80 BURIAL MOUNDS OF THE NORTHERN SECTIONS

Fo-arlli.

The

statement of tbe result of our explorations of these works (esi)eciallytheburial

mounds)

^will, as I conceive,beincomplete*

without

some

intimation of the bearingthey

have had

on

my own mind

iureference to theirauthorship. This it is true will apply with equal force to the

works

ofotherdistricts. I have already briefly stated

my

conclusionsin this respectregarding theantiquitiesof Wisconsin, but haverefrainedfromentering atlength

upon

the question astothe Ohio and ^Yest Virginia works, as Iconfess

and have

already intimated that these present

more

diiHculties in the

way

of explanation than most of the othersections.

It

may

be thought premature^{to speculatein this direction,}

and some

ofour ablestscientificjournals appear to deprecate

any

such attempts until moredatahave been obtained

and

the materials already collected arc

more

thoroughlydigested. I admit that, as a very general

and

almost universalrule, sucha course is the proper one in respect to sci- entificinvestigations, but

must

dissent from its application in thisin- stance, forthe following reasons

:

The

thought that a mightynation once occupied tlie great valley of the Mississippi, with its frontiersettlements restingon the lake shores

and

Gulfcoasts, nestling in the valleysof the Appalachian

Kange

and skirtingthe broadplains ofthe West, a nation withits systems of gov- ernment and religion, its chief ruler, its great central city, and all the necessary accompaniments, but which has disapi)eared before the in-

roads ofsavagehordes, leaving behind ^itno evidences of its existence, its glory, power, and extent save these silent forest covered remains, has somethingso fascinating

and

attractive in it,that

when

once ^it has taken possession ofthe mind,it

warps and

biasesall its conclusions.'

So strong, in fact, is thehold which ^this theory (in the broad sense, includingalso the Toltec

and

Aztec theories) has taken of the minds ofboth

American and European

archiiiologists, that itnot only biases theirconclusions, butalsomolds and modifies theirnomenclature, and

isthrustintotheirspeculationsandeven into their descriptions asthough no longer a simple theorybuta conceded ^fact.

Hence

^{it is} necessary, before afair

and

unbiased discussion of the data can behad, to call at- tention to the fact that thereis anotherside to thequestion.

Unless

some

protestispresented or

some

expressionofopinionis

made

on thispointin

my

paper, the facts I give will be viewed through the

medium

of this "lost race" theory. This I desire, if possible, to pre- vent,and whetherthe" Indiantheory" provestobecorrectornot,Iwish to obtainforit at least afair consideration. I believethelattertheory tobe thecorrect one, asthe facts so farascertained appearto point in that direction, butI

am

not

wedded

toit; on thecontrary, I

am

^willing

tofollow the facts wherever they lead.

'See, forexample,Foster's" Prehistoric Races,"p.97; SquieraedDavis's, "Ancient Monuments,"!).HO; Baldwin's"Ancient America."p. 57; Bancroft's" NativeRaces,"

IV,p.785; Conant's " Foot-Priuts ofVanished Races,"ji. IH: Marqnisde Nadaillac's

"L'AnK^ricinePrehistoriiino,"p. 1.-5,etc.

.iioMAs.l

-'WHO WERE THE MOUNU-liUlLUEUS

^?

"

81

AUbough

additional data ^will bercafttn- be obtained and

many new

and importantfactsbebrouglittobgbt, yet,as I believe, sufficient evi-

dencehasbeen collected (though

much

ofitremains unpublished)toin- dicate

what

will bethefinalresnlt so faras thisgeneral questioniscon- cerned.

We

^seethat already the theory that these remainsscatteredover the face of onr countryfrom

Dakota

to Florida

and

from

New York

to Louisianawere the

work

ofone people, one greatnation, is fast break- ing

down

before the evidence thatis being produced.

The

followingquotationfrom thelastreportoftiie

Peabody

Mu.seurn, which is repeated in substance in Science,

June

27,1884, p. 77.5, will servenot^onlj- toindicate theconflictwhich is going on in the mindsof

some

ofourmost activeand progressive archa?ologists on this subject, but also to

show

^the difficulty of llnding applicable and well-defined terms, and of clearly stating the real questionat issue

:

Thedifterent periodstowhichthe variousmoundsandburial placesbelongcan only

liemadeoutby sucha seriesof explorations asthe niuseuniisnowconductinginthe LittleMiamiValley,andwhenthey.arecompletedweshiiUbe better abletoanswerthe question,

"Who

werethemound-bnihlers^?" than woarenow. That more thanone ofthe severalAmericanstocks or nationsorgroupsof tribesbuilt moundsseems to

me^toheestablished. What tlicir connections were is not yet byany meansmade

i-Iear,andtos.aythattheyall musthave been oteandthe s.ame people.seems to be makinga .statementdirectly contrarytothefacta,whicli are yearly increasingasthe spadeandpickin carefulhandsbringthemto light. Thatmany Indian tribesbuilt

moundsandeartliworksisbeyonddoubt,butthatallthemoundsand earthworksof NorthAmerica were madebythese same tribesor their inunediate ancestors is not thereby proved.

Mr. Carr, inhisrecent p.aperpublished bythe Kentucky(ieological Survey, has takenuptheliistoricalsideof the question,butitmustuotbe receivedformore than heintended. Hoonlyshows fromhistoricaldatawhatthe spado and pickhavedis- closed tothearchaeologist. Itissimply onesideof theshield; theotherisstillwait- ingto beturnedtothelight; andashistorywillnot help ustoread thereverse,only patientandcarefulexploration willbring outits meaning.'

This,itis true,isbut an incidentalparagraph thrown into areport of the

work

of the

museum,

but I have selected itas the latest exjires- siou on thissubject by one of ourmost active

and

practical

American

archieologists,

and

because it will furnish abasis for the remarks I desire to

make

on thi.s subject.

In order that thereader

may

^{clearly understandthe} particular jjoints to which I shall call attention, I will introduce here a^brief reviewof the leading opinions so farpresented regarding the authorship ofthese ancient works.

It

was

notuntil about the close of the eighteenthcentury that the scientific

men

of the Eastern States

became

fully impressed with the fact thatremarkableantiquities weretobe found inour country.

About

this time President Stiles,of

New Haven,

Dr. Franklin, Dr.

'SixteenthandSeventeentliReportPeabodyMuseum, p.^34f),

5

ETH

G

(S2 liUKIAL

MOUNDS OF THE NORTHERN

SECTIONS.

Biutt.ii, anda fewotber leadingmindsofthatday,

becoming

thorougbly convinced of the existence of theseantiquities,

and

liavingreceived de- scriptionsof a

number

of them, began toadvance theories as to their origin. William

Bartram had come

tothe conclusion,frompersonalob- servation andfrom the statement of the Indians that "they

knew

noth- ing of their origin," thattliey 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 inhis wanderings. This suggestion

was

followed up

by Noah Webster

with an attempt to sustain it,' but he afterwards

abandoned

thisposition

and

attributed these

works

to Indians.

Captain Heart, in replyto the inquiries addressed to

him by

Dr. Bar- ton, gives his o[)iniou that the works could nothave been constructed

by De

Soto

and

his followers, butbelonged toanagepreceding the dis- covery of

America

by

Columbus

; thatthey were notdue to theIndians or theirpredecessors,but to a people not altogetherinanuncultivated state,asthey

must

have been underthesul)ordination oflawand awell-

governed police.^-

Thisisprobablythefirstclear

and

distinctexpressionofa view which has subsequently obtained the assent ofso

many

ofthe leadingwriters on

American

arclnvology.

About

the

commencement

ofthe nineteenth century two

new and

im- portant charactersappear on thestage of

American

aicha?ology. These are Bishop Madison,of Virginia,

and

Eev.

Thaddeus

M. Harris,ofMas- sachusetts.

Dr.

Haven,

to

whose work we

are indebted forreference to severalof the factsabovestated, remarks

:

Tcesetwogentlemeuareauioiigthefirstwlio, iniitiugopiiortiiiiitiesofporsdiialob- servationtotlieadvantages of scientificculture,impartedtotliepublictlieirimpres- sionsofwesternantiquities. They represent the twoclassesof observerswhoseo)>- positoviewsstill divide thesentimentof thecountry; oneclassseeingnoevidence ofartbeyondwhatmight beexiiected of existing tribes, with the simplediH'ercuce of amore numerouspopulation,and consequentlybetter definedandmorepermanent habitations; the other finding proofs ofskillandrefinement,tobe explained,asthey believe, only onthe supposition that a superior race,or lunroprobably ;i people of foreign and highercivilization,once occupiedthesoil.

^

Bishop

Madison was

the representative of the first class. Dr. Har-

lisrepresented that sectionofthe second class maintaining the opinion that the mound-builders were Toltecs,

who

after leaving this region

moved

southintoMexico.

As we

^{find the} principal theories which are held atthe present

day

on thissubject substantially set forth intheseauthorities,it is unneces- saryto follow

up

the historyof the controversyexceptso far as is re-

quiredto noticethe various modifications of the two leading opinions.

'Referred to bj Dr.Haven, Smithsonian Contributions, VIII,p.25.

-Transactions of theAmericanPhilological Society, Vol, III.

'Archieologyof theUnited States, Smithsouiau I'outributious, Vol. VIII, p. 31.

THOMiF]

"WHO WEKK THE MOl'NU-BdlLDKHS!" 83

Those holding the oi)inioii that the Indians werenot theauthors of these works, althou<jh agreeing as to this point and henceincludedin

oneclass, differwidely

among

tlieniselves asto tliepeopleto

whom

they are tobe ascribed, one section, of which, as

we

have seen. Dr. Harris

may

be cousidered the pioneer, holding that they were built

by

the Toltecs, who, as they supposed, occupied the Mississippi Valley pre- viousto theirajjpearancein the valeofAnahuac.

Among

^the

more

recentadvocates ofthistheory are Mr.

John

T. Short, author of "Thel^orth Americans of Antiquity;"' Dr.

Dawson,

in his

"FossilMan,"

who

accepts the tradition respecting the Tallegwi, but identifies

them

with the Toltecs ; Eev. J. P.

MacLeau,

author of the

"Mound

Builders"

and

Dr. Joseph Jones, in his "Antiquitiesof Ten- nessee."

AYilson,in liis "Prehistoric Man,"- modifiesthisviewsomewhat,look- ingto the region south of Mexico for the original

home

of the Toltecs, and deriving theAztecs from the mound-builders.

Another

section ofthis classincludes those who, although rejecting the idea ofan Indian origin, are satisfied with simi)ly designating the authoi'sof theseworks a "lostrace," withoutfollowingthe inquiryinto the

more

uncertain field of racial, national, or ethnical relations.

To

this typebelonga large portion of the recent authors ofshort articles

and

brief reports on

American

archaeology,

and

quite a

number

ofdili-

gent 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 farthersouth, and, occupying the Ohio Valley and the Gulf States, probably for centuries, were atthe lastdriven southward by an influx of barbarous hordesfi'om the

more

noithernregions,and appearedagaininMexico.'' Bradford,thirtyj'cai's pi'eviousto this,

had

suggested

Mexico

as their original home.'' Lewis H. Morgan, on the otherhand, supposes that the authors of thesere-

mains

came

from thePueblo tribesof

Xew

Mexico. Dr. Foster^ agrees substantially with Baldwin, ^\'e might include in this class a

number

ofextravaganthypotheses,suchas those held

by Haywood,

Rafinesque,

and

others

among

the older, as well as

by

afew of the

more

recent authors.

The

oppositeclass, holding that the mound-builders were the ances- tors 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

comparativelyfew leading authoilties

among

its advocates; in other words, thefollowers ofBishop

Madison

are far less

numerous

than the followersofDr. Harris.

The

differencesbetweenthe advocates ofthis view areof minorimportance,

and

only appear

when

the investigation iscarried one step further back

and

the attempt is

made

todesignate

'Page253. ^*AmericanAutiquities,p. 71.

2Vol.I,p. 353,3(1edition. ^Prehistoric Races, p. 339.

'.\iH;ientAiiieri''a, pp. 70-75.