13. On the Cuspidiform Petroglyphs, or so-called BirdTrack Sculptures of Ohio. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. (Phila.), Oct., 1884.

14. On Fire Stones and Prehistoric Implements. Ibid., Nov., 1884.

15. Impression of the Figures on a "Meda Stick." Ibid., Nov., 1884.

16. The Lineal Measures of the Semi-Civilized Nations of Mexico and Central America. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. (Phila.), Jan., 1885.

17. Did Cortes Visit Palenque? Science, March, 1885. 18. The Sculptures of Cozumalhuapa. Science, July, 1885. 19. On the Ikonomatic Method of Phonetic Writing, with Special Reference to American Archæology. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., 1886.

20. A Review of the Data for the Study of the Prehistoric Chronology of America. Proc. Amer. Adv. Sci., 1887. 21. The Subdivisions of the Palæolithic Period. Ibid. 22. Were the Toltecs an Historic Nationality? Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, Sept., 1887.

23. On an Ancient Human Foot-Print from Nicaragua. Ibid., Nov., 1887.

24. On Early Man in Spain. Proc. Am. Ass. Adv Sci., 1888. 25. On a Limonite Human Vertebra from Florida. Ibid. 26. The Taki, the Svastika and the Cross in America. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., Dec., 1888.

27. On a Petroglyph from the Island of St. Vincent, West Indies. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. (Phila.), 1889.

28. On the "Stone of the Giants near Orizaba, Mexico. Proc. Numism, and Antiq. Soc. (Phila), 1889.

29 On the System of Writings of the Ancient Mexicans. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc., 1892.

30. Measurement by Weight among the Peruvian Indians. Proc. Numism. and Antiq. Soc. (Phila.), 1892

31. On Anvil Shaped Stones. Proc. Am Ass. Adv. Sci., 1892. 32 Remarks on Certain Indian Skulls from Burial Mounds, in Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Trans. Coll. Phys (Phila), 1892, pp. 217 219.

33. On an Inscribed Tablet from Long Island. Archæologist, Nov., 1893.

34. The Native Calendar of Central America and Mexico. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., Nov., 1893.

35. What the Maya Inscriptions Tell About. Archæologist, Nov., 1894

36. The Alphabets of the Berbers. Oriental Studies, 1894. 37. The Proto-Historic Chronology of Western Asia. Proc. Amer. Philos Soc, April, 1895

38. Carib Art and its Significance. Science (New York), New Series, Vol. II., 1895, p. 265.

39. On the Remains of Foreigners Discovered in Egypt by Flinders Petrie. Proc. Amer. Philos: Soc., Jan., 1896. 40. Left Handedness in North American Aboriginal Art. Amer. Anthrop., Vol. IX., 1896, pp. 175-181.

41. On the Oldest Stone Implements in the Eastern United States. Journ. Anthr. Inst. (London), Vol. XXVI., 1896-7, pp. 59-64.

42. The Missing Authorities on Mayan Antiquities. Amer. Anthrop., 1896.

43. The So-called "Bow Puller." Bulletin. Free Mus. of Sci. and Art, 1897.

Ibid.

44. Note on the Classical Murmex. 45. The Latest Discoveries as to the Antiquity of Man. Scien. Amer. (New York), Vol. XLV., 1898, Suppl

The above list, covering almost every department of archæology, shows that while Dr. Brinton won lasting fame by his special studies in American linguistics, mythology, folk-lore, and religion, his archæologic and antiquarian contributions are of a most varied and valuable sort.

But besides these minor studies there are the archæologic data in his books (which are not themselves specially archæological in scope or nature): "Myths of the New World, new edition, Phila., 1896; certain volumes of the "Library of American Aboriginal Literature," Phila., 1882-1890, especially those relating to the semi-civilized peoples of Mexico and Central America; "Races and Peoples." New York; "The American Race," New York, 1891; "Religion of Primitive Peoples," New York, 1897. To this again must be added such special volumes and treatises of an archæological nature as: "The Annals of the Cakchiquels," Phila., 1885: "The Chronicles of the Mayas," Phila., 1882; "Lenâpé and Their Legends," Phila., 1885, "General Prehistoric Archæology," Iconographic Encyplopædia, 1885; "Essays of An Americanist," 1890; "Report Upon the Collections Exhibited at the Columbian Historical Exposition, Madrid," Washington, 1895; "A Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics," Boston, 1895. Not less, then, than the linguist and the folk-lorist, has the archaeologist to mourn the loss of a master-mind, in him who has departed.

CORRESPONDENCE.

ORIENTATION AMONG THE MOUNDS.

EDITOR OF THE AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN:

Dear Sir.-I have endeavored to get the information you desire in regard to the orientation of the circles in Greenup county, Kentucky. At o her visits here, I have viewed most of the works mapped by Dr. Hempstead, and some of them many times, but his "Temple Mound" I did not find until recently; partly for want of time, and mostly from misdirection by the people, who mistake river ridges for parallel walls, and natural elevations for mounds. The "Temple Mound" I found about 54 miles up the Ohio river, or east of South Portsmouth (Springville), after tramping over most of the fields this side of these and between the river and hills.

The Temple Mound" is built on the third terrace, while the other works in this direction are all on the second. I could find no trace of parallel walls, circles, ditch, or the spiral graded way to the top of the mound as Dr. Hempstead described. Mr. D. R. Walker, who is 76 years of age and who has spent most of his life near the mound, says he remembers the circles, ditch, and parallel walls from the river to the mound, and that the arallel walls were six feet high, covered with trees the same in all respects as the surrounding forest. He could not say to what point of the compass, the openings in the circles were directed.

Dr. Hempstead says:* "The top is not round, but truncated and elliptical, longest north and south." I found this as he describes, and my measurements, as nearly as I could make them, are as follows: Diameter of level surface on top of mound, east and west, about 45 feet, and north and south 66 or 70 feet. The sides of the mound are quite steep or abrupt, and 12 feet high at least, in the lowest place, and 14 in the highest, caused from the land on which it is built sloping slightly at the north. Dr. Hempstead gives the height at six feet, and when first surveyed at 20 feet. I can not account for the difference 14 feet in a few years, and the mound does not show it, besides an accurate survey would make the mound higher than my figures represent it at the present time I found no spiral,

"Mound Builders" (1883), page 4.

graded way, nor trace of one, to the top, but did find one from the south directly northward to the top by an easy grade, and 127 feet in length. At its southern end it terminates rather abruptly in a round over, or drop, of about two feet to the surrounding level on which the work rests. The width of this graded way on the top, is hard to determine accurately, from the edges being much rounded by plowing and the elements, but is about 14 to 16 feet; the base is considerably less in diameter than the base of the mound, and the sides more sloping, probably from more cultivation. This graded way has every appearance of being of the same age as the mound, and no reason can be given for a later origin, as no return could be had for the labor. Perhaps if this field had been recently plowed I might have traced the circles and parallel walls, to some extent, by the color of the earth and slight rise in the surface, as I have been able to do in other places, where, when covered with grass, as in this case, I could find nothing. Mr. Walker says there was a well between the parallel walls, about one-quarter mile from the mound towards the river, when he first came there, and that it took twenty cords of wood to fill it (wood being easier to get than any other material for the purpose).

Dr. Hempstead is entitled to much credit for his efforts to preserve a knowledge of the ancient works in this vicinity; many of which have now entirely disappeared; some can be traced with difficulty; while a few are in a fairly good state of preservation at the present time. Now, while Dr. Hempstead's map and description of the works here are valuable and perhaps substantially correct, yet, in my opinion, there is not that completeness and minute accuracy that there should be, for a sufficient study of their significance and use to their builders, or comparison with works in other parts of the world. My reasons for thinking so, are as follows: He does not mention a graded way from the south and gives six feet as the height of the Temple Mound," which is at least twelve feet high at the present time. This mound he locates on his map as somewhat to the northeast of the other works in this direction, but by my observation with a common compass, with sixinch needle, I make it almost exactly east of the first mound, which he marks on the map as eighteen feet high, and in the text as nineteen feet (his destription of this mound is about right). In addition to the four works mapped in this direction by Dr. Hempstead, there are five other mounds from two to six feet high, and two others have been removed, one to make a fill, and the other so as to build a house on the site. On page 7, last column, 17th line ("Mound Builders," 1883), he says: "A short distance west from the Temple Mound will be found three small structures a mound, ditch and embankment-the whole about fifty feet in diameter, with a ditch twelve feet deep from from the top of the embankment three feet high on the outside. A mound in the center six feet high, with a gateway

of approach from the south, rises above the surrounding surface.'

My observation of the above-mentioned work, is as follows: It is one of the best preserved works here, which is probably due to the fact that the ditch prevented plowing, and it was allowed to grow up with trees. Apparently the original forest was cut away, as those present are second growth. Two wild cherry trees grow in the ditch, two feet in diameter, and an oak over two feet in diameter was growing on the mound, a little to one side of the center. Many other trees grow on the works, but none in other parts of the field; this field is quite large and almost perfectly level. The work at the present time measures as follows: The mound is about 3% feet high, and 30 feet in diameter at the base, which rests on the original surface as level as the surrounding field; this level extends around the mound from the base, for a width of 10 or 12 feet, forming a platform. Surrounding this platform is a ditch 30 feet wide at the top, and six feet deep from top of outside embankment, and about 12 feet wide at the bottom. Outside the ditch is the embankment, about two feet high and 35 feet wide, highest near the ditch and growing gradually less to the outer edge; evidently much spread out by plowing. About 18 degrees to the east of south from the center of the work is a gateway through the embankment, across the ditch to the platform around the mound. The entrance across the ditch is about eight feet wide, and three feet above the bottom of the ditch; this was evidently the original surface, not removed in excavating the ditch; therefore the surface surrounding the work, the platform, and connecting way across the ditch, were all on the same level, while the mound and embankment were raised, material being obtained for building them by using what was obtained in excavating the ditch. By the way, no water ever accumulates in this ditch, though there is no outlet, the earth being very sandy and porous, below the surface particularly. The whole of this work Dr. Hempstead makes 50 feet in diameter, while I make it 115 feet at least. It seems to me that the Doctor's estimate of the height of this mound is also too much, as the oak tree so near the center and over two feet in diameter would show the removal, if any great amount had occurred.

I have spent some time in trying to locate two old maps of these works, one by F. Cleveland, civil engineer, and the other by Dr. Galbraith, formerly a civil engineer, of Greenup, Greenup county, Kentucky, but, up to this time, I have been unable to come up with either of them, but I believe they are in existence somewhere. There is, I think, much need of a new and accurate survey of the works here, that will locate all the works and rectify past mistakes. Squier & Davis, Prof. Lewis, and Dr. Hempstead, and, perhaps, others, have made. partial surveys of these works, but I hope that there may be one more that will do the works justice. I will say in regard