ARCHEOLOGY. 41 



(c.) SOME DELUSIONS REGARDING THE MOUND BUILDERS. 



The records of mound exploration and the efforts to explain or 

 account for all discoveries, go back to the beginning of the present cen- 

 tury, and are scattered through every form of literature from a fugitive 

 newspaper paragraph to a philosophic treatise. Much of this material is 

 of little scientific value, being the work of relic hunters, persons whose 

 curiosity has been excited by something they have seen or heard, vision- 

 aries seeking proof of a pet hypothesis — and generally finding it; — care- 

 less, unskillful, or superficial observers whose statements are unsafe to 

 rely upon no matter how honest may be their intentions. Almost invari- 

 ably something has been taken for granted, ultimate conclusions predi- 

 cated from partial examinations, definite assertions based upon hasty 

 surmises, indications used as established facts. Some pretentious vol- 

 umes are only an expression of opinion based upon partial and often 

 incorrect information interpreted in the light of very limited personal 

 investigation, and depending for acceptance mainly upon the author's 

 reputation for ability in some other profession or branch of scientific work. 



The specious fictions of the theorist who lets his enthusiasm run 

 away with' his judgment, seems to meet with a more cordial reception than 

 the moderate statement of the explorer who wishes to record only what 

 he has seen. As a result, the prevalent notions concerning all the native 

 races of North America, whether of past or present time, are not at all in 

 accord with the conclusions of those who have given them long and care- 

 ful attention. There is always room for difference of opinion on ques- 

 tions which must be solved by comparative or analytic study. But in 

 matters that depend entirely upon observation or can be placed beyond 

 controversy by methods at the command of any one who chooses to in- 

 form himself regarding them, there can be but one side. 



A considerable amount of archaeological literature contains such 

 gross errors and manifest perversions of fact, as almost to indicate a 

 deliberate and intentional effort at deception. It is not supposable, 

 however, that unworthy motives can be attributed to a writer on a 

 scientific topic; at the most, he can only be accused of reprehensible 

 carelessness or ignorance of his subject. 



Chief of all these mistakes, the one which has done most to create a 

 totally false idea of the extinct population of the Ohio Valley, and has 

 resisted years of persistent effort to remove from the popular mind, is the 

 pretended geometrical accuracy of the enclosures. Several degrees in 

 angles, scores of feet in lines, rods or even acres in area, have been added 

 to or subtracted from correct measurements to force a resemblance or 

 coincidence between works which in reality widely differ. Absolute 

 symmetry, or identity in form or size, is claimed in numerous cases; 

 whereas there has not been found one true circle, square, octagon, or 

 ellipse, among these works, nor any two that exactly correspond in 



