recent Indians. In no particular were the Mound Builders in advance of many known tribes. The 'mathematical figures,' except those at Newark, are of the rudest character. The perfect circle at Newark could have been made by any one possessed of the knowledge that a string continues of the same length in whatsoever direction from a center it may be extended. The square at Newark, alone, requires a geometrical operation, but not one of a highly complicated order (and, indeed, a square can be laid out by a formula even simpler than that used by Mr. Fowke). It is disinctly refreshing to find a book so accurate and sane in treatment of this mania-producing subject. Here is, however, no history of the Mound Builders, for this author is no more able than his predecessors to tell us who and when they were, nor why they constructed such extraordinary works. The Indian history of the state where was, as now seems probable, the early home of the Siouans, and perhaps also of the Iroquoians, is ignored; and we pass from the Mound Builders to a brief account of the recent Indians and a long account of their stone implements, including a good description of the famous Flint Ridge, the chief armory of the Indians.

Excellent as this book is, the author's zeal in demolishing venerable fables leads him by mere momentum to overrun his objective, and to belabor quite indiscriminately all his predecessors in the field, both the sensible and the foolish. To those early and industrious Squire and Davis, Mr. Fowke does try, not always with success, to be just; but in exploiting his rather neat vein of sarcasm he treats Messrs. Shaler and Putnam with no more respect than if they were the "silly" Larkin or Hosea of the mighty imagination. When Mr. Fowke reads his own book critically he will discover that he is not infallible himself. Yet, all in all, his is a valuable book, and if properly circulated will do much to substantiate in the popular mind fact for romance concerning our Mound Builders and later Indians. It is a great pity that such excellent matter is not presented in better print and binding. We do not know who prepared the bibliography found in an appendix. His work would have been more valuable had he known that the citation of a book is improved if title, date and name of the author are correctly [fully] given.

PROF. MOORHEAD'S CRITICISM.

[Prof. Warren K. Moorehead was formerly Curator of the Ohio State Archæological and Historical Society. He is now the Curator of the Archæological Museum of Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass. The following article from his pen appeared in the Science for April, 1903.E. O. R.]

Mr. Fowke's book is not written, so he claims, for scientists or specialists, but to give laymen an idea of the extent and characteristics of the prehistoric remains found within the borders of the state of Ohio. It fulfils its mission and presents in its 760 pages a complete résumé of all the antiquities of the state, and also refers to nearly every publication upon the subject. The work is well done, and as Mr. Fowke compassed a task which required a great deal of time, and would not have been possible to any person who had not studied the Ohio field, as he has, for twenty years, he is deserving of our meed of praise.

But while the above is true, the book itself may not further the study of archæology in the United States. Unfortunately the author is even more than controversial, he is dogmatic, and to most of the writers and authorities on Ohio antiquities, he is unjust. Such a book as this is, evincing years of study in its preparation, may do a deal of harm or an equal amount of good. That is, it may give an erroneous conception of the culture of the mound-building tribes in Ohio. A scientific critic should be infallible. Mr. Fowke is not infallible. Beginning with the year 1803 and coming down to the present, he has resurrected the published opinions of scores of writers, and has held up their theories to ridicule and contempt. But they were the pioneers in American archeology. These men made many mistakes. It would be as logical for one interested in the development of steam navigation to contrast Fulton's steamboat with the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse to the detriment of Fulton, as it is for Mr. Fowke to measure these pioneers by our present standard of knowledge.

The whole tone of the book is that prehistoric man in Ohio is scarcely worthy of study; that nothing new has been learned regarding him; that (p. 148) “Our museums are filling up with material from all sources, and yet, for years, the accumulation

has added nothing in the way of real information to what we already know."

If this is true, why continue work in prehistoric anthropology?

Mr. Fowke does not believe the prehistoric earthworks and mounds required the time in their construction assigned by other investigators, who made many exaggerations. But he presents a rather illogical argument. I have space for only part of it:

"Forty deck hands on a western steamboat, working steadily, will transfer ten thousand bushels of corn from the bank to the vessel in one day. An equal weight of dry earth will make a mound forty feet in diameter and ten feet high" (p. 85). No Indian ever worked as deck hands work. The corn in sacks and usually handled on trucks, is rushed from the deck into the warehouse, the negroes stimulated to run by the curses of the mate. Mr. Fowke places the native, who had no shovels, no trucks, and no inclined planes or board floors on which to move the "dry earth” — even as negroes hustle sacked corn - on a par with the fastest workers of modern times. The field testimony is that the earth for mounds was scooped up in the immediate neighborhood and carried in baskets or skins. This was naturally a slow pro-cess, as the natives used stone or shell digging tools.

On page 88 there is a sentence which is calculated to prejudice the author in the eyes of fair-minded men. Mr. MacLean, in one of his books, refers to the Mound Builders as selecting the region between the lakes and the gulf, the reason for which is apparent to any observer. As to this opinion, Mr. Fowke says, "The last quotation is about as sensible as to say that a man displayed great literary inclination by electing to be born in Boston."

He contends that the number of rings in a tree is no evidenceas to its age, to all of which we may subscribe. But, unfortunately, he cites all the trees of rapid growth in support of his argument, even bringing in trees of tropical regions, as in Yucatan, where M. Charnay found trees twenty-two years old two feet in diameter. As to the great oaks four or five feet in diameter, found on some of the earthworks, he has nothing to say.

Mr. W. C. Mills's important investigations of the last few years are almost entirely omitted. In many places Squier and

Davis are cited because their measurements are not in accord with those of the author, who ignores the fact that the diameter of an embankment or of a mound may have been enlarged many feet through continuous cultivation. The Hopewell exploration, for example, showed that the Effigy mound was originally much higher and narrower than even in Atwater's time; to-day it is nearly one-half larger and broader than it was found to be in 1891. Applying to this Mr. Fowke's method of reasoning, the structure could never have had the dimensions assigned to it by early observers.

The chapter on Flint Ridge gives an exhaustive account of that famous site. The pages devoted to the manufacture of implements and to the finished products are also, with the exception of a few remarks on ceremonial stones, above criticism. In such descriptions and in field work the author is seen at his best, and the critical student would be unjust did he not accord due praise in these directions. It is only in Mr. Fowke's attitude toward others, in which there is manifest such a spirit of intolerance, that he is open to severe criticism.

His conclusions are that several tribes may have occupied Ohio (p. 470), yet he does not agree with the "long and short heads" theory.

He uses the terms "tribe" and "race" interchangeably throughout his book. He says mound finds and surface finds differ little a statement not borne out by field testimony. Different sites present varying degrees of culture, and the Turner site where Putnam found so many evidences of a considerable advance in art, and the Hopewell were substances from the Yellowstone, the Gulf and other distinct points, together with beautiful carvings in stone and bone, were exhumed, are classed with sites which evince a very low degree of culture.

No sensible person believes in "civilization of the Mound Builders" or that there was a "race of Mound Builders." But to swing to the other extreme and classify a tribe able to construct the strange "combination-works" of the Lower Scioto with the Pai Utes or the Comanches is manifestly wrong.

VOL. XII. No. 3.

EDITORIALANA.

EQ Randall

JULY, 1903.

DAYTON DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

We are in receipt of the Calendar of the Jonathan Dayton Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Dayton, Ohio. The program of the chapter for this centennial year is so admirable that it deserves notice and imitation by other chapters. Beginning with its March meeting and running through to its annual meeting in January, 1904, it has arranged a series of topics pertinent to the Ohio year. The subjects for the chapter's study include: "Antiquities of Ohio:" Serpent and other Mounds, Ancient and other Forts, etc. "The Indian;" Logan, Tecumseh, Ogontz, the Prophet, Cornstalk "The Battle of Upper Sandusky;" the Only Battle of the American Revolution fought within the present limits of the State of Ohio (June 4, 1782) - "Wayne's Expedition against the Indians;" (1793-4)—"The Anglo-Saxons;" Characteristics of the first settlers; Conditions leading to the admission of Ohio as a state; "Memorial Day," with special remembrance of Revolutionary soldiers interred at Dayton Cemetery (May 30) "Flag Day;" Ohio in War; The War of 1812; War with Mexico; War with Spain (June 14) — "Ohio in the White House;" Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley. Meetings are also devoted to Laws of Ohio affecting women and children. The cover of the calendar is embellished with a neat design by the Regent of the Chapter, Mrs. David Gebhart. Beneath the Union Shield and the mottoes E pluribus unum and Imperium in imperio are respectfully the olive branch as the National symbol and a branch of the Buckeye tree with seventeen leaves, indicating Ohio as the seventeenth

state.

The Dayton Daughters are to be commended for their patriotism, national and state. We occasionally receive letters from D. A. R. Chapters, asking for suggestions as to subjects. Surely no more fascinating nor profitable topics for study could be chosen than those pertaining to the early history of Ohio. The events transpiring in the territory subsequently organized into Ohio, are as romantic and important as the collateral ones occurring in the New England Colonies and indeed the pre-state history of Ohio is closely connected with the national evolution that led to the formation and secure establishment of the Union. Another good work of the Dayton Daughters was the offering of prizes to members of the Junior Class, Steele High School (Dayton) for the best essays on