

 than the Indians, serves but to increase the difficulty. On 

 the one hand, it is only necessary to suppose that they were 

 built for defence, and that the Indians of a certain tribe and 

 era had leai'ned the art of laying off correctly circles of 

 large size, and the problem is solved. But, on the other 

 hand, the supposition of a highly cultured race, capable of 

 forming these figures by means not within the reach or capa- 

 city of the more advanced Indians, introduces a host of still 

 more troublesome questions. That the ancient works of the 

 Southern States and of New York are to be ascribed to the 

 Indians, is too clearly established by historical and other 

 evidence to be longer denied ; and it is even admitted, that 

 associated with the prehistoric monuments of the valleys of 

 the Muskingum, the Scioto, Brush Creek, the Little Miami 

 and Big Miami, are mounds and works of later times, some 

 of which were made by the historic tribes or their immediate 

 ancestors. Notwithstanding this supposition of a much 

 earlier occupation by a veritable mound-building people of 

 advanced culture, there are works here ascribed to this peo- 

 ple which present no indications of greater age than some 

 of those attributed to Indians. How is this to be accounted 

 for on the latter theory? 



The fact, well known to all archaeologists, that minor 

 works of art are found in these typical monuments of the same 

 character as those obtained from mounds attributable to the 

 Indians, presents another question difficult to answer on 

 this theory. The "Monitor" pipe, or pipe with broad base 

 running out in front and behind the bowl, is considered 



