There is another still stronger argument in favor of their antiquity,
viz., the decayed condition of the skeletons. The skeletons of the
oldest Indian tribes are comparatively sound while those of the
Mound-builders are much decayed. If they are sound when brought out,
they at once begin to disintegrate in the atmosphere, which is a sure
sign of their antiquity. We know that some skeletons in Europe have
lately been exhumed, which, though buried more than 1,000 years, are
comparatively firm and well-preserved. We are, I think, bound to
ascribe a greater antiquity to the Mound-builders' skeletons than to
those found in the ancient barrows of Europe. Other considerations,
such as stream encroachment, and river-terrace formation, might also
be brought in as presumptive arguments in favor of their great
antiquity.


ORIGIN OF THE MOUND-BUILDERS.--This is a question not easily answered.
It brings me into no discredit before the educated world to
acknowledge ignorance on this mysterious point. The study of
Craniology and Philology, in connection with Ethnology, shall alone
throw light on this subject. Dr. Wilson says, in his "Prehistoric Man"
(p. 123), "The ethnical classification of this strange race is still
an unsettled question," and he declares without fear of contradiction,
"that especially concerning the Scioto Mound skull, the elevation and
breadth of the frontal bone, differs essentially from the Indian, and
that the cerebral development was more in accordance with the
character of that singular people, who without architecture have
perpetuated, in mere structures of earth, the evidences of geometric
skill, a definite means of determining angles, a fixed standard of
measurement, and the capacity as well as the practice of repeating