At Zuñi and some of the other pueblos, at the present day, they

make vessels in the form of various animals and other natural

objects. This is, however, a recent thing. Only one vessel is

known that was found under such circumstances that we are

justified in thinking it very old. That was molded into a shape

resembling some kind of an animal. This was found on the Rio

Gila, in New Mexico; and even that has some peculiarities about

it that renders its age uncertain. Mr. Bandelier says: “No vessel

of ancient date, of human or animal shape, has ever been found.”

This is a most important point for us to consider, when we recall

how numerous were animal-shaped vessels among the Mound Builders.

Painted Pueblo Pottery.

In this plate we have specimens of the ordinary painted ware from

the ancient ruins. The most of these are restorations, but so

many fragments have been obtained of each vessel that we have no

doubt of the accuracy of the drawings. They decorated their

pottery by painting. Even in many cases where they were further

ornamented by indentations they still painted it, showing that

painting was regarded as of the most importance. We notice that

the ornamentation consists almost entirely of geometrical

figures, parallel lines, and scrolls. Over the entire field of

ruins the body of the vessels is of one of two colors; it is

either white or red. The color employed to produce the

ornamentation is black. There is almost no exception to this

rule, though sometimes the ornamentation is of a brownish color

with a metallic luster. Along the Rio Grande and the Gila some

changes are noticed. The ornamentation is not strictly confined

to two colors. Symbolical representations of clouds, whirlwind,

and lightning are noticed. The red ware has disappeared, and a

chocolate-colored ground takes its place.

All have noticed the superiority of the ancient pottery over that

of the present tribes. Says Prof. Putnam. “A comparison of this

ancient pottery with that made by the present inhabitants of the

pueblos shows that a great deterioration has taken place in

native American art, a rule which I think can be applied to all

the more advanced tribes of America. The remarkable hardness of

all the fragments of colored pottery which have been obtained

from the vicinity of the old ruins in New Mexico, Colorado,

Arizona, and Utah, and also of the pottery of the same character

found in the ruins of adobe houses, and in caves in Utah, shows

that the ancient people understood the art of baking earthenware

far better than their probable descendants now living in the

pueblos of New Mexico and Arizona.”38

We have learned that the remnant of an aboriginal people, now

living in the inhabited pueblos of the West, present us, in their

primitive usage, with the fading outlines of a culture once

widespread in the section of country we have examined. Many of

the early sedentary tribes have vanished completely. Traditions

state that other tribes have moved southward into regions

unknown. “The picture which can be dimly traced to-day of this

past is a very modest and unpretending one. No great cataclysms

of nature, no wave of destruction on a large scale, either

natural or human, appear to have interrupted the slow and tedious

development of the people before the Spaniards came. One portion

rose while another fell, sedentary tribes disappeared or moved

off, and wild tribes roamed over the ruins of their former

abode.” At present but a few pueblos are left to show us what the

people once were. But the fate of the Pueblo of Pecos hangs over

them all. The rising tide of American civilization is rapidly

surrounding them. Before many decades, possibly centuries, the

present Pueblo tribes will yield to their fate. They, too, will

be numbered among the vanished races of men.

REFERENCES

The manuscript of this chapter was submitted to Mr. Ad. F.

Bandelier, of Highland, Illinois. As agent for the

Archæological Institute of America, he spent three years in

explorations in the Pueblo country.

See an excellent historical account by Bandeliers: “Papers of

the Archæological Institute of America.” American series No. 1.

The term “City of Zuñi” is scarcely correct; it should be

Pueblo of Zuñi.

Pacific Railroad Report; Whipple, Vol. III., pp. 67 and 68.

“Archæological Institute of America,” Fifth An. Rep., pp. 55

and 56.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. I., p. 534.

His guide.

The ruins on the top were, however, built after 1680, when the

inhabitants of Flavona, the Spanish “Alvona,” fled to the top

of the mesa to escape the forays of the Navajos. The ruins were

abandoned before 1705. Zuñi is partly built on the ruins of

Flavona, which is still its aboriginal name. (Bandelier.)

Pacific Railroad Reports, Whipple, Vol. III., p. 69.

Pacific Railroad Reports, Whipple, Vol. III., p. 65.

“Simpson’s Report,” p. 124.

Dr. Loew, in “U.S. Geographical Survey West of the 100th

Meridian,” Vol. VII, p. 343.

“Fifth An. Rep. Archæological Inst. of America,” p. 61.

Bandelier’s “Papers of the Archæological Inst.” p. 46.

These facts are drawn from Mr. Bandelier’s article already

referred to.

“Colorado River of the West,” p. 119, _et seq._

U.S. Survey, Hayden, 1876, p. 390.

Bandelier, “Fifth Annual Report Archæological Inst. of

America,” pp. 62, 68, and 65.

“Contributions to North American Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 172,

_et seq._

Holmes.

U.S. Survey, Hayden, 1876, p. 419.

Rendered by Ingersoll, in _N.Y. Tribune,_ Nov. 3, 1874.

Bandelier, in Fifth Ann. Rep., Arch. Inst., p 79.

U.S. Survey West of 100th M., Vol. VII, p. 358.

“First Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology,” p. 74.

“Fifth Annual Report Arch. Inst.,” pp. 42, 78.

Morgan: “Contribution to N. A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 163.

“Smithsonian Report,” 1863, p. 313.

Whipple, Pacific R. R. Report, Vol. III.

Wherever reference is made to Mr. Bandelier’s discoveries, it

is taken from the oft-quoted Fifth Annual Report, Archæological

Institute.

Whipple, Pacific R. R. Reports, Vol. III., p. 14.

Bartlett’s “Personal Narrative.”

Carr’s “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley.”

Morgan’s “House and House Life,” p. 218.

Fifth Annual Report, p. 84.

“Contributions to N. A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV., p. 192.

Bandelier’s “Fifth Annual Report Arch. Inst.,” p. 76.

U.S. Survey West of 100th Meridian, Vol. VII., p. 381.

Chapter XII

THE PREHISTORIC AMERICANS.1

Different views on this subject—Modern system of government—

Ancient system of government—Tribal government universal in North

America—The Indians not wandering Nomads—Indian houses communal

in character—Indian methods of defense—Mandan villages—Indians

sometimes erected mounds—Probable government of the Mound

Builders—Traditions of the Mound Builders among the

Iroquois—Among the Delawares—Probable fate of the Mound

Builders—The Natchez Indians possibly a remnant of the Mound

Builders—Their early traditions—Lines of resemblance between the

Pueblo tribe and the Mound Builders—The origin of the

Indians—America inhabited by Indians from a very early time—

Classification of the Indian tribes—Antiquity of the Mound

Builders’ works.

The attempts to explain the origin of the numerous tribes found

in possession of America at the time of its discovery by

Europeans have been many and various. There are so many

difficulties attending the solution of this problem that even at

this day no theory has received that full assent from the

scientific world deemed necessary for its establishment as an

ascertained fact. New interest has been thrown around this

question by the discoveries of late years. In our south-western

territories we have clearly established the former wide extension

of the village Indians, remnants of which are still to be found

in the inhabited pueblos; and, as we have seen, the wide expanse

of fertile soil, known as the Mississippi Valley, has undoubtedly

been the home of tribes who are generally supposed to have

attained a much higher stage of culture than that of the

Indians—at least, of such culture as we are accustomed to

ascribe, whether justly or not, to Indian tribes. It becomes an

interesting question, therefore, to determine what connection, if

any, existed between the Mound Builders and the Indian tribes on

the one hand, and the Pueblo tribes on the other.

As to the works of the Mound Builders, one class of critical

scholars think they see in them the memorials of a vanished race,

and point out many details of construction, such as peculiarities

in form, in size, and position, which they think conclusively

prove that the works in question could only have been produced by

races or tribes far more advanced in culture than any Indians.

This belief finds expression by a well-known writer in the

following words: “A broad chasm is to be spanned before we can

link the Mound Builders to the North American Indians. They were

essentially different in their form of government, their habits,

and their daily pursuits.” This is substantially the opinion of a

great many writers on this subject.2

But this conclusion has not been allowed to pass unchallenged. We

have on record the convictions of a few careful investigators

that there is no necessity for supposing that only an extinct or

vanished race could have built the mounds and thrown up the

embankments which we observe in the valley of the Ohio and

elsewhere; that there is nothing, in fact, either in the

construction of the mounds themselves or in the remains of art

found in them, which we may not with safety ascribe to the

ancestors of our present Indians.3 It will be seen that we may,

indeed, be at a loss to know what conclusion to adopt; hence, as

an aid to us in this direction, it may be well to inquire into

the organization of Indian tribes and their customs and manners

at the time of their discovery.

It is not necessary to sketch their history, as this has been

done many times. Moreover, it is but a dreary recital of the

gradual encroachment of the Whites on the lands of the Indians,

the vain endeavors of the latter to repress them, and a record of

many cruel acts of savage warfare, burning villages, midnight

massacre, and scenes of terrible sufferings. The uniform result

was that the Indian tribes were steadily driven away from their

ancient homes, until we now find them but a sorry remnant on

scattered reservations or grouped together in the Indian

Territory. Their ancient institutions are nearly broken down, and

it is with difficulty that we can gain an understanding of their

early condition; and yet this seems to be necessary before we are

prepared to decide on the origin of the mound-building people.

It seems necessary here to briefly describe the two great plans

or systems of government, under one or the other of which

mankind, as far as we know them, have always been organized,

though, theoretically, there must have been a time, in the very

infancy of the race, when there was either no government or

something different from either of them. At the present day, in

all civilized countries, government is founded upon territory and

upon property. A person is described as living in such a

township, county, and state.4 This seems to be a very simple and

natural division, but, like every thing else, it is the result of

growth—of a development. It took nearly three centuries of

civilization and a succession of able men, each improving on what

the other had done, to fully develop this system among the

Greeks.5 This is the basis of the modern form of government.

Whenever it was organized, it marked the termination of ancient

government. The other plan of government is founded on personal

relations.

A person would be described as of such a gens, phratry, and

tribe. It is sufficient to state the words gens, and phratry

simply denote subdivisions of a tribe.6 This is the ancient

system of government, and goes very far back in the history of

the race. It is that state of society which everywhere preceded

history and civilization. When we go back to the first beginning

of history in Europe, we find the Grecian, Roman, and Germanic

tribes in the act of substituting the modern system of government

for the tribal state, under which they had passed from savagism

into and through the various stages of barbarism, and entered the

confines of civilization. The Bible reveals to us the tribal

state of the Hebrews and the Canaanites.

Under the light of modern research, we can not doubt but what

this form of government was very ancient, and substantially

universal. It originated in the morning of time, and so

completely answered all the demands of primitive society that it

advanced man from savagism, through barbarism, and sufficed to

enable him to make a beginning in civilization. It was so firmly

established as one of the primitive institutions, that when it

was found insufficient to meet the demands of advancing society,

it taxed to the utmost the skill of the Aryan tribes to devise a

system to take its place.

This was the system of government throughout North America when

the Spaniards landed on its shores. This is true, at least as far

as our investigations have gone.7 In several cases tribes

speaking dialects of the same stock-language had united in a

confederacy; as, for instance, the celebrated league of the

Iroquois, and in Mexico, the union of the three Aztec tribes. But

confederacies did not change the nature of tribal government. As

there was but one general form or plan of government in vogue

amongst the Aborigines of North America at the time of discovery,

we ought certainly to find common features in the culture of the

Pueblo Indians of the South-west, the Mound Builders of the

Mississippi Valley, and the various Indian tribes; and if the

lines of resemblance are sufficient to show a gradual progress

from the rude remains of savage tribes to the more finished works

of the Pueblos, and between these and the Mound Builders, then we

may consider this fact as one more reason for believing that they

constitute but one people in different stages of development.

The tribal state of society is always associated with village

life. It makes no difference where we commence our

investigations, we will soon be convinced that village life is

the form in which people organized in tribes lived. This is true

of the wild tribes in Africa, and of the hill tribes of India

to-day.8 The same was true of the early Greeks.9 There must be a

reason for this. It is found in their peculiar system of

government. People divided into groups and clusters would

naturally be drawn together into villages. We would expect, then,

to find that the Indian tribes lived in villages. We are

accustomed to speak of them as wandering nomads. This is scarcely

correct; or rather, it is certainly wrong, if applied to the

tribes east of the Mississippi, when first encountered by the

whites. Some of them may have been in a state of migration, in

search of better homes, or homes more secure from the attacks of

too powerful enemies, as was the case with the Shawnees, and

wandering bands on hunting or warlike expeditions were common

enough. The Germanic, tribes that overthrew the Roman Empire, for

a similar reason, were in a migrating state. But it is none the

less certain that they established permanent villages wherever

they found suitable places.

Nearly all the tribes claimed separate districts, in which they

had permanent villages, often stockaded.10 The site of Montreal

was a famous Indian village,11 and other villages were found in

Canada. The Iroquois tribes had permanent villages, and resided

in them the greater part of the year.12 One visited in 1677 is

described as having one hundred and twenty houses, the ordinary

one being from fifty to sixty feet long, and furnishing shelter

to about twelve families. In one case, at least, the town was

surrounded by palisades.

In 1539 De Soto made his appearance on the coast of Florida. Four

years later a feeble remnant of this expedition landed at Panuco,

Mexico. His route has not been accurately traced, but it is

certain he travelled the Gulf States and crossed the Mississippi.

De Soto himself found a grave in the waters of this river, but

under new leaders the expedition pushed on through Arkansas, and

probably found its most western point on the prairies of the

West, where, disheartened, it turned back to near where De Soto

died, constructed some rude boats, and floated down the

Mississippi, and so to Mexico. We have two accounts written by

members of this expedition,13 and a third, written by Garcilasso

de La Vega from the statements of eye-witnesses and memoranda

which had fallen into his hands.

From these considerable can be learned of the Southern Indians

before they had been subjected to European influences. One of the

first things that arrests attention is the description of the

villages. They found, to be sure, some desert tracts, but every

few miles, as a rule, they found villages containing from fifty

to three hundred spacious and commodious dwellings, well

protected from enemies—sometimes surrounded by a wall, sometimes

also by a ditch filled with water. When west of the Mississippi

they found a tribe living in movable tents, they deemed that fact

worthy of special mention. But in the same section they also

found many villages.

One hundred and forty years afterward the French explorer, La

Salle, made several voyages up and down the Mississippi. He

describes much the same state of things as do the earlier

writers. The tribes still dwelt in comfortable cabins, sometimes

constructed of bark, sometimes of mud,14 often of large size, in

one case forty feet square, and having a dome-shaped roof. Nor

was this village life confined to the more advanced tribes. The

Dakota tribes, which include the Sioux and others, have been

forced on the plains by the advancing white population, but when

first discovered they were living in villages around the

headwaters of the Mississippi. Their houses were framed of poles

and covered with bark.15

Lewis and Clark, in 1805, found the valley of the Columbia River

inhabited by tribes destitute of pottery, and living mainly on

fish, which were found in immense quantities in the river. They

describe them as living in large houses, one sometimes forming a

village by itself. They describe one house capable of furnishing

habitations for five hundred people. Other authorities could be

quoted, showing that the Algonquin Indians, living in Eastern and

Atlantic States, had permanent villages.16 The idea then, that

the Indians are nothing but wandering savages, is seen to be

wrong. It is well to bear this in mind, because it is often

asserted that the Mound Builders must have been a people

possessing fixed habitations. While this is doubtless correct, we

see that it is also true of the Indians.17

There is another feature of Indian life which we will mention

here, because it shows us a common element in the building of

houses, seen alike in the pueblo structures of the West and the

long houses of the Iroquois. That is, the Indian houses were

always built to be inhabited by a number of families in common.

All nations in a tribal state possess property in common. It is

not allowed to pass out of the gens of the person who possesses

it, but at his death is supposed to be divided among the members

of his gens; in most cases, however, to those nearest of kin

within the gens.18 This communism showed itself in the method of

erecting houses.

The long house of the Iroquois was divided into apartments so as

to shelter from one hundred to two hundred Indians. A number of

these houses gathered together composed a village. These were

quite creditable structures of Indian art, being warm and

comfortable, as well as roomy. Should we examine the whole list

of writers who have mentioned Indian villages, we would find them

all admitting that the houses were usually occupied by a number

of families, one in the Columbia Valley, as we see, sheltering

five hundred persons.

There is no question but the pueblos were built by people holding

property in common. They were, of course, erected by a more

advanced people, who employed better materials in construction,

but it is quite plain that they were actuated by the same

instincts, and built their houses with the same design in view as

the less advanced Indian tribes in other sections of the country.

What we have described as the small houses in Arizona in the

preceding chapter, in most cases includes several rooms, and we

are told that in one section they “appear to have been the abode

of several families.”19

Long House of the Iroquois.

One of the main points the Indians would have to attend to in the

construction of their villages was how to defend them, and we can

not do better than to examine this point. A French writer

represents the villages of Canada as defended by double, and

frequently triple, rows of palisades, interwoven with branches of

trees.20 Cartier, in 1535, found the village of Hochelaga (now

Montreal) thus defended. In 1637 the Pequot Indians were the

terror of the New England colonies, and Capt. Mason, who was sent

to subject them, found their principal villages, covering six

acres, strongly defended by palisades.

Stockaded Onondaga Village.

The Iroquois tribes also adopted this method of defense. In 1615

Champlain, with Indian allies, invaded the territory of the

Iroquois. He left a sketch of his attack on one of their

villages. This sketch we reproduce in this illustration, which is

a very important one, because it shows us a regularly palisaded

village among a tribe of Indians where the common impression in

reference to them is that they were a wandering people with no

fixed habitations. The sketch is worthy of careful study. The

buildings within are the long houses which we have just

described. They are located near together, three or four in a

group. The arrangement of the groups is in the form of a square,

inclosing a court in the center. This tendency to inclose a court

is a very common feature of Indian architecture. Such, as we have

seen, is the arrangement of the pueblos. Such was also the

arrangement of the communal buildings in Mexico, Central America,

and Peru. In this case the village covered about six acres also.

The defense was by means of palisades. There seem to be two rows

of them. They seem to have been well made, since Champlain was

unsuccessful in his attack. In earlier times these fortified

villages were numerous.

Pomeiock. Further south, this method of inclosing a village was

also in use. In 1585 the English sent an expedition to the coast

of North Carolina. An artist attached to this expedition left

some cuts, one of which represents a village near Roanoke. It is

surrounded, as we see, by a row of palisades, and contains

seventeen joint tenement houses, besides the council house. The

historians of De Soto’s expedition make frequent mention of

walled and fortified towns. “The village of Mavilla,” from which

comes our name Mobile, says Biedman, “stood on a plain surrounded

by strong walls.” Herrera, in his General History, states that

the walls were formed by piles, interwoven with other timber, and

the spaces packed with straw and earth so that it looked like a

wall smoothed with a trowel.

Speaking of the region west of the Mississippi, Biedman says: “We

journeyed two days, and reached a village in the midst of a

plain, surrounded by walls and a ditch filled by water, which had

been made by Indians.” This town is supposed to have been

situated in the north-eastern part of Arkansas, and it is

interesting to note that recent investigators find what are

probably the remains of these walled towns, in the shape of

inclosures with ditches and mounds, in North-eastern Arkansas and

South-eastern Missouri.21 The tribes throughout the entire extent

of the Mississippi Valley were accustomed to palisade their

villages—at least, occasionally.22

Mandan Village. On the Missouri River we find some Indian tribes

that have excited a great deal of interest among archæologists.

It has been surmised that, if their history could be recovered,

it would clear up a great many difficult questions. They were

accustomed to fortify their village’s with ditches, embankments,

and palisades. This gives us a cut of one of their villages. It

is to be observed that it has a great likeness to some of the

inclosures ascribed to the Mound Builders.

This has been noted by many writers. Says Brackenridge: “In my

voyage up the Missouri I observed the ruins of several villages

which had been abandoned twenty or thirty years, which in every

respect resembled the vestiges on the Ohio and Mississippi.”23

Lewis and Clark, in their travels, describe the sites of several

of these abandoned villages, the only remains of which were the

walls which had formerly inclosed the villages, then three or

four feet high. The opinion has been advanced that the inclosures

of the Mound Builders were formerly surmounted by palisades. Mr.

Atwater asserts that the round fort which was joined to a square

inclosure at Circleville showed distinctly evidence of having

supported a line of pickets or palisades.24

Should it be accepted that the inclosures of the Mound Builders

represent village sites, and that they were probably further

protected by palisades, it would seem, after what we have just

observed of the customs of the Indians in fortifying their

villages, to be a simple and natural explanation of these

remains.

We have already referred to the fact that scholars draw a

distinction between the more massive works found in the Ohio

Valley and the low, crumbling ruins occupying defensive positions

found in such abundance along Lake Erie and in Western New York,

asserting the former to be the works of the Mound Builders

proper, and the latter the remains of fortified Indian villages.

This may be true, but it seems to us that there is such a common

design running through all these remains that it is more

reasonable to infer that the more massive works were constructed

by people more advanced than those who built the less pretentious

works, but not necessarily of a dilterent race. We can not do

better than to quote the remarks of Mr. Brackenridge in this

connection: “We are often tempted by a fondness for the marvelous

to seek out remote and impossible causes for that which may be

explained by the most obvious.”25

But inclosures and defensive works are only a small part of the

Mound Builders’ remains. We know that large numbers of mounds are

scattered over the country, and we recall in this connection what

was said as to the erection of mounds by Indian tribes in a

preceding essay. Somewhat at the risk of repetition we will once

more examine this question. It is generally admitted that it was

the custom of Indian tribes to erect piles of stones to

commemorate several events, such as a treaty, or the settlement

of a village, but more generally to mark the grave of a chief, or

some noted person, or of a person whose death occurred under

unusual circumstances.26 These cairns are not confined to any

particular section of the country, being found in New England,

throughout the South, and generally in the Mississippi Valley.

From their wide dispersion, and from the fact that they do not

differ from the structures built by Indian tribes within a few

years past, it is not doubted but what they are the works of

Indians.

Now, if we could draw a dividing line, and say that, while the

Indians erected mounds of stone, the Mound Builders built theirs

of earth, it would be a strong argument in favor of a difference

of race. But this can not be done. When De Soto landed in

Florida, nearly three hundred and fifty years ago, he had an

opportunity of observing the customs of the Indians as they were

before the introduction of fire-arms, and before contact with the

Whites had wrought the great change in them it was destined to.

Therefore, what few notes his historians have given us of the

ways of life they observed amongst the southern tribes are of

great importance in this connection. At the very spot where he

landed (supposed to be Tampa Bay) they observed that the house of

the chief “stood near the shore, upon a very high mound, made by

hand for strength.”

Garcilasso tells us “the town and the house of the Cacique

(chief) Ossachile are like those of the other caciques in

Florida. . . . The Indians try to place their villages on

elevated sites, but, inasmuch as in Florida there are not many

sites of this kind where they can conveniently build, they erect

elevations themselves, in the following manner: They select the

spot, and carry there a quantity of earth, which they form into a

kind of platform, two or three pikes in height, the summit of

which is large enough to give room for twelve, fifteen, or twenty

houses, to lodge the cacique and his attendants. At the foot of

this elevation they mark out a square place, according to the

size of the village, around which the leading men have their

houses. To ascend the elevation they have a straight passage-way

from bottom to top, fifteen or twenty feet wide. Here steps are

made by massive beams, and others are planted firmly in the

ground to serve as walls. On all other sides of the platform the

sides are cut steep.”27

Biedman, the remaining historian, says of the country in what is

now (probably) Arkansas. “The caciques of this country make a

custom of raising, near their dwellings, very high hills, on

which they sometimes build their huts.”28 Twenty-five years later

the French sent an expedition to the east coast of Florida. The

accounts of this expedition are very meager, but they confirm

what the other writers have stated as to the erection of platform

mounds with graded ways.29 Le Moyne, the artist of this

expedition, has left us a cut of a mound erected over a deceased

chief. It was, however, but a small one.30

La Harpe, writing in 1720, says of tribes on the lower

Mississippi: “Their cabins . . . are dispersed over the country

upon mounds of earth made with their own hands.” As to the

construction of these houses, we learn that their cabins were

“round and vaulted,” being lathed with cane and plastered with

mud from bottom to top, within and without. In other cases they

were square, with the roof dome-shaped, the walls plastered with

mud to the height of twelve feet.31 It is interesting to observe

how closely what little we do know about Mound Builders’ houses

coincides with the above.

Recent investigations by the Bureau of Ethnology have brought to

light vestiges of great numbers of their buildings. These were

mostly circular, but those of a square or rectangular form were

also observed. In Arkansas their location was generally on low,

flat mounds, but vestiges of some were also noticed near the

surface of large mounds. In Southern Illinois, South-eastern

Missouri, and Middle and Western Tennessee the sites of thousands

were observed, not in or on mounds, but marked by little

circular, saucer-shaped depressions, from twenty to fifty feet in

diameter, surrounded by a slight earthen ring. We know the

framework of these houses was poles, for in several cases the

charred remains of these poles were found. We know they were

plastered with a thick coating of mud, for regular layers of

lumps of this burnt plastering are found. These lumps have often

been mistaken for bricks, as in the Selzertown mound. In several

cases the plastering had been stamped with an implement, probably

made of split cane of large size.32

On the lower Mississippi we meet with the Natchez, a tribe that

has excited a great deal of interest; but at present we only want

to note that they also constructed mounds. They were nearly

exterminated by the French in 1729. But before this Du Pratz had

lived among them, and left a description of their customs. Their

temple was about thirty feet square, and was situated on a mound

about eight feet high, which sloped insensibly from its main

front on the north, but was somewhat steeper on the other sides.

He also states that the cabin of the chief, or great sun, as he

was called, was placed upon a mound of about the same height,

though somewhat larger, being sixty feet over the surface.33 A

missionary who labored among them, stated that when the chief

died his mound was deserted, and a new one built for the next

chief.34

Neither was this custom of erecting mounds confined to the

Southern Indians. Colden states of the Iroquois: “They make a

round hole in which the body is placed, then they raise the earth

in a round hill over it.”35 It was the custom among a large

number of tribes to gather together the remains of all who had

died during several years and bury them all together, erecting a

mound over them.36 Mr. Jefferson, in his notes on Virginia,

describes one of these mounds, and relates this interesting fact

in reference to it: “A party of Indians passing about thirty

years ago through the part of the country where this barrow is,

went through the woods directly to it, without any instructions

or inquiry; and having staid about it some time, with expressions

which were construed to be those of sorrow, they returned to the

high road, which they had left about a half dozen miles to pay

this visit, and pursued their journey.”37

Coming down to our own times, the Indians had lost a great many

of their ancient customs, yet, at times, this old instinct of

mound burial asserts itself. About the first of the century

Blackbird, a celebrated chief of the Omahas, returning to his

native home after a visit to Washington, died of the small-pox.

It was his dying request that his body be placed on horseback,

and the horse buried alive with him. Accordingly, in the presence

of all his nation, his body was placed on the back of his

favorite white horse, fully equipped as if for a long journey,

with all that was necessary for an Indian’s happiness, including

the scalps of his enemies. Turfs were brought and placed around

the feet and legs, and up the sides of the unsuspecting animal,

and so gradually the horse and its rider were buried from sight,

thus forming a good-sized burial mound.38 Another instance came

under Mr. Catlin’s observation at the pipe stone quarry in

Dakota. He visited there about 1832 and saw a conical mound, ten

feet high, that had been erected over the body of a young man

accidentally killed there two years before.

Enough references have now been given to show that the Indian

tribes certainly did erect mounds, and that there is every reason

to suppose they were the authors of the temple mounds of the

South, or of some of them, at any rate. We have now shown that,

according to early writers, the Indians did live in permanent

villages, often stockaded, and knew very well how to raise

embankments and mounds. It would seem as if this removed all

necessity for supposing the existence of an extinct race to

explain the numerous remains, collectively known as Mound

Builders’ works. Yet, as this is surely an important point, it

may be well to carry the investigations a little further.

Taking in account the great amount of labor necessary to raise

such structures as the mounds at Cahokia and Grave Creek, and the

complicated works at Newark, some writers have asserted that the

government of the Mound Builders was one in which the central

authority must have had absolute power over the persons of the

subjects, that they were in effect slaves;39 and as this was

altogether contrary to what is known amongst Indian tribes, they

must have been of a different race.

If the Indians in a tribal state are known to have erected some

mounds, and to have built temple-platforms and walled towns in

the south, then all they needed was sufficient motive, religious

or otherwise, to have built the most stupendous works known. We

think the ruined pueblos in the Chaco Cañon represent as great an

amount of work as many of those of the Mound Builders. A

calculation has been made, showing that over thirty million

pieces of stone were required in the construction of one

pueblo,40 besides an abundance of timber. Each piece of stone had

to be dressed roughly to fit its place; the timbers had to be

brought from a considerable distance, cut and fitted to their

places in the wall, and then covered with other courses, besides

other details of construction, such as roof-making, plastering,

and so forth, and this is not the calculation of the largest

pueblo either.41 Yet no one supposes that the Indian tribes who

erected these structures were under a despotic form of

government.

We think, however, that it might be freely admitted that in all

probability the government of the Mound Builders was arbitrary,

but so was the government of a great many Indian tribes. Amongst

the Natchez the chief was considered as descended from the sun.

Nor was this belief confined to the Natchez, as the tribes of the

Floridian Peninsula asserted the same thing of their chiefs.

Among all these latter tribes the chief held absolute and

unquestioned power over the persons, property, and time of their

subjects.42

Amongst the Natchez the power of the Great Sun (their title for

chief) seems to have been very great. This nation had a regularly

organized system of priesthood, of which the chief was also the

head. On the death of the chief a number of his subjects were put

to death to keep him company. But we must notice that the

subjects considered it an honor to die with the chief, and made

application beforehand for the privilege. Bearing these facts in

mind, it does not seem improbable that in more distant days, when

the Natchez or some kindred tribe were in the height of their

power, the death of some great chief might well be memorialized

by the erection of a mound as grand in proportion as that of

Grave Creek.

In fact, the more we study the subject, the more firmly we become

convinced that there is no hard and fast line separating the

works of the Mound Builders from those of the later Indians. We

therefore think that we may safely assert that the best

authorities in the United States now consider that the mound

building tribes were Indians, in much the same state of culture

as the Indian tribes in the Gulf States at the time of the

discovery of America, and we shall not probably be far out of the

way if we assert, that when driven from the valley of the Ohio by

more warlike people they became absorbed by the southern tribes,

and, indeed the opinion is quite freely advanced that the Natchez

themselves were a remnant of the “Mysterious Mound Builders.”

If the Mound Building tribes were here at a comparatively late

date, we ought to expect to find some traditions of their former

existence. The statement is quite often made that the Indians had

no tradition as to the origin or purpose of the mounds, and from

this it is argued that the mounds are of great antiquity. But,

instead of finding no traditions, we find nearly every tribe

possessed of some, and often very full and distinct.43 It makes

no difference that a number of those traditions are childish, and

that traditions are a very unsatisfactory sort of proof at best.

Still, if we observe that the traditions, such as they are, are

corroborative of other proofs, it is well to examine into them

anyway.

The Iroquois tribes have a tradition, that is given in the

writing of Cusick, a Tuscaroa Indian. It is generally considered

as a nonsensical production, but Mr. Hale points out that,

“whenever his statements can be submitted to the tests of

language, they are invariably confirmed.”44 Such, for instance,

are the assertions that they formerly inhabited the country

around the St. Lawrence River in Canada, and further, that the

Mohawk was the oldest tribe, from whence the others separated in

time.

The substance of the tradition supposed to refer to the Mound

Builders, is as follows: South of the great lakes was the seat of

a great empire. The emperor resided in a golden city. The nations

to the north of the great lakes formed a confederacy, and seated

a great council fire on the river St. Lawrence. This confederacy

appointed a high chief as ambassador, who immediately departed to

the south to visit the emperor at the golden city. Afterwards,

the emperor built many forts throughout his dominions, and almost

penetrated to Lake Erie. The people to the north considered this

an infringement on their territory, and it resulted in a long

war.

The people of the north were too skillful in the use of bows and

arrows, and could endure hardships which proved fatal to a

foreign people. At last, the northern people gained the victory,

and all the towns and forts were totally destroyed and left in

ruins.45 If this tradition stood alone, it would not be deserving

of much attention, but we know the Iroquois tribes did originally

live in the valley of the St. Lawrence. We also feel sure the

Mound Builders were a powerful people, and lived in the Ohio

Valley. What is there unreasonable, therefore, in supposing that

the Iroquois came in contact with them, and that this tradition

rests on facts?

But this tradition is very similar to one among the Delawares.

This tribe spoke a different stock language than the Iroquois,

and belonged to the Algonquin division of the Indian tribes.

There were many wars between the Delawares and the Iroquois, but

finally the latter were acknowledged masters. It is well to keep

this in mind, because with this feeling between the two tribes,

they would not be apt to have similar traditions unless there was

a basis of fact.46

Mr. Gallatin informs us that the original home of the Algonquins

was to the north of Lake Superior. The tradition states that the

Delawares (they called themselves the Leni-lenape) were living in

a cold, fir-tree country—evidently the wooded regions north of

Lake Superior. Getting tired of this country, they set out

towards the East in search of a better place, and probably

followed the lake shore around until they finally came to a great

river—that is, the Detroit. The country beyond was inhabited by a

numerous and powerful people, called the Allegewi,47 who dwelt in

great fortified towns. Here they found the Huron-Iroquois tribes.

This was before the Iroquois had separated from the Hurons.

Some treachery on the part of the Allegewi was made the occasion

of war. The Leni-lenape and the Hurons united their forces. This

is perhaps the Confederacy of Cusic. A long war resulted, but in

the end the Allegewi were defeated, and, as the tradition states,

“all went southward.”48 We see no reason to doubt but what we

have here a traditional account of the overthrow of the Mound

Builders. The remnant that fled south found the country inhabited

by mound-building tribes, and doubtless became absorbed among

them. In confirmation of this view it may be said that the

languages of the tribes of the Gulf States, which belong to one

stock language,49 have all been greatly influenced by words

derived from a foreign source.50

Perhaps a large body of them may have lived on as a fully

organized tribe. As we have already stated, the opinion is quite

freely advanced that this is the origin of the Natchez.51 It

seems advisable to inquire more particularly into the customs and

traditions of this tribe. Du Pratz, who lived among them in 1718,

and claims to have enjoyed the confidence of their chiefs and

principal men, has left the most complete account of them; though

Father Charlevoix, a Jesuit priest, in his letters, also

describes them fully.

A number of interesting statements in regard to them, at once

arrest attention. Most of the tribes in the southern region of

the United States spoke dialects of a common stock language

(Chata-muskoki), showing a derivation from a common source. The

Natchez spoke a different language. Sun-worship seems to have

been carried to a greater extent than among any other tribes we

are acquainted with. As late as 1730 they still had their

temples, where the eternal fire was kept burning, carefully

watched; for they believed that should it become extinguished, it

would surely bring great trouble on the tribe. Among the Natchez,

if anywhere among Indian tribes, the power of the chief was

absolute, and there seems to have been something like privileged

classes amongst them. We have already referred to them as Mound

Builders.

But most interesting is it to learn of their former wide

extension and ancient power. Du Pratz says, “According to their

traditions they were the most powerful nation of all North

America, and were looked upon by other nations as their

superiors, and on that account were respected by them. To give an

idea of their power, I shall only mention that formerly they

extended from the River Manchas, or Iberville, which is about

fifty leagues from the sea, to the River Wabash, which is distant

from the sea about four hundred and sixty leagues; and that they

had about eight hundred suns, or princes.”52 It is at least a

reasonable supposition that that the Natchez were a remnant of

the Mound Builders.

So far we have dwelt chiefly on the relations between the Indians

and the Mound Builders. Let us now see if we can not detect some

connection between the Pueblo tribes of the south-west and the

Mound Builders. All the tribes in the Gulf States had traditions

of a western and south-western origin. In regard to the Creek

Indians, this tradition is very distinct. They relate, with many

details, their journey from the west, their fight with the

Alabamas, etc.53 In the Natchez tradition, as given by Du Pratz,

they are seen, not only to come from the same western source, but

distinctly preserve recollections of pueblo houses.

The substance of their traditions is that they came from a

pleasant country and mild climate, “under the sun,” and in the

south-west, where the nation had lived for many ages, and had

spread over an extensive country of mountains, hills, and plains,

in which the houses were built of stone, and were several stories

high. They further relate how, owing to increase of enemies, the

great sun sent some one over to examine and report on the country

to be found to the east. The country being found extremely

pleasant, a large part of their nation removed thither; and,

after many generations, the great sun himself came also. Speaking

of the ancient inhabitants of the country they came from, the

tradition states that “they had a great number of large and small

villages, which were all built of stone, and in which were houses

large enough to lodge a whole tribe.”54 We would offer the same

suggestion on these traditions as on the others. They are of

value only so far as supported by other testimony. The great

objection to them is that the pueblo structures of the west are

evidently of recent origin. So these traditions would prove that

the Natchez Indians were quite recently connected with the Pueblo

tribes, which is not at all probable. We have some slight

evidence that does not rest on traditions. Mr. Holmes has given

us a plan of an ancient village he discovered on the La Platte

River, San Juan Valley. It will be seen by reference to the plate

that the buildings were separated from each other. The forms are

chiefly rectangles and circles, and one or two seem to have been

elliptical. This description certainly reminds us of the circles

and squares so common among the Mound Builders. But there is also

a truncated mound, fifty by eighty feet, and nine feet high. “Its

flat top and height give it more the appearance of one of the

sacrificial mounds of the Ohio Valley than any others observed in

this part of the West.” Mounds are known to exist in Utah.55

Ruins near the La Platte Valley of the San Juan. We need not

expect to trace a continuous line of ruins from the San Juan

Valley to that of the Ohio, granting the migration to have taken

place, because a migrating race would not be apt to erect

monuments until they reached the end of their line of migration.

Those who take this view of it say that it is not at all strange

that when these migrating tribes reached their new homes in the

Mississippi Valley they erected structures differing from those

they had formerly built, because all their surroundings would be

different, and in the prairie sections they would find neither

stone for building their pueblos nor clay suitable for adobe

construction. So they would do the next best thing, and build a

fortified village. This is the view of that eminent scholar, Mr.

Morgan. It must be borne in mind, however, that the fortified

villages of the southern Indians, including those of the

Mississippi Valley, corresponded more nearly with those of the

Atlantic shore, and more northern tribes, than with the pueblo

structures.

There is another line of proof which we think has been read the

wrong way, or, at least, applied too strongly, and made to do

service in proving that the Mound Builders migrated from the

valley of the Ohio to Mexico, and there laid the foundation of

that wonderful civilization which is yet a riddle to the

antiquarian.56 This is derived from a study of the skulls

procured from various sections of this country, Peru, and Mexico.

It is sufficient to state that anatomists have made a careful

study of the skulls of individuals of various nations, and

instituted certain comparisons between them, and discoveries of

great importance have been made by this means. Now, some of our

best American scholars have insisted that the skulls of the Mound

Builders and the ancient inhabitants of Mexico and the Inca

Peruvians are so similar that they must have belonged to the same

race.

This type of skull, however, is characteristic, not only of the

Mound Builders, the ancient Mexicans and the Peruvians, but of

the Pueblos, and of such tribes as the Natchez, Creeks, and

Seminoles. We think, with all due regard to the opinions of

others, that in the present state of our knowledge of craniology

we are not authorized in drawing very important conclusions

therefrom. About all we are justified in stating is that the

sedentary or village Indians, whether found in North or South

America, have certain common features.

It is also hard to see any great resemblance between the works of

the Mound Builders and the Pueblo tribes. The truncated mounds

discovered by Mr. Holmes, we remember, were also used as

foundations for house structures along the Gila. In this feature

we, of course, see a resemblance to the platform mounds of the

Mississippi Valley. But we must be careful in tracing connections

on such a slim basis as this. We must remember also what a

difference there is in the pottery of the two sections.57 If we

were to give an opinion, based on the present known facts, we

should say the separation between the people who afterwards

developed as the pueblo builders of the west and the Mound

Builders of the Mississippi Valley took place at an early date.

But let us not suppose that this conclusion clears up all

mysteries. A problem which has thus far defied the efforts of

some of our best thinkers is still before us, and that is: “From

whence came the Indians?” As we remarked at the beginning of this

chapter, no one theory has yet received universal acceptance. In

view of these facts, it is not best to present any theories, but

content ourselves with such statements as seem reasonably well

settled. On all hands it is agreed that the Indians have been in

America a long while, and whatever advance they were able to make

in the scale of civilization has been achieved in this country.58

This statement implies that they were in undisturbed possession

of this country long enough for some tribes of them to reach the

middle status of barbarism, which means advancement sufficient to

enable them to cultivate the ground by irrigation, and to acquire

a knowledge of the use of stone and adobe brick in building.59

More than half the battle of civilization had then been won. Look

at it as we will, this demands an immense period of time for its

accomplishment. In the arts of subsistence, government, language,

and development of religious ideas the advancement they had been

able to make from a condition of savagism to that in which the

Mound Builders evidently lived, or the Aztecs in Mexico,

represents a progression far greater than from thence to

civilization.

We are, therefore, sure that the Indians have inhabited this

country for an extended period. We can prolong the mental vision

backwards until we discover them, a savage race, gaining a

precarious livelihood by fishing and the chase. In America there

was but one cereal, or grain, growing wild. That was maize, or

Indian corn. We can not tell in what portion of the continent it

was native, but, in whatever section it was, there, probably,

first commenced permanent village life.

A settled residence, and being no longer dependent on hunting for

a livelihood, would advance the Indians greatly in the scale of

culture. So we can understand how in one section would arise

Indian tribes possessed of quite complicated systems of

government and religion and a knowledge of agriculture. And from

this as a center they would naturally spread out to other

sections. The conclusion to which we seem driven is, that there

is no necessity for supposing the Mound Builders to be any thing

more than village Indians, in much the same state of development

as the southern Indians at the time of the discovery. The Indian

race shows us tribes in various stages of development, from the

highly developed Pueblo Indians on the one hand to the miserable

Aborigines of California on the other.

These various tribes may be classified as the wild hunting tribes

and the sedentary, partially civilized tribes. To this last

division belong the Mound Builders. We have seen how the

partially civilized tribes in the valley of the San Juan were

gradually driven south by the pressure of wild tribes. We need

not doubt but such was the case in the Mississippi Valley. But we

need not picture to ourselves any imposing movement of tribes. In

one location a mound-building tribe may have been forced to

abandon its territory, which would be occupied by bands of

hunting tribes. In other cases they would cling more tenaciously

to their territory. The bulk of them may have been forced south;

some in other directions, and, like the Pimas on the River Gila,

or the Junanos east of the Rio Grande, have retrograded in

culture.60 Some bands may even have reached Mexico, and exerted

an influence on the culture of the tribes found there.61

It is only necessary to add a brief word as to the antiquity of

the Mound Builders’ works, or rather as to the time of

abandonment. On this point there is a great diversity of opinion,

and it seems to us almost impossible to come to any definite

conclusion. The time of abandonment may vary greatly in different

sections of the country, and we have seen how apt Indian tribes,

even in the same section, are to abandon one village site in

order to form another a few miles away.62 Fort Hill, in Ohio,

that so strongly impressed its first explorers with a sense of

antiquity,63 may have been abandoned long before the Circleville

works, where Mr. Atwater could still distinguish vestiges of the

palisades that once helped to defend it.

We have said about all that can be said in a brief review of the

prehistoric life in America north of Mexico. We have seen how

much there is still for our scholars to work up before we can

profess to as full and complete a knowledge as we have of the

prehistoric life in Europe. We are just on the threshold of

discoveries in regard to the Paleolithic Age in this country. The

southern boundary of the great ice sheet is now known to us. Many

scholars have pointed out to us the scattering bits of evidence

going to show that the ancestors of the present Eskimos once

inhabited the interior of this continent. Dr. Abbott has found

unmistakable evidence of the presence of such a people in New

Jersey. Our Indian tribes who came next, are not properly

prehistoric, though many questions relating to them belong to

that field.

We have examined the works of the people known as Mound Builders.

They are indeed varied and full of interest, but our conclusion

leaves their origin involved in the still deeper question of the

origin of the Indian race. We are satisfied that they were

village Indians and not tribes of a vanished people. We have also

examined that section of country wherein the greatest development

of village Indian life north of Mexico took place. It would be

very satisfactory could we show lines of migration from the

valley of the San Juan, as a center, to the Mississippi Valley on

the one hand, and to Mexico and the South on the other. We can

find some lines of evidence, but not enough to positively state

such an important truth.

We must now leave this field of inquiry. We trust such of our

readers as have followed us in these pages will have clearer

ideas of the prehistoric life in North America. They must however

regard this knowledge as simply a foundation, a starting-point,

or as the shallows along the shore, while the massive building,

the long journey, or the great ocean, is still before them. Our

scholars are giving their time and attention to these problems.

They are learning what they can of the traditions and myths of

the tribes still existing. They are studying their languages and

plan of government. They are also making great collections of the

works of their hands. We will hope some day for clear light on

all these topics, which will either confirm our present

conclusions or show us wherein we must change them, or, perhaps,

reject them altogether.

Stone Mask found in Tennessee. REFERENCES

The manuscript of this chapter was submitted to Cyrus Thomas,

Ph.D., of the Bureau of Ethnology, for criticism.

Baldwin’s “Ancient America,” p. 58. Gallatin, Trans. Am.

Ethnol. Soc., I., p. 207. Short’s “North Americans of

Antiquity,” p. 65. Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p.

120. Jone’s “Antiquities of Tennessee,” p. 146. MacLean’s “The

Mound Builders,” Chap. xii.

Carr’s “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley.” Schoolcraft’s

“Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge,” Vol. I., p. 66; Vol. II.,

p. 30. Morgan’s “House and House Life American Aborigines,”

Vol. IV.; “Contributions to N. A. Ethnology,” p. 199. Brinton:

_American Antiquarian,_ October, 1881. Thomas: _American

Antiquarian,_ March, 1884. Powell: Transactions of

Anthropological Society, 1881, p. 116.

Of course these words vary in different nations, but the

meaning is the same in all.

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 269.

The gens, phratry, and tribe were subdivisions of the Ancient

Greeks. Of a similar import were the gens, curiæ, and tribe of

the Roman tribes. The Irish sept and the Scottish clan are the

same in meaning as the gens of other tribes. American authors,

in treating of the Indians, have generally used the words tribe

and clan as equivalent of gens. This is not correct. Almost all

the tribes had a complete organization in gens and phratries,

though of course they did not so name them. These terms are

adopted by Mr. Morgan because they have a precise and

historical meaning. As an example of Indian

tribal-organization, we give an outline of the Seneca-Iroquois

tribe.

TRIBE.

First Phratry, or Brotherhood.

Bear Wolf Beaver Turtle

Gens.

Second Phratry, or Brotherhood.

Deer Snipe Heron Hawk

Gens.

It is proper to remark that the phratries are not a necessary member

of the series. Several of the Indian tribes had only gens and tribe.

Mr. Schoolcraft uses the words totemic system to express the same

organization. Totem, the Ojibway dialect, signifies the symbol or

devise which they use to designate the gens. Thus the figure of a bear

would be the totem of the bear gens. We must remember that the tribes

of to-day have, in many cases, lost their ancient organization. See

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” where this subject is fully treated. Also

Powell, in “First Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology;” Grote’s

“History of Greece,” Vol. III, p. 55, _et seq._; Smith’s “Dictionary

of Greek and Roman Antiquities,” articles, gens, civitas, tribus,

etc.; also Dorsey, in _American Antiquarian,_ Oct., 1883, p. 312, _et

seq._

The Mexican tribes form no exception to this statement. See

this volume, Chapter XV.

Lewis’s “Wild Races of South-eastern India.”

Grote’s “History of Greece,” Vol. II.

Mallery: “American Association Reports,” 1877.

Hochelaga.

Morgan: “Contribution to N. A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 119.

“Luis Hernando De Biedman,” and “A Gentleman of Elvas,” both

translated in “Historic Collections of Louisiana,” Vol. II.

“Historical Collections of Louisiana,” Vol. I, p. 61.

Morgan’s “Contribution to N. A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 114.

Read Capt. John Smith, “Hist. of Virginia;” also “Mass. Hist.

Col.,” Vol. VIII, of the third series.

Consult “The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” by Lucian Carr,

of the Kentucky Graphical Survey, where this subject is fully

treated, and copious quotations given.

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 526.

Bandelier’s “Fifth Annual Report, Arch. Inst.,” p. 60.

“Charlevoix’s Travels in North America,” p. 241.

Fourth Annual Report of Peabody Museum, and from information

furnished me by the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology.

“The custom of palisading appears to have been general among

the northern tribes.”—Brackenridge’s “Views of Louisiana,” p.

182.

“Views of Louisiana,” p. 183.

“Archæology Americanæ,” Vol. I., p. 145.

“Views of Louisiana,” p. 182.

Carr: “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 78.

Quoted from Brinton, _Am. Antiq.,_ Oct., 1881.

Hist. Col. of Louisiana, Vol. II., p. 105.

“Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 90.

“Expedition to Florida,” p. 15.

Shea’s “Early Voyages on the Mississippi,” p. 135. “Historical

Collections of Louisiana,” Vol. I., p. 61. Quoted from Cyrus

Thomas in _American Antiquarian,_ March, 1884.

See article by Cyrus Thomas, of the Bureau of Ethnology, in

_American Antiquarian,_ March, 1884.

“History of Louisiana,” Lond., 1763, Vol. II., pp. 188 and 211.

Father Le Petit: Note, p. 142. “Hist. Col. Louisiana,” Vol.

III.

“Hist. of the Five Nations,” Introduction, p. 16.

Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge, No. 259, p. 15; “Mounds

of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 87.

“Notes on Virginia,” p. 191.

Catlin’s “North American Indians,” p. 95.

Foster’s “Prehistoric Races of the U.S.,” p. 346.

Pueblo Chettro-kettle, Chaco Cañon.

“Geographical and Geological Survey of the Territories,”

Hayden, 1876, p. 440. Calculations made by Mr. Holmes.

Brinton’s “Floridian Peninsula,” p. 21. We think, however, this

statement requires to be taken with some allowance. Personal

liberty seems to have been the birthright of every Indian.

(“Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” Carr, p. 24.) The council

of the tribe is the real governing body of all people in a

tribal state of society. (“Ancient Society,” Morgan.) When the

war-chief united in his person priestly powers also, he at once

became an object of greater interest. This explains why the

government of the chiefs among all the Southern Indian tribes

appears so much more arbitrary than among the northern tribes.

His real power was probably much the same in both cases, but

superstition had surrounded his person with a great many

formalities. The early explorers, acquainted only with the

arbitrary governments of Europe, saw in all this despotic

powers whereas there might not have been much foundation for

this belief.

“Traditions of Decodah,” Pidgeon. Carr, “Mounds of the

Mississippi Valley,” p. 70.

“Indian Migrations,” _American Antiquarian,_ April, 1883.

Mr. Hale suggests that copper was the gold of the North

American Indians, and that the “golden city” simply means a

city or town where they knew how to work copper. It is well

known that the mound building tribes had such knowledge, at

least they knew how to work native copper.

This tradition was first made known by Heckwelder, a missionary

among the Delawares, in his “History of the Indian Nations.” It

is repeated at much greater length, and with additional

particulars, in a paper read by Mr. E. G. Squier, before the

Historical Society of New York. Mr. Squier has simply

translated a genuine Indian record known as the Bark Record.

The two authorities here mentioned consider the Delawares as

coming from west of the Mississippi. Mr. Hale points out that

it was more likely the Upper St. Lawrence—that portion known as

the Detroit River—that was the “Great River” of the traditions.

From this word comes Alleghany Mountains and River.

In this connection it is at least interesting to note that

several authors—Squier, MacLean, and others—have contended,

judging from the fortified hills and camps, that the pressure

of hostilities on the Mound Builders of the Ohio Valley was

from the north-east.

The Chata-muskoki family. (Brinton.)

Hale: _American Antiquarian,_ April, 1883.

We are not at all certain but our scholars will shortly come to

the conclusion that the Cherokees or Shawnees are quite as

likely to be the descendants of the Allegewi as the Natchez.

It is scarcely necessary to caution the reader as to the value

of this statement of ancient greatness. The chroniclers of De

Soto’s expedition had nothing to say about it.

Pickett’s “History of Alabama,” Vol. II.

Du Pratz: “History of Louisiana,” Vol. II.

Stone _metates,_ or mills, have so far been found only in

Missouri, not far from the Missouri River. As this is such an

important implement among the Pueblo tribes, its presence in

this locality is significant. (Thomas.)

(56) As the proof seems to be conclusive that the Indians of

the south who were encountered by the Europeans first visiting

that section were the builders of the mounds of that region, it

brings these works down to a date subsequent to the entry of

the civilized tribes into Mexico. (Thomas.)

Some of the pottery from South-eastern Missouri and Arkansas

shows a strong resemblance to that of some Pueblo tribes.

(Thomas.)

Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 202.

Morgan: “Ancient Society,” p. 12.

“Fifth Annual Report Archæological Institute,” p. 85.

Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 458.

Carr: “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 97.

“Ancient Monuments,” p. 14.

Chapter XIII

THE NAHUA TRIBES.

Early Spanish discoveries in Mexico—The Nahua tribes

defined—Climate of Mexico—The Valley of Anahuac—Ruins at

Tezcuco—The hill of Tezcocingo—Ruins at Teotihuacan—Ancient

Tulla—Ruins in the province of Querataro—Casa Grandes in

Chihuahua—Ancient remains in Sinaloa—Fortified hill of

Quemada—The Pyramid of Cholula—Mr. Bandelier’s investigations at

Cholula—Fortified hill at Xochicalco—Its probable use—Ruins at

Monte Alban—Ancient remains at Mitla—Mr. Bandelier’s

investigations—Traditions in regard to Mitla—Ruins along the

Panuco River—Ruins in Vera Cruz—Pyramid of

Papantla—Tusapan—Character of Nahua Ruins.

When the ships of the Spanish admiral came to anchor before the

Island of San Salvador, he had indeed discovered a “New World.”

It was inhabited by a race of people living in a state of society

from which the inhabitants of Europe had emerged long before the

dawn of authentic history. The animal and plant life were also

greatly different from any thing with which they were acquainted.

The Spaniards little suspected the importance of their discovery.

Columbus himself died in the belief that he had simply explored a

new route to Asia. A quarter of a century elapsed after the first

voyage of Columbus before an expedition coasted along the shores

of Mexico. This was the expedition of Juan De Grijalva, in 1518.

He gave a glowing description of the country he had seen, which

“from the beauty and verdure of its indented shores, and the

lovely appearances of its villages, he called ‘New Spain.’”1

Map of Mexico.

This was followed, in the year 1519, by the history-making

expedition of Cortez. The scene of his first landing was about

forty miles south of the present town of Vera Cruz, but to this

place they soon removed. At his very first landing-point he

learned of the existence of what he was pleased to call a

powerful empire, ruled by a most valiant prince. The accounts the

Indian allies gave him of the power and wealth of this empire

inflamed the imagination of Cortez and his followers. This was an

age, we must remember that delighted in tales of the marvelous;

add to this the further fact that Cortez was not, at the

beginning of his expedition, acting with the sanction of his

royal master; indeed, his sailing from the island of Cuba was in

direct violation of the commands of the governor. It was very

necessary for him to impress upon the court of Spain a sense of

the importance of his undertaking.

Certain it is that the accounts that have been handed down to us,

though read with wonder and admiration, though made the basis on

which many writers have constructed most glowing descriptions of

the wonders of the barbaric civilization, which they would fain

have us believe, rivaled that of “Ormus and of Ind,” are to-day

seriously questioned by a large and influential portion of the

scientific world. We have another point to be considered that is

of no little weight, as all candid men must admit that it would

influence the opinions the Spaniards would form of the culture of

the Indians. As the man of mature years has lost the memory of

his childhood, so have the civilized races of men lost, even

beyond the reach of tradition, the memory of their barbaric

state. The Spaniards were brought face to face with a state of

society from which the Indo-European folks had emerged many

centuries before. They could not be expected to understand it,

and hence it is that we find so many contradictory statements in

the accounts of the early explorers; so much that modern scholars

have no hesitation in rejecting.

The main tribe of the empire which Cortez is said have overthrown

is known to us by the name of the Aztecs; but as this name

properly denotes but one of many tribes in the same state of

development, it is better to use a word which includes all, or

nearly all, of the tribes that in olden times had their home in

the territory now known as Mexico. Careful comparisons of the

various dialects of ancient Mexico have shown that, with the

exceptions of some tribes in Vera Cruz, they all belonged to one

stock-language; and so they are collectively known as the Nahua

tribes.2

We wish now to inquire into the culture of this people, to see

how much of the strange story that the Spaniards have to tell us

has a reasonable foundation. We will state frankly that, though

the literature on this subject is of vast proportions, yet it is

very far from being a settled field. All accounts of the early

explorers of the strange scenes, customs, and manners of the

inhabitants, when they were first discovered, are so intermixed

with self-evident fables, and statements that are undoubtedly

exaggerations, that we have a most difficult task before us. We

will first examine the antiquities of this section, compare them

with those found in more northern regions, and then examine the

statements of the early writers as to the customs of the people.

We do not propose to do more than to follow after our leaders in

thought, and try to make plain the conclusions to which they have

arrived. We are not to deal wholly with a prehistoric people,

though their origin is unknown. What we desire to do is to clear

away the mists of three and a half centuries, and to catch, if

possible, a glimpse of what was probably the highest development

of prehistoric culture in North America just before the arrival

of the Spaniards.

Mexico was surely a land well adapted to the needs of a

prehistoric people. Along the coasts the ground is low. This

constitutes what is known as the “Hot Country.”3 The greater part

of Mexico consists of an elevated table-land, which rises in a

succession of plateaus. As we leave the coast region and climb

the plateau, we experience changes of climate. If it were level,

it would have mainly a tropical climate, but owing to the

elevation we have just mentioned, it has mainly a temperate

climate. The whole plateau region is cut up with mountains. The

Sierra Madre, on the west, is the main chain, but numerous

cross-ranges occur. The result is, a greater part of Mexico

abounds in fertile, easily defended valleys—just such localities

as are much sought after by a people in barbaric culture,

constantly exposed to the assaults of invading foes.4

We may as well pass at once to the valley of Anahuac, the most

noted in all the region, and learn of the antiquities of this

central section. It is in this valley that the capital of the

Mexican Republic is situated. All travelers who have had occasion

to describe its scenery have been enthusiastic in its praise. The

valley is mountain-girt and lake-dotted, and in area not far

different from the State of Rhode Island. On one of the principal

lakes was located the Pueblo of Tenochtitlan, the head-quarters

of the Aztecs, commonly known as the City of Mexico. When Cortez

first stood upon the encircling mountains, and gazed down upon

the valley, he saw at his feet one of the most prosperous and

powerful pueblos of the New World.

This is not the place to recount the story of its fall. Our

present inquiry is concerned solely with the remains of its

prehistoric age. The enthusiastic Spaniards would have us believe

in a city of Oriental magnificence. We have no illustrations of

this pueblo. It was almost completely destroyed by Cortez before

its final surrender in August, 1521. It was then rebuilt as the

capital city of New Spain. Of course, all traces of its original

buildings soon disappeared. What we can learn of its appearance

is derived from the accounts of the early writers, which we will

examine in their proper place. After having surveyed the entire

field of ruins, we will be much better qualified to judge of the

vague statements of its former grandeur. A few relics have,

indeed, been found buried beneath the surface of the old city.

They illustrate the culture of the people, as will be noticed

further on.

Directly across the lake from the Pueblo of Mexico was that of

Tezcuco, the head-quarters of the second powerful tribe of the

Aztec Confederacy. Traces only are recoverable of its former

buildings. At the southern end of the modern town were found the

foundations of three great pyramids. They were arranged in a line

from north to south. Mr. Mayer says of these ruins: “They are

about four hundred feet in extent on each side of their base, and

are built partly of adobe and partly of large, burned bricks and

fragments of pottery.”5 He tells us further that the sides of the

pyramids “were covered with fragments of idols, clay vessels, and

obsidian knives.” From other discoveries, it would seem these

pyramids were coated with cement. The suggestion is made that on

one of these pyramids stood the great temple of Tezcuco, which,

an early writer tells us, was ascended by one hundred and

seventeen steps.

Bas-Relief, Tezcuco.

In another part of the town a sculptured block of stone was

found, of which this cut is given. “It appears to be the remains

of a trough or basin, and the sculpture is neatly executed in

relief. I imagine that it was designed to represent a conflict

between a serpent and a bird, and you can not fail to remark the

cross distinctly carved near the lower right-hand corner of the

vessel.” Bullock, who traveled in Mexico in 1824, has left a

brief description of the ruins of what he calls a palace. “It

must have been a noble building. . . . It extended for three

hundred feet, forming one side of the great square, and was

placed on sloping terraces raised one above the other by small

steps. Some of these terraces are still entire and covered with

cement. . . . From what is known of the extensive foundations of

this palace, it must have covered some acres of ground.”6 This

last statement is doubtless exaggerated. From what we know of

Indian architecture, these ruins were doubtless long, low, and

narrow, and placed on one or more sides of a square, perhaps

inclosing a court.

About three miles from the town of Tezcuco is a very singular

group of ruins. This is the Hill of Tezcocingo. This is very

regular in outline, and rises to the height of about six hundred

feet. A great amount of work has evidently been bestowed on this

hill, and some very far-fetched conclusions have been drawn from

it. Probably as notable a piece of work as any was the aqueduct

which supplied the hill with water, and this is really one of the

most wonderful pieces of aboriginal work with which we are

acquainted.

The termination of the aqueduct is represented in our next cut.

This is about half-way up the hill, right on the edge of a

precipitous descent of some two hundred feet. “It will be

observed in the drawing that the rock is smoothed to a perfect

level for several yards, around which seats and grooves are

carved from the adjacent masses. In the center there is a

circular sink, about a yard and a half in diameter and a yard in

depth, and a square pipe, with a small aperture, led the water

from an aqueduct which appears to terminate in this basin. None

of the stones have been joined with cement, but the whole was

chiseled, from the mountain rock.”7 This has been called

“Montezuma’s Bath,” simply from the custom of naming every

wonderful ruin for which no other name was known after that

personage; but this was not a bath, but a reservoir of water.

Montezuma’s Bath.

From this circular reservoir the side of the mountain is cut down

so as to form a level grade, just as if a railroad had been made.

This grade winds around the surface of the hill for about half a

mile, when it stretches out across a valley three-quarters of a

mile wide, an elevated embankment from sixty to two hundred feet

in height. Reaching the second mountain, the graded way commences

again, and is extended about half-way around the mountain, where

it extends on another embankment across the plains to a range of

mountains, from which the water was obtained.

Aqueduct, Tezcocingo.

This cut represents the embankment crossing the valley. Along the

top of this way was laid the canals to transport the water, made

of an exceedingly hard cement of mortar and fragments of pounded

brick. It is estimated that nearly, if not quite, as much labor

was expended on this aqueduct as on the Croton aqueduct that

supplies New York City.8 This last statement is probably too

strong, but, considering that this work was accomplished by a

people destitute of iron tools, it is seen to be a most

extraordinary work. From what we have already learned, this hill

was evidently a very important place. On all sides we meet with

evidences that the whole of the hill was covered with artificial

works of one kind or another. On the side of the hill opposite

this reservoir was another recess bordered by seats cut in living

rock, and leading to a perpendicular cliff, on which a calendar

is said to have been carved, but was destroyed by the natives in

later days.9

Traces of a spiral road leading up the summit have been observed.

In 1824 Bullock (who, however, is not regarded as a very accurate

observer) “found the whole mountain had been covered with

palaces, temples, baths, hanging-gardens, and so forth.” Latrobe,

somewhat later, found “fragments of pottery and broken pieces of

obsidian knives and arrows; pieces of stucco, shattered terraces,

and old walls were thickly dispersed over its whole surface.”10

Mr. Mayer, after speaking of the abundance of broken pottery and

Indian arrows, says: “The eminence seems to have been converted

from its base to its summit into a pile of terraced gardens.”

By one class of writers this hill is regarded as the “suburban

residence of the luxurious monarchs of Tezcuco, . . . a pleasure

garden upon which were expended the revenues of the state and the

ingenuity of its artists.”11 Mr. Bancroft has gathered together

the details of this charming story,12 and tells us that the kings

of Mexico had a similar pleasure resort on the Hill of

Chapultepec, a few miles west of the city.13 It is sufficient at

present to state that an explanation much simpler and more in

accord with our latest scientific information can be given. It is

more likely that this hill was the seat of a village Indian

community. Its location was naturally strong. The water, brought

with so much labor from a distance, furnished a supply for the

purpose of irrigation, as well as bodily needs. The terraced

sides show that every foot of ground was utilized, and the ruins

of the palaces that Mr. Bullock mentions were the

fast-disappearing ruins of their communal buildings. Owing to the

cruel raids of the Aztec tribes, this place may have been

deserted before the coming of the Spaniards, and thus no mention

was made of it.

Teotihuacan.

Still further to the north, about thirty miles from Mexico, is

found another extensive field of ruins, which is called

Teotihuacan, meaning “City of the Gods.” The principal ruins now

standing are the two immense pyramids (which are represented in

this cut), which the natives call the “House of the Moon” and the

“House of the Sun.” We will describe the surroundings first. It

is unquestioned but that here was a very extensive settlement in

early times. When the Nahua tribes entered Mexico they probably

found it inhabited. One very recent writer thinks that “nowhere

else in America can you find a more imposing mass of ruins.”14 He

estimates that it was “a city upwards of twenty miles in

circumference.”

Other writers have also noticed its great extent. According to

Thompson, “the ruins cover an area very nearly as large as that

of the present City of Mexico, and the streets are as distinctly

marked by the ruins of houses.”15 And in another place Mr.

Charney tells us “the city was of vast extent; and, without

indulging in any stereotyped reflections on the vanity of human

greatness, I will say that a more complete effacement is nowhere

else to be seen. The whole ground, over a space five or six miles

in diameter, is covered with heaps of ruins, which at first view,

make no impression, so complete is their dilapidation.”16

Of this mass of ruins we are told but little, beyond the general

assertion that it consists of the ruins of buildings, temples,

etc. But very recently M. Charney has uncovered the foundation of

one of these houses. He calls it a palace. It was, in all

probability, a communal building. It had two wings inclosing a

court, and was located on a terraced pyramid. He found, on

digging into the terrace in front of the ruins, a great number of

sloping walls, covered with cement, containing small

compartments, etc. M. Charney can not account for their presence.

In view of the discoveries further north, we would respectfully

suggest that this was, in reality, the lower story of the

building, whose flat roof formed the terrace in front of the

second story, whose foundation M. Charney so happily discovered.

But such suggestions as this are very unsafe to make, and must be

supported by further discoveries before they are of any real

value.

He found a large number of good-sized rooms, and speaks

especially of one hall fifty feet square, in the center of which

was six pillars, sloping from the base upwards. They, doubtless,

served to support the roof. We regret that we have not been able

to see M. Charney’s ground plan of this ruin. Of the pyramids

themselves we have quite full information. The larger one, that

of the sun, is seven hundred and sixty feet square and two

hundred and sixteen feet high. It will be seen that these

dimensions throw the great mound at Cahokia into the shade.

Though the base may not be quite as great, the height of the

pyramid is over twice that of the mound. Three terraces are

plainly visible. The surface was covered with cement, large slabs

of which remain in their place. The moon pyramid is further

north.

It is in all respects like that of the sun, but of smaller

dimensions, being one hundred and fifty feet high. In early times

these pyramids are said to have supported statues, but, if so,

they have long since been thrown down. Their surface and the

ground around is thickly strewn with fragments of pottery,

obsidian knives, and other small relics. Running south from the

House of the Moon, and passing a little to one side of the House

of the Sun, are the remains of a wide, paved road. Its width is

stated to be one hundred and thirty feet, and its length about

two hundred and fifty rods.17

This road suddenly expands in front of the Moon, so as to suggest

the idea of a Greek cross. Pieces of cement (with which this road

was covered) are still visible in places. It is lined with mounds

on either side, and they stand so close together as to resemble

continuous embankments in some places. Speculations are abundant

as to the object of this graded way. Tradition calls it the “Path

of the Dead.” Small mounds are very numerous over the surface.

They may have been for burial purposes, but sculptured stones are

found in them, and specimens of hard cement. This group of ruins

is regarded as of very great antiquity.

We can easily see that the growth of the soil formed by the decay

and detrition of the stone slabs of the pyramids, temples, and

other buildings would be slow, especially as the rainfall is

light. But in some localities it is more than three feet thick.

In places three separate floors are observed, one over the other,

pointing to as many successive occupations of the same sections

by men.

About sixty-five miles to the north of Mexico was located Tollan,

or Tulla. According to tradition, this was the capital city of

the Toltecs, a mysterious people who long preceded the Aztecs. We

are told that “extensive ruins remained at the time of the

conquest, but very few relics have survived to the present

time.”18 M. Charney, whose labors we have referred to at

Teotihuacan, succeeded also in making important discoveries here.

He tells us that on the site of this ancient capital there is a

hill, “about one mile long by half a mile broad, covered with

mounds, plateaus, and ruins of all kinds.”

He gives us the dimensions of two pyramids, as follows. The first

is one hundred and ninety-six feet on each front, and forty-six

feet high. The second is one hundred and thirty-one feet square,

and thirty-one feet high. Both of these pyramids stood on raised

foundations, which M. Charney calls esplanades. As no other

pyramids are mentioned, we are to suppose these are the two

principal ones. Perhaps they are also pyramids of the sun and

moon. Our chief interest is concerned with the remains of the

habitations he discovered here. He says: “I set the men to work

at one of the many mounds upon the ridge, and soon found that I

had hit upon a group of habitations.” A general idea of this

group of buildings is given in this passage: “The dwellings were

united together in groups, and erected on isolated mounds, one in

the middle, the others around about, the whole forming a sort of

honey-comb, with its cells placed at different elevations.”

We can not help being struck with the general resemblance of the

descriptions here given and that of the ruins in the vicinity of

the River Gila. The general tendency is seen to gather together

in clusters, with, probably, the most important house in the

center. As to the materials used in this building, we are told

“they used clay and mud for the inside of the walls, cement to

coat them, dressed stone and brick for casings, bricks and stone

for stairways, bricks for pilasters, and wood for roofing the

edifice. The houses bad flat roofs, consisting of timbers coated

with cement. Of such timbers we find vast quantities.”19

Of the arrangements of the rooms, he tells us, “The apartments

that have been brought to light comprise a number of chambers,

big and little, placed at different heights. We shall have no

clear idea of the relation of these different chambers to one

another, or of the mode of access to them through the

labyrinthine passages and the numerous stairways, until the whole

edifice has been unearthed.”

This was not the only building he discovered. On digging into a

mound supposed to be the support of a temple, he discovered it

was the ruined foundation of a still grander house. He says, “It

is much larger than the other one, stands on a pyramid, and has

two wings inclosing a courtyard. The walls are thicker than those

of the first habitation, and more strongly built. The apartments,

too, are larger, though arranged in a similar fashion.” Elsewhere

he tells us that this building contained at least forty-three

apartments, large and small. We presume very few will now

question but what the buildings he here describes are ruined

communal buildings, much like the structures in Arizona.

But perhaps the most interesting result of his labors was the

proof that these ruins were certainly inhabited after the

conquest—for how long a time we can not tell. This is shown by

fragments of bones and other articles found in the refuse heaps.

The bones were of such animals as the horse, swine, sheep, oxen,

etc.—animals introduced into this country by the Spaniards. The

fragments of pottery include specimens plainly not of Indian

manufacture, such as fragments of porcelain, and that variety of

glazed ware known as delf, and lastly, the neck of a glass

bottle. It may be said that these fragments might have been left

by a band of Spaniards who occupied the ruins in the early days

of the conquest, perhaps long after the Indian owners had left.

This is of course possible, but it is just as reasonable to

suppose the fragments were left by descendants of the original

builders.

Northward from Tulla is a small province, marked on the map

Querataro. From the accounts at our disposal, which are very

brief, we gather that this whole section is a tableland split up

by ravines of great depths and precipitous sides; consequently

one abounding in easily defended positions. It was found that all

the projecting points, naturally strong, were rendered still

stronger by the presence of ditches, walls, and embankments.

Three groups of ruins are mentioned especially, and their

location is marked on the map. At Pueblito there was, at an early

day, plainly to be seen, the foundation of a large, rectangular

building. The walls were built of stone laid in clay.

At Canoas, in the northern part of the State, there is a steep

and strongly fortified bill, but particulars in regard to it are

very meager. “There are, in all, forty-five defensive works on

the hill, including a wall about forty feet in height, and a

rectangular platform with an area of five thousand square

feet.”20 Ranas, the most northern one of the three sites

mentioned, is regarded as the center of population in early

times. “A small lake and a perennial spring are supposed to have

been the attractions of this locality in the eyes of the people.

On all the hills about are still seen vestiges of their

monuments.”

If we look at the map we will notice that we have gone but a

little ways north of the valley of Anahuac. Yet, with the

exception of the Gulf-coast, there are but few striking

aboriginal ruins in Northern Mexico. At the time of the conquest

the whole northern section was the home of tribes not generally

considered to be as far advanced as those who lived in the

section we have already described, and in regions further south.

Yet it is certainly hard to draw the line between the culture of

the two people. We are told that, these Northern tribes though

styled “dogs,” and “barbarians,” by the Southern tribes, were yet

“tillers of the soil, and lived under systematic forms of

government, although not apparently much given to the arts of

agriculture and sculpture.”

This point is of considerable interest to us, theoretically; for

it is a question from whence came the various Nahua tribes. We

would naturally think, if they came from the North, we ought to

find evidence of their former presence in the various Northern

States of Mexico. We must remember, however, that a migrating

people are not apt to leave monuments until they reach the end of

their migration. Neither has the territory been as carefully

explored as it should be. What accounts we can obtain of the

remains in this section are certainly very meager. But one place

in Sonora do ruins occur, and they have never been examined by

competent personages.21 In Chihuahua occur ruins, evidently the

works of the same people as built the separate houses to the west

of the Rio Grande, in New Mexico.

These ruins have received the same name as those on the Rio

Gila—that is, “Casas Grandes,” meaning “Great House.” This cut

represents a view of these ruins. The river valley is here about

two miles wide, and is said to be very fertile. Mr. Bartlett

thinks there is no richer valley to be found from Texas to

California. This valley was once the seat of a considerable

population. Mounds are here found in considerable numbers. Over

two thousand are estimated as occurring in a section of country

sixty miles long by thirty in width.22 We wish we knew more about

the mounds. They are said to contain pottery, stone axes, and

other implements. It is possible, then, that these mounds are

ruins of separate houses. At any rate, such are the only kind of

ruins noticed in the upper part of this same valley by Mr.

Bandelier.

Casas Grandes.

The ruins in question are undoubtedly those of a rich and

prosperous pueblo. They are so placed as to command a very

extensive view. The river valley is cut through a plain, and has

precipitous sides about twenty-five feet in height. The ruins in

question are found partly in the bottoms and partly on the upper

and more sterile plateau. The walls were made of adobe, and in

consequence of their long exposure to the elements are very far

gone in ruins; so much so that Mr. Bartlett was unable to make

out the plan. But enough was seen to show that this was a pueblo

much like the structure already described. They properly belong

to the Arizona group of ruins.

We are told they face the cardinal points, and consist of fallen

and erect walls. The portions still standing are from fifty to

sixty feet high, or rather were that height in 1851. It is

doubtful whether any thing more than a mound of adobe mud now

marks the spot. The walls were highest in the center of the mass.

At the distance of a few miles was a hill said to be fortified.

But the descriptions of it are conflicting. Some represent it as

crowned with a stone-built fortress two or three stories high.

Others more reasonable, represent it as the site of a

watch-tower, or sentry station, and that at regular intervals on

the slope of the hill are lines of stone, with heaps of loose

stones at their extremities.23 Probably the same fate overtook

the tribes of this valley as did the sedentary tribes of the

North. They would not willingly abandon a place so well suited to

their needs. The presence of an invading foe, cruel and

vindictive, alone accounts for this group of ruins.

In Sinaloa we have no very definite account of ruins. However,

Mr. Bandelier says, the existence of ancient villages in that

section is certain, and that from “Sinaloa there are ample

evidences of a continuous flow Southward.”24 There are no ruins

worth mentioning in any of the other States, excepting Zacatecas,

where we find a ruin of great interest. This is at Quemada, in

the southern part of the State. The name is taken from that of a

farm in the near neighborhood. The ruins are situated on the top

of a hill, which is not only naturally strong, but the approaches

to it are fortified. The hill ascends from the plain in a gentle

slope for several hundred yards, it then rises quite

precipitously for about a hundred and fifty feet. The total

height of the hill above the plain is probably not far from eight

hundred feet.25

At all points where the approach to the top of the hill is not

steep enough to form a protection of itself, the brow is guarded

by walls of stone. This is especially true of the northern end of

the hill. One peculiar feature of this place is the traces of

ancient roads, which can still be clearly distinguished crossing

each other at various angles on the slope we have mentioned. They

can be followed for miles, and are described as being slightly

raised and paved with rough stones. In places on the slope, their

sides are protected by embankments.

Considerable speculations have been indulged in as to the

purposes for which these roads were used. It has been suggested

that they were the streets of an ancient city which must once

have existed on the plains; and that the fortified hill, with the

ruins on its summit, was the citadel, the residence of their

rulers, and the location of their temples. But we think a more

reasonable view is that all of the city that ever stood in that

neighborhood was on the hill summit, and that these streets were

for religious purposes, reminding us in this respect of the

graded ways and traces of paved streets sometimes met with in the

Mississippi Valley. In proof of this view, it is said that many

of them, after being followed for a long distance, are found to

terminate in a heap of stones, which are evidently the ruins of a

regular pyramid. In opposition to both of these views, it has

been suggested that the surrounding plain was low and marshy, and

that the object of these causeways was to secure a dry passage,

which explanation is certainly very reasonable.

Quemada.

Of the top of the hill, it may be sufficient to state that it is

of irregular shape, half a mile in length from north to south,

and of varying width, but on an average one thousand feet wide.

The approach to the top of the hill was strongly guarded.

Although buildings were observed covering the whole top of the

hill, yet they were in two principal groups. This cut, though but

one of many, will give us very good ideas of all the ruins. It is

seen to be an inclosure. It is on a small scale. It was one

hundred and fifty feet square. We notice terraces on three sides.

These terraces are three feet high by twelve wide, and in the

center of each side are steps by which to descend to the

square.26 Each terrace is backed by a wall, portions of which are

seen in the engraving. These walls are twenty feet high by eight

or nine in thickness. The openings seen in the wall are not

properly doors, as they extend to the top of the wall.

This court, encompassed by terraces, is a peculiar feature. It is

different from any thing we know of, either north or south.27

Courts, surrounded by buildings located on terraces, are common

enough, but all accounts of these ruins say nothing of buildings.

We remember the inclosures that surrounded the houses clustered

in groups on the Rio Gila. We think this comes near to being a

development of the same idea. The low walls of the former

inclosure are here quite pretentious pieces of masonry. In some

cases two or more of these inclosed courts are joined by

openings.

The opening in the wall on the right of the engraving leads into

a perfect inclosed square of two hundred feet. In one case a

range of pillars was noticed parallel with the walls, and distant

twenty-three feet. These are supposed to have supported the roof

of the portico, and houses of a rude description might have been

ranged along under this roof, which has since completely

vanished. Back of this square, but not very well shown on the

drawing, rises a precipitous hill. A pyramid is placed in the

center of the side towards the hill. It is only nineteen feet

high,28 but is divided into five stages or stories.29

This pyramid will serve as an example of numerous other pyramids

scattered over the summit of the hill. They are made of stone.

The largest one, whose dimensions are given, is fifty feet

square, and the same in height. In front of the pyramid, and in

the center of the square, are the remains of an altar. In view of

the altar and pyramid, within the inclosed square, we may suppose

this to have been dedicated to their religion. As if to confirm

this belief, is the statement that on the hill to the back of the

pyramid are numerous tiers of seats, either broken in the rock or

built of rough stone. The people seated on them would be

conveniently located as regards both sight and hearing of what

transpired there.

From an Indian’s point of view, this hill was very strongly

fortified. It would be almost impossible for an enemy to capture

the settlement on its summit. The surrounding country was

probably fertile, and a large body of Indians could have lodged

within the fortified inclosures. It has some peculiar features,

which have been pointed out. There is now no water on the hill,

but traces of what is supposed to be an aqueduct are observed, as

well as several tanks, and at one place a well. There is not an

appearance of great antiquity about these ruins, and yet native

traditions are silent in regard to them, and but one of the early

writers refers to them, and he had not seen them.30

West of the central basin the remains are more numerous than to

the north, but they are not very striking, and it is scarcely

worth our while to stop and examine them. About sixty miles in a

south-easterly direction from Mexico is the modern town of

Cholula. This has grown at the expense of the ancient city of

Cholula, grouped around the famous pyramid of that name. This was

the Mexican “Tower of Babel.” The traditions in regard to it

smack so strongly of outside influence that but little reliance

can be placed on them. They are evidently a mixture of native

traditions and Biblical stories. Like Teotihuacan and Tulla, this

is regarded as a relic of Toltec times. This is but another way

of saying that it is older in time than the majority of ruins.

At the time of Cortez’s march to Mexico Cholula was a very

important place. In his dispatches he says: “The great city of

Cholula is situated in a plain, and his twenty thousand

householders in the body of the city, besides as many more in the

suburbs.” He further states that he himself counted the towers of

more than four hundred “idol temples.”31

We must remember that this is a Spanish account, and therefore

exaggerated. Still, after making due allowance for the same, it

would remain an important aboriginal settlement. We have no

reliable data of the population at the time of the conquest. From

documentary evidence Mr. Bandelier has shown that while Cholula

was certainly a populous Indian pueblo, it is a misnomer to call

it a city. It was a group of six distinct clusters, gathered

around a common market. He estimates that its population may

possibly have been thirty thousand.32 All explorers have

mentioned the fertility of the plain in the midst of which this

monument is found.

But this plain is almost destitute of easily defended positions;

which fact has an important bearing on the purpose for which the

great mound was erected. At a distance it presents all the

appearance of a natural hill. The casual observer would not

believe it was entirely the work of men. “In close proximity,”

says Mr. Bandelier, “the mound presents the appearance of an

oblong conical hill, resting on projecting platforms of unequal

length. Overgrown as it is with verdure and partly by trees, and

with a fine paved road leading to the summit, it looks strikingly

like a natural hill, along whose slopes the washing of the rains

and slides have laid bare bold bluffs, and into whose bulk clefts

and rents have occasionally penetrated.”

Pyramid of Cholula.

This celebrated mound or pyramid has lately been the subject of a

very careful study by Mr. Bandelier. The illustration we present

gives us a very good idea of the present appearance of the mound.

The mass is probably solid throughout, and if there is a natural

hill in its center, it must be a very small one. The height of

the central higher mass is very nearly two hundred feet.33 The

present appearance of the summit is entirely due to the

Spaniards. At the time of the conquest the summit was convex; the

friars had it leveled in order to plant a cross. The area of this

upper platform is not far from two-thirds of an acre. It is now

paved and surrounded by a wall.

In the illustration we detect the appearance of terraces. These

are level areas, not all of the same height; neither do they

extend entirely around the mound. In fact, the present appearance

indicates three projections, or aprons, surrounding and

supporting a conical hill, and separated from each other by wide

depressions. This central mound, with its three projections,

rests upon a very extensive platform, which was probably

cross-shaped. This platform seems to have been about twelve feet

high, and covered an area of at least sixty acres.

The object for which this great pile was erected is a topic that

has exercised the thoughts of many scholars. Some have supposed

it was a burial mound. Some years ago, while in constructing a

road from Pueblo to Mexico, the first terrace or story was

slightly dug into, and disclosed a chamber, which contained two

skeletons, two idols, and a collection of pottery. Yet, before

deciding it to be a burial mound, it will be necessary to show

the presence of tombs near the center.

We have referred to the results of Mr. Bandelier’s explorations.

He made a very thorough study of this great pyramid—more complete

than any that had hitherto been made—and his results should have

corresponding weight. He finds that the materials of which the

adobe brick is composed are exactly the same as that of the

surrounding plain. This does away with one old tradition, that

the bricks were manufactured at a distance, and brought several

leagues to their destination by a long line of men, who handed

them along singly from one to another.

From the manner in which the bricks are laid, and from their

variation in size, he concludes that the structure was not all

erected at one time, but that the mound is the accumulation of

successive periods of labor. From this it follows that it was

built to serve some purpose of public utility, and not as a token

of respect for some individual. Wherever found, these great works

show the same evidence of not being all completed at once. This

was true of the North; we shall also find it true of the South.

Charney noticed the same thing in the house at Tulla. Nothing is

more natural than that an Indian community would increase their

buildings as the tribe increased.

Mr. Bandelier’s final conclusion in regard to the purpose of its

erection is one of great interest, but not at all surprising. “If

we imagine the plateaus and aprons around it covered with houses,

possibly of large size, like those of Uxmal and Palenqué,34 or on

a scale intermediate between them and the communal dwellings of

Pecos and many other places in New Mexico,35 we have then, on the

mound of Cholula, as it originally was, room for a large

aboriginal population. The structure, accordingly, presents

itself as the base of an artificially elevated, and therefore,

according to Indian military art, a fortified, pueblo.”

But this does not remove from it the air of mystery. Long-fallen

indeed are the communal walls. It was not simply a few years ago

that these pueblo-crowned terraces were reared. The date of its

erection is hid in the dim traditions of the past. The traditions

of the Nahua tribes, who came at a far later date, speak of it as

even then standing on the plain. Scattered over the plain are

other ruins of a somewhat different nature from the general ruins

in the valley. These may be the ruins of works erected by the

same class of people as built the mounds. Especially is this

thought to be true of ruins found on the slopes of neighboring

volcanoes.

To the south-west of Cholula are the ruins of Xochicalco, which,

by some, are pronounced to be the finest in Mexico. There are

many points of resemblance between this ruin and Tezcocingo. The

meaning of the word is “Hill of Flowers.” The hill is a very

regular, conical one, with a base nearly three miles in

circumference, and rises to a height above the plain of nearly

four hundred feet.36 The hill is considered to be entirely a

natural formation; but it probably owes some of its regular

appearance to the work of man. Around the base of the hill had

been dug a wide and deep ditch. When Mr. Taylor visited the

place, the side of this moat had fallen in, in many places, and

in some quite filled up—but it was still distinctly visible.37

The whole surface of this hill was laid off into terraces.

Five of these terraces, paved with blocks of stone laid in

mortar, and supported by perpendicular walls of the same

material, extend, in oval form, entirely around the whole

circumference of the hill, one above the other. From the

accumulation of rubbish, these terraces are not easy to detect in

all places. Probably, at one time, there was some easy means of

access from one terrace to the other, but they have

disappeared—so that now the explorer has to scramble up

intervening slopes of the terraces as best he can. It is probable

that defensive works once protected these slopes.

Mr. Mayer says: “At regular intervals, as if to buttress these

terraces, there are remains of bulwarks shaped like the bastions

of a fortification.”38 “Defense seems to have been the one object

aimed at by the builders.” The top of the hill is leveled off.

Some writers represent that a wall of stone was run along the

edge of the summit but others think that the whole top of the

hill had been excavated, so as to form a sunken area, leaving a

parapet along the edge. This summit-platform measured two hundred

and eighty-five feet by three hundred and twenty-eight feet.

Within this area were found several mounds and heaps of stones.

The probabilities are that it was once thickly covered with

ruins. In the center of this sunken area are the remains of the

lower story of a pyramid, which the inhabitants in the vicinity

affirm to have been once five stories high.

To judge from the ruins still standing, this must have formed one

of the most magnificent works of aboriginal skill with which we

are acquainted. This cut gives a general idea of the ruins from

the west. We presume the broken appearance presented by this side

is in consequence of the removal of stones by planters in the

vicinity for their own use. It seems they have used this monument

as a stone-quarry. This pyramid, or the first story of it, was

nearly square—its dimensions being sixty-four feet by

fifty-eight.

Xochicalco.

The next cut is an enlarged drawing of the north-west corner seen

in the first drawing. Notice the grotesque ornamentations on it.

The ornaments are not stucco-work, but are sculptured in

bas-relief. As one figure sometimes covers parts of two stones,

it is plain they must have been sculptured after being put in

position. The height of this front is nearly fifteen feet. In the

left-hand corner of this sculpture will be perceived the bead of

a monstrous beast with open jaws and protruding tongue. This

figure is constantly repeated in various parts of the façade.

Some have supposed it to be a crocodile. The rabbit is another

figure that constantly reappears in portions of the wall.

Enlarged View of Ruins of Xochicalco.

We can scarcely realize the labor involved in the construction of

this pyramid and the terraced slope. Some idea may be formed of

the immense labor with which this building was constructed from

measurements made of several of the masses of porphyry that

compose it. One stone was nearly eight feet long by three broad.

The one with the rabbit on is five feet by two and a half. When

it is recollected that these materials were not found in the

neighborhood, but were brought from a great distance, and borne

up a hill more than three hundred feet high, we can not fail to

be struck with the industry, toil, and ingenuity of the builders,

especially as the use of beasts of burden was, at the time,

unknown in Mexico. Nor was this edifice, on the summit, the only

portion of the architect’s labor. Huge rocks were brought to form

the walls supporting the terraces that surrounded the hill, a

league in circumference, and the whole of that immense mass was

eased in stone. Beyond these terraces, again, there was still

another immense task in the ditch, of even greater extent, which

had to be dug and regularly embanked.39

Now, what was the object of all this labor? This must have been

the center of a large settlement. It seems that the surrounding

hills—or, at least, some of them—were also terraced. Mr. Taylor

says: “On the neighboring hills we could discern traces of more

terraced roads of the same kind. There must be many miles of them

still remaining.” In a Mexican book we are told “adjoining this

hill is another higher one, also covered with terraces of

stone-work in the form of steps. A causeway of large marble flags

led to the top, where there are still some excavations, and among

them a mound of large size.” Mr. Latrobe, from the top of the

“Hill of Flowers,” saw that it was the center towards which

converged several roads, which could be traced over the plain.

The road he examined was “about eight feet in breadth, composed

of large stones tightly wedged together.” It is extremely

probable that in Xochicalco we have another instance of a

strongly fortified hill, on the top of which was their pueblo,

arranged around their teocalli, or temple.40

In our description of this ruin we must not forget to mention

some curious underground chambers, excavated in the hill itself.

On the northern slope, near the foot, is the entrance to two

galleries, one of which terminated at the distance of eighty

feet. The second gallery is cut in solid limestone, about nine

feet square, and has several branches. The floors are paved with

brick-shaped blocks of stone. The walls are also, in many places,

supported by masonry, and both pavement, walls, and ceilings are

covered with lime-cement, which retains its polish, and shows

traces, in some parts, of having had originally a coating of red

ocher. The principal gallery, after a few turns, finally

terminated, or appeared to, in a large room eighty feet long, in

which two pillars were left to support the roof. In one corner of

this room there was a dome-shaped excavation in the roof, from

the apex of which a round hole about ten inches in diameter

extended vertically upwards.

The natives say there are still other excavations. We have seen

no good explanation of the uses of these excavations. The labor

in constructing them must have been very great. In the province

of Oaxaca we shall find several groups of ruins. In all

probability those known and described are not more numerous than

those unknown. The class of ruins represented by Quemada,

Tezcocingo, and Xochicalco (that is, a hill strongly fortified,

with traces of a settlement on the summit, mounds, foundations of

communal houses, and pyramidal structures) are also to be found

here. At Quiotepec we have very meager accounts of such a ruin.

The hill is over two miles in circumference and a thousand feet

high. A running stream has rendered one side of the hill very

steep and precipitous, but the other sides are terraced.

One of the terrace-walls at the summit is about three hundred and

twenty feet long, sixty feet high, and five and a half feet

thick.41 On the summit of the hill are found great numbers of

mounds, foundations of small buildings, as well as ruins of

statelier buildings, called by some palaces, but which were

probably regular communal structures; also the pyramid base of a

temple. At different points near the summit of the hill are three

tanks or reservoirs, one of which is sixty feet long, twenty-four

feet wide, and six feet deep, with traces of steps leading down

into it.

Still further south, near the center of the state at Monte Alban,

is a more extensive group of ruins on the same general plan as

the one just described. In this case, from the banks of a stream,

there rises a range of high hills with precipitous sides. At

their summit is an irregular plateau half a mile long by nearly a

quarter of a mile wide. M. Charney states that a portion of this

plateau is artificial. He represents the whole surface as

literally covered with blocks of stone—some sculptured—the ruined

foundations of buildings, terraces, and so forth. He regards it

as one of the most precious remains of aboriginal work, and this

is the view of Mr. Bandelier also. It is to be regretted that we

have not more details of such interesting ruins. We, however,

would learn but little new from them. One ruin is spoken of as an

immense square court, inclosed by four long mounds, having a

slight space between them at the ends. It is extremely probable

that these mounds once supported buildings.

The most celebrated ruin in Oaxaca is Mitla. These are the first

ruins we have met that, by their strange architecture and

peculiar ornamentation, suggest some different race as their

builders. The present surroundings are of the gloomiest

character. The country is barren and desert. The valley in which

the ruins are located is high and narrow, but surrounded by bleak

hills. The soil is dry and sandy, and almost devoid of

vegetation. The cold winds, blowing almost constantly, sweep

before them great clouds of sand. A small stream flows through

this dreary waste, which, during the rainy season, is a raging

torrent. “No birds sing, or flowers bloom,” around these old

ruins. Appropriately enough, tradition speaks of this as the

“Place of Sadness,” or “Dwelling of the Dead.” As to the extent

of territory covered by the ruins, we have not been able to learn

further than the general statement that at the time of the

conquest they covered an immense area.42

Wall at Mitla. Mr. Bandelier found, besides two artificial hills,

traces of thirty-nine distinct edifices, and, as he thinks these

are all the buildings that ever stood there, it is manifest that

this was not a city in our sense of the word. Two or three of the

buildings were constructed of adobe, plastered, and painted red.

The others were built of stone. Of these latter the greater part

stands upon the ground, but a few are built upon elevated

terraces, composed of stone and earth heaped together and faced

with stone. In one group of four buildings the terraced

foundation contained a basement—in one case, at least—in the form

of a cross. The purpose of this cellar or basement left in the

artificial foundation is unknown. Some think they were used for

burial purposes but it is more likely they were general

store-rooms. The arrangement of these buildings was the same as

elsewhere. That is, so placed as to inclose a court. This

illustration shows us the method of constructing the walls of the

building. We notice two distinct parts. The inner part is built

of broken stones laid in tolerably regular courses in clay. There

was no mortar used. This inner core is much the same sort of work

as the masonry in the pueblos of Arizona. A facing was put on

over this inner core, which served both for ornament and for

strength. This illustration is a corner of one of these

buildings, and gives us in excellent idea of the peculiar

ornamentation employed at Mitla. Mr. Bancroft gives us a clear

idea of how this facing was put on: “First, a double tier of very

large blocks are placed as a base along the surface of the

supporting mound, projecting two or three feet from the line of

the wall, the stones of the upper tier sloping inward. On this

base is erected a kind of framework of large, hewn blocks with

perfectly plain, unsculptured fronts, which divide the surface of

the wall into oblong panels of different dimensions.”43

Ornamentation at Mitla.

It would, then, seem as if the panels were thickly coated with

clay. Into this clay was then driven small, smoothed blocks of

wedge-shaped stones, in such a way as to cover them with

geometrical ornamentations, which, though not absolutely

symmetrical, present a striking and agreeable appearance. Each

section of the wall presents a different pattern, but this

difference is so slight that the general effect is harmonious.44

This mosaic ornamentation is found in some of the inner facings

of the walls as well. In general, however, the walls on the

inside were covered with mortar and painted.

Hall at Mitla.

Some of the blocks of stone forming the basement, the framework

of the panels, and the lintels of the door are of great size, and

the lintels were in some cases sculptured. One of the largest

rooms at Mitla is represented in the preceding cut. The peculiar

feature about it is the range of columns seen in the drawing. The

inner plastering has fallen, exposing the rough wall. The columns

are simple stone pillars, having neither chapter nor base. It is

generally supposed that these pillars supported the roof. As in

the pueblo buildings to the north, as well as the Toltec house at

Tulla, the roof was probably formed of the trunks of small-sized

trees laid close together and covered with clay and cement.