158 / , 
A CENTURY OP AMERICAN ARCHAE- 
OLOGY. 
BY PROF. WARREN K. MOOREHEAD. 
( Concluded .1 
Not a few, but a hundred reports upon 
every conceivable technical subject con- 
nected with ancient life in America issued 
for his benefit by public and private enter- 
prise. The mysteries of strange peoples 
are gone, the darkness has become light. 
Only the hieroglyphics of Central America 
remain, and even these will shortly be 
be read. 
In 1870, but thirty years ago, the 
Mound-builders were supposed to repre- 
sent a very high culture — to be civilized, — 
a culture equal to that of Central America. 
The Cliff-dwellers were unknown, although 
some travelers had observed the ruined as 
well as inhabited pueblos of the southwest. 
This is all changed. The Mound-builders 
are known to be a people in upper barbar- 
ism; considerably advanced over the 
plains and other hunting tribes, but yet 
far below the Mayas and Central American 
aborigines. The cultures of American 
prehistoric tribes have been localized. 
The remains of one section (when ex- 
plored) denote a high, yet, withal, a bar- 
baric, culture ; and those of another region 
(perhaps near at hand) may denote a 
lower culture. Instead of the Mississippi 
Valley having been occupied by a “Race 
of Mound-builders,” we find that there 
were numerous small tribes, some larger 
tribes, etc. , but that each is distinguished 
from the other. 
Aboriginal trade and commerce has 
been proven to have been extensive. In 
one group of mounds (Hopewell, Ross Co., 
Ohio), were found seventeen foreign sub- 
stances. Obsidian from the Yellowstone 
region, copper from Lake Superior, and 
pearls and shells from the Florida coast, 
etc. This is but one of the many dis- 
coveries made. 
The museums, thirty years ago, were 
few and poorly supported. I do not sup-' 
pose that all of them combined contained 
half the collections now to be found in the 
American Museum of Natural History, 
New York. Yet this institution, great 
as it is, is but one of some eight truly 
great museums — and there are thirty lesser, 
archaeological museums. These buildings 
contain some millions of utensils, gar- 
ments, weapons, ceremonials, ornaments, 
etc., representing every phase of prehis- 
toric life in America. The long rows of 
cases, the groups, the models, etc., are so 
well arranged and labeled that even a 
superficial observer may understand. 
In the importance and amount of work 
done, in the analytic study of arts, cul- 
tures, handiwork, tc., one man stands 
pre-eminent abov<= he entire number of 
famous workers giv n. I have purposely 
POPULAR SCIENCE NEWS 
I 
left him untilj the last. Prof. Holmes, 
head of Anthropology of the Smithsonian 
(having under his direction the Bureau of 
' Ethnology, Department of Ethnology in 
the National Museum of Archaeology in 
the Smithsonial proper) has done more, 
technically, for the science than any other 
of bis able and distinguished confreres. 
He and Prof. Putnam are the most promi- 
nent of our anthropologists. There are 
some differences between the two men. 
Frof. Putnam is a great organizer. His 
: reports are numerous, and will always be 
’authoritative.' Because of his numerous 
-interests and the management of various 
museums simultaneously, he has not had 
opportunity to present such detailed stud- 
ies as Prof. Holmes, Prof. Holmes’ study 
of the quarry-sites, the method of marking 
stone implements, his observation upon 
textile fabrics and ceramics are models of 
clearness, thoroughness and technology. 
Holmes’ refutation of 'the “American 
Glacial Man” must be accepted as final, 
and the efforts of lesser lights to prove 
that such a man existed in the United 
States cannot prevail. Holmes’ recent 
paper, entitled “Stone Implements of the 
Potomac - Chesapeake Tidewater Prov- 
ince,” is unexcelled in the range of archae- 
ological publications in America. 
The preservation of monuments is now 
assured. Formerly they were destroyed. 
To day, Fort Ancient, The Serpent Mound, 
ruins in the southwest, and many more 
important monuments and sites are made 
(or are being made) into parks. Congress 
has now before it a bill to protect all pre- 
historic monuments situated upon public 
domain from the ravages of “relic collec- 
tors.” 
The present century may see the “filling 
in” of many gaps in our “prehistory.” 
New things will be found out here and 
there. The language and folk lore of ex- 
tinct tribes we can never ascertain, but 
there are other matters to engage our at- 
tention. Chief among the possibilities of 
the future is the study and identification 
of the stone “ornaments, ceremonials,” 
etc., which fill our museums. Heretofore 
they have been considered “unknown,” 
and the very term ceremonial is a con- 
fession that we do not know what they 
really were. Thousands of them exist in 
public and private collection, and their 
study should be undertaken. 
An archasologic nomenclature is a neces- 
sity. We have over 1,000 separate imple- 
ments of stone, shell, clay and bone — yet 
our names for these are neither proper 
nor scientific— indeed, for some of them, 
we have no names at all. 
Archaeology is not the dry, dull study 
that many imagine it. Our monuments, 
relics, etc., are peculiarly American. 
They can be made as interesting as those 
of Europe and Asia, or Africa. The 
study of these various things affords a 
pleasurable pursuit for men and women 
of culture, as well as a source of informa- 
tion in regard to our prehistoric past. 
