THE ARCHEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF NEW YORK 85 



contain in inclusive deposits objects acquired after the coming of 

 the Europeans but such objects are not found in New York State. 



4 Early explorers saw mounds in the course of erection. They 

 have preserved accounts taken from the Indians explaining why and 

 how the mounds were erected. 



5 The mounds were not all erected by the same tribe,, but by 

 different tribes according to locality. 



6 The links connecting the Indians with the mound builders are 

 so firmly established by historic and archeologic evidence that 

 archeologists now know them to have been one and the same people. 



7 All these conclusions with others are sustained by the explora- 

 tions conducted by trained observers employed by scientific institu- 

 tions. The best summary of results is contained in the Twelfth 

 Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, a department of the 

 Smithsonian Institution. 



The earthworks of aboriginal origin in New York are broadly 

 divisible into two classes: (i) walled and trenched inclosures, (2) 

 mounds. 



With very few exceptions all the fortifications or walled inclosures 

 in New York may be ascribed to the Iroquoian tribes. These earth- 

 works outline retreats or strongholds, and the earthen walls were the 

 bases for stockades. In no sense are these banks and earth walls to 

 be regarded as mounds. None of them was erected by mound build- 

 ers unless we, include the Iroquoian tribes as mound-building Indians, 

 since the Iroquois did occasionally build low mounds. 



In New York the mound-builder culture is not always coincident 

 with the presence of mounds. Scattered relics of this culture in the 

 form of monitor pipes, gorgets, banner stones, stone tubes and even 

 isolated burials and stone graves indicate the one-time presence or 

 cultural influence of the '' mound-building " Indians. 



For the purposes of our analysis it is our intention to treat the 

 mounds of New York as one phase of an ethnic culture. We are 

 enabled by this method to treat other evidences of that culture with- 

 out necessarily confining our descriptions and facts to an immediate 

 association with mounds, though we take our datum from them. 



It is not easy to define the boundaries of this culture because the 

 implements and ornaments that it produced are in many respects 

 similar to some of those made by both the Algonkian and Iroquoian 

 peoples in New York and the adjacent territory, but an examination 

 of the mounds in the western portion of the State gives us certain 

 facts upon which to base our observations. Even in a larger way the 

 Ohio mounds afi^ord us a basis for comparison. 



