I did not expect to find rock graves in a mound of earth, but after clearing away rubbish and penetrating 6 feet below the top, near the center the workman struck a slab of slate, which proved to be part of the covering of a stone tomb. It was much likethose scattered over the "river bottom"—more nicely constructed, however, and fitted with more care, being arched over the top, at an acute angle, with pieces of slate 3 inches thick. Owing to its situation, raised above the level of the river and covered with sand to the depth of 6 feet, its contents were better preserved than those of the graves just mentioned. At the head of it I took out a vessel of fine red clay and pulverized mussel shells a foot in diameter, gourd-shaped, and having a handle and spout 6 inches long, and holding about a quart. It was preserved nearly whole. Artificial fire had been kindled in the tomb, but it had been smothered by the throwing in of sand before all the contents were consumed. Besides some entire bones of the human skeleton, flint arrow-heads and a large number of flint and stone beads were removed. The beads could be traced along the lines of the legs and arms, as if they had been attached to the garment in which the dead was buried. Further excavations disclosed two more of these stone sepulchers, the first 3 feet below the one described, the other 2 feet from it, in the same plane. They contained only fragments of bones, charcoal, and ashes.The mound, which was conical in shape, must have been 15 feet high and 50 feet in diameter. Successive floods had impaired its original dimensions. The last carried away a section on the west side, exposing a tomb and some valuable relics, which have not been preserved. Among them were large shells, pyrulas, probably, judging from the description, from the Gulf of Mexico. In connection with marine shells, images in stone were found in this tomb. The mound was composed of sand-loam taken from the bank of the river, and raised upon a foundation of water-washed rocks 4 feet high, from the bed of the stream hard by. There had been extensive burnings throughout this mound, at various depths, indicated by layers of charcoal, ashes, and burned clay, simply in honor of the dead, or to consume their effects or mortal parts, or for human sacrifices to their manes.
I did not expect to find rock graves in a mound of earth, but after clearing away rubbish and penetrating 6 feet below the top, near the center the workman struck a slab of slate, which proved to be part of the covering of a stone tomb. It was much likethose scattered over the "river bottom"—more nicely constructed, however, and fitted with more care, being arched over the top, at an acute angle, with pieces of slate 3 inches thick. Owing to its situation, raised above the level of the river and covered with sand to the depth of 6 feet, its contents were better preserved than those of the graves just mentioned. At the head of it I took out a vessel of fine red clay and pulverized mussel shells a foot in diameter, gourd-shaped, and having a handle and spout 6 inches long, and holding about a quart. It was preserved nearly whole. Artificial fire had been kindled in the tomb, but it had been smothered by the throwing in of sand before all the contents were consumed. Besides some entire bones of the human skeleton, flint arrow-heads and a large number of flint and stone beads were removed. The beads could be traced along the lines of the legs and arms, as if they had been attached to the garment in which the dead was buried. Further excavations disclosed two more of these stone sepulchers, the first 3 feet below the one described, the other 2 feet from it, in the same plane. They contained only fragments of bones, charcoal, and ashes.
The mound, which was conical in shape, must have been 15 feet high and 50 feet in diameter. Successive floods had impaired its original dimensions. The last carried away a section on the west side, exposing a tomb and some valuable relics, which have not been preserved. Among them were large shells, pyrulas, probably, judging from the description, from the Gulf of Mexico. In connection with marine shells, images in stone were found in this tomb. The mound was composed of sand-loam taken from the bank of the river, and raised upon a foundation of water-washed rocks 4 feet high, from the bed of the stream hard by. There had been extensive burnings throughout this mound, at various depths, indicated by layers of charcoal, ashes, and burned clay, simply in honor of the dead, or to consume their effects or mortal parts, or for human sacrifices to their manes.
Speaking of stone graves in the immediate vicinity as explanatory of those in the mound, he says:
They are built of slabs of slate, nicely fitted together, about 3 inches thick, 4 feet long, and 2 broad, enclosing receptacles not of uniform space, generally 5 feet long, 4 feet high, and 2 broad, covered with flat pieces, resting upon the upright slabs and conforming to the rounded corners of the tomb.
They are built of slabs of slate, nicely fitted together, about 3 inches thick, 4 feet long, and 2 broad, enclosing receptacles not of uniform space, generally 5 feet long, 4 feet high, and 2 broad, covered with flat pieces, resting upon the upright slabs and conforming to the rounded corners of the tomb.
As one of the principal objects in view in exploring and studying the mounds of our country is to ascertain, if possible, by what people or tribes they were built, a brief discussion of the question so far as it relates to the district now under consideration will be in place. My reasons for touching upon the topic in this connection, and limiting the discussion to the antiquities of the one district, are as follows:
First. The characteristics of the works of this section are so well marked as to leave little, if any, doubt on the mind of any one who will study them carefully that they are work of one people, probably of a single tribe.
Second. Because in this instance I think the evidence points with at least reasonable certainty to the particular tribe by which they were erected.
Third. Whether our second reason prove to be correct or not, we find data here which appear to form connecting links between the prehistoric and the historic times, and hence call for some discussion in regard to the authors.
Fourth. The statement of the result of our explorations of these works (especially the burial mounds) will, as I conceive, be incomplete without some intimation of the bearing they have had on my own mind in reference to their authorship. This it is true will apply with equal force to the works of other districts. I have already briefly stated my conclusions in this respect regarding the antiquities of Wisconsin, but have refrained from entering at length upon the question as to the Ohio and West Virginia works, as I confess and have already intimated that these present more difficulties in the way of explanation than most of the other sections.
It may be thought premature to speculate in this direction, and some of our ablest scientific journals appear to deprecate any such attempts until more data have been obtained and the materials already collected are more thoroughly digested. I admit that, as a very general and almost universal rule, such a course is the proper one in respect to scientific investigations, but must dissent from its application in this instance, for the following reasons:
The thought that a mighty nation once occupied the great valley of the Mississippi, with its frontier settlements resting on the lake shores and Gulf coasts, nestling in the valleys of the Appalachian Range and skirting the broad plains of the West, a nation with its systems of government and religion, its chief ruler, its great central city, and all the necessary accompaniments, but which has disappeared before the inroads of savage hordes, leaving behind it no evidences of its existence, its glory, power, and extent save these silent forest-covered remains, has something so fascinating and attractive in it, that when once it has taken possession of the mind, it warps and biases all its conclusions.[42]
So strong, in fact, is the hold which this theory (in the broad sense, including also the Toltec and Aztec theories) has taken of the minds of both American and European archæologists, that it not only biases their conclusions, but also molds and modifies their nomenclature, and is thrust into their speculations and even into their descriptions as though no longer a simple theory but a conceded fact. Hence it is necessary, before a fair and unbiased discussion of the data can be had, to call attention to the fact that there is another side to the question.
Unless some protest is presented or some expression of opinion is made on this point in my paper, the facts I give will be viewed through the medium of this "lost race" theory. This I desire, if possible, to prevent, and whether the "Indian theory" proves to be correct or not, I wish to obtain for it at least a fair consideration. I believe the latter theory to be the correct one, as the facts so far ascertained appear to point in that direction, but I am not wedded to it; on the contrary, I am willing to follow the facts wherever they lead.
Although additional data will hereafter be obtained and many new and important facts be brought to light, yet, as I believe, sufficient evidence has been collected (though much of it remains unpublished) to indicate what will be the final result so far as this general question is concerned.
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 archæologists 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 archæologist. It is simply one side of the shield; 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]
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 archæologist. It is simply one side of the shield; 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 archæologists, 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 authorship 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 assent of so many of the leading writers on American archæology.
About the commencement of the nineteenth century two new and important characters appear on the stage of American archæology. These are Bishop Madison, of Virginia, and Rev. Thaddeus M. Harris, of Massachusetts.
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 classes of observers whose opposite views still divide the sentiment of the country; one class 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]
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 classes of observers whose opposite views still divide the sentiment of the country; one class 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 class. Dr. Harris represented that section of the second class maintaining the opinion that the mound-builders were Toltecs, who after leaving this region moved south into Mexico.
As we find the principal 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 class, 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 class 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 archæology, 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 class 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 class, 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 designatethe 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, Massachusetts, who has presented, in a recent paper entitled "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 classes—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 thatall the mounds and earthworks of North Americawere made bythese same tribesor their immediate ancestors is not thereby proved."
That the term "mound-builders" is as applicable to the people who constructed the mounds of Siberia, Japan, or elsewhere as those whobuilt 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 termIndian?" 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 othermore 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 classes 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 classes 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 authorship of the works in the Appalachian district.
In 1876, Prof. Lucien Carr, assistant 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 space 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]
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. * * *The rotunda is constructed after the following manner: They first fix in the ground a circular range of posts or trunks of trees, about 6 feet high, at equal distances, which are notched at top to receive into them, from one to another, a range of beams or wall plates. Within this is another circular order of very large and strong pillars, above 12 feet high, notched in like manner at top to receive another range of wall plates, and within this is yet another or third range of stronger and higher pillars, but fewer in number, and standing at a greater distance from each other; and, lastly, in the center stands a very strong pillar, which forms the pinnacle of the building, and to which the rafters center at top; these rafters are strengthened and bound together by cross-beams and laths, which sustain the roof or covering, which is a layer of bark neatly placed and tight enough to exclude the rain, and sometimes they cast a thin superficies of earth over all.There is but one large door, which serves at the same time to admit light from without and the smoke to escape when a fire is kindled; but as there is but a small fire kept, sufficient to give light at night, and that fed with dry, small, sound wood, divested of its bark, there is but little smoke; all around the inside of the building,betwixt the second range of pillars and the wall, is a range of cabins or sophas consisting of two or three steps, one above or behind the other, in theatrical order, where the assembly sit or lean down; these sophas are covered with mats or carpets very curiously made with thin splits of ash or oak woven or platted together; near the great pillar in the center the fire is kindled for light, near which the musicians seat themselves, and around about this the performers exhibit their dances and other shows at public festivals, which happen almost every nightthroughoutthe year.
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. * * *
The rotunda is constructed after the following manner: They first fix in the ground a circular range of posts or trunks of trees, about 6 feet high, at equal distances, which are notched at top to receive into them, from one to another, a range of beams or wall plates. Within this is another circular order of very large and strong pillars, above 12 feet high, notched in like manner at top to receive another range of wall plates, and within this is yet another or third range of stronger and higher pillars, but fewer in number, and standing at a greater distance from each other; and, lastly, in the center stands a very strong pillar, which forms the pinnacle of the building, and to which the rafters center at top; these rafters are strengthened and bound together by cross-beams and laths, which sustain the roof or covering, which is a layer of bark neatly placed and tight enough to exclude the rain, and sometimes they cast a thin superficies of earth over all.
There is but one large door, which serves at the same time to admit light from without and the smoke to escape when a fire is kindled; but as there is but a small fire kept, sufficient to give light at night, and that fed with dry, small, sound wood, divested of its bark, there is but little smoke; all around the inside of the building,betwixt the second range of pillars and the wall, is a range of cabins or sophas consisting of two or three steps, one above or behind the other, in theatrical order, where the assembly sit or lean down; these sophas are covered with mats or carpets very curiously made with thin splits of ash or oak woven or platted together; near the great pillar in the center the fire is kindled for light, near which the musicians seat themselves, and around about this the performers exhibit their dances and other shows at public festivals, which happen almost every nightthroughoutthe year.
From indications, not necessary to be mentioned here, Professor Carr argues that the mound could not have been intended for burial purposes, but was evidently erected for the foundation of a building of some kind.
In a subsequent paper,[54]"Mounds of the Mississippi Valley," he not only adheres to the theory advanced in the tenth report of the Peabody Museum, but gives additional reasons for believing it to be true.
Although guided by very dim and feeble rays of light I am nevertheless inclined to believe that Professor Carr has succeeded in entering the pathway that is to lead to a correct solution of the problem in this case. As is apparent from what has been given in this paper regarding the burial mounds of this district, much additional data bearing on the point have been obtained since Professor Carr's explorations were made, on which he bases his conclusions.
The Cherokee tribe has long been a puzzling factor to students of ethnology and North American languages. Whether to be considered an abnormal offshoot from one of the well-known Indian stocks or families of North America, or the remnant of some undetermined or almost extinct family which has merged into another, appear to be questions yet unsettled; but they are questions which do not trouble us in the present inquiry; on the contrary, their ethnic isolation and tribal characteristics are aids in the investigation.
That the internal arrangement of the mounds, modes of burial, and vestiges of art of this district present sufficient peculiarities to distinguish them from the mounds, modes of burial, and vestiges of art of all the other districts, as I have already stated, will be conceded by any one who will carefully study them and make the comparison. If, therefore, it be admitted, as stated, that the Cherokees are a somewhat peculiar people, an abnormal tribe, we have in this a coincidence worthy of note, if strengthened by corroborating testimony.
As the mounds and other remains to be referred to are located in the northwest part of North Carolina and the northern part of East Tennessee, the first point to be established is that the Cherokees did actually, at some time, occupy this region.
In the first place, it is well known that they claimed all that portion of the country east of Clinch River to and including the northwest part of North Carolina, at least to the Yadkin, a claim which was conceded by the whites and acted on officially by State and national authority and denied by no Indian tribe.
Haywood expressly states that[55]—
the Cherokees were firmly established on the Tennessee River or Hogohega [the Holston] before the year 1650, and had dominion over all the country on the east side of the Alleghany Mountains, which includes the headwaters of the Yadkin, Catawba, Broad River, and the headwaters of the Savannah—
the Cherokees were firmly established on the Tennessee River or Hogohega [the Holston] before the year 1650, and had dominion over all the country on the east side of the Alleghany Mountains, which includes the headwaters of the Yadkin, Catawba, Broad River, and the headwaters of the Savannah—
a statement borne out by the fact that, as late as 1756, when the English built Fort Dobbs on the Yadkin, not far from Salisbury, they first obtained the privilege of doing so by treaty with Attacullaculla, the Cherokee chief.[56]
Haywood asserts,[57]upon what authority is not known, that—
before the year 1690 the Cherokees, who were once settled on the Appomattox River, in the neighborhood of Monticello, left their former abodes and came to the west. The Powhatans are said by their descendants to have been once a part of this nation. The probability is that migration took place about, or soon after, the year 1632, when the Virginians suddenly and unexpectedly fell upon the Indians, killing all they could find, cutting up and destroying their crops, and causing great numbers to perish by famine. They came to New River and made a temporary settlement, and also on the head of the Holston.
before the year 1690 the Cherokees, who were once settled on the Appomattox River, in the neighborhood of Monticello, left their former abodes and came to the west. The Powhatans are said by their descendants to have been once a part of this nation. The probability is that migration took place about, or soon after, the year 1632, when the Virginians suddenly and unexpectedly fell upon the Indians, killing all they could find, cutting up and destroying their crops, and causing great numbers to perish by famine. They came to New River and made a temporary settlement, and also on the head of the Holston.
That they formerly had settlements on New River (Upper Kanawha) and on the Holston is, as I believe, true, but that they came from the vicinity of Monticello and the Appomattox River, were connected with the Powhatans, or first appeared in Tennessee in 1632, cannot be believed. First, because Jefferson makes no mention of their occupancy of this part of Virginia; on the contrary, he locates them in the "western part of North Carolina." Secondly, because John Lederer, who visited this region in 1669-'70, speaking of the Indians of the "Apalatean Mountains," doubtless the Cherokees, as he was at that time somewhere in western North Carolina, says: "The Indians of these parts are none of those which the English removed from Virginia; these were far more rude and barbarous, feeding only upon raw flesh and fish, until these taught them to sow corn and showed them the use of it."[58]Thirdly, because it is evident that they were located in substantially the same territory when De Soto passed through the northern part of Georgia, as it is now admitted that the "Chelaques" or "Achalaques" mentioned by the chroniclers of his ill-starred expedition were the Cherokees. That they extended their territory a considerable distance farther southward after the time of the Adelantado's visit can be easily demonstrated, but it is unnecessary for me to present the proof of this assertion at this time, as I presume it will be admitted.
Their traditions in regard to their migrations are uncertain and somewhat conflicting, still there are a few items to be gleaned from them, which, I think, may be relied upon as pointing in the proper direction. The first is, the positive statement that they formerly had asettlement, or were settled on or near the Nolichucky; the second is, that they were driven from some more northern section by their enemies; and third, their constant and persistent claim that, of right, the country about the headwaters of the Holston and eastward into North Carolina belonged to them.
From all the light, therefore, that I can obtain on this subject, I am satisfied the Cherokees had at some time in the past moved southward from a more northern location than that which they were found occupying when first encountered by the whites. This corresponds with one of their traditions given by Haywood, that they formerly dwelt on the Ohio and built the mounds there. That they did at one time actually occupy the section in which the mounds we allude to are situated cannot be doubted.
Turning now to the mounds of East Tennessee and North Carolina, to which allusion has been made, let us see what testimony they furnish on the point now under discussion.
The particular works to which we refer are those located in Caldwell County, North Carolina, and Sullivan County, East Tennessee, descriptions of which have been given.
Although we cannot say positively that no other tribe occupied this particular section between 1540 and 1690, still the evidence and indications leading to that conclusion are so strong as to justify us in assuming it. We find their frontiers on the borders of Georgia in 1540; we can trace back their settlements on the Hiawassee to a period preceding 1652. We have evidence that the settlements on the Little Tennessee were still older, and that even these were made subsequent to those on the Nolichucky. We have their own tradition, as given by Lederer, that they migrated to this region about the close of the thirteenth century from a more northern section; and, finally, their uniform and persistent statement, from the time first encountered by Europeans, that when they came to this region they found it uninhabited, with the exception of a Creek settlement on the lower Hiawassee. This clearly indicates a movement southward, a fact of much importance in the study of this somewhat abnormal tribe.
If, therefore, we can show that these mounds, or any of the typical ones, were constructed since the discovery of America, we have good reason to believe that they are to be attributed to the Cherokees, notwithstanding their statement to Bartram that they did not build the one at Cowe.
At the bottom of one of the largest mounds found in this region, the T. F. Nelson triangle heretofore described, and by the side of the skeleton of the principal personage interred in it, as shown by the arrangement of the bodies of those buried with him, and by the ornaments and implements found with him, were discovered three pieces of iron. That one of the pieces, at least, is part of an implement of European manufacture, I think no one who examines it will doubt (seeFig. 31). It appearsto be part of a sword blade or the blade of a large knife. Another of the pieces is apparently a large awl or punch, a part of the deer-horn handle yet remaining attached to it. A chemical examination made by Professor Clarke, chemist of the United States Geological Survey, shows that these were not made of meteoric iron.
That these cannot be attributed to an intrusive burial is evident from the following facts:First, they were found at the very bottom of the pit, which had been dug before depositing the bodies;second, they were found with engraved shells, celts, and other relics of this character; andthird, they were deposited with the principal personage who had been buried in the mound.
In the same mound and under the same circumstances some large copper beads or cylinders were also found. A careful examination of these specimens shows, as I think very clearly, that the copper plate of which they were made was not manufactured by any means at the command of the Indians or the more civilized races of Mexico or Central America, as it is as smooth and even as any rolled copper; moreover, the beads appear to have been cut into the proper shape by some metallic instrument. If this supposition be correct (and I believe an inspection of the specimens will satisfy any one that it is), it certainly indicates contact with civilized people. If so, then we have positive proof that this mound was made subsequent to the discovery of America by Columbus and in all probability after the date of De Soto's expedition in 1540.
As I have shown that the Cherokees alone inhabited this particular section from the time of De Soto's expedition until it was settled by the whites, it follows that if the mound was built subsequent to that date it must have been by the Cherokees. The nearest neighbors of this tribe on the east, at the time the whites came in contact with them, were the Tuscaroras. We learn from John Lederer, who visited them in 1670, on his return from the Cherokee country, that they were in the habit of "decking themselves very fine with pieces of bright copper in their hair and ears and about their neck, which, upon festival occasions, they use as an extraordinary bravery."[59]While it is well known that these two tribes were brought into contact with each other through being constantly at war, until the latter removed to the north and joined the Five Nations, it is more likely that these articles of European workmanship were obtained chiefly from the Spaniards, who, as is now known, worked the gold mines in northern Georgia at an early date. We learn from Barcia's "Ensayo Cronologico"[60]that Tristan de Luna, who, in 1559, went in search of the mines of "Coza" (the name by which the region of northern Georgia was then known), succeeded in reaching the region sought, and even heard, while there, of the negro Robles, who was left behind by De Soto. When John Lederer reached the borders of Georgia the Spaniards were then at work at these mines,which fact, as he informs us, checked his further advance, as he feared he might be made a captive by them. As further and conclusive evidence of this, we have only to state that the remains of their cabins in the vicinity of the mines were found in 1834 with trees from 2 to 3 feet in diameter growing over them. The old shafts were discovered in which they worked, as also some of the machinery they used.[61]Be this supposition correct or not, if the articles we have mentioned were of European workmanship, or if the material was obtained of civilized people, we must take for granted, until evidence to the contrary is produced, that the mound in which they were found was built after the commencement of the sixteenth century, hence by Indians, and in all probability by the Cherokees.
Our next argument is the discovery in the ancient works of this region of evidences that the habits and customs of the builders were similar to those of the Cherokees and some of the immediately surrounding tribes.
I have already alluded to the evidence found in the mound opened by Professor Carr, that it had once supported a building similar to the council house observed by Bartram on a mound at the old Cherokee town, Cowe. Both were on mounds, both were circular, both were built on posts set in the ground at equal distances from each other, and each had a central pillar.
As confirming this statement of Bartram, we are informed in Ramsey's Annals of Tennessee[62]that when Colonel Christian marched against the Cherokee towns, in 1776, he found in the center of each "a circular tower rudely built and covered with dirt, 30 feet in diameter, and about 20 feet high. This tower was used as a council house and as a place for celebrating the green-corn dance and other national ceremonials." Lawson, who traveled through North Carolina in 1700, says:[63]"They [the Indians] oftentimes make of this shell [alluding to a certain large sea shell] a sort of gorge, which they wear about their neck in a string, so it hangs on their collar, whereon is sometimes engraven a cross or some odd sort of figure which comes next in their fancy." Beverly, speaking of the Indians of Virginia, says:[64]"Of this shell they also make round tablets of about 4 inches in diameter, which they polish as smooth as the other, and sometimes they etch or grave thereon circles, stars, a half-moon, or any other figure, suitable to their fancy."
Now it so happens that, in the same mound in which the iron specimens before alluded to were found, and in other mounds in the same section, the Bureau assistants discovered shell ornaments precisely of the character described by these old writers. Some of them were smooth and without any devices engraved on them, but with holes for insertingthe strings by which they were to be held in position; others were engraved with figures which would readily be taken for stars and half-moons, and one among the number had a cross engraved on it. The testimony in this case that these relics were the work of the Indians found in possession of the country at the time of the discovery is, therefore, too strong to be put aside by mere conjectures or inferences. If the work of the Indians, then they must have been used by the Cherokees and buried with their dead. The engraved figures are strangely uniform, indicating some common origin, but the attempt to trace this is foreign to our present purpose. In these mounds were found a large number of nicely carved soapstone pipes, usually with the stem made in connection with the bowl, though some were without this addition, consisting only of the bowl, with a hole for the insertion of a cane or wooden stem.
By turning to Adair's "History of the North American Indians,"[65]we find the following statement: