CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.
With the facts presented in the foregoing chapters before him, the
reader will be able to deduce his own conclusions, as to the probable
character and condition of the ancient population of the Mississippi
valley. That it was numerous and widely spread, is evident from the
number and magnitude of the ancient monuments, and the extensive
range of their occurrence. That it was essentially homogeneous, in
customs, habits, religion, and government, seems very well sustained
by the great uniformity which the ancient remains display, not only
as regards position and form, but in respect also to those minor
particulars, which, not less than more obvious and imposing features,
assist us in arriving at correct conclusions. This opinion can be
in no way affected, whether we assume that the ancient race was
at one time diffused over the entire valley, or that it migrated
slowly from one portion of it to the other, under the pressure of
hostile neighbors or the attractions of a more genial climate. The
differences which have already been pointed out between the monuments
of the several portions of the valley, of the northern, central, and
southern divisions, are not sufficiently marked to authorize the
belief that they were the works of separate nations. The features
common to all are elementary, and identify them as appertaining to
a single grand system, owing its origin to a family of men, moving
in the same general direction, acting under common impulses, and
influenced by similar causes.
Without undertaking to point out the affinities, or to indicate
the probable origin of the builders of the western monuments, and
the cause of their final disappearance,—inquiries of deep interest
and vast importance in an archæological and ethnological point of
view, and in which it is believed the foregoing chapters may greatly
assist,—we may venture to suggest that the facts thus far collected
point to a connection more or less intimate between the race of the
mounds and the semi-civilized nations which formerly had their seats
among the sierras of Mexico, upon the plains of Central America
and Peru, and who erected the imposing structures which from their
number, vastness, and mysterious significance, invest the central
portions of the continent with an interest not less absorbing than
that which attaches to the valley of the Nile. These nations alone,
of all those found in possession of the continent by the European
discoverers, were essentially stationary and agricultural in their
habits,—conditions indispensable to large population, to fixedness
of institutions, and to any considerable advance in the economical
or ennobling arts. That the mound-builders, although perhaps in a
less degree, were also stationary and agricultural, clearly appears
from a variety of facts and [p302] circumstances, most of which
will no doubt recur to the mind of the reader, but which will bear
recapitulation here.
It may safely be claimed, and will be admitted without dispute,
that a large local population can only exist under an agricultural
system. Dense commercial and manufacturing communities, the apparent
exceptions to the remark, are themselves the offspring of a large
agricultural population, with which nearly or remotely they are
connected, and upon which they are dependent. Now it is evident that
works of art, so numerous and vast as we have seen those of the
Mississippi valley to be, could only have been erected by a numerous
people,—and especially must we regard as numerous the population
capable of constructing them, when we reflect how imperfect at the
best must have been the artificial aids at their command, as compared
with those of the present age. Implements of wood, stone, and copper,
could hardly have proved very efficient auxiliaries to the builders,
who must have depended mainly upon their own bare hands and weak
powers of transportation, for excavating and collecting together the
twenty millions of cubic feet of material which make up the solid
contents of the great mound at Cahokia alone.
But the conclusion that the ancient population was exceedingly
dense, follows not less from the capability which they possessed to
erect, than from the circumstance that they required, works of the
magnitude we have seen, to protect them in danger, or to indicate
in a sufficiently imposing form their superstitious zeal, and their
respect for the dead. As observed by an eminent archæologist, whose
opinions upon this and collateral subjects are entitled to a weight
second to those of no other author, “it is impossible that the
population, for whose protection such extensive works were necessary,
and which was able to defend them, should not have been eminently
agricultural.” The same author elsewhere observes, of the great mound
at Grave creek, that “it indicates not only a dense agricultural
population, but also a state of society essentially different from
that of the modern race of Indians north of the tropic. There is not,
and there was not in the sixteenth century, a single tribe of Indians
(north of the semi-civilized nations) between the Atlantic and the
Pacific, which had means of subsistence sufficient to enable them to
apply, for such purposes, the unproductive labor necessary for the
work; nor was there any in such a social state as to compel the labor
of the people to be thus applied.”[189] [p303]
Another evidence of the probable agricultural character of the
mound-builders, is furnished in the fact already several times
remarked, that these remains are almost entirely confined to the
fertile valleys of streams, or to productive alluvions bordering on
the lakes or on the Gulf of Mexico,—precisely the positions best
adapted for agricultural purposes, and capable of sustaining the
densest population, as also affording, in fish and game, the most
efficient secondary aids of support.
If the mound-builders were a numerous, stationary, and an
agricultural people, it follows of necessity that their customs,
laws, and religion, had assumed a fixed and well defined form,—a
result inseparable from that condition. The construction therefore of
permanent fortifications for protection against hostile neighbors,
and of vast and regular religious structures, under this hypothesis,
fell clearly within their capabilities.
The modes of warfare which they practised, so far as they can be
made out, and the probable state of the civil relations between them
and their neighbors, and among themselves, have been noticed in the
remarks on the Works of Defence, in a previous chapter. Little can,
at present, be added upon these points. [p304]
If we are not mistaken in assigning a religious origin to that large
portion of ancient monuments, which are clearly not defensive, nor
designed to perpetuate the memory of the dead, then the superstitions
of the ancient people must have exercised a controlling influence
upon their character. If, again, as from reason and analogy we
are warranted in supposing, many of these sacred structures are
symbolical in their forms and combinations, they indicate the
prevalence among their builders of religious beliefs and conceptions,
corresponding with those which prevailed among the early nations
of the other continent, and which in their elements seem to have
been common to all nations, far back in the traditional period,
before the dawn of written history. Their consideration under this
aspect involves a preliminary analysis of the religious belief of
the various aboriginal American families, an examination of their
mythologies and superstitious rites, and a comparison between them
and those of the primitive nations of the old world. It involves,
also, an attention to the sacred monuments of the eastern continent,
to the principles upon which they were constructed, and to the extent
to which a symbolical design is apparent in their combinations
and ornaments. But it is alike beyond the scope and design of
this work to go into these inquiries, which in themselves, from
their attractiveness and importance, deserve a full and separate
consideration. We may, however, be permitted to express the belief,
that researches in this department, philosophically conducted, must
lead to results of the highest value, and greatly aid in the solution
of the interesting problems connected with our aboriginal history.
For, in the words of a writer of distinction, “of all researches that
most effectually aid us to discover the origin of a nation or people,
whose history is unknown or deeply involved in the obscurity of
ancient times, none perhaps are attended with such important results,
as the analysis of their theological dogmas, and their religious
practices. In such matters mankind adhere with greatest tenacity,
and though both modified and corrupted in the revolutions of ages,
they still preserve features of their original construction, when
language, arts, sciences, and political establishments no longer
retain distinct lineaments of their ancient constitutions.”[190]
The antiquity of the ancient monuments of the Mississippi valley
has been made the subject of incidental remark in the foregoing
chapters. It will not be out of place here to allude once more to
some of the facts bearing upon this point. Of course no attempt to
fix their date accurately can, from the circumstances of the case,
be successful. The most that can be done is to arrive at approximate
results. The fact that none of the ancient monuments occur upon the
latest-formed terraces of the river valleys of Ohio, is one of much
importance in its bearings upon this question. If, as we are amply
warranted in believing, these terraces mark the degrees of subsidence
of the streams, one of the four which may be traced has been formed
since those streams have followed their present courses. There is
no good reason for supposing that the mound-builders would have
avoided building upon that terrace, while they erected their works
promiscuously upon all the others. [p305] And if they had built
upon it, some slight traces of their works would yet be visible,
however much influence we may assign to disturbing causes,—overflows,
and shifting channels. Assuming, then, that the lowest terrace,
on the Scioto river for example, has been formed since the era of
the mounds, we must next consider that the excavating power of the
Western rivers diminishes yearly, in proportion as they approximate
towards a general level. On the lower Mississippi,—where alone the
ancient monuments are sometimes invaded by the water,—the bed of the
stream is rising, from the deposition of the materials brought down
from the upper tributaries, where the excavating process is going
on. This excavating power, it is calculated, is in an inverse ratio
to the square of the depth, that is to say, diminishes as the square
of the depth increases. Taken to be approximately correct, this
rule establishes that the formation of the latest terrace, by the
operation of the same causes, must have occupied much more time than
the formation of any of the preceding three. Upon these premises, the
time, since the streams have flowed in their present courses, may be
divided into four periods, of different lengths,—of which the latest,
supposed to have elapsed since the race of the mounds flourished, is
much the longest.
The fact that the rivers, in shifting their channels, have in some
instances encroached upon the superior terraces, so as in part to
destroy works situated upon them, and afterwards receded to long
distances of a fourth or half a mile or upwards, is one which should
not be overlooked in this connection. (See pages 50, 60, and 89.)
In the case of the “High Bank Works,” Plate XVI, the recession has
been nearly three fourths of a mile, and the intervening terrace or
“bottom” was, at the period of the early settlement, covered with
a dense forest. This recession, and subsequent forest growth, must
of necessity have taken place since the river encroached upon the
ancient works here alluded to.
Without doing more than to allude to the circumstance of the
exceedingly decayed state of the skeletons found in the mounds,
(see page 168,) and to the amount of vegetable accumulations in
the ancient excavations, and around the ancient works, (see pages
55 and 90,) we pass to another fact, perhaps more important in its
bearing upon the question of the antiquity of these works than any
of those presented above. It is that they are covered with primitive
forests, in no way distinguishable from those which surround them,
in places where it is probable no clearings were ever made. Some
of the trees of these forests have a positive antiquity of from
six to eight hundred years (see pages 14 and 16). They are found
surrounded with the mouldering remains of others, undoubtedly of
equal original dimensions, but now fallen and almost incorporated
with the soil. Allow a reasonable time for the encroachment of the
forest, after the works were abandoned by their builders, and for
the period intervening between that event and the date of their
construction, and we are compelled to assign them no inconsiderable
antiquity. But, as already observed, the forests covering these works
correspond in all respects with the surrounding forests; the same
varieties of trees are found, in the same proportions, and they have
a like primitive aspect. This fact was remarked by the late President
HARRISON, and was put forward by him as one of [p306] the strongest
evidences of the high antiquity of these works. In an address before
the Historical Society of Ohio, he said:
“The process by which nature restores the forest to its original
state, after being once cleared, is extremely slow. The rich lands of
the West are, indeed, soon covered again, but the character of the
growth is entirely different, and continues so for a long period.
In several places upon the Ohio, and upon the farm which I occupy,
clearings were made in the first settlement of the country and
subsequently abandoned and suffered to grow up. Some of these new
forests are now sure of fifty years’ growth, but they have made so
little progress towards attaining the appearance of the immediately
contiguous forest, as to induce any man of reflection to determine
that at least ten times fifty years must elapse before their complete
assimilation can be effected. We find in the ancient works all that
variety of trees which give such unrivalled beauty to our forests,
in natural proportions. The first growth on the same kind of land,
once cleared and then abandoned to nature, on the contrary, is nearly
homogeneous, often stinted to one or two, at most three kinds of
timber. If the ground has been cultivated, the yellow locust will
thickly spring up; if not cultivated, the black and white walnut will
be the prevailing growth. * * * Of what immense age then must be
the works so often referred to, covered as they are by at least the
second growth, after the primitive forest state was regained?”
It is not undertaken to assign a period for the assimilation here
indicated to take place. It must unquestionably, however, be measured
by centuries.
In respect to the extent of territory occupied at one time, or at
successive periods, by the race of the mounds, so far as indicated by
the occurrence of their monuments, little need be said in addition to
the observations presented in the first chapter. It cannot, however,
have escaped notice, that the relics found in the mounds,—composed
of materials peculiar to places separated as widely as the ranges
of the Alleghanies on the east, and the Sierras of Mexico on the
west, the waters of the great lakes on the north, and those of the
Gulf of Mexico on the south,—denote the contemporaneous existence
of communication between these extremes. For we find, side by
side in the same mounds, native copper from Lake Superior, mica
from the Alleghanies, shells from the Gulf, and obsidian (perhaps
porphyry) from Mexico. This fact seems seriously to conflict with the
hypothesis of a migration, either northward or southward. Further
and more extended investigations and observations may, nevertheless,
serve satisfactorily to settle not only this, but other equally
interesting questions connected with the extinct race, whose name is
lost to tradition itself, and whose very existence is left to the
sole and silent attestation of the rude but often imposing monuments
which throng the valleys of the West.
FOOTNOTES:
[189] GALLATIN’S “Notes on the semi-civilized nations of Mexico,”
«Transactions of American Ethnological Society», vol. i. p. 207.
Mr. Gallatin, in the memoir here quoted, has discussed at
considerable length the question of the origin of agriculture among
the American nations. His views, altogether the most philosophical
of any hitherto presented on the subject, may not be without their
interest in this connection. It should be observed, at the outset,
that Mr. Gallatin is of the opinion, not only that agriculture on
this continent was of domestic origin, but also that it originated
between the tropics,—spreading thence in different directions to the
north and south. The evidence in support of the latter conclusion is
not presented in sufficient detail to enable us to judge how well
sustained it may be. If we admit its correctness, we must derive
the agriculture of the mound-builders from the south, and assign
that race chronologically a comparatively low date. This we are not
yet prepared to do; on the contrary, there are many facts going to
establish for the mound-builders very high antiquity, and tending to
the conclusion that the degree of civilization which they possessed
was attained by a course of development in the Mississippi valley.
It is not impossible that future investigations may show that the
agriculture and civilization of the Mexicans, Central Americans, and
Peruvians, had its origin among the builders of the ancient monuments
on the banks of the great Mississippi river,—the Nile and the Ganges
of North America.
“What was the first indispensable transition which withdrew a
certain portion of the aborigines of America from the barbarism and
ignorance in which all the other tribes are still found? That it was
the transition from the hunter to the agricultural state, no one
can doubt. It is true some of the tribes among whom agriculture was
introduced, are still savages; but not an instance exists in America
of a nation, either populous or to a certain extent civilized,
which is not agricultural. * * * * We are then led to inquire how
agriculture was introduced into America, and whether it was imported
or of domestic origin.
“We have here two leading facts, one positively ascertained, and the
other generally admitted by those who have inquired into the subject,
the importance of which has not, it seems to me, been adverted to.
“The first is that all those nutritious plants cultivated in the
other hemisphere, and which are usually distinguished by the name
of cereals (millet, rice, wheat, rye, barley, oats), were entirely
unknown to the Americans.
“The second is that maize, which was the great and almost sole
foundation of American agriculture, is exclusively of American
origin, and was not known in the other hemisphere till after the
discovery of America, in the fifteenth century.
“If these two facts be admitted, it necessarily follows that the
introduction of agriculture,—that first, difficult, and indispensable
preliminary step before any advance whatever can be made towards
civilization,—originated in America itself; that it was not imported
from abroad; and that it was the result of the natural progress from
barbarism to a more refined social state by the race of red men,
insulated, left to themselves, and without any aid or communication
from any foreign country. It is therefore highly important for
a correct view of the history of man, that the presumed fact of
maize being exclusively an American plant, should be thoroughly
investigated. * * * If a domestic origin is admitted, it is quite
natural that agriculture should have had its birth in the most genial
climate, and in the native country of the maize.”—«Transactions of
American Ethnological Society», vol. i. p. 192.
What climate more genial, and what soil better adapted to the
cultivation of maize, in its perfection, than those portions of the
Mississippi valley where the evidences of ancient civilization are
most abundant and imposing?
[190] MCCULLOH, «Philosophical and Antiquarian Researches», p. 225.
TRANSCRIBER’S ENDNOTES
Original printed spelling and grammar are retained, with most
exceptions noted below. Small caps are changed to all capital
letters. Italics «look like this». Many illustrations have been moved
from their original locations to nearby places between paragraphs.
Ditto marks—including text equivalents “Do.”, “Do”, or “do”—do
not work well in electronic books, except in special circumstances.
Therefore original ditto marks have generally been replaced with the
appropriate repeated text. Sometimes in tables, such as those on page
113, new column headings were inserted to replace ditto marks.
The original List of Plates was printed in very small type, and is
too wide for this ebook edition. It has been split into two tables,
«List of Plates» and «Plates Supplemental Data». Plates in the
original book had no captions. Herein, captions have been provided,
based upon comparison of the List of Plates with information
contained in the illustrations.
The original caption to Fig. 1 was printed with a footnote anchor,
on the same page with its footnote. In this edition, the text of the
footnote is moved into the caption, and the footnote was eliminated.
Fig. 194, on page 275 was handled similarly. Footnotes not anchored
in captions are renumbered and moved to the ends of chapters.
Page 32. Comma was added between “south” and “which”, in the sentence
“South of the bluff. . . the wall fronting the south which wall also
extends . . . wall.”
Page 37, Plate V. The List of Plates shows eight separate figures
as part of this plate, but only three, Nos. 1–3 were shown as part
of a plate. Plate V., Nos. 4–8 are evidently the same as Figs. 4–8,
pp 39–40. So these five illustrations are listed twice (perhaps
erroneously?) in the front matter, under different headings.
Page 85. There were two identical footnote anchors, both pointing to
one footnote. In this edition, the footnote has been duplicated, and
the footnote anchors made independent.
Page 200. “One of them, now in the possession of a gentleman of
Hillsboro’, is of the . . .” is retained despite the odd single
quotation mark.
Page 240. The footnote begins: “Humboldt states that the «Guaynares»
of the Rio Caura . . .”, maybe. The spelling of «Guaynares» is
unclear.
Page 280. The phrase “an open cut mas made” was changed to “an open
cut was made”.
Pages 291, 292. The two very large tables were printed full page.
They have been edited considerably and divided for this edition.
Page 300. Changed “river guage” to “river gauge”.