xii. 550) thinks their architectural art deteriorated, since the ruined

pueblos are finer constructions than those inhabited now. Cf. on the origin of Pueblo architecture V. Mindeleff in _Science_, ix. 593, and S. D. Peet in _Amer. Antiquarian_, iv. 208, and _Wisconsin Acad. of Science_, v. 290.

[1693] See chapter vii. of Vol. II.

[1694] Cf. lesser accounts of these earlier notices in E. G. Squier’s paper in the _Amer. Rev._, Nov., 1848; and G. M. Wheeler in the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._ (1874), vol. vi.

[1695] The book is rare. There is a copy in Harvard College library. Cf. Sabin, ii. 4636-38; Ternaux, 518; Carter-Brown, ii.; Leclerc, no. 813 (200 francs). There is a French version, Brussels, 1631; and a Latin, Saltzburg, 1634.

[1696] Not to be confounded with the Casas Grandes, farther south in the Mexican province of Chihuahua, which is of a similar character. Cf. Bancroft, iv. 604 (with references); Short, ch. 7; Bartlett’s _Personal Narrative_, ii. 348. It was first described in Escudero’s _Noticias de Chihuahua_ (1819); and again in 1842, in _Album Mexicano_, i. 372.

[1697] From that day to the present there have been very many descriptions: _Documentos para la historia de Mexico_, 4th ser., i. 282; iv. 804; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 621; Short, 279; Schoolcraft, _Ind. Tribes_, iii. 300; Bartlett, _Personal Nar._, ii. 278, 281; Emory, _Reconnaissance_, 81, 567; Humboldt, _Essai politique_; Baldwin, _Anc. America_, 82; Mayer, _Mexico_, ii. 396, and _Observations_, 15; Domenech, _Deserts_, i. 381; Ross Browne, _Apache Country_, 114; Jametel in _Rev. de Géog._, Mar., 1881; Nadaillac, _Prehist. Amér._, 222. Bancroft groups many of the descriptions, and best collates them.

[1698] Gregg, in his _Commerce des Prairies_ (N. Y., 1844), examined the Pueblo Bonito in 1840.

[1699] Washington, 1848,—30th Cong., Ex. Doc. 41. This includes Lieut. J. W. Abert’s _Report and Map of the Examination of New Mexico_. He visited two pueblos. This and other material afforded the base for the studies of Squier and Gallatin, the former printing “The ancient monuments of the aboriginal semi-civilized nations of New Mexico and California” (_Amer. Rev._, 1848), and the latter a paper in the _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii., repeated in French in the _Nouv. Ann. des Voyages_, 1851, iii. 237.

[1700] This is perhaps the most important of all the ruins. Bancroft, iv. 671. Bandelier’s studies are the most recent. _Congrès des Amér., Compte Rendu_, 1877, ii. 230, and his _Introd. to studies among the sedentary Indians of New Mexico and Report of the ruins of Pecos_ (Boston, 1881,—Archæol. Inst. of America).

[1701] Also in _Rept. of Sec. of War, 1st Sess. 31st Cong._ Cf. Bancroft, iv. 652, 655, 661; Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, 86; Domenech’s _Deserts_, i. 149, 379; Short, 292. The Chaco cañon was visited by W. H. Jackson in 1877, and his report is in the _Report of Hayden’s Survey_, 1878, p. 411. Morgan gives a summary, with maps (see Nadaillac, 229), in his _Houses and House Life_, etc., ch. 7, 8,—holding (p. 167) them to be the seven cities of Cibola seen by Coronado. Cf. on this mooted question our Vol. II. 501-503; and Simpson’s paper in the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._ vol. v.

[1702] _32d Cong., 2d sess., Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 59._

[1703] On the Zuñi region see Bancroft, iv. 645, 667, 673 (with ref.); Short, 288; Möllhausen, _Reisen in die Felsengebirge Nord Amerikas_ (ii. 196, 402), and his _Tagebuch_, 283; Cozzen’s _Marvellous Country_; _Tour du Monde_, i.; _Harper’s Monthly_, Aug., 1875; J. E. Stevenson’s _Zuñi and the Zunians_ (Washington, 1881). Of F. H. Cushing’s recent labors among the Zuñi, see Powell’s _Second_, _Third_, and _Fifth Reports, Bur. of Ethnology_.

[1704] The _Report_ of Lieut. W. H. Emory, directly in charge of the survey (_Ho. Ex. Doc. 135, 34th Cong., 1st sess._), was printed separately in 3 vols. in 1859.

[1705] _Report upon U. S. Geol. Surveys, west of the one hundredth meridian in charge of First Lieut. Geo. M. Wheeler, vol. vii., Archæology_ (Washington, 1879). Ernest Ingersoll, a member of the survey, published some papers on the “Village Indians of New Mexico” in the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, vi. and vii.

[1706] Cf. L. H. Morgan on this ruin in the _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii. 536, and in a paper in the _Trans. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci._ (St. Louis, 1877).

[1707] His notes form a good bibliography. He intends as a supplement an account of the different explorations prior to the seventeenth century.

[1708] Bancroft (_Native Races_, i. 529, 599; iv. 662, etc.) gives the best clues to authorities prior to 1875. Short (ch. 7) condenses more, and Baldwin (p. 78) still more. Nadaillac, _L’Amérique préhistorique_ (ch. 5) also summarizes. Morgan studies the social condition of this ancient people (_Systems of Consanguinity_, Part ii. ch. 6; _Houses and House Life_, ch. 6; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, xii.). Cf. James Stevenson’s “Ancient Habitations of the Southwest” in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, xviii. (1886), and his illustrated _Catalogue of Collections_ in Powell’s _Second Rept. Bureau of Ethnol._; E. A. Barber on “Les anciens pueblos” in _Cong. des Américanistes,_ 1877, i. 23, in which he traces a gradation from the moundbuilders through the old pueblo peoples to the Toltecs; C. Schoebel’s account of an expedition in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, nouv. ser. i., and the references in _Poole’s Index_, i. 1063; ii. 359.

Dividing the remaining references into localities, we note for New Mexico the following: J. H. Carleton in the _Smithsonian Rept._ (1854); W. B. Lyon (_Ibid._ 1871); J. A. McParlin (_Ibid._ 1877); Turner in _Am. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii.; and A. W. Bell in _Journal of the Ethnol. Soc._ (London), Oct., 1869. Carleton describes the ruins also in the _Western Journal_, xiv. 185. Clarence Pullen describes the people in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, xix. 22. For Colorado: E. L. Berthoud in _Smithsonian Repts._, 1867, 1871. G. L. Cannon in _Ibid._ 1877; H. Gannett in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, xvi. 666 (Mar., 1880); _Amer. Naturalist_, x. 31; _Lippincott’s Mag._, xxvi. 54. For Arizona: F. E. Grossmann, J. C. Y. Lee, and R. T. Burr in _Smithsonian Repts._, respectively for 1871, 1872, 1879, with other references in Poole under “Moqui.”

[1709] This scope of treatment is manifest in the large number of papers contained in the _Smithsonian Reports_. See W. J. Rhees’ _Catal. of Publ. of Sm. Inst._ (Washington, 1882), pp. 252-3.

[1710] _Beschreibung der Reise_ (Göttingen, 1764; Eng. transl., Lond., 1772).

[1711] _Journal of two visits_, etc., Burlington, 1774 (Thomson’s _Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 657).

[1712] His account is copied in the _Mass. Mag._, Oct., 1791.

[1713] Cf. _Amer. Mag._, Dec., 1787; Jan., Feb, 1788.

[1714] Repeated in Gilbert Imlay’s _Topog. Descrip. West. Territory_.

[1715] _Journal of a Tour._

[1716] _Voyage dans Louisiane_ (Paris, 1807).

[1717] _Sketches of Louisiana_ (1812).

[1718] _Views of Louisiana_ (Pittsburg, 1814).

[1719] _Account of the History, Manners and Customs of the Indian Nations who once inhabited Pennsylvania and the neighboring States_, in the _Transactions Amer. Philos. Soc._ (1819), and later repeated in other editions and versions (P. G. Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 533, etc., and Pilling’s _Eskimo Bibliog._, 43). Louis Cass’s criticism on Heckewelder is in _No. Am. Rev._ Jan., 1826. Cf. Haven, _Archæol. U. S._, 43.

[1720] _Description of the Antiquities discovered in the State of Ohio and other Western States, with engravings from actual surveys_ (Worcester, Mass., 1820). This was reprinted in the _Writings of Caleb Atwater_ (Columbus, 1833). This volume also included his _Observations made on a tour to Prairie du Chien in 1829_ (Columbus, 1831), where Atwater was sent by the Federal government to purchase mineral lands of the Indians (P. G. Thomson’s _Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 52; Pilling, _Bibl. of Siouan Lang._, p. 2). The part originally published in the _Archæol. Amer._ was translated by Malte Brun in _Nouv. Annales de Voyages_, xxviii., who added a paper on “L’origine et l’époque des monumens de l’Ohio.” Cf. Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, 33, and the memoir of Atwater in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1867.

[1721] Including those of Newark, Perry County, Marietta, Circleville, Paint Creek, Little Miami, Piketon, etc.

[1722] Haven, 117. This publication was anticipated by a condensed statement in Squier’s _Observation on the Aboriginal Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, in the second volume of the _Trans. Amer. Ethnol. Soc._ (N. Y., 1847), and in his _Observations on the Uses of the Mounds of the West, with an attempt at their Classification_ (New Haven, 1847). Cf. also _Harper’s Mag._, xx. 737; xxi. 20, 165; _Amer. Jour. Science_, lxi. 305.

[1723] These went in 1863 to the Blackmore collection in Salisbury, Eng., and are described in Stevens’ _Flint Chips_.

[1724] Cf. _Trans. Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci._, 1873, and a paper “On the weapons and military character of the race of the mounds” in the _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem._, i. 473 (1869).

[1725] _Proceedings_, Oct. 23, 1852, where are plans of those at Crawfordsville, and of others in the dividing ridge between the Mississippi and the Kickapoo rivers. Cf. _Ibid._ Oct., 1876.

[1726] P. G. Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 925.

[1727] As, for instance, Conant’s _Footprints of Vanished Races_ (1879). Cf. T. H. Lewis in the _Amer. Journal of Archæology_, Jan., 1886 (ii. 65).

[1728] _Archæology of the U. S._ (1856).

[1729] M’Culloh in 1829 had come to a similar conclusion, and Gallatin and Schoolcraft have somewhat followed him.

[1730] _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866. Cf. Charlevoix.

[1731] This was Dr. J. C. Warren’s view in 1837, in a paper before the _Brit. Asso. Adv. Science_. Cf. also Blumenbach, Morton, Nott, and Gliddon.

[1732] Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, v. 539) thinks they were connected in some obscure way with these southern nations, and in 1875 could write (p. 787) that “most and the best authorities deem it impossible that the moundbuilders were ever the remote ancestors of the Indian tribes.” Dawson (_Fossil Men_, 55) deems the modern Pueblo Indians to be their representatives. Brasseur supposes the Toltecs came from them. (Cf. also Short, 492; and S. B. Evans, in _Kansas City Rev._, March, 1882.) John Wells Foster, who had for some years written on the subject, gathered his results in a composite volume, _Prehistoric Races of the United States_ (Chicago, 1873, 1878, 1881, etc.), in which he held to the theory of their migrating south and developing into the civilization of Central America. Cf. his paper in the _Trans. Chicago Acad. Nat. Sci._, vol. i., and his abstract of it in his _Mississippi Valley_ (1869, p. 415). J. P. MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_ (Cincinnati, 1879) takes similar ground. Morgan (_Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii. 552) holds that they cannot be classed with any known Indian “stock,” and that the “nearest region from which they could have been derived is New Mexico.” Wills de Haas takes exception to this view in the _Trans. Anthropological Soc. of Washington_ (1881). Cf. R. S. Robertson in _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_ (1877), xi. 39.

[1733] Major Powell says, that years ago he reached the conclusion that the modern Indians must have raised at least some of the mounds in the Mississippi Valley (_Bur. of Ethnol. Rept._, iv. p. xxx). Cf. also Powell’s paper in _Science_, x. 267. In the second of these reports (p. 117) Henry W. Henshaw sets forth the views, which the Bureau maintained; and he defended these views in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, viii. 102. The leading member, however, of the Bureau staff, who is working in this field, is Cyrus Thomas. In the _Nat. Mus. Report_ (1887) he defined the aim and character of the _Work in Mound Exploration of the Bureau of Ethnology_, also issued separately. In this it was stated that over 2,000 mounds had been opened, and 38,000 relics gathered from them; but nothing to afford any clue to the language which the moundbuilders spoke. The conclusions reached were:—

_First_, the mounds are as diversified as the Indian tribes are.

_Second_, they yield no signs of a superior race.

_Third_, their builders and the Indians are the same.

_Fourth_, the accounts of the early European visitors of the Indians found here correspond to the disclosures of the mounds.

_Fifth_, certain kinds of mounds in certain localities are the work of tribes now known; and there are no signs about the mounds to connect them with the Pueblo Indians or those farther south.

Thomas, in the _Fifth Report_ (1888) described the “Burial Mounds of the northern sections of the U. S.” He says that the character of the mounds and their contents indicate the possibility of dividing the territory they occupy roughly into eight districts, each with some prominent characteristic, and he roughly distinguishes these sections as of Wisconsin; the Upper Mississippi; Ohio; New York; Appalachian; the Middle Mississippi; the Lower Mississippi and the Gulf. He holds that the moundbuilding people existed from about the fifth or sixth century down to historic times.

Taking for his texts the mounds of the Appalachian districts, he has presented anew his grounds for believing this region at least to have had the red Indian race for the constructors of its mounds, and that the Cherokees were that race. Carr had already (1876), from investigating a truncated oval mound in Virginia, and comparing it with Bartram’s (_Travels_, 365) description of a Cherokee council-house (_Peabody Mus. Rept._, x. 75), reached the conclusion that that particular mound was built by the Cherokees. Thomas further undertakes to prove that the Cherokees once occupied the Appalachian region, and that implements of the white men are found in some of the mounds, bringing them down to a period since the contact with Europeans. The habits of the builders of these mounds are, as he affirms, known to correspond to what we know from historic evidence were the habits of the Cherokees.

Thomas has also communicated the views of the Bureau in other ways, as in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, vi. 90; vii. 65; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, May, 1884, p. 396; 1887, p. 193; July and Sept., 1888. In these papers, among other points, he maintains that the defensive enclosures of northern Ohio are due to the Iroquois-Huron tribes, and he accepts the view of Peet and Latham, that the animal mounds are more ancient than the simpler forms. Other investigators have adopted, in some degree, this view. Horatio Hale thinks the Cherokees of Iroquois origin, and that they may have mingled with the moundbuilders. C. C. Baldwin holds the Allegheni, Cherokees, and the moundbuilders to be the same.

Prominent among those who have adopted this red-Indian theory are Judge M. F. Force and Lucien Carr. In 1874 Force published at Cincinnati a paper, which he read before the literary club of that city; and in 1877 he prepared a paper on the race of the moundbuilders, which appears in French in the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_ (1877, i. p. 121), and in English, _To what Race did the Moundbuilders belong_ (Cincinnati, 1875). He maintains that the race, which shows no differences from the modern Indians, flourished till about 1,000 years ago, and that some of them still survived in the Gulf States in the sixteenth century, and that their development was about on the plane of the Pueblos, higher than the Algonquins and lower than the Aztecs.

Carr’s _Mounds of the Mississippi Valley historically considered_ makes part of the second volume of Shaler’s _Kentucky Survey_, and was also issued separately (1883). It is the most elaborate collation of the accounts of the early travellers, and of others coming in contact with the Indians at an early day, which has yet been made, and his foot-notes are an ample bibliography of this aspect of the subject. He holds that these early records prove that nothing has been found in the mounds which was not described in the early narratives as pertaining to the Indians of the early contact. He aims also particularly to show that these early Indians were agriculturists and sun-worshippers. Brinton, reviewing the paper in the _American Antiquarian_ (1883, p. 68), holds that Carr goes too far, and practises the arts of a special pleader. Brinton’s own opinions seem somewhat to have changed. In the _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866, p. 35, he considers the moundbuilders as not advanced beyond the red Indians; and in the _American Antiquarian_ (1881), iv. 9, in inquiring into their probable nationality, he thinks they were an ancient people who were driven south and became the moundbuilding Chahta.

Other supporters of the red Indian view are Edmund Andrews, in the _Wisconsin Acad. of Science_, iv. 126; P. R. Hoy, in _Ibid._ vi.; O. T. Mason, in _Science_, iii. 658; Nadaillac, in _L’Amérique préhistorique_; E. Schmidt, in _Kosmos_ (Leipzig), viii. 81, 163; G. P. Thurston, in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1888, xix. 374.

[1734] This is denied in Fred. Larkin’s _Anc. Man in America_ (N. Y.).

[1735] J. D. Baldwin’s _Anc. America_ (N. Y., 1871). D. Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. ch. 10, etc., who holds that “the moundbuilders were greatly more in advance of the Indian hunter than behind the civilized Mexican;” and he claims that the proof deduced from the Indian type of a head discovered in a moundbuilder’s pipe (i. 366) is due to a perverted drawing in Squier and Davis. Short, _No. Amer. of Antiq._, believed they were of the race later in Anahuac. Gay, _Pop. Hist. U. S._, i. ch. 2, believes in the theory of a vanished race. In 1775 Adair thought the works indicated a higher military energy than the modern Indian showed.

[1736] _Antiq. of Man_, 4th ed. 42.

[1737] Putnam’s papers and the records of his investigations can be found in his _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xvii., xviii., xix., xx., etc. _Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist._, xv.; _Amer. Naturalist_, June, 1875; _Kansas City Rev._, 1879, etc.

[1738] _No. Am. Rev._, cxxiii., for “houses of the moundbuilders,” and also in his _Houses and Home Life_, ch. 9. Cf. on the other hand C. Thomas in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1884, p. 110.

[1739] Rhee’s _Catalogue_, p. 252-3.

[1740] S. D. Peet, who edits this journal, has advanced in one of his papers (vii. 82) that some of these earthworks are Indian game drives and screens. (He also contributed a classification of them to the _Congrès des Américanistes_, 1877, i. 103.) The paper by J. E. Stevenson (ii. 89), and that by Horatio Hale on “Indian Migrations” (Jan.-April, 1883), are worth noting. The _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, 1875 (i. 387), has Joly’s “Les Moundbuilders, leurs Œuvres et leurs Caractères Ethniques,” and that for 1877 has a paper by John H. Becker and Stronck. That by R. S. Robertson in _Ibid._ (i. p. 39) is also reprinted in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._ (iv. 174), March, 1880; while in March, 1883, will be found some of T. H. Lewis’s personal experiences in exploring mounds. Some other periodical papers are: W. de Haas, in _Trans. Am. Asso. Adv. Science_, 1868; D. A. Robertson, in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, v. 256; A. W. Vogeles and S. L. Fay, in _Amer. Naturalist_, xiii. 9, 637; E. B. Finley in _Mag. Western Hist._, Feb., 1887, p. 439; _Science_, Sept. 14, 1883; Squier, in _American Journal Science_, liii. 237, and in _Harper’s Monthly_, xx. 737, xxi. 20, 165; C. Morris, in _Nat. Quart. Rev._, Dec. 1871, 1872, April, 1873; Ad. F. Fontpertius on “Le peuple des mounds et ses monuments” in the _Rev. de Géog._ (April and August, 1881); E. Price, in the _Annals of Iowa_, vi. 121; Isaac Smucker, in _Scientific Monthly_ (Toledo, Ohio), i. 100.

Some other references, hardly of essential character, are: H. H. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. ch. 13; v. 538; Gales’s _Upper Mississippi, or Historical Sketches of the Moundbuilders_ (Chicago, 1867); Southall’s _Recent Origin of Man_, ch. 36; Wm. McAdams’s _Records of ancient races in the Mississippi valley; being an account of some of the pictographs, sculptured hieroglyphs, symbolic devices, emblems and traditions of the prehistoric races of America, with some suggestions as to their origin_ (St. Louis, 1887); Brühl’s _Culturvölker des alten Amerika_; J. D. Sherwood, in Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 341; E. Pickett’s _Testimony of the Rocks_ (N. Y.).

[1741] _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866.

[1742] Cf. _Congrès des Amér._, 1877, i. 316; C. Thomas in _Amer. Antiq._, vii. 66; Warden’s _Recherches_, ch. 4; Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, ch. 2.

[1743] Cf. Short, p. 158.

[1744] Force, _To what Race_, etc., p. 63.

[1745] Cf. Henry Gillman’s “Ancient Men of the Great Lakes” in _Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci._ (Detroit, 1875), pp. 297, 317; _Boston Nat. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iv. 331; _Smithsonian Rept._, 1867, p. 412; C. C. Jones’s _Antiq. Southern Indians_; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, iv., vi., xi.; Jos. Jones’s _Aborig. Remains of Tennessee_; Jeffries Wyman in _Am. Journal of Arts_, etc., cvii. p. i.; W. J. McGee in _Ibid._ cxvi. 458; and Dr. S. F. Landrey on “A moundbuilder’s brain” in _Pop. Science News_ (Boston, Oct., 1886, p. 138).

[1746] Cf. Holmes’s “Objects from the Mounds” in Powell’s _Bur. of Ethnol. Repts._, iii.; C. C. Baldwin’s “Relics of the Moundbuilders” in _West. Reserve Hist. Soc. Tract_, no. 23 (1874); Foster on their stone and copper implements in _Chicago Acad. Science_, i. (1869); objects from the Ohio mounds in Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 418; images from them in _Science_, April 11, 1884, p. 437. In the mounds of the Little Miami Valley, native gold and meteoric iron have been found for the first time (_Peab. Mus. Rept._, xvi. 170).

[1747] See, on such impositions in general, MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_, ch. 9; C. C. Abbott in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, July, 1885, p. 308; Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, ii. ch. 19; Putnam in _Peab. Mus. Repts._, xvi. 184; _Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._ 247.

The best known of the disputed relics are the following: The largest mound in the Ohio Valley is that of the Grave Creek, twelve miles below Wheeling, which was earliest described by its owner, A. B. Tomlinson, in 1838. It is seventy feet high and one thousand feet in circumference. (Cf. Squier and Davis, Foster, MacLean, _Olden Time_, i. 232; and account by P. P. Cherry—Wadsworth, 1877.) About 1838 a shaft was sunk by Tomlinson into it, and a rotunda constructed in its centre out of an original cavity, as a showroom for relics; and here, as taken from the mound, appeared two years later what is known as the Grave Creek stone, bearing an inscription of inscrutable characters. The supposed relic soon attracted attention. H. R. Schoolcraft pronounced its twenty-two characters such “as were used by the Pelasgi,” in his _Observations respecting the Grave creek mound, in Western Virginia; the antique inscription discovered in its excavation; and the connected evidence of the occupancy of the Mississippi valley during the mound period, and prior to the discovery of America by Columbus_, which appeared in the _Amer. Ethnological Soc. Trans._, i. 367 (N. Y., 1845). Cf. his _Indian Tribes_, iv. 118, where he thinks it may be an “intrusive antiquity.” The French savant Jomard published a _Note sur une pierre gravée_ (Paris, 1845, 1859), in which he thought it Libyan. Lévy-Bing calls it Hebrew in _Congrès des Amér._ (Nancy, i. 215). Other notices are by Moïse Schwab in _Revue Archéologique_, Feb., 1857; José Perez in _Arch. de la Soc. Amér. de France_ (1865), ii. 173; and in America in the _Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 197; Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, 133, and _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April 29, 1863, pp. 13, 32; _Amer. Antiquarian_, i. 139; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, v. 75.

Squier promptly questioned its authenticity (_Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii.; _Aborig. Mts._, 168). Wilson laughed at it (_Prehistoric Man_, ii. 100). Col. Whittlesey has done more than any one to show its fraudulent character, and to show how the cuts of it which have been made vary (_Western Reserve, Hist. Soc. Tracts_), nos. 9 (1872), 33 (1876), 42 (1878), and 44 (1879.) Cf. on this side Short, p. 419; and _Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._, 250. Its authenticity is, however, maintained by MacLean (_Moundbuilders_, Cinn., 1879), who summarizes the arguments _pro_ and _con_.

What is known as the Cincinnati tablet was found on the site of that city in 1841 (_Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 195). Squier accepted it as genuine, and thought it might be a printing-stone for decorating hides (_Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii.; _Aborig. Mts._ (1847), p. 70). Whittlesey at first doubted it (_West. Res. Hist. Tracts_, no. 9), but was later convinced of its genuineness by Robert Clarke’s _Prehistoric Remains found on the site of Cincinnati_ (privately printed, Cinn., 1876).

The so-called Berlin tablet was found in Ohio in 1876. S. D. Peet believes it genuine (_Amer. Antiq._, i. 73; vii. 222).

On the Rockford tablet, see Short, 44.

The Davenport tablets, found by the Rev. J. Gass in a mound near Davenport, in Jan., 1877, are described in the _Davenport Acad. Proc._, ii. 96, 132, 221, 349; iii. 155. Cf. further in _Amer. Asso. Adv. Science Proc._ (April, 1877), by R. J. Farquharson; _Congrès des Amér._ (1877, ii. 158, with cut). The _American Antiquarian_ records the controversy over its genuineness. In vol. iv. 145, John Campbell proposed a reading of the inscription. The suspicions are set forth in vii. 373. Peet, in viii. 46, inclines to consider it a fraud; and, p. 92, there is a defence. Short (pp. 38-39) doubts. In the _Second Amer. Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, H. W. Henshaw, on “Animal Carvings,” attacked its character. (Cf. _Fourth Rept._, p. 251.) A reply by C. E. Putnam in vol. iv. of the _Davenport Acad. Proc._, and issued separately, is called _Vindication of the Authenticity of the Elephant pipes and inscribed tablets in the Mus. of the Davenport Acad._ (Davenport, Iowa, 1885). Cf. Cyrus Thomas in _Science_, vi. 564; also Feb. 5, 1886, p. 119. The question of the elephant pipes is included in the discussion, some denying their genuineness. Cf. also _Amer. Antiq._, ii. 67; Short, 531; Dr. Max Uhle in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, 1887.

[1748] It has been found convenient to follow an advancing line of geographical succession, but the affiliations of the peoples of the mounds seem to indicate that those dwelling on both slopes and in the valleys of the Appalachian ranges should be grouped together, as Thomas combines them in his section on the mounds of the Appalachian District. (_Fifth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._)

[1749] _Proc._, Oct. 23, 1849, p. 13; Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, iii. 89; Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, 42.

[1750] D. A. Robertson, _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, vol. v., contends that the North American mounds were built by a colony of Finns long before the Christian era.

[1751] It was also issued, with some additional matter, at Buffalo (1851) as _Antiquities of New York State, with supplement on Antiquities of the West_ (1851). Squier has also at this time a paper on these mounds in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1849, p. 41. Cf. _Am. Journal of Science_, lxi. 305, and _Harper’s Monthly_, xx. and