[Illustration: Figs. 284 and 285. ENGRAVED SHELLS WITH REPRESENTATIONS OF THE HUMAN FACE. Virginia. Second Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, pl. LXIX.] [Illustration: Fig. 286. ENGRAVED SHELL WITH REPRESENTATION OF A HUMAN FIGURE. McMahon Mound, Tennessee. Second Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, pl. LXXI.] [Illustration: Fig. 287. ENGRAVED SHELL WITH REPRESENTATION OF A HUMAN FIGURE. Tennessee. Second Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, pl. LXXII.] These human faces and forms (figs. 280-288), as well as the others, belong to the mound builders, and are found with their remains in the mounds. The figures are inserted, as is the rattlesnake, for comparison with the shell designs and work shown in the Buddha figure (pl. 10) and its associates. Slight inspection will show two styles, differing materially. To decide which was foreign and which domestic, which was imported and which indigenous, would be to decide the entire question of migration, and if done off-hand, would be presumptuous. To make a satisfactory decision will require a marshaling and consideration of evidence which belongs to the future. The specimens shown in figs. 280 to 285 are from Tennessee and Virginia. They are all masks, bearing representations of the human face. The first two are from the McMahon mound, Tennessee; that in fig. 282 from Brakebill mound, Tennessee, and that represented in fig. 283 from Lick Creek mound, Tennessee. The shell shown in fig. 284 is from Aquia Creek, Virginia, and that in fig. 285 is from a mound in Ely County, Va. The workmanship on these has no resemblance to that on the Buddha figure (pl. 10), nor does its style compare in any manner therewith. [Illustration: Fig. 288. ENGRAVED SHELL GORGET WITH REPRESENTATION OF A HUMAN FIGURE. Missouri. Second Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, pl. LXXIII.]