[Illustration: I. Ancient Works, Marietta, Ohio.]
SMITHSONIAN
CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE.
VOL. I.
[Illustration]
EVERY MAN IS A VALUABLE MEMBER OF SOCIETY, WHO, BY HIS
OBSERVATIONS, RESEARCHES, AND EXPERIMENTS, PROCURES
KNOWLEDGE FOR MEN.—SMITHSON.
CITY OF WASHINGTON:
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.
MDCCCXLVIII.
PRINTED BY EDWARD O. JENKINS,
114 Nassau street, New York.
FROM THE SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE.
ANCIENT MONUMENTS OF
THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY.
BY
E. G. SQUIER, A.M., AND E. H. DAVIS, M.D.
[Illustration]
EVERY MAN IS A VALUABLE MEMBER OF SOCIETY, WHO, BY HIS
OBSERVATIONS, RESEARCHES, AND EXPERIMENTS, PROCURES
KNOWLEDGE FOR MEN.—SMITHSON.
PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHORS.
NEW-YORK:
BARTLETT & WELFORD, 7 ASTOR HOUSE.
CINCINNATI:
J. A. & U. P. JAMES, WALNUT STREET.
MDCCCXLVIII.
PRINTED BY EDWARD O. JENKINS,
114 Nassau street, New York.
ADVERTISEMENT.
This volume is intended to form the first of a series of volumes,
consisting of original memoirs on different branches of knowledge
published at the expense, and under the direction of the Smithsonian
Institution. The publication of this series forms part of a general
plan adopted for carrying into effect the benevolent intentions of
JAMES SMITHSON, Esq., of England. This gentleman left his property
in trust to the United States of America, to found at Washington an
institution which should bear his own name, and have for its objects
“the «increase» and «diffusion» of knowledge among men.” This trust
was accepted by the Government of the United States, and an Act of
Congress was passed August 10th, 1846, constituting the President and
the other principal executive officers of the general government, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Mayor of Washington, and such
other persons as they might elect honorary members, an establishment
under the name of the “SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, FOR THE INCREASE AND
DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE AMONG MEN.” The members and honorary members
of this establishment are to hold stated and special meetings for the
supervision of the affairs of the Institution, and for the advice and
instruction of a Board of Regents, to whom the financial and other
affairs are entrusted.
The Board of Regents consists of three members ex officio of the
establishment, namely, the Vice President of the United States, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Mayor of Washington,
together with twelve other members, three of whom are appointed by
the Senate from its own body, three by the House of Representatives
from its members, and six citizens appointed by a joint resolution of
both houses. To this board is given the power of electing a Secretary
and other officers, for conducting the active operations of the
Institution.
To carry into effect the purposes of the testator, the plan of
organization should evidently embrace two objects,—one, the increase
of knowledge by the addition of new truths to the existing stock;
the other, the diffusion of knowledge thus increased, among men. No
restriction is made in favor of any kind of knowledge, and hence each
branch is entitled to and should receive a share of attention.
The Act of Congress, establishing the Institution, directs, as a part
of the plan of organization, the formation of a Library, a Museum,
and a Gallery of Art, together with provisions for physical research
and popular lectures, while it leaves to the Regents the power of
adopting such other parts of an organization as they may deem best
suited to promote the objects of the bequest.
After much deliberation, the Regents resolved to divide the annual
income, thirty thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars, into two
equal parts,—one part to be devoted to the increase and diffusion of
knowledge by means of original research and publications,—the other
half of the income to be applied in accordance with the requirements
of the Act of Congress, to the gradual formation of a Library, a
Museum, and a Gallery of Art.
The following are the details of the two parts of the general plan
of organization provisionally adopted at the meeting of the Regents,
Dec. 8th, 1847.
DETAILS OF THE FIRST PART OF THE PLAN.
I. TO INCREASE KNOWLEDGE.—«It is proposed to stimulate research, by
offering rewards, consisting of money, medals, etc., for original
memoirs on all subjects of investigation.»
1. The memoirs thus obtained to be published in a series of volumes,
in a quarto form, and entitled “Smithsonian Contributions to
Knowledge.”
2. No memoir, on subjects of physical science, to be accepted
for publication, which does not furnish a positive addition to
human knowledge, resting on original research; and all unverified
speculations to be rejected.
3. Each memoir presented to the Institution to be submitted for
examination to a commission of persons of reputation for learning
in the branch to which the memoir pertains; and to be accepted for
publication only in case the report of this commission is favorable.
4. The commission to be chosen by the officers of the Institution,
and the name of the author, as far as practicable, concealed, unless
a favorable decision be made.
5. The volumes of the memoirs to be exchanged for the Transactions
of literary and scientific societies, and copies to be given to all
the colleges, and principal libraries, in this country. One part of
the remaining copies may be offered for sale; and the other carefully
preserved, to form complete sets of the work, to supply the demand
from new institutions.
6. An abstract, or popular account, of the contents of these memoirs
to be given to the public through the annual report of the Regents to
Congress.
II. TO INCREASE KNOWLEDGE.—«It is also proposed to appropriate a
portion of the income, annually, to special objects of research,
under the direction of suitable persons.»
1. The objects, and the amount appropriated, to be recommended by
counsellors of the Institution.
2. Appropriations in different years to different objects; so that in
course of time, each branch of knowledge may receive a share.
3. The results obtained from these appropriations to be published,
with the memoirs before mentioned, in the volumes of the Smithsonian
Contributions to Knowledge.
4. Examples of objects for which appropriations may be made:
(1.) System of extended meteorological observations for solving the
problem of American storms.
(2.) Explorations in descriptive natural history, and geological,
magnetical, and topographical surveys, to collect materials for the
formation of a Physical Atlas of the United States.
(3.) Solution of experimental problems, such as a new determination
of the weight of the earth, of the velocity of electricity, and
of light; chemical analyses of soils and plants; collection and
publication of articles of science, accumulated in the offices of
Government.
(4.) Institution of statistical inquiries with reference to physical,
moral, and political subjects.
(5.) Historical researches, and accurate surveys of places celebrated
in American history.
(6.) Ethnological researches, particularly with reference to the
different races of men in North America; also explorations, and
accurate surveys, of the mounds and other remains of the ancient
people of our country.
I. TO DIFFUSE KNOWLEDGE.—«It is proposed to publish a series of
reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of
the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge not
strictly professional.»
1. Some of these reports may be published annually, others at longer
intervals, as the income of the Institution or the changes in the
branches of knowledge may indicate.
2. The reports are to be prepared by collaborators, eminent in the
different branches of knowledge.
3. Each collaborator to be furnished with the journals and
publications, domestic and foreign, necessary to the compilation of
his report; to be paid a certain sum for his labors, and to be named
on the title-page of the report.
4. The reports to be published in separate parts, so that persons
interested in a particular branch, can procure the parts relating to
it without purchasing the whole.
5. These reports may be presented to Congress, for partial
distribution, the remaining copies to be given to literary and
scientific institutions, and sold to individuals for a moderate price.
«The following are some of the subjects which may be embraced in the
reports:»
I. PHYSICAL CLASS.
1. Physics, including astronomy, natural philosophy, chemistry, and
meteorology.
2. Natural history, including botany, zoology, geology, &c.
3. Agriculture.
4. Application of science to arts.
II. MORAL AND POLITICAL CLASS.
5. Ethnology, including particular history, comparative philology,
antiquities, &c.
6. Statistics and political economy.
7. Mental and moral philosophy.
8. A survey of the political events of the world; penal reform, &c.
III. LITERATURE AND THE FINE ARTS.
9. Modern literature.
10. The fine arts, and their application to the useful arts.
11. Bibliography.
12. Obituary notices of distinguished individuals.
II. TO DIFFUSE KNOWLEDGE.—«It is proposed to publish occasionally
separate treatises on subjects of general interest.»
1. These treatises may occasionally consist of valuable memoirs
translated from foreign languages, or of articles prepared under the
direction of the Institution, or procured by offering premiums for
the best exposition of a given subject.
2. The treatises to be submitted to a commission of competent judges,
previous to their publication.
DETAILS OF THE SECOND PART OF THE PLAN OF ORGANIZATION.
This part contemplates the formation of a Library, a Museum, and a
Gallery of Art.
1. To carry out the plan before described, a library will be
required, consisting, 1st, of a complete collection of the
transactions and proceedings of all the learned societies in the
world; 2d, of the more important current periodical publications, and
other works necessary in preparing the periodical reports.
2. The Institution should make special collections, particularly
of objects to verify its own publications. Also a collection of
instruments of research in all branches of experimental science.
3. With reference to the collection of books, other than those
mentioned above, catalogues of all the different libraries in the
United States should be procured, in order that the valuable books
first purchased may be such as are not to be found elsewhere in the
United States.
4. Also catalogues of memoirs, and of books in foreign libraries, and
other materials, should be collected for rendering the Institution
a centre of bibliographical knowledge, whence the student may be
directed to any work which he may require.
5. It is believed that the collections in natural history will
increase by donation as rapidly as the income of the Institution can
make provisions for their reception, and, therefore, it will seldom
be necessary to purchase any articles of this kind.
6. Attempts should be made to procure for the gallery of art casts of
the most celebrated articles of ancient and modern sculpture.
7. The arts may be encouraged by providing a room, free of expense,
for the exhibition of the objects of the Art-Union and other similar
societies.
8. A small appropriation should annually be made for models of
antiquities, such as those of the remains of ancient temples, &c.
9. For the present, or until the building is fully completed, only
one permanent assistant to the Secretary will be required, to act as
librarian.
10. The Secretary and his assistants, during the session of Congress,
will be required to illustrate new discoveries in science, and to
exhibit new objects of art; distinguished individuals should also be
invited to give lectures on subjects of general interest.
11. When the building is completed, and when, in accordance with the
Act of Congress, the charge of the National Museum is given to the
Smithsonian Institution, other assistants will be required.
* * * * *
The first memoir of the proper character presented after the adoption
of the foregoing plan of organization, was the one which occupies
the present volume. It was submitted in accordance with the rule
adopted, to a commission of examination, consisting of a committee
of the members of the American Ethnological Society, and on the
favorable report of this committee and the responsibility of the
Society, the memoir was accepted for publication. The following is
the correspondence which took place on the occasion.
CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.
CHILLICOTHE, OHIO, «May» 15, 1847.
DEAR SIR:—It is proposed in the recognized plan of organization of
the Smithsonian Institution, of which you are the executive officer,
to publish, under the title of “«Smithsonian Contributions to
Knowledge»,” such original papers and memoirs “as shall constitute
valuable additions to the sum of human knowledge.” Under the belief
that it falls legitimately within the scope of the above plan,
the undersigned herewith submit for acceptance and publication,
subject to the prescribed rules of the Institution, a MS. memoir
entitled “ANCIENT MONUMENTS OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY, «comprising
the results of Extensive Original Surveys and Explorations:» by E.
G. SQUIER and E. H. DAVIS.” The extent of these investigations, and
their general character, are sufficiently indicated in the prefatory
remarks to the volume.
With high consideration, we are truly yours,
E. G. SQUIER,
“JOSEPH HENRY, Esq., Secretary Smithsonian Institution.
E. H. DAVIS.”
* * * * *
«Princeton», June 2, 1847.
“DEAR SIR:—I am authorized by the Regents of the Smithsonian
Institution, to publish, in the numbers of the ‘«Smithsonian
Contributions to Knowledge»,’ any memoir which may be presented
for this purpose, provided, that, on a careful examination by a
commission of competent judges, the memoir shall be found to be
a new and interesting addition to knowledge, resting on original
research. The accompanying memoir, entitled ‘ANCIENT MONUMENTS
OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY,’ etc. etc., having been presented for
publication, I beg leave to refer the same, through you, to the
American Ethnological Society, with the request that a committee of
the members may be appointed to examine and report on the character
of the work, with reference to the particulars above mentioned.
If the report of the committee be favorable, the memoir, without
further consideration, will be accepted for publication; full
confidence being placed in the ability of the committee to judge of
the article, and in their caution in making up their opinion.
“I have the honor to be, very respectfully,
“Your ob’t servant, JOSEPH HENRY,
“Secretary Smithsonian Inst.
“Hon. ALBERT GALLATIN, President American Ethnological Society.”
* * * * *
“«New York», June 12, 1847.
“DEAR SIR:—I have the honor to enclose a copy of the proceedings and
resolutions of the New York Ethnological Society, upon the MS. work
on American Antiquities, by Messrs. E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis,
submitted with your letter of the 2d instant.
“I approve entirely of the resolutions and recommendations of the
Society. The publication of Mr. C. Atwater, in the first volume of
the Transactions of the American Antiquarian Society of Worcester,
which appeared twenty years ago, is as yet, so far as I know, the
only general account of the antiquarian remains of the West, which
is entitled to any credit. Yet, many mistakes have been discovered
in it, and it is very incomplete, and in no degree to be compared to
the extensive researches of the gentlemen above mentioned. What has
particularly recommended their labors to me is their love of truth.
“Such are the combined effects of the fondness for the marvellous,
of the illusions of the imagination, of credulity, thirst of
notoriety and lack of discrimination, that, in many specific
statements, and in almost all the general accounts of our Western
antiquities, which I have seen, the most vague and fabulous reports
(independent of most groundless theories), and even flagrant
impositions, are so mixed with true accounts, as to render it
almost impossible, even for the American reader, to make the proper
discrimination, or arrive at a correct estimate of their extent or
character.
“Whatever may be the intrinsic value of the remains of former times
which are found in the United States, it is necessary that they
should at least be correctly described, and that existing gross
errors should be corrected; and I repeat my conviction that, though
ardent, Messrs. Squier and Davis are animated by that thorough love
of truth, which renders their researches worthy of entire confidence.
“Late Ethnological researches have thrown such light on the History
of Man, that it is unnecessary to dwell on their general utility.
With respect to those which relate to the Indians of the United
States, I am ready to acknowledge, the field is comparatively
barren, and the results hitherto attained neither satisfactory nor
refreshing. Still, with proper caution, important information may
be acquired, on what man, insulated, and without intercourse with
other nations, can, by his solitary efforts, accomplish. In order,
however, to attain these results, considerations, foreign to the
immediate object of this letter, are required, which may hereafter
be made the subject of another communication.
“I have the honor to be, &c.
“ALBERT GALLATIN.
“Professor J. HENRY, Secretary Smithsonian Institution.”
* * * * *
“At a regular meeting of the American Ethnological Society, held
at the house of Hon. ALBERT GALLATIN, on the evening of the 4th
of June, the President laid before the members a communication
from Professor J. HENRY, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution;
transmitting for the examination and opinion of the Society, a MS.
work on the Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. On motion,
the letter and accompanying MS. were referred to a committee,
consisting of EDWARD ROBINSON, D.D., JOHN R. BARTLETT, Professor
W. W. TURNER, SAMUEL G. MORTON, M.D., and Hon. GEORGE P. MARSH, to
report upon the same. At a subsequent meeting of this Society, the
committee submitted the following Report and Resolutions, which were
unanimously accepted and adopted:—
“REPORT.
“The Committee of the American Ethnological Society, to which was
referred the communication of the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution, transmitting a manuscript work entitled ‘ANCIENT
MONUMENTS OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY; «comprising the Results of
Extensive Original Surveys and Explorations», by E. G. SQUIER and E.
H. DAVIS,’ beg leave to report that—
“They have examined the work in question, and regard it not only as
a new and interesting, but an eminently valuable addition to our
stock of knowledge on a subject little understood, but in which is
felt a deep and constantly increasing interest, both in our country
and abroad. In their judgment the work is worthy of the subject,
and highly creditable to the authors. Its chief features are, a
scientific arrangement, simplicity and directness of statement, and
legitimate deduction of facts, while there is no attempt at mere
speculation or theory. If published, it will be an enduring monument
to connect the names of the investigators in honorable and lasting
remembrance with the great subject of American Archæology.
“The existence and progress of these investigations were made known
to the Society by correspondence, early in the year 1846; and in
June of that year, specimens of the relics recovered, accompanied by
numerous maps and plans of ancient Earthworks and Sectional Views
of the Mounds from which the remains were taken, were laid before
the Society by Mr. Squier in person. These excited deep interest
and surprise in all who saw them; and the Society immediately
took measures to encourage further investigation, and secure the
publication, under its own auspices, of the important results
already obtained. A few months later, the chairman of the present
committee, being in Ohio, was enabled, through the kindness of
Messrs. Squier and Davis, to visit several of the more important
monuments in the immediate vicinity of Chillicothe; and among these
‘Mound City,’ so called, from which very many of the minor relics
and specimens were procured. He was struck with the accuracy of the
plans and drawings as well as of the accounts which had been laid
before the Society; and bears full testimony to the fidelity and
integrity with which the process of investigation and delineation
has been conducted.
“During the last and present season the researches of these
gentlemen have been actively prosecuted and widely extended, and
the above work, largely illustrated, comprising the results,
has been prepared. These results are so numerous and important,
and consequently such is the extent and magnitude of the work
itself, as to put its publication beyond any means which the
Society can command. Under these circumstances, your Committee
learn with pleasure that preliminary arrangements have been made
for its publication by the Smithsonian Institution, among its
‘Contributions to Knowledge.’ It can only be a matter of sincere
gratification to this Society, to see that which it cannot itself
accomplish for the history and antiquities of our country, taken
up and carried out under such favorable auspices; and they cannot
but rejoice that an opportunity is thus afforded to that noble
institution of opening its high career, by fostering scientific
research into the interesting problems connected with the
Ante-Columbian history and Ancient Monuments of our own country.
“In view of these facts, your Committee would recommend the adoption
of the following resolutions by the Society:—
“Resolved, That this Society regard the researches of Messrs. Squier
and Davis, as of very great importance in American Archæology, and
as casting much light upon our Aboriginal Antiquities, especially
upon the character and habits of the earliest races which had their
seat in the Mississippi Valley.
“Resolved, That we regard the work prepared upon this subject, as
one of great general interest, and as worthy to be adopted for
publication by the Smithsonian Institution, both as resting on
original researches, and as affording remarkable illustrations of
the history of the American Continent.
“Your Committee would also append to this Report, the accompanying
letters from Samuel G. Morton, M.D., of Philadelphia, and Hon.
George P. Marsh, of Vermont, both members of this Society, and joint
members of this Committee.
“All of which is respectfully submitted.
«Committee.»
EDWARD ROBINSON,
JOHN R. BARTLETT,
W. W. TURNER,
“«New York», June, 1847.”
* * * * *
“«New- York.» June 9th, 1847.
“I have examined, with much interest and attention, the manuscripts,
drawings, and ancient remains in the possession of Mr. E. G. Squier,
and am happy to say that my previous impressions concerning the value
of the researches of that gentleman and his associate, are fully
confirmed. It is fortunate for the cause of American Archæology, that
the systematic attempt at its elucidation should have been conceived
and executed in so truly philosophical a spirit; and, rich as this
age already is in antiquarian lore, it has, I think, received few
more important contributions than that which the enlightened and
generous zeal of these two private gentlemen is about to confer
upon it. The Smithsonian Collection could not begin with a more
appropriate or creditable essay; and I hope that every facility may
be afforded to the investigators, in bringing before the public the
results of their honorable labors, in as suitable a form and with as
little delay as possible.
(Signed) GEO. P. MARSH.”
* * * * *
“«Philadelphia», June 8, 1847
“As a Member of the Committee of the American Ethnological Society,
appointed to report on the Memoir on American Archæology, by Messrs.
E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, I have great pleasure in saying, that
after a careful and repeated inspection of the materials in the
hands of those gentlemen, I am convinced they constitute by far the
most important contribution to the Archæology of the United States,
that has ever been offered to the public. The number and accuracy of
their plans, sketches, &c., have both interested and surprised me;
and it is gratifying to learn that the preliminary arrangements have
been made for their publication under the honorable auspices of the
Smithsonian Institution.
(Signed) “«Samuel George Morton.»”
To ensure accuracy in the present volume, the plates and engravings
have been prepared under the supervision of Mr. E. G. SQUIER, who has
also had the general direction of the press. The sheets as they were
printed, were also examined by Professor W. W. TURNER, of New York,
and Mr. F. A. TEALL. The wood engravings were executed by Messrs. ORR
& RICHARDSON, and Mr. J. W. ORR, from drawings on the blocks, chiefly
by WM. WADE and Mr. HAMILTON BROWN. The Lithographic engraving was
executed by Messrs. SARONY & MAJOR, and the printing by Mr. E. O.
JENKINS.
OFFICERS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
«Ex officio» PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE INSTITUTION.
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
«Ex officio» SECOND PRESIDING OFFICER.
GEORGE M. DALLAS,
CHANCELLOR OF THE INSTITUTION.
JOSEPH HENRY,
SECRETARY OF THE INSTITUTION.
CHARLES C. JEWETT,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ACTING AS LIBRARIAN.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
WILLIAM W. SEATON,
ALEXANDER D. BACHE,
JAMES A. PEARCE.
REGENTS.
GEORGE M. DALLAS, «Vice President of the United States».
ROGER B. TANEY, «Chief Justice of the United States».
WILLIAM W. SEATON, «Mayor of the City of Washington».
JAMES A. PEARCE, «Member of the Senate of the United States».
SIDNEY BREESE, «Member of the Senate of the United States».
JEFFERSON DAVIS, «Member of the Senate of the United States».
HENRY W. HILLIARD, «Member of the House of Representatives».
GEORGE P. MARSH, «Member of the House of Representatives».
ROBERT MCCLELLAND, «Member of the House of Representatives».
RUFUS CHOATE, «Citizen of Massachusetts».
GIDEON HAWLEY, «Citizen of New York».
WILLIAM C. PRESTON, «Citizen of South Carolina».
RICHARD RUSH, «Citizen of Pennsylvania».
ALEXANDER D. BACHE, «Mem. of Nat. Inst., Washington».
JOSEPH G. TOTTEN, «Mem. of Nat. Inst., Washington».
MEMBERS EX OFFICIO OF THE INSTITUTION.
JAMES K. POLK, «President of the United States».
GEORGE M. DALLAS, «Vice President of the United States».
JAMES BUCHANAN, «Secretary of State of the United States».
ROBERT J. WALKER, «Secretary of the Treasury of the United States».
WILLIAM L. MARCY, «Secretary of War of the United States».
JOHN Y. MASON, «Secretary of the Navy of the United States».
CAVE JOHNSON, «Post Master General of the United States».
ISAAC TOUCEY, «Attorney General of the United States».
ROGER B. TANEY, «Chief Justice of the United States».
EDMUND BURKE, «Commissioner of Patents of the United States».
WILLIAM W. SEATON, «Mayor of the City of Washington».
HONORARY MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTION.
[No Honorary Members have yet been elected.]
ANCIENT MONUMENTS OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY:
COMPRISING THE RESULTS OF
EXTENSIVE ORIGINAL SURVEYS AND EXPLORATIONS.
BY
E. G. SQUIER, A.M., AND E. H. DAVIS, M.D.
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.
JUNE 1847.
TO
HON. ALBERT GALLATIN,
STATESMAN AND PHILOSOPHER,
IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
HIS PATRIOTIC SERVICES AND SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS,
This work is respectfully
DEDICATED.
CONTENTS.
CONTENTS, … xviii
LIST OF PLATES, … xx
LIST OF WOOD ENGRAVINGS, … xv
CHAPTER I.—GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE ANCIENT MONUMENTS OF THE
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY, … 1–8
CHAPTER II.—EARTHWORKS; ENCLOSURES; WORKS OF DEFENCE, … 8–47
CHAPTER III.—SACRED ENCLOSURES, … 47–104
CHAPTER IV.—MONUMENTS OF THE SOUTHERN STATES, … 104–124
CHAPTER V.—MONUMENTS OF THE NORTH-WEST, … 124–139
CHAPTER VI.—EARTHWORKS; THE MOUNDS; MOUNDS OF SACRIFICE, … 139–161
CHAPTER VII.—MOUNDS OF SEPULTURE, … 161–173
CHAPTER VIII.—TEMPLE MOUNDS, … 173–178
CHAPTER IX.—ANOMALOUS MOUNDS; MOUNDS OF OBSERVATION; STONE HEAPS, …
178–186
CHAPTER X.—REMAINS OF ART FOUND IN THE MOUNDS; POTTERY AND ARTICLES OF
CLAY, … 186–196
CHAPTER XI.—IMPLEMENTS OF METAL, … 196–204
CHAPTER XII.—ORNAMENTS OF METAL, … 204–210
CHAPTER XIII.—IMPLEMENTS OF STONE, ETC., … 210–231
CHAPTER XIV.—ORNAMENTS OF STONE, BONE, ETC., … 231–242
CHAPTER XV.—SCULPTURES FROM THE MOUNDS, … 242–278
CHAPTER XVI.—METALS FOSSILS, MINERALS, ETC., OF THE MOUNDS, … 279–288
CHAPTER XVII.—CRANIA FROM THE MOUNDS, … 288–293
CHAPTER XVIII.—SCULPTURED OR INSCRIBED ROCKS, … 293–301
CHAPTER XIX.—CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS, … 301–306 #/
LIST OF PLATES.
TITLES Facing page
I. View of ancient works at Marietta, ----
II. Map of a section of 12 miles of Scioto valley, 3
III. Map of a section of 6 miles of Miami valley, 4
No. 2. Map of 6 miles of Paint creek valley, 4
IV. Stone work near Bourneville, Ross co., Ohio, 11
V. Fort Hill, Highland county, Ohio, 14
VI. Fortified Hill, Butler county, Ohio, 16
VII. Fort Ancient, Warren county, Ohio, 18
VIII. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 21
No. 2. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 22
No. 3. Ancient work near Piqua, Miami co., Ohio, 23
No. 4. Ancient work near Dayton, Montgomery county, Ohio, 23
IX. Fortified Hill near Granville, Licking co., Ohio, 24
No. 2. Fortified Hill at the mouth of Great Miami river, 25
No. 3. Ancient work near Lexington, Kentucky, 26
X. Ancient work, Ross county, Ohio, 26
XI. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 29
No. 2. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 29
No. 3. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 30
XII. Stone work on Duck river, Tennessee, 31
No. 2. Ancient work, Preble county, Ohio, 33
No. 3. Ancient work, Greene county, Ohio, 33
No. 4. Ancient work, Ross county, Ohio, 34
XIII. Ancient work, Bourbon county, Kentucky, 35
No. 2. Colerain works, Butler county, Ohio, 35
XIV. Ancient work, Pickaway county, Ohio, 36
No. 2. Ancient Work, Franklin county, Ohio, 36
No. 3. Ancient work, Fayette county, Kentucky, 36
No. 4. Ancient work, Fayette county, Kentucky, 36
XV. Ancient work, Huron county, Ohio, 37
No. 2. Ancient work, Ashtabula county, Ohio, 38
No. 3. Ancient work, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 38
No. 4. Ancient work, Lorain county, Ohio, 39
No. 5. Ancient work, Lorain county, Ohio, 39
No. 6. Ancient work, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 40
No. 7. Ancient work Cuyahoga county Ohio 40
No. 8. Ancient work Wood county Ohio 40
XVI. High Bank works Ross county Ohio 50
XVII. Hopeton works Ross county Ohio 51
XVIII. Cedar Bank works Ross county Ohio 52
XIX. Mound City Ross county Ohio 54
XX. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 56
XXI. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 57
No. 2. Ancient work Ross county, Ohio 57
No. 3. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 58
No. 4. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 59
XXII. Junction Group Ross county Ohio 60
No. 2. Blackwater Group Ross county, Ohio 61
XXIII. Dunlap’s works Ross county Ohio 63
No. 2. Ancient work Athens county Ohio 64
XXIV. Ancient work Pike county Ohio 66
XXV. Newark works Licking county Ohio, 67
XXVI. Marietta works Washington county Ohio 73
XXVII. Portsmouth works, Scioto county Ohio 77
XXVIII. Portsmouth works Group A 78
No. 2. Portsmouth works Group B 80
No. 3. Portsmouth works Group C 81
XXIX. Ancient works Montgomery county, Ohio 82
No. 2. Ancient works, Scioto county, Ohio, 83
No. 3. Ancient works Franklin county, Ohio, 84
XXX. Ancient works, Butler county Ohio 85
No. 2. Ancient works Butler county Ohio 85
No. 3. Ancient works Ross county Ohio 86
No. 4. Stone work Ross county, Ohio 87
XXXI. Graded way, Pike county, Ohio, 88
No. 2. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 90
No. 3. Ancient work Butler county Ohio 90
No. 4. Ancient work Butler county Ohio, 90
XXXII. Ancient work, Butler county Ohio 91
No. 2. Ancient work Washington county Ohio 92
No. 3. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 92
No. 4. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 92
No. 5. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 92
No. 6. Ancient work Montgomery co Kentucky, 93
XXXIII. Ancient work Montgomery co Kentucky, 93
No. 2. Ancient work Randolph county, Indiana 94
XXXIV. Ancient work, Clermont county, Ohio, 94
No. 2. Ancient work Clermont county, Ohio 95
No. 3. Ancient work, Greene county Ohio 95
No. 4. Ancient work Greene county, Ohio 95
XXXV. Great Serpent, Adams county Ohio 96
XXXVI. The Cross Pickaway county, Ohio 97
No. 2. The Alligator, Licking county Ohio 98
No. 3. Ancient work, Fairfield county Ohio 100
No. 4. Map of section of Newark valley, 101
XXXVII. Ancient work Wateree District S. C. 105
XXXVIII. Ancient works on Etowah river, Alabama 108
---- Ancient works on Tennessee river, Alabama 109
No. 2. Ancient works, Chickasaw surveys, Miss. 110
No. 3. Ancient works, Lafayette county, Miss. 111
No. 4. Ancient works, Prairie Jefferson, Louisiana. 113
XXXIX. Ancient work, Madison parish, Louisiana. 115
Ancient work, Bolivar county, Mississippi. 116
XL. Ancient works, Dade county, Wisconsin. 126
XLI. Ancient works, Dade county, Wisconsin. 127
No. 2. Ancient works, Dade county, Wisconsin. 127
XLII. Ancient works, Dade county, Wisconsin. 128
No. 2. Ancient works, Richland county, Wisconsin. 128
XLIII. Ancient works, Grant county, Wisconsin. 129
Nos. 2 to 13, various localities. 130
XLIV. Ancient work on Rock river, Wisconsin. 131
Nos. 2 to 8, various localities. 132
XLV. View of great mound at Marietta. 138
XLVI. Pottery from the mounds. 139
XLVII. Crania from the mounds. 288
XLVIII. Crania from the mounds. 288
LITHOGRAPHERS.—Sarony & Major, 117 Fulton street, New York.
WOOD ENGRAVERS.—Orr & Richardson, 90 Fulton street, New York.
PRINTER.—Edward O. Jenkins, 114 Nassau street, New York.
PLATES SUPPLEMENTAL DATA.
“Date of
survey.” Surveyors Delineators.
I. ---- Charles Sullivan,
II. 1847 E. G. Squier,
III. 1840 James McBride,
No. 2. 1847 E. G. Squier,
IV. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis. E. G. Squier,
V. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis. E. G. Squier,
VI. 1836 James McBride. James McBride.
VII. 1842 John Locke, M.D. John Locke.
VIII. 1840 James McBride and J. W. Erwin, James McBride,
No. 2. 1840 James McBride J. W. Erwin, James McBride,
No. 3. 1846 James McBride, James McBride,
No. 4. 1846 James McBride and Sam. Forrer, James McBride,
IX. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, E. G. Squier.
No. 2. ----
No. 3. 1818 C. S. Rafinesque, C. S. Rafinesque.
X. 1845 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, E. G. Squier,
XI. 1836 James McBride and J. W. Erwin, J. W. Erwin,
No. 2. 1832 James McBride, James McBride.
No. 3. 1840 James McBride and J. W. Erwin, James McBride,
XII. ---- C. S. Rafinesque, C. S. Rafinesque,
No. 2. 1846 James McBride. James McBride,
No. 3. 1846 S. T. Oweins and L. K. Dille, S. T. Oweins,
No. 4. 1846 P. N. White, P. N. White,
XIII. 1820 C. S. Rafinesque, C. S. Rafinesque,
No. 2. 1836 James McBride and J. W. Erwin, James McBride,
XIV. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey,
No. 2. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey,
No. 3. 1820 C. S. Rafinesque. C. S. Rafinesque,
No. 4. 1820 C. S. Rafinesque. C. S. Rafinesque.
XV. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey,
No. 2. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey,
No. 3. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey,
No. 4. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey,
No. 5. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey,
No. 6. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey,
No. 7. ---- Charles Whittlesey Charles Whittlesey
No. 8. ---- Charles Whittlesey Charles Whittlesey
XVI. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
XVII. 1845 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
XVIII. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
XIX. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
XX. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
XXI. 1847 E. G. Squier E. G. Squier
No. 2. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
No. 3. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
No. 4. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
XXII. 1845 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
No. 2. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
XXIII. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
No. 2. 1836 S. P. Hildreth S. P. Hildreth,
XXIV. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier,
XXV. 1836 C Whittlesey E. G. S. and E. H. D.
XXVI. 1837 C Whittlesey and E. G. Squier Charles Whittlesey,
XXVII. 1847 E. G. Squier,
XXVIII. 1846 E. G. Squier and D Morton E. G. Squier,
No. 2. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, E. G. Squier,
No. 3. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, E. G. Squier,
XXIX. ---- James McBride James McBride,
No. 2. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey,
No. 3. 1823 Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey,
XXX. 1840 James McBride, James McBride,
No. 2. 1847 James McBride and J. W. Erwin, James McBride,
No. 3. 1845 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier,
No. 4. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier,
XXXI. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier,
No. 2. ---- James McBride and J. W. Erwin J. W. Erwin
No. 3. ---- James McBride and J. W. Erwin J. W. Erwin
No. 4. 1842 James McBride and J. W. Erwin James McBride
XXXII. ---- James McBride and J. W. Erwin James McBride
No. 2. 1846
No. 3. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier,
No. 4. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier,
No. 5. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier,
No. 6. 1818 C. S. Rafinesque C. S. Rafinesque,
XXXIII. 1818 C. S. Rafinesque C. S. Rafinesque,
No. 2. 1847 James McBride, James McBride,
XXXIV. 1847 E. H. Davis, E. H. Davis,
No. 2. ---- Gen Lytle, Gen Lytle,
No. 3. 1846 S. Kyle and L. K. Dillo
No. 4. 1846 S. Kyle and L. K. Dillo
XXXV. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
XXXVI. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
No. 2. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
No. 3. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier
No. 4. 1847 E. G. Squier
XXXVII. ---- William Blanding William Blanding
XXXVIII. ---- C. S. Rafinesque. C. S. Rafinesque.
---- ----
No. 2. 1846 R. Morris. R. Morris.
No. 3. 1846 R. Morris. R. Morris.
No. 4. ---- C. G. Forshey. C. G. Forshey.
XXXIX. ---- James Hough. James Hough.
---- James Hough. James Hough.
XL. ---- R. C. Taylor. R. C. Taylor.
XLI. ---- R. C. Taylor and John Locke.
No. 2. ---- John Locke. John Locke.
XLII. ---- John Locke. John Locke.
No. 2. ---- S. Taylor. S. Taylor.
XLIII. ---- S. Taylor. S. Taylor.
---- S. Taylor. S. Taylor.
XLIV. ----
---- S. Taylor. S. Taylor.
XLV. 1847 C. Sullivan.
XLVI. ---- E. G. Squier.
XLVII. ---- J. French.
XLVIII. ---- J. French.
LIST OF WOOD ENGRAVINGS.
FIG. PAGE.
1. View of Great Mound at Miamisburgh, Ohio, 3
2. Section, exhibiting Septaria, 13
3. Group of Mounds within an enclosure, 27
4. Plan of Ancient Work, Lorain county, Ohio, 39
5. Plan of Ancient Work, Lorain county, Ohio, 39
6. Plan of Ancient Work, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 40
7. Plan of Ancient Work, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 40
8. Plan of Ancient Work, Wood county, Ohio, 40
9. Circle and truncated Pyramid, 53
10. Plan of Ancient Work, at Circleville, Ohio, 60
11. Plan of Sacred Enclosure, Pike county, Ohio, 66
12. Bird-shaped Mound, Newark, Ohio, 68
13. View of Gateway of Octagon, Newark, Ohio, 69
14. Truncated Mound covering gateway, 69
15. Crown-work of Circle, 69
16. View of “Observatory” at Newark, 70
17. “Elevated Squares” at Marietta, Ohio, 74
18. Plan of Ancient Work, Parkersburgh, Virginia, 77
19. Circle and Mound, Greenup county, Kentucky, 82
20. Graded Way, Piketon, Ohio, 88
21. Plan of Ancient Work in Alabama, 109
22. Plan of Ancient Work in Bolivar county, Mississippi, 116
23. Public Square of the Muscogulges, 121
24. Mound at Mount Royal, Florida, 122
25. Plan of Mound and Parallels, 122
26. Plan of Works in Wisconsin, 133
27. Group illustrating the forms of the Mounds, 139
28. Hill Mounds, 141
29. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 144
30. Structure of Mounds, 144
31. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 147
32. Plan of Altar, 147
33. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 148
34. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 149
35. Section of Altar, 150
36. Section of Altar, 150
37. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 152
38. Plan of Altar, 152
39. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 153
40. Position of recent deposits, 153
41. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 154
42. Plan of Excavation, etc. 154
43. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 155
44. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 156
45. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 156
46. Section of a Stratified Mound, 158
47. Section of a Mound, 159
48. View of Elliptical Mound, 160
49. Group of Sepulchral Mounds, 161
50. Section of Sepulchral Mound, 162
51. Plan of Sepulchral Chamber, 162
52. Section of Sepulchral Mound, 164
53. Position of Skeleton, 164
54. Section of Sepulchral Mound, 165
55. Section of Grave creek Mound, 169
56. View of Grave creek Mound, 169
57. Plans of groups of Mounds, 170
58. Mounds of Oregon, 171
59. Terraced Mound, 173
60. Plan of Cahokia Mound, 174
61. Lozenge-shaped Mound, 175
62. Section of a truncated Mound, 176
63. Plan of an Ancient octagonal Terrace, 176
64. Plan of an Ancient rectangular Terrace, 176
65. Plan of Temple Mound with graded ascent, 177
66. Group of Sepulchral Mounds, 177
67. Plan and Section of Anomalous Mound, 178
68. Ancient Pipe from the Mounds, 179
69. Section of Anomalous Mound, 180
70. Conical Mound, 185
71. Ancient Pottery, three figures, 191
72. Ancient Pottery, three figures, 192
73. Ancient Earthen Vessel, 192
74. Ancient Earthen Vessel, 192
75. Ancient Terra Cotta, 193
76. Terra Cotta from the Mounds, 194
77. Terra Cotta from the Mounds, 194
78. Terra Cotta from the Mounds, 194
79. Terra Cotta from the Mounds, 194
80. Terra Cotta from the Mounds, 194
81. Copper Axe from the Mounds, 197
82. Earthen Pipes, two figures, 197
83. Adjustment of Ancient Axes, 198
84. Copper Axe from the Mounds, 199
85. Copper Gravers from the Mounds, five figures, 200
86. Copper Spear-head and Knife, 201
87. Ancient Copper Implements, five figures, 201
88. Copper Bracelets from the Mounds, 204
89. Copper Gorgets from the Mounds, 205
90. Copper Ornament from the Mounds, 206
91. Copper Ornament from the Mounds, 206
92. Ancient Work-block of stone, 206
93. Copper Beads from the Mounds, 207
94. Copper Fibulæ from the Mounds, 207
95. Copper Bands, etc., 207
96. Silver Beads from the Mounds, 207
97. Silver Cross, 208
98. An article of Lead, 209
99. Flint Spear-heads, three figures, 211
100. Quartz Spear-head, 211
101. Ancient Mexican «mahquahuitl», 211
102. Sword of Pacific Islanders, 211
103. Arrow-heads, nine figures, 212
104. Hornstone Disks, three figures, 214
105. Flint Knives, three figures, 215
106. Hematite Cutting Implements, 215
107. Slate Cutting Implements, 216
108. Ancient Stone Axe, 216
109. Ancient Stone Axe, four figures, 217
110. Stone Axe from Mounds, 217
111. Stone Hand-axe, 218
112. Ancient Stone-axe, four figures, 218
113. Ancient Scandinavian Axes, two figures, 218
114. Ancient ornamented Axes, six figures, 218
115. Ancient ornamented Axe, 219
116. Ancient Club-head of Stone, 219
117. Ancient Club-head of Stone, 219
118. Pestles of Stone, two figures, 220
119. Implements of Bone, three figures. 220
120. Ancient Bone Awls, 220
121. Discoidal Stones, six figures, 221
122. Tubes of Stone, two figures, 224
123. Ornamented Stone Tube, 225
124. Stone Tube, 226
125. Stone Tubes, 227
126. Ancient Mound Pipe, 227
127. Granite Pipe, 228
128. Modern Indian Pipes, 230
129. Beads of Shell, 232
130. Beads of Shell, three figures, 233
131. Pendants, eight figures, 234
132. Pendants of Stone, 235
133. Stone Gorgets, two figures, 236
134. Stone Gorget, 237
135. Stone Gorget, 237
136. Stone Gorgets, seventeen figures, 237
137. Section of Gorget, 238
138. Stone Ornaments, 239
139. Prismatic Tube, 240
140. Articles of Stone, 240
141. Mica Ornaments, 240
142. Sculptured head from the Mounds, two views, 244
143. Sculptured head from the Mounds, two views, 244
144. Sculptured head from the Mounds, two views, 245
145. Sculptured head from the Mounds, two views, 245
146. Ancient Sculpture, 247
147. Sculptured Pipe, 247
148. Sculptured Pipe, 248
149. Sculptured Pipe, 249
150. Mask of Stone, 250
151. Mask of Stone, 251
152. Mask of Stone, 251
153. Sculpture of the Manitus, 251
154. Sculpture of the Manitus, 252
155. Sculpture of the Beaver, 256
156. Sculpture of the Otter, 256
157. Sculpture of the Otter, 256
158. Sculpture of the Panther, 256
159. Sculpture of the Panther, 256
160. Sculpture of the Panther, 256
161. Sculptured head of Elk, 257
162. Sculptured Head, 258
163. Sculptured Head, 258
164. Sculpture of tufted Heron, 259
165. Sculpture of Eagle, 259
166. Sculpture of Hawk, 261
167. Sculpture of Swallow, 261
168. Sculpture of Summer Duck, 261
169. Sculpture of Toucan? 261
170. Sculpture of Grouse, 261
171. Sculpture of Turkey Buzzard? 261
172. Sculpture of Paroquet, 263
173. Sculpture of Bird 263
174. Sculpture of Bird 263
175. Sculpture of Bird 263
176. Sculpture of Bird 263
177. Sculpture of Bird 264
178. Sculpture of Toucan, 266
179. Sculpture of unknown Bird, 267
180. Heads of Eagles, 267
181. Head of Raven? 267
182. Sculpture of unknown Bird, 267
183. Sculpture of Toad, 269
184. Sculpture of Toad, 269
185. Sculpture of Frog, 269
186. Sculpture of Rattlesnake, 269
187. Sculptured head of Goose, 269
188. Sculptured Death’s Head, 269
189. Sculptured Head of Bear? 271
190. Sculptured Head of Wolf? 271
191. Sculptured Head of unknown animal, 271
192. Sculptured Head of unknown animal, 271
193. Sculptured Head of unknown animal, 271
194. Front View of Tablet found at Cincinnati, 275
195. Reverse of same, 275
196. Carving of Rattlesnake, coiled, 276
197. Shark’s Teeth, fossil, 282
198. Marine Shell, pyrula perversa, 283
199. Section of Hill Mound, 289
200. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 294
201. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 295
202. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 295
203. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 296
204. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 296
205. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 297
206. Inscribed Rock on Ohio river, 298
207. Site of Sculptured Rocks of the Guyandotte 299
PREFACE.
The fact of the existence, within the valley of the Mississippi river
and its tributaries, of many ancient monuments of human labor and
skill, seems to have escaped the notice of the adventurers who first
made known to the world the extent and fertility of that vast region.
Except some incidental allusions by La Vega, and the Portuguese
chronicler of De Soto’s unfortunate expedition, to structures
bearing some analogy to those of the West, (and which seem to have
been occupied, if they were not built, by the Indians of Florida,)
we find no mention made of these monuments by any of the earlier
explorers. No sooner, however, had trade been opened with the Indians
beyond the Alleghanies, and the valley of the Mississippi begun to
attract the attention of the rival nations that laid claim to this
division of the continent, than the less prominent features of the
country became subjects of observation and remark. Then, for the
first time, we find these ancient monuments distinctly alluded to.
It was not however until some time afterwards, when settlements had
been established at various prominent points within the valley, and
the tide of emigration began to flow thitherward, that any special
attention was directed to them. Carver in 1776, and Hearte and others
in 1791, were among the earliest of these observers at the North.
Their accounts, however, served scarcely to make known the existence
of these remains, and failed to convey any clear idea of their
extent or character. But as the country became better known and more
densely populated, notices of their existence became more numerous,
and some detailed accounts of particular groups were presented to
the world, in the form of incidental notices in books of travel and
local gazetteers, or in contributions to the pages of periodicals,
and to the transactions of learned societies. HARRIS, in his “«Tour
into the Territory north-west of the Ohio»,” published in 1805,
noticed at considerable length the ancient remains at Marietta on
the Ohio river; and H. H. BRACKENRIDGE, one of the most accurate
of the early explorers of the West, in his “«Views of Louisiana»,”
published in 1814, and in a paper in the first volume of the new
series of the Transactions of the “American Philosophical Society,”
presented accounts of ancient remains at various points, together
with some general remarks upon our antiquities, distinguished for
their comprehensiveness and sound philosophical spirit. Bishop
MADISON of Virginia, in 1803, addressed to Dr. Barton, then Vice
President of the American Philosophical Society, a communication of
considerable length “upon the supposed fortifications of the western
country,” which was published in the sixth volume of the old series
of the Transactions of that institution. It contains some interesting
facts relative to the ancient remains found within the valley of
the great Kenhawa river, in Virginia, and is principally devoted
to combating the popular notion that «all» the ancient earthworks
were of defensive origin. BARTRAM, in his animated Journal of
Travels in Florida, published in 1779, makes frequent mention of the
ancient remains which fell under his notice. His accounts have been
amply confirmed by later observations, and they may be regarded as
presenting a very accurate view of their general character. Previous
to Bartram’s expedition, Adair, in his “Account of the American
Indians,” published in 1775, mentioned the existence of these
remains, but gave no details respecting them.
In 1817, DE WITT CLINTON, whose active mind neglected no department
of inquiry, read a paper before the “Literary and Philosophical
Society of New York,” (an institution no longer existing,) upon the
“Antiquities of the western part of New York,” which was subsequently
published in a pamphlet form. It gave a connected view of these
antiquities so far as then known, and indicated their character with
such clearness, as to identify them at once as belonging to that
imposing class of remains found in the valley of the Mississippi.
MCCAULEY, in his “«History of New York»,” published at a later
period, (1829,) added considerably to the number of facts presented
by Mr. CLINTON.
Among the earliest and more important contributions to the general
stock of information respecting the western monuments, is the
chapter entitled “Antiquities,” contained in “«The Natural and
Statistical View of Cincinnati and the Miami country»,” by DANIEL
DRAKE, M.D., published in 1815. It not only embraces many facts,
but is free from the tendency towards exaggeration which has been
the prevailing fault of most that has been written upon the subject
of American Antiquities. In connection with what was published by
Mr. BRACKENRIDGE, and at a subsequent date by the late President
HARRISON, (Address before the Historical Society of Ohio, 1832,) it
presents a better view of the ancient remains of the region north of
the Ohio, than can be obtained from any other source,—Mr. ATWATER’S
Memoir, in the Transactions of the American Antiquarian Society,
alone excepted.
It would be impossible, as it is unnecessary, particularly to
point out all that has been published upon this subject, chiefly
consisting, as it does, of detached and incidental observations.
In addition to the several authorities above named, we may mention
LEWIS and CLARKE, Major LONG, Dr. EDWIN JAMES, HENRY R. SCHOOLCRAFT,
TIMOTHY FLINT, HUGH WILLIAMSON, Dr. BARTON, Rev. JOSEPH DODDRIDGE,
President JEFFERSON, Dr. LEWIS C. BECK, Dr. S. P. HILDRETH, KEATING,
HAYWOOD, HOWE, NUTTALL, LATROBE, ROCHEFAUCAULT, SHORT, COLLINS,
DICKESON, BROWN, FEATHERSTONHAUGH, Professors GERARD TROOST, JOHN
LOCKE, and C. G. FORSHEY, R. C. and S. TAYLOR, Prince MAXIMILIAN,
Prof. RAFINESQUE, CHARLES WHITTLESEY, etc., etc., as among those
who have contributed to the general stock of information upon this
subject.
The first attempt towards a general account of the ancient
monuments of the West, was made by Mr. CALEB ATWATER, who deserves
the credit of being the pioneer in this department. His Memoir,
constituting 150 octavo pages, was published in the first volume
of the “Archæologia Americana,” in 1819. It contains plans and
descriptions of a considerable number of ancient works,—embracing the
imposing structures at Marietta, Newark, Portsmouth, Circleville,
etc., etc.,—with accounts of a variety of ancient remains found in
the mounds. It gives a better conception of the number, magnitude,
and more obvious characteristics of the monuments treated of, than
was before possessed, and for a time appeared to have satisfied
public inquiry. It contains many errors, for which however we can
find a ready apology in the unsettled state of the country, and
the attendant difficulties of investigation at the time it was
written,—errors which, under present advantages of research, would be
inexcusable.
The facts presented by the earlier of the authorities above named,
have been collected by various authors, either in support of a
favorite hypothesis, or with a view of conveying to the world some
conception of the antiquities of our country. These compilations,
however, have proved eminently unsatisfactory, not less from the
vague nature of the original accounts, than from the circumstance
that they were in most instances mixed up with the crudest
speculations and the wildest conjectures. Even when this was not
the case, the fact that the original observations were made in a
disconnected and casual manner, served still further to confuse the
mind of the student and render generalization impossible. It was
under an impression of existing deficiencies in these respects,—the
paucity of facts, and the loose manner in which most of them had
been presented,—that the investigations recorded in this memoir
were commenced and prosecuted. At the outset, as indispensable to
independent judgment, all preconceived notions were abandoned,
and the work of research commenced «de novo», as if nothing had
been known or said concerning the remains to which attention was
directed. It was concluded that if these monuments were capable of
reflecting any certain light upon the grand archæological questions
connected with the primitive history of the American Continent, the
origin, migrations and early state of the American race, that then
they should be more carefully and minutely, and above all, more
systematically investigated.
The locality chosen for the commencement of operations, is a section
of the Scioto river and Paint creek valleys, of which the city of
Chillicothe is the centre, and which possesses a deserved celebrity
for its beauty, unexampled fertility, and the great number, size, and
variety of its ancient remains. Situated in the middle of southern
Ohio, and possessing a mild and salubrious climate, this seems to
have been one of the centres of ancient population; and, probably,
no other equal portion of the Mississippi basin furnishes so rich
and interesting a field for the antiquarian. A glance at the “«Map
of a Section of Twelve Miles of the Scioto Valley, with its Ancient
Monuments»,” Plate II, will fully illustrate this remark.
The plan of operations was agreed upon, and the field-work commenced,
early in the spring of 1845. Subsequently, the plan was greatly
extended, and the investigations were carried on, over Ohio and the
adjacent States, with slight interruption, up to the summer of 1847.
The body of this memoir will indicate with sufficient clearness, the
mode in which these investigations were conducted, and the extent to
which they were prosecuted. It is perhaps enough here to say, that
the surveys of ancient works were, for the most part, made by the
authors in person, and that the excavations of mounds, etc., were all
of them conducted under their personal direction and supervision.
Care was exercised to note down, on the spot, every fact which it
was thought might be of value, in the solution of the problems of
the origin and purposes of the remains under notice; and particular
attention was bestowed in observing the dependencies of the position,
structure, and contents of the various works in respect to each other
and the general features of the country. Indeed, no exertion was
spared to ensure entire accuracy, and the compass, line, and rule
were alone relied upon, in all matters where an approximate estimate
might lead to erroneous conclusions.
The ancient enclosures and groups of works personally examined or
surveyed, are upwards of one hundred in number. Some of these had
before been noticed, but most are now for the first time presented
to the world. About two hundred mounds, of all forms and sizes,
and occupying every variety of position, have also been excavated.
Several thousand remains of ancient art were collected in the course
of these investigations, chiefly from the mounds themselves. These
constitute a cabinet, as valuable in its extent, as it is interesting
in the great variety and singular character of the illustrations
which it furnishes of the condition of the minor arts, and the
connections and communications of the people by whom these monuments
were erected.
The prosecution of these researches naturally led to an acquaintance
and correspondence with a large number of gentlemen in various
parts of the Union, who felt interested in them, or who had devoted
attention to the same subject. All of these have kindly rendered
their services in cases where they could prove of value, or have
freely contributed the results of their own labors to complete the
design of the authors, in presenting as full and comprehensive a view
of the ancient monuments of our country, as private means and limited
facilities would allow.
First among these, it will not be invidious to name JAMES MCBRIDE,
Esq., of Hamilton, Butler county, Ohio, whose valuable contributions
constitute an important feature in the memoir herewith presented.
This gentleman, residing for a long time in the centre of the fertile
valley of the Great Miami river, amidst the numerous evidences of
ancient population with which that valley abounds, has devoted
a large proportion of his time to their attentive examination.
Personally, and with the assistance of J. W. ERWIN, Esq., resident
engineer on the Miami canal, he has made numerous surveys of ancient
enclosures and groups of works in that valley, distinguished for
their minute fidelity. He also, without however resorting very
extensively to direct excavations, has collected an interesting
cabinet of aboriginal relics. Anxious to contribute his share to
whatever might elucidate the subject of American Archæology, Mr.
MCBRIDE, with a generous liberality, placed in the hands of the
authors his notes, plans, and drawings, without restriction, to be
used as they deemed proper. This tender was accepted in the same
spirit it was made, and the materials thus furnished have been freely
used in the succeeding pages, where they rank second to none in
interest and value.
Among the most zealous investigators in the field of American
antiquarian research, is CHARLES WHITTLESEY, Esq., of Cleveland,
formerly Topographic Engineer of Ohio. His surveys and observations,
carried on for many years and over a wide field, have been both
numerous and accurate, and are among the most valuable, in all
respects, of any hitherto made. Although Mr. Whittlesey, in
conjunction with JOSEPH SULLIVANT, Esq., of Columbus, Ohio,
originally contemplated a joint work, in which the results of his
investigations should be embodied, he has nevertheless, with a
liberality which will be not less appreciated by the public than
by the authors, contributed to this memoir about twenty plans of
ancient works, which, with the accompanying explanations and general
observations, will be found embodied in the following pages. Relating
principally to the aboriginal monuments of northern Ohio, (as do
those of Mr. McBride to the remains of western Ohio,) they contribute
much to the interest and completeness of this memoir. It is to be
hoped the public may yet be put in possession of the entire results
of Mr. Whittlesey’s labor, which could not fail of adding greatly to
our stock of knowledge on this interesting subject.
Acknowledgment is also due to Rev. R. MORRIS, of Mount Sylvan,
Lafayette county, Mississippi, for valuable facts relating to the
monuments of the South. Although but recently commenced, Mr. Morris’s
investigations have been prosecuted in a manner which gives promise
of important results.
It will be observed that several plans and notices of ancient works
are presented in the succeeding chapters, upon the authority of the
late Prof. C. S. RAFINESQUE. This gentleman, while living, devoted
considerable attention to the antiquities of the Mississippi valley,
and published several brief papers relating to them. His notes
and plans, for the most part brief, crude, and imperfect, at his
death found their way into the possession of BRANTZ MAYER, Esq., of
Baltimore, late Secretary of the American Legation to Mexico. This
gentleman placed them in the hands of the authors, with liberty to
make use of the information which they contained. They, however,
have chosen to avail themselves of this permission, only so far as
to adopt Prof. Rafinesque’s plans, etc., in cases where they have
either been able to verify them in person, or to assure themselves by
collateral evidence of their accuracy in all essential particulars.
His notes are principally important, as indicating the localities of
many interesting monuments, rather than as conveying any satisfactory
information concerning them.
To SAMUEL GEORGE MORTON, M.D., of Philadelphia, the eminent author
of “«Crania Americana»,” is acknowledgment especially due, not only
for the warm interest manifested in these investigations from their
commencement, but for the use of valuable manuscripts relating to
our antiquities,—the collections of many years of laborious research
in collateral departments. Among these is the brief account of the
ancient remains on the Wateree river in South Carolina, by Dr.
WILLIAM BLANDING; and also the highly important account of the
monuments of the States bordering the Gulf of Mexico, by WILLIAM
BARTRAM, the first naturalist who penetrated the dense tropical
forests of Florida. The history of the MSS. from which the latter
account was taken, is unknown. It found its way by accident into the
hands of its present possessor. It consists of answers to a series of
questions, by a second person, (probably Dr. Barton,) relating to the
history, religion, manners, institutions, etc., of the tribes which
composed the Creek confederacy, and is undoubtedly the most complete
and accurate account of those Indians in existence.
Dr. S. P. HILDRETH, of Marietta, and Prof. JOHN LOCKE, of Cincinnati,
both of whom have devoted much attention to our antiquities,
and whose observations upon the subject are distinguished for
their accuracy, are also entitled to honorable mention for facts
contributed, and assistance rendered. So also, for surveys of ancient
works, drawings and descriptions of ancient relics, and facts of
various kinds, is acknowledgment due to J. DILLE, Esq., of Newark,
Ohio; S. T. OWEINS and W. B. FAIRCHILD, Esqs., of Xenia, Ohio; Col.
B. L. C. WAILES, of Washington, Mississippi; J. H. BLAKE, Esq., of
Boston; THOMAS REYNOLDS, M.D., of Brockville, Canada West; ARIUS
NYE, Esq., and CHARLES SULLIVAN, Marietta, Ohio; HENRY HOWE, R.
BUCHANAN, JOSEPH CLARKE, ERASMUS GEST, jr., and U. P. JAMES, Esqs.,
of Cincinnati; J. E. WHARTON, Esq., of Wheeling, Virginia; DANIEL
MORTON, Esq., of New York; L. K. DILLE, M.D., of Cedarville, Ohio;
CHARLES O. TRACY, of Portsmouth, Ohio; Prof. W. W. MATHER, Jackson,
Ohio; Rev. W. B. STEVENS, Athens, Georgia; Hon. T. H. CLINGMAN, North
Carolina; ASHEL AYLESWORTH, Granville, Ohio; P. N. WHITE, Esq.,
Circleville, Ohio; C. J. ORTON, Lower Sandusky, Ohio; Lieut. JOHN
H. ALLEN, now of Easton, Md.; T. B. HUNT, Esq., of New Haven; WM.
F. CLEMSON, Esq., of Chillicothe, Ohio; and JOSEPH SULLIVANT, Esq.,
Columbus, Ohio.
And while rendering these acknowledgments, it is but proper to
express the obligations which the authors of these investigations
feel themselves under to gentlemen in the various Atlantic cities,
who, if they have not been able to add to the number of facts
here presented, have nevertheless by their thorough appreciation
of the subject, friendly encouragement, and disinterested aid,
extended in various ways, facilitated this new attempt towards the
elucidation of the antiquities of our own country. To the learned
and venerable President of the American Ethnological Society, Hon.
ALBERT GALLATIN, the closing years of whose long, active, and useful
life have been closely and successfully devoted to researches in
the wide field of American Ethnological Science, are our grateful
acknowledgments especially due. His assistance and enlightened
approbation have had a controlling influence in sustaining and
carrying on these investigations. To JOHN R. BARTLETT, Esq., of New
York, Foreign Corresponding Secretary of the Ethnological Society,
distinguished for his zeal and energy in organizing and promoting
historical and ethnological research, we cannot sufficiently express
our obligations. His assistance, in a variety of ways, has been of
value, especially in directing public attention to the importance
of a subject, the extent and bearings of which were but imperfectly
understood.
Hon. GEO. P. MARSH, of Burlington, Vermont, whose disinterested
exertions have mainly contributed to the appearance of this memoir
in its present form, has kindly examined the following chapters and
given them the benefit of his sound and critical judgment. To Prof.
EDWARD ROBINSON, D.D., and to Prof. W. W. TURNER, both of New York,
and both officers of the American Ethnological Society, are we also
indebted. The gentleman last named has supervised the memoir, and
his suggestions have been deferred to with a readiness implying a
confidence in his critical abilities, which is shared alike by the
authors and by the public.
To Professors B. SILLIMAN and B. SILLIMAN, jr., of New Haven; Prof.
JEFFRIES WYMAN, of Boston; Prof. LEWIS AGASSIZ, of Cambridge; S.
F. HAVENS, Esq., Librarian of the American Antiquarian Society,
Worcester; and to numerous other gentlemen in various parts of the
Union, and particularly to GEO. R. GLIDDON, Esq., whose lectures
and publications upon the subject of Egyptian Archæology have
given a new and powerful impulse to cognate researches in America,
and invested them with a popular interest indispensable to their
successful prosecution,—to all of these are the warmest thanks of the
investigators due.
It will not be improper here to mention, that the literary part of
the present work, the responsible task of arranging and embodying
for publication the original MSS. and other materials jointly got
together in the course of these investigations, has devolved mostly
upon the gentleman whose name stands first upon the title-page, who
has also prepared the plans, drawings, and other illustrations. The
other gentleman has been engaged for a number of years in researches
connected with our ancient monuments, and in collecting relics of
aboriginal art; and it is due to him to say, that the investigations
here recorded, so far as they involve inquiries in natural science,
have principally been made by him. He has also sustained the larger
proportion of the expenses attending these explorations, and devoted
considerable time to the restoration and arrangement of the relics
recovered from the mounds.
Before concluding these prefatory remarks,—already extended beyond
the original design,—we may be permitted to say that it has been
a constant aim in the preparation of this memoir, to present
facts in a clear and concise form, with such simple deductions
and generalizations alone, as may follow from their careful
consideration. With no hypothesis to combat or sustain, and with a
desire only to arrive at truth, whatever its bearings upon received
theories and current prejudices, everything like mere speculation
has been avoided. Analogies, apparently capable of reflecting light
upon many important questions connected with an enlarged view of
the subject, have seldom been more than indicated. Their full
consideration, as also that of the relations which the ancient
monuments of the Mississippi valley bear to those of other portions
of America and the world, has not been attempted here. To such an
undertaking, involving long and careful research, as also a more
comprehensive view of the monuments of the central parts of the
continent, this memoir is only preliminary. It yet remains to be seen
whether all the ancient monuments of the Mississippi valley were
constructed upon similar principles; whether they denote a common
origin, and whether they were probably contemporaneous or otherwise
in their erection. It remains to be settled whether the singular and
anomalous structures of Wisconsin and the North-west are part of the
same grand system of defensive, religious, and sepulchral monuments
found in the valley of the Ohio, and the more imposing, if not more
regular remains which abound in the Southern States. The work of
investigation has been just commenced; its future progress may, and
no doubt will, result in new and perhaps more important disclosures
than any hitherto made.
The importance of a complete and speedy examination of the whole
field, cannot be over-estimated. The operations of the elements,
the shifting channels of the streams, the levelling hand of public
improvement, and most efficient of all, the slow but constant
encroachments of agriculture, are fast destroying these monuments of
ancient labor, breaking in upon their symmetry and obliterating their
outlines. Thousands have already disappeared, or retain but slight
and doubtful traces of their former proportions. Such an examination
is, however, too great an undertaking for private enterprise to
attempt. It must be left to local explorers, to learned associations,
or to the Government. And if this memoir shall succeed in directing
that attention to the subject which it merits, and thereby in some
manner secure the thorough investigation of these monuments, that
result will prove an ample recompense for labors performed in a field
of absorbing interest, and one which holds out abundant attractions
to the Antiquary and Archæologist.
CHILLICOTHE, OHIO, «June», 1847.
[p001]
ANCIENT MONUMENTS.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
The ancient monuments of the Western United States consist, for the
most part, of elevations and embankments of earth and stone, erected
with great labor and manifest design. In connection with these, more
or less intimate, are found various minor relics of art, consisting
of ornaments and implements of many kinds, some of them composed of
metal, but most of stone.
These remains are spread over a vast extent of country. They are
found on the sources of the Alleghany, in the western part of the
State of New-York, on the east; and extend thence westwardly along
the southern shore of Lake Erie, and through Michigan and Wisconsin,
to Iowa and the Nebraska territory, on the west.[1] We have no record
of their occurrence above the great lakes. Carver mentions some
on the shores of Lake Pepin, and some are said to occur near Lake
Travers, under the 46th parallel of latitude. Lewis and Clarke saw
them on the Missouri river, one thousand miles above its junction
with the Mississippi; and they have been observed on the Kanzas
and Platte, and on other remote western rivers. They are found all
over the intermediate country, and spread over the valley of the
Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. They line the shores of the Gulf
from Texas to Florida, and extend, in diminished numbers, into South
Carolina. They occur in great numbers in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Texas. They are found,
in less numbers, in the western portions of New-York, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and North and South Carolina; as also in Michigan, Iowa,
and in the Mexican territory beyond the Rio Grande del Norte. In
short, [p002] they occupy the entire basin of the Mississippi and
its tributaries, as also the fertile plains along the Gulf.
It is a fact but recently made known, that there are an abundance
of small mounds, or tumuli, in the territory of Oregon. We are not
informed, however, whether there are any enclosures, or other works
of like character with those usually accompanying the mounds of the
Mississippi valley, nor whether the mounds of Oregon are generally
disseminated over that territory.[2] That they are of frequent
occurrence upon the river Gila, in California, and also upon the
tributaries of the Colorado of the West, is also a fact but recently
ascertained. Whether these mounds possess features identifying them
with those of the Mississippi valley, or indicating a common origin,
remains to be decided.
It is not to be understood that these works are dispersed equally
over the area above indicated. They are mainly confined to the
valleys of the rivers and large streams, and seldom occur very far
back from them. Occasional works are found in the hill or broken
country; but they are not frequent, and are always of small size.
Although possessing throughout certain general points of resemblance,
going to establish a kindred origin, these works, nevertheless,
resolve themselves into three grand geographical divisions, which
present, in many respects, striking contrasts, yet so gradually
merge into each other, that it is impossible to determine where one
series terminates and the other begins. In the region bordering the
upper lakes, to a certain extent in Michigan, Iowa, and Missouri, but
particularly in Wisconsin, we find a succession of remains, entirely
singular in their form, and presenting but slight analogy to any
others of which we have an account, in any portion of the globe. The
larger proportion of these are structures of earth, bearing the forms
of beasts, birds, reptiles, and even of men; they are frequently of
gigantic dimensions, constituting huge «basso-relievos» upon the face
of the country. They are very numerous, and in most cases occur in
long and apparently dependent ranges. In connection with them, are
found many conical mounds and occasional short lines of embankment,
in rare instances forming enclosures. These animal effigies are
mainly confined to Wisconsin, and extend across that territory from
Fond du Lac, in a south-western direction, ascending the Fox river,
and following the general course of Rock and Wisconsin rivers to the
Mississippi. They may be much more extensively disseminated; but it
is here only that they have been observed in considerable numbers. In
Michigan, as also in Iowa and Missouri, similar elevations, of more
or less regular outline, are said to occur. They are represented as
[p003] dispersed in ranges, like the buildings of a modern city,
and covering sometimes an area of many acres.
[Illustration: II. Map of a section of twelve miles of the Scioto
Valley with its ancient monuments.]
Further to the southward, in the region watered by the Ohio and its
tributaries, we find ancient works of greater magnitude and more
manifest design. Among them are a few animal-shaped structures; but
they seem to have been erected on different principles and for a
different purpose from those just noticed. Here we find numberless
mounds, most of them conical but many pyramidal in form, and often
of great dimensions. The pyramidal structures are always truncated,
sometimes terraced, and generally have graded ascents to their
summits. They bear a close resemblance to the Teocallis of Mexico;
and the known uses of the latter are suggestive of the probable
purposes to which they were applied. Accompanying these, and in some
instances sustaining an intimate relation to them, are numerous
enclosures of earth and stone, frequently of vast size, and often
of regular outline. These are by far the most imposing class of our
aboriginal remains, and impress us most sensibly with the numbers
and power of the people who built them. The purposes of many of
these are quite obvious; and investigation has served to settle,
pretty clearly, the character of most of the other works occurring in
connection with them.
Proceeding still further southwards, we find, in the States bordering
on the Gulf of Mexico, the mounds increasing in size and regularity
of form, if not in numbers. Conical mounds become comparatively rare,
and the Teocalli-shaped structures become larger and more numerous,
and assume certain dependencies in respect to each other, not before
observed. The enclosures, on the other hand, diminish in size and
numbers; and lose many of the characteristic features of those of
a higher latitude, though still sustaining towards them a strong
general resemblance. Here, for the first time, we find traces of
bricks in the mounds and in the walls of enclosures.
The peculiarities of these several divisions will be more
particularly pointed out in the progress of this work; when the
points of resemblance and difference will become more apparent.
The succeeding observations relate more especially to the remains
included in the central geographical section above indicated, where
the investigations recorded in this volume were principally carried
on, and which, in the extent, variety, and interesting nature of its
ancient monuments, affords by far the richest and most important
field for archæological research and inquiry.
The number of these ancient remains is well calculated to excite
surprise, and has been adduced in support of the hypothesis that
they are most, if not all of them, natural formations, “the
results of diluvial action,” modified perhaps in some instances,
but never erected by man. Of course no such suggestion was ever
made by individuals who had enjoyed the opportunity of seeing and
investigating them. Simple structures of earth could not possibly
bear more palpable evidences of an artificial origin, than do most of
the western monuments. The evidences in support of this assertion,
derived from the form, structure, position, and contents of these
remains, will sufficiently appear in the progress of this work.
PLATE II, «exhibiting a section of twelve miles of the Scioto valley,
with its ancient» [p004] «monuments», will serve to give some
general conception of the number of these remains. The enclosures are
here indicated by dark lines, the mounds by simple dots. Within the
section represented, it will be observed that there are not less than
«ten» groups of large works, accompanied by a great number of mounds,
of various sizes. Within the enclosure designated by the letter E are
embraced twenty-four mounds. The enclosures D, H, I, K, have each
about two and a half miles of embankment; and H and K enclose but
little less than one hundred acres each. It is proper to observe,
to prevent misconception, that there are few sections of country
of equal extent which embrace so large a number of ancient works.
The fertile valley of the Scioto river was a favorite resort of the
ancient people, and was one of the seats of their densest population.
The various works indicated in these maps, will be described at
length in the subsequent pages. An enlarged plan of the enclosure
designated by the letter A is given on Plate XXIII; B, on Plate
XVIII; C, Plate XVIII; D, Plate XVII; E and F, Plate XIX; G, Plate
XXII; H, Plate XXI; I, Plate XVI; K, Plate XX.
PLATE III, No. 1, «exhibits a section of six miles of the Valley
of Paint Creek», a tributary of the Scioto river. The village of
Bourneville is ten miles west of Chillicothe. Within this limit are
embraced three works of extraordinary size, besides several smaller
ones. The works, designated by the letters A and B, have each upwards
of two miles of heavy embankment, and contain not far from one
hundred acres. The stone work C has an area of one hundred and forty
acres, enclosed within a wall upwards of two and a fourth miles long.
Enlarged plans of the various works here indicated are given in the
following pages. A and B, Plate XXI; C, Plate IV; D and E, Plate XXX.
Plate III, No. 2, «presents a section of six miles of the Great Miami
valley», included principally within the limits of Butler county,
Ohio. Not less than seven enclosures, of considerable size, occur
within these bounds. The work indicated by the letter G contains
ninety-five acres. An enlarged plan of the work marked A, is given on
Plate VI; of B, on Plate XI; C and F, on Plate XXX; D, Plate XXXI;
and G, on Plate XIII.
Not far from one hundred enclosures of various sizes, and five
hundred mounds, are found in Ross county, Ohio. The number of tumuli
in the State may be safely estimated at ten thousand, and the number
of enclosures at one thousand or fifteen hundred. Many of them are
small, but cannot be omitted in an enumeration. They are scarcely
less numerous on the Kenhawas in Virginia, than on the Scioto and
Miamis; and are abundant on the White river and Wabash, as also
upon the Kentucky, Cumberland, Tennessee, and the numerous other
tributaries of the Ohio and Mississippi.
[Illustration: III. Map exhibiting a section of six miles of the
Great Miami Valley, with its ancient monuments.
No. 2. Map exhibiting a section of six miles of the Paint Creek
Valley, with its ancient monuments.]
Nor is their magnitude less a matter of remark than their great
number. Lines of embankment, varying in height from five to thirty
feet, and enclosing areas of from one to fifty acres, are common;
while enclosures of one or two hundred acres area are far from
infrequent. Occasional works are found enclosing as many as [p005]
four hundred acres.[3] The magnitude of the area enclosed is not,
however, always a correct index of the amount of labor expended in
the erection of these works. A fortified hill in Highland county,
Ohio, has one mile and five-eighths of heavy embankment; yet it
encloses an area of only about forty acres. A similar work on the
Little Miami river, in Warren county, Ohio, has upwards of four miles
of embankment, yet encloses little more than one hundred acres. The
group of works at the mouth of the Scioto river has an aggregate of
at least twenty miles of embankment; yet the entire amount of land
embraced within the walls does not probably much exceed two hundred
acres.
The mounds are of all dimensions, from those of but a few feet
in height and a few yards in diameter, to those which, like the
celebrated structure at the mouth of Grave Creek in Virginia,
rise to the height of seventy feet, and measure one thousand feet
in circumference at the base. The great mound in the vicinity
of Miamisburgh, Montgomery county, Ohio, is sixty-eight feet
in perpendicular height, and eight hundred and fifty-two in
circumference at the base, containing 311,353 cubic feet.
[Illustration: Fig. 1. Great Mound at Miamisburgh, Ohio.
From a sketch by Henry Howe, Esq.]
The truncated pyramid at Cahokia, Illinois, has an altitude of
ninety feet, and is upwards of two thousand feet in circumference
at the base. It has a level summit of several acres area. The great
mound at Selserstown, Mississippi, is computed to cover six acres
of ground. Mounds of these extraordinary dimensions are most common
at the south, though there are some of great size at the north. The
usual dimensions are, however, considerably less than in the examples
here given. The greater number range from six to thirty feet in
perpendicular height, by forty to one hundred feet diameter at the
base.[4] [p006]
All the above-mentioned constructions are composed of earth or
stone; though a combination of these materials in the same work is
by no means rare. When there are no ditches interior or exterior to
the embankments, «pits» or “dug holes,” from which the earth for
their formation was taken, are generally visible near by. These are
sometimes very broad and deep, and occasionally quite symmetrical
in shape.[5] In the vicinity of large mounds such excavations are
common. The earth and stone composing these works are sometimes
foreign to the locality which they occupy, and must have been brought
from considerable distances.
A large, perhaps the larger, portion of these enclosures are
regular in outline, the square and the circle predominating. Some
are parallelograms, some ellipses, others polygons, regular or
irregular. The regular works are almost invariably erected on level
river-terraces, great care having evidently been taken to select
those least broken. The irregular works are those which partake most
of the character of defences, and are usually made to conform to the
nature of the ground upon which they are situated,—running along
the brows of hills, or cutting off the approaches to strong natural
positions. The square and the circle often occur in combination,
frequently communicating with each other or with irregular works
directly, or by avenues consisting of parallel lines of embankment.
Detached parallels are numerous. The mounds are usually simple cones
in form; but they are sometimes truncated, and occasionally terraced,
with graded or winding ascents to their summits. Some are elliptical,
others pear-shaped, and others squares or parallelograms, with
flanking terraces. Besides these, there are others already alluded
to, most common in the extreme north-west, which assume the forms of
animals and reptiles. Another variety of remains are the causeways or
“roads,” and the graded descents to rivers and streams, or from one
terrace to another. These several classes of works will be described
at length, under appropriate heads.
As already remarked, these remains occur mainly in the valleys
of the Western rivers and streams. The alluvial terraces, or
“river-bottoms,” as they are popularly termed, were the favorite
sites of the builders. The principal monuments are found where these
“bottoms” are most extended, and where the soil is most fertile and
easy of cultivation. At the junction of streams, where the valleys
are usually broadest and most favorable for their erection, some
of the largest and most singular remains are found. The works at
Marietta; at the junction of the Muskingum with the Ohio; at the
mouth of Grave Creek; at Portsmouth, the mouth of the Scioto; and
at the mouth of the Great Miami, are instances in point. Occasional
works are found on the hill tops, overlooking the valleys, or at
a little distance from them; but these are manifestly, in most
instances, works of defence or last resort, or in some way connected
with warlike purposes. And it is worthy of remark, that the sites
selected for settlements, towns, and cities, by the invading
Europeans, are often those which were the especial favorites of the
mound-builders, and the seats of their heaviest population. Marietta,
Newark, Portsmouth, Chillicothe, [p007] Circleville, and Cincinnati,
in Ohio; Frankfort in Kentucky; and St. Louis in Missouri, may be
mentioned in confirmation of this remark. The centres of population
are now, where they were at the period when the mysterious race of
the mounds flourished.[6]
The aboriginal monuments of the Mississippi valley, the general
character of which has been thus briefly and imperfectly indicated,
fall within two general divisions, namely, CONSTRUCTIONS OF EARTH OR
STONE, comprising «Enclosures, Mounds, etc.»; and MINOR VESTIGES OF
ART, including the «Implements, Ornaments, Sculptures, etc.» of the
ancient people.
The Earth and Stone Works resolve themselves into two classes, viz:
ENCLOSURES, bounded by embankments, circumvallations, or walls; and
simple tumuli, or MOUNDS.[7] They constitute, together, a single
system of works; but, for reasons which will satisfactorily appear,
it is preferred to classify them as above. These grand classes
resolve themselves into other subordinate divisions: ENCLOSURES FOR
DEFENCE, SACRED AND MISCELLANEOUS ENCLOSURES; MOUNDS OF SACRIFICE,
TEMPLE MOUNDS, MOUNDS OF SEPULTURE, etc.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Some ancient works, probably belonging to the same system with
those of the Mississippi valley, and erected by the same people,
occur upon the Susquehanna river, as far down as the Valley of
Wyoming, in Pennsylvania. The mound-builders seem to have skirted the
southern border of Lake Erie, and spread themselves, in diminished
numbers, over the western part of the State of New-York, along the
shores of Lake Ontario to the St. Lawrence river. They penetrated
into the interior, eastward, as far as the county of Onondaga, where
some slight vestiges of their works still exist. These seem to have
been their limits at the north-east.
[2] The only reference we have to the mounds of Oregon is contained
in a paragraph in the Narrative of the United States Exploring
Expedition, vol. iv. p. 313:
“We soon reached the Bute Prairies, which are extensive, and covered
with tumuli, or small mounds, at regular distances asunder. As far as
I can learn, there is no tradition among the natives concerning them.
They are conical mounds, thirty feet in diameter, about six or seven
feet above the level, and «many thousands in number». Being anxious
to ascertain if they contained any relics, I subsequently visited
these prairies, and opened three of the mounds, but found nothing in
them but a pavement of round stones.”
[3] Lewis and Clarke describe one on the Missouri river which they
estimated to contain not far from six hundred acres.—«Travels», p. 47.
[4] “We have seen mounds which would require the labor of a thousand
men employed upon our canals, with all their mechanical aids, and the
improved implements of their labor, for months. We have more than
once hesitated, in view of one of these prodigious mounds, whether
it were not really a natural hill. But they are uniformly so placed,
in reference to the adjacent country, and their conformation is so
unique and similar, that no eye hesitates long in referring them to
the class of artificial erections.”—«Flint’s Geography», p. 131.
[5] These are the “«wells»” of Mr. Atwater and other writers on
American antiquities. It is barely possible that a few were really
wells, or «secondarily» designed for reservoirs.
[6] “The most dense ancient population existed in precisely the
places where the most crowded future population will exist in ages to
come. The appearance of a series of mounds generally indicates the
contiguity of rich and level lands, easy communications, fish, game,
and the most favorable adjacent positions.”—«Flint.»
“The most numerous, as well as the most considerable of these remains
are found precisely in any part of the country where the traces of a
numerous population might be looked for.”—«Brackenridge.»
[7] The term «Mound» is used in this work in a technical sense, as
synonymous with «Tumulus» or «Barrow», and in contradistinction to
embankment, wall, &c.
[p008]