i 
i 
y 
ba: 
; 
j 
ia 
i 
i 
- 
- 
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 557 
these tumuli were erected by them. They declared that they 
were here when their ancestors first possessed themselves of the 
region.” Now if these mounds were deserted by their builders 
previous to the occupancy of the country by the Creeks or other 
Indians, it would seem probable that they were a different people. 
Had they been driven away by the Indian, then the latter would 
have a traditional recollection of that event. It is not possible to 
trace any connection, near or remote, between the mound-builder 
and the Indian; and if the latter were a degenerate offspring of 
the former, would not some trace of a tradition still remain with 
them of their ancestors’ superiority in art, government and re- 
ligion ? 
As the contained relics of themselves go but little way towards 
elucidating mound history, may not these Georgia mounds have 
been built by Indians? by. some race preceding those that last 
occupied that territory? for the red-man is certainly given to 
roving. Like relics do not prove like races, and do like mounds? 
On this very point, Mr. Squier has expressed an opinion concern- 
ing the mounds of New York, which is applicable here. He says 
of these mounds, that “the resemblances which they bear to the 
defensive structures of other rude nations, in various parts of the 
world, are the results of natural causes, and cannot be taken to 
Indicate either a close or remote connection or dependence. All 
primitive defences, being designed to resist common modes of 
attack, are essentially the same in their principles, and seldom 
differ very much in their details. The aboriginal hunter and the 
Semi-civilized Aztec selected precisely similar positions for their 
fortresses, and defended them upon the same general plan; yet it 
would be palpably unsafe to found conclusions as to the relation of 
the respective builders, upon the narrow basis of these resem- 
blances alone.” These remarks are applicable here, because we do 
hot yet know what relation these Georgia mounds bear to the un- 
epsom archaic —— > = Ohio and Mississippi valleys. 
e still believe that the mound-build a different people from 
the Indians, and had the relics of each been separated and treated 
of by themselves, we think more light would have been thrown 
Upon American archeology by the first half of Mr. Jones’ work. 
Chapters x to xxii, inclusive, are devoted to the enumeration and 
description of the relics found in the mounds and graves and on 
the surface generally: the latter relics being, as they are in New 
