[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.