1895.] : Archeology and Ethnology. (eg 
Mr. Moore’s results bearing upon some of these questions might be- 
summed up thus: 
(a) THE FLORIDA MOUNDS LIKE OTHER MOUNDS. 
The Floridan builders of sand mounds and shell heaps were like. 
other pre-Columbian mound building tribes known to archaeology. 
They had certain peculiar customs, such as nicking arrow-head outlines 
from pottery (Mulberry Mound and Tick Island) to bury with the dead,. 
depositing great numbers of Fulgur shells in mounds (1307 from one 
trench in Mount Royal), and cutting out fragments of pottery with sharp 
instruments to inter in graves, but neither these facts nor the scattered 
charcoal and random hearths of the mounds, the catlinite, the cache of 
53 arrow-heads (Mount Royal), the sheets of mica (Tick Island and Mt. 
Royal), the perforated mussel pearls, the stone tube (Bluffton) or the 
gouge (Mount Royal), could disconnect these tumuli from the life 
and habits of the Indian as the white man knows him. The mound- 
makers cached an extraordinary batch of little baked earthen shapes 
in Volusia Mound mimicking the bear, turtle, puma, wildcat, tapir,. 
possibly ; the bud of the water-lily, the acorn, gourd, and ear of maize,. 
but there was nothing in the ornamented fragment of human skull 
(Bluffton), the sharpened fragment of human bone (Tick Island), the- 
copper-sheeted animal jaw (Tick Island), the bits of Galena (Mt. 
Royal), or the copper (Mt. Royal) to set aside these structures as a. 
class unique in themselves or apart from other mounds in the United 
States. 
Like the Indians of Maine, the Floridians spread layers of hematite 
reddened sand near interred human bones (Mount Royal) or with de- 
posited relics (Grant’s Mound at Dunn’s Creek). Some mounds, 
levelled to the ground, were empty, some contained only a few pot- 
sherds (St. John’s Landing), and the irregular construction of many 
defied any practical theory of explanation. Sometimes relics were 
scattered broadcast about the mound, out of all relation to its shape, 
and not associated with any burial. There were cutting-tools of soft 
rock that use would have destroyed, “ ceremonial ” shapes of stone and 
pottery, caches of intractable and useless hornstone chips, and inex- 
plicable arrangements of shells, betokening the doings of men who 
harkened habitually to the echoes of an invisible world, and, like Congo 
savages, drew half their life’s inspiration from demonology and spirit 
worship. Here again, science is invited to explain the motive traits of 
humanity’s childhood, and account for facts before it, not alone by the 
promptings of five senses, but by motives wild as the veering wind, 
