- 
982 The American Naturalist. [October, 
should exert ourselves to get rid of them, but not so fast as to depreciate 
the higher races.’’ 
The bearing of Prof. Cope’s remarks was that important natural 
differences in races should have their weight in social life and politics. 
Prof. Jastrow, of the University of Wisconsin, called attention to 
the distinction between characteristics relating to functions and activi- 
ties during life and those observed upon the body after death. While 
the former may be very important and easily noticed in every-day life, 
the latter are those most in use by anthropologists for race distinctions. 
The former are modified in a relatively short period ; the latter are 
relatively fixed, and are modified with extreme difficulty. The former 
are physiological, the Jatter anatomical; and it may be said that it 
takes a long time for physiology to be converted into anatomy. 
Prof. O. T. Mason, of the Smithsonian Institution, read a paper on 
**'The Arts of Modern Savages as a Means of Interpreting Arche- 
ology.’’ He cited the walrus and other animals engraved on horn and 
‚Ivory by the Esquimaux. A century ago they engraved with flint 
points; now they have steel knives, and their work is much superior to 
its former state. The art capacity of the people has not improved; 
the tool has improved. Such work must not be cited to a wrong 
purpose. By studying the work of present savage races under the 
varying conditions of contact with civilized races, much light 
may be thrown upon the development of races. ‘‘ There is an 
apparent millennium among the archzologists here to-day," said 
Professor Mason; ‘‘we are holding an apparent love-feast, but we 
really represent two hostile camps. Some of us believe the tools found 
and the mounds and forts all over the great West were made by In- 
dians. There are others here who believe these great works, built 
without the use of iron, were made by a people of another race,—the 
mound-builders, whom the Indians have followed. Much light may 
be thrown on this subject in the next five years. How shall we under- 
stand and interpret the tools, the dress, the habits, the houses, the 
laws, the social life, the religion, the folk-lore, of these ancient Ameri- 
can peoples, whether they are Indians or mound-builders? That is 
for us to do, and the humblest may do their part. Collect all the facts, 
and the truth will at some time be interpreted.’’ 
Who were the Indians and the mound-builders? Has America been 
peopled by three different races, —mound-builders, Indians, and Cau- 
casians,—driving off each other in succession? Or were the Indians 
and the mound-builders one and the same people? These are the 
questions. which are considered by American archzologists of to-day. 
