Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United States Part 10

We see that already the theory that these remains scattered over the face of our country from Dakota to Florida and from New York to Louisiana were the work of one people, one great nation, is fast breaking down before the evidence that is being produced.

The following quotation from the last report of the Peabody Museum, which is repeated in substance in Science, June 27, 1884, p. 775, will serve not only to indicate the conflict which is going on in the minds of some of our most active and progressive archaeologists on this subject, but also to show the difficulty of finding applicable and well-defined terms, and of clearly stating the real question at issue:

The different periods to which the various mounds and burial places belong can only be made out by such a series of explorations as the museum is now conducting in the Little Miami Valley, and when they are completed we shall be better able to answer the question, "Who were the mound-builders?"

than we are now. That more than one of the several American stocks or nations or groups of tribes built mounds seems to me to be established. What their connections were is not yet by any means made clear, and to say that they all must have been one and the same people seems to be making a statement directly contrary to the facts, which are yearly increasing as the spade and pick in careful hands bring them to light. That many Indian tribes built mounds and earthworks is beyond doubt, but that all the mounds and earthworks of North America were made by these same tribes or their immediate ancestors is not thereby proved.

Mr. Carr, in his recent paper published by the Kentucky Geological Survey, has taken up the historical side of the question, but it must not be received for more than he intended. He only shows from historical data what the spade and pick have disclosed to the archaeologist. It is simply one side of the s.h.i.+eld; the other is still waiting to be turned to the light; and as history will not help us to read the reverse, only patient and careful exploration will bring out its meaning.[43]

This, it is true, is but an incidental paragraph thrown into a report of the work of the museum, but I have selected it as the latest expression on this subject by one of our most active and practical American archaeologists, and because it will furnish a basis for the remarks I desire to make on this subject.

In order that the reader may clearly understand the particular points to which I shall call attention, I will introduce here a brief review of the leading opinions so far presented regarding the authors.h.i.+p of these ancient works.

It was not until about the close of the eighteenth century that the scientific men of the Eastern States became fully impressed with the fact that remarkable antiquities were to be found in our country.

About this time President Stiles, of New Haven, Dr. Franklin, Dr.

Barton, and a few other leading minds of that day, becoming thoroughly convinced of the existence of these antiquities, and having received descriptions of a number of them, began to advance theories as to their origin. William Bartram had come to the conclusion, from personal observation and from the statement of the Indians that "they knew nothing of their origin," that they belonged to the most distant antiquity.

Dr. Franklin, in reply to the inquiry of President Stiles, suggested that the works in Ohio might have been constructed by De Soto in his wanderings. This suggestion was followed up by Noah Webster with an attempt to sustain it,[44] but he afterwards abandoned this position and attributed these works to Indians.

Captain Heart, in reply to the inquiries addressed to him by Dr. Barton, gives his opinion that the works could not have been constructed by De Soto and his followers, but belonged to an age preceding the discovery of America by Columbus; that they were not due to the Indians or their predecessors, but to a people not altogether in an uncultivated state, as they must have been under the subordination of law and a well-governed police.[45]

This is probably the first clear and distinct expression of a view which has subsequently obtained the a.s.sent of so many of the leading writers on American archaeology.

About the commencement of the nineteenth century two new and important characters appear on the stage of American archaeology. These are Bishop Madison, of Virginia, and Rev. Thaddeus M. Harris, of Ma.s.sachusetts.

Dr. Haven, to whose work we are indebted for reference to several of the facts above stated, remarks:

These two gentlemen are among the first who, uniting opportunities of personal observation to the advantages of scientific culture, imparted to the public their impressions of western antiquities. They represent the two cla.s.ses of observers whose opposite views still divide the sentiment of the country; one cla.s.s seeing no evidence of art beyond what might be expected of existing tribes, with the simple difference of a more numerous population, and consequently better defined and more permanent habitations; the other finding proofs of skill and refinement, to be explained, as they believe, only on the supposition that a superior race, or more probably a people of foreign and higher civilization, once occupied the soil.[46]

Bishop Madison was the representative of the first cla.s.s. Dr. Harris represented that section of the second cla.s.s maintaining the opinion that the mound-builders were Toltecs, who after leaving this region moved south into Mexico.

As we find the princ.i.p.al theories which are held at the present day on this subject substantially set forth in these authorities, it is unnecessary to follow up the history of the controversy except so far as is required to notice the various modifications of the two leading opinions.

Those holding the opinion that the Indians were not the authors of these works, although agreeing as to this point and hence included in one cla.s.s, differ widely among themselves as to the people to whom they are to be ascribed, one section, of which, as we have seen, Dr. Harris may be considered the pioneer, holding that they were built by the Toltecs, who, as they supposed, occupied the Mississippi Valley previous to their appearance in the vale of Anahuac.

Among the more recent advocates of this theory are Mr. John T. Short, author of "The North Americans of Antiquity;"[47] Dr. Dawson, in his "Fossil Man," who accepts the tradition respecting the Tallegwi, but identifies them with the Toltecs; Rev. J. P. MacLean, author of the "Mound Builders" and Dr. Joseph Jones, in his "Antiquities of Tennessee."

Wilson, in his "Prehistoric Man,"[48] modifies this view somewhat, looking to the region south of Mexico for the original home of the Toltecs, and deriving the Aztecs from the mound-builders.

Another section of this cla.s.s includes those who, although rejecting the idea of an Indian origin, are satisfied with simply designating the authors of these works a "lost race," without following the inquiry into the more uncertain field of racial, national, or ethnical relations. To this type belong a large portion of the recent authors of short articles and brief reports on American archaeology, and quite a number of diligent workers in this field whose names are not before the world as authors.

Baldwin believes that the mound-builders were Toltecs, but thinks they came originally from Mexico or farther south, and, occupying the Ohio Valley and the Gulf States, probably for centuries, were at the last driven southward by an influx of barbarous hordes from the more northern regions, and appeared again in Mexico.[49] Bradford, thirty years previous to this, had suggested Mexico as their original home.[50] Lewis H. Morgan, on the other hand, supposes that the authors of these remains came from the Pueblo tribes of New Mexico. Dr. Foster[51] agrees substantially with Baldwin. We might include in this cla.s.s a number of extravagant hypotheses, such as those held by Haywood, Rafinesque, and others among the older, as well as by a few of the more recent authors.

The opposite cla.s.s, holding that the mound-builders were the ancestors of some one or more of the modern tribes of Indians, or of those found inhabiting the country at the time of its discovery, numbers comparatively few leading authorities among its advocates; in other words, the followers of Bishop Madison are far less numerous than the followers of Dr. Harris. The differences between the advocates of this view are of minor importance, and only appear when the investigation is carried one step further back and the attempt is made to designate the particular tribe, nation, people, or ethnic family to which they appertained.

The traditions of the Delawares, as given by Heckewelder, in his "History of the Indian Nations," having brought upon the stage the Tallegwi, they are made to play a most important part in the speculations of those inclined to the theory of an Indian origin. As this tradition agrees very well with a number of facts brought to light by antiquarian and philological researches, it has had considerable influence in shaping the conclusions even of those who are not professed believers in it.

One of the ablest early advocates of the Indian origin of these works was Dr. McCulloch; and his conclusions, based as they were on the comparatively slender data then obtainable, are remarkable not only for the clearness with which they are stated and the distinctness with which they are defined, but as being more in accordance with all the facts ascertained than perhaps those of any contemporary.

Samuel G. Drake, Schoolcraft, and Sir John Lubbock were also disposed to ascribe these ancient works to the Indians. But the most recent advocate of this view is Prof. Lucien Carr, of Cambridge, Ma.s.sachusetts, who has presented, in a recent paper ent.i.tled "The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley historically considered" (contained in the Memoirs of the Kentucky Geological Survey), a very strong array of historical evidence going to show not only that the Indian tribes at the time of the discovery were capable of producing these works, but also that several of the tribes were in the habit of erecting mounds.

But it is proper that we should mention an article by Dr. D. G. Brinton in the October number, 1881, of the American Antiquarian, bearing upon the same subject, in which considerable historical evidence tending to the same conclusion is given. These two papers may justly be considered the commencement of a rediscussion of this question, in which the Indians, after a long exclusion, will be readmitted as a possible factor in the problem.

The reader will observe from the foregoing brief review that the opinions regarding the authors of the mounds--or, as Dr. Brinton expresses it, "the nationality of the mound-builders"--as heretofore given to the world, may be divided into two cla.s.ses--those holding that the builders were "Indians," and those holding that they were not "Indians." But the paragraph we have quoted from the Report of the Peabody Museum introduces other considerations, which render it necessary not only to define the terms used but to restate the question at issue in a more exact and definite form.

What mounds? What earth works? The authority quoted remarks, "That many Indian tribes built mounds and earthworks is beyond doubt, but that _all the mounds and earthworks of North America_ were made by _these same tribes_ or their immediate ancestors is not thereby proved."

That the term "mound-builders" is as applicable to the people who constructed the mounds of Siberia, j.a.pan, or elsewhere as those who built the tumuli of the Mississippi Valley must be admitted, but the term, when used in this country with reference to the mounds of this country, has, as is well known, been generally understood to include only those found in that part of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains unless otherwise stated; and Mr. Carr's paper, to which allusion is made in the next sentence of the quotation, is expressly limited to the "mounds of the Mississippi Valley." North America is therefore a broader field than is generally understood by those who enter upon the discussion, and I may add that "these same tribes,"

unless with explicit definition, is a limitation claimed by no one.

The term "Indian" is so indefinite and so variously applied that more or less uncertainty must ensue unless the writer discussing this question makes clear the sense in which he uses it. It was probably an appreciation of this fact that caused the author of the report referred to to make use of the terms "American stocks," "nations," and "groups of tribes." We can fully appreciate the difficulty he and all others writing upon this subject experience from the want of an adequate and definite nomenclature that is applicable. But his expansions in one direction and limitations in another, in the paragraph quoted, as it seems to me, have left the statement of the question in worse confusion than it was before.

In what sense does he use the terms "Indians," "Indian tribes,"

"American stocks," and "groups of tribes"? Are the cultured Central American and Mexican nations and the Pueblo tribes to be included or excluded? Professor Carr evidently proceeds upon the idea that they are to be excluded, and that the mounds and other ancient works of the Mississippi Valley are to be attributed to one or more of the American stocks found in possession of this region at the time of its discovery by Europeans.

This I believe to be the correct view, except in this: Professor Carr fails to clear his work of the idea of one people, one stock, when the evidence is conclusive that the mound-builders were divided into tribes and stocks, as were the Indians when first encountered by the whites.

Hence when I use the terms "Indians," "Indian tribes," and "American stocks" in this connection, they are to be understood as thus limited.

I do not claim that this use of these terms is correct, but it is not my intention at present to discuss the question "What is the proper use of the indefinite term _Indian_?" My only object in referring to it and the other equivalent terms is to explain the sense in which I use them in this connection, because I can find no better ones.

As thus limited the question for discussion maybe stated as follows:

Were all the mounds and other ancient works found in that part of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains (except such as are manifestly the work of Europeans of post-Columbian times) built by the Indians found in possession of this region at the time of its discovery and their ancestors, or are they in part to be attributed to other more civilized races or peoples, as the Aztecs, Toltecs, Pueblo tribes, or some lost race of which we possess no historical mention? I say in part, as it has long been conceded, that some of these works are to be attributed to the Indians.

If it can be shown that some of the mounds and other works of all the different types and cla.s.ses found in the Mississippi Valley and Gulf States were built by Indians, or even that they were built by people in the same stage of culture and art and having the same customs and habits as the Indians of this region in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, we shall be justified in concluding that the rest are the work of the same race and of the same tribes, or those, closely allied in habits, customs, art, and culture. That here and there a single mound-building tribe may have become extinct or absorbed into other tribes in pre-Columbian times, as has been the fate of some since the discovery of the continent, does not alter the case, unless it be claimed that such tribes belonged to different "American stocks" and had reached a higher degree of culture than those found in this part of the continent at the time of the arrival of the Europeans.

No one believes that we will ever be able to ascertain the history of the construction of each mound and earthwork; the utmost to be hoped is that we may be able to determine with satisfactory certainty that such and such works were built by such and such tribes.

But one step in the investigation is to reach the general conclusion as to whether all cla.s.ses of these remains in the region designated may justly be attributed to the Indians, or whether there are some types which must be ascribed to a different race, to a people that had attained a higher position in the scale of civilization than the Indians. This it is possible to accomplish, without being able to determine conclusively what tribe erected any particular work.

Nevertheless the conclusion will be strengthened by every proof that the works of certain sections are to be ascribed to certain tribes or stocks. It is for this reason that I propose to discuss somewhat briefly the question of the probable authors.h.i.+p of the works in the Appalachian district.

THE CHEROKEES PROBABLY MOUND-BUILDERS.

In 1876, Prof. Lucien Carr, a.s.sistant curator of the Peabody Museum, opened a mound in Lee County, Virginia, in which he made certain discoveries which, with the form of the mound and the historical data, led him to the conclusion that it was the work of the Cherokees.

This monument, as he informs us, was a truncated oval, the level s.p.a.ce on the top measuring 40 feet in length by 15 in width.

At the distance of 8 feet from the brow of the mound, on the slope, there were found buried in the earth the decaying stumps of a series of cedar posts, which I was informed by Mr. Ely [the owner] at one time completely encircled it. He also told me that at every plowing he struck more or less of these posts, and, on digging for them, some six or seven were found at different places, and in such order as showed that they had been placed in the earth at regular intervals and according to a definite plan. On the top, in the line of the greatest diameter and near the center of the mound, another and a larger post or column, also of cedar, was found.[52]

Quoting Bartram's description (given below) of the council house of the Cherokees in the town of Cowe, he concludes, and I think correctly, that this mound was the site of a similar building.

Bartram's description is as follows:[53]

The Council or Town House is a large rotunda, capable of accommodating several hundred people. It stands on the top of an ancient artificial mount of earth of about 20 feet perpendicular and the rotunda on the top of it, being above 30 feet more, gives the whole fabric an elevation of about 60 feet from the common surface of the ground. But it may be proper to observe that this mount on which the rotunda stands is of a much ancienter date than the building, and perhaps was raised for another purpose. The Cherokees themselves are as ignorant as we are by what people or for what purpose these artificial hills were raised. * * *