cross-section of which is shown in Fig. 36, is of the common type,
examples of which are found in most of the districts: diameter 52 feet
and height 9 feet; the upper layer, No. 1, red clay, about 4 feet thick,
No. 2, a thin layer of charcoal, about 3 inches thick; the lower stratum
or central core, No. 3, dark-colored earth. In this lower layer were
found five skeletons, on the natural surface and at the points indicated
by the dots, which crumbled to pieces as soon as exposed to the air.
With one were sixteen large, rudely made, white flint arrow-heads, so
nearly alike as to make it apparent they were the work of one
individual, and with another a small pipe and some arrow-heads.
Passing westward over the mountains into East Tennessee, we find some
variations in the modes of burial, but not so widely different from
those east of the range as to justify the belief that the authors of the
works of the two localities were different peoples or belonged to
different tribes.
A burial mound opened by Mr. Emmert in the valley of the Holston,
Sullivan County, described by him as mound No. 1, on the north side of
the river, was found to be 22 feet in diameter and 4 feet high. It was
composed of red clay and sand. Digging down to the level of the
surrounding ground, there was found a pile of rock in the center, which
proved to be a burial vault built of water-worn bowlders, over a sitting
skeleton. It was 3-1/2 feet in diameter at the base and 3 feet high. On
the head of the skeleton was a slender, square copper spindle about 11
inches long and a quarter of an inch thick in the middle. It has
evidently been hammered out with a stone hammer. Under the lower jaw
were two small copper drills or awls, with portions of the deer-horn
handles still attached. About the shoulders, one on each side, were two
polished stones, with holes in them. Near the head was a small pile of
flint chips, and at the knees a flint scalping knife. The bones were so
badly decayed that but few of them could be secured.
Mound No. 2 was on the south side of the river, opposite No. 1 and about
the same distance from the river. It was 38 feet in diameter and 5 feet
high, and on the top was a pine stump 14 inches in diameter.
Mr. Emmert, in opening it, commenced at the edge to cut a ditch 4 feet
wide through it, but soon reached a wall 3 feet high, built of "river
rock." He then worked around this, finding it to be an almost perfect
circle, 14 feet in diameter, inside of which were found, on throwing out
the dirt, twelve stone graves or vaults, built of the same kind of
stones, each containing a sitting skeleton, as shown in Fig. 37. One of
these graves or vaults was exactly in the center, the other eleven being
placed in a circle around it, and about equally spaced, as shown in the
diagram.
[Illustration: FIG. 37.--Mound on Holston River, Sullivan County,
Tennessee.]
[Illustration: FIG. 38.--Pipe from mound, Sullivan County, Tennessee.]
In the center grave he found shell beads around the neck of the
skeleton, and near the mouth the pipe shown in Fig. 38.
The bottom of the area within the circular wall was covered to the depth
of about 3 inches with charcoal, and the graves were built on this
layer. Both of these mounds were on the bench or upper bottom, and about
three-fourths of a mile from the river.
Mr. Emmert says he learned that there was a tradition of the
neighborhood that the Indians once fought a great battle at this place,
and that one party buried some of their dead in mound No. 2, and the
other party buried their dead on the opposite side of the river, where
there is a large pile or mound of "river rock."
He opened one of the rock mounds occurring in this region half a mile
from the river and near the foot of the mountain. A large tree had grown
up through it, the stump of which was yet standing, or the mound had
been built around it. After removing the rock and digging up the stump,
he found, at the depth of 4 feet and directly under the stump, two stone
axes, a large number of arrow-heads, two polished celts, and some pieces
of mica.
Another mound on the Holston River, 2 miles above the two heretofore
described, was examined. This was 60 feet in diameter and 4-1/2 feet
high. The original surface of the earth had been first covered over
about 3 inches thick with charcoal, then the bodies or skeletons laid on
it, and each walled up separately with river rock. These were then
covered with black earth, over which was cast a layer of sand about the
same thickness, the remainder being top soil.
Mr. Emmert, who opened this, commenced cutting a ditch 4 feet wide,
proceeding until he struck the bed of charcoal; then followed around the
outer edge of it, finally removing all the dirt inside the circle. One
side of the circle had six skeletons in it, all walled up, as before
stated, separately, but so thoroughly decayed that only one skull could
be saved.
The other side of the mound had nothing in it except a fine pipe which
he found on the bed of coals, some 10 or 12 feet from the nearest
skeleton; some beautiful arrow-heads, shell beads, a polished celt, and
two small stones with holes in them were also discovered.
In addition to the foregoing descriptions from the reports of my
assistants, I present the following, from accounts of earlier
explorations in this region:
A burial mound situated on the left bank of the Tennessee River, about 1
mile from Chattanooga, was opened by Mr. M. O. Read in 1865. This was
oval in form and flat on top, the diameters of the base 158 and 120
feet, and those of the top 82 and 44 feet; height, 19 feet. Mr. Read
says:[40]
For the purpose of examination, a tunnel was excavated into the
mound from the east, a little one side of the center and on a
level with the natural surface of the ground. When the point
directly under the outer edge of the top of the mound was
reached, holes were found containing fragments of rotted wood
showing that stakes or palisades had been erected here when
the mound was commenced. The sound of the pick indicating a
cavity or different material below, the excavation was carried
downward about 2 feet, when two skeletons were uncovered,
fragments of which preserved are marked No. 1. The bones were
packed in a small space, as though the bodies were crowded
down, without much regard to position of hands, into a pit not
exceeding 3 feet in length. One of the skulls is of especial
interest, as possibly indicating that the remains are those of
victims immolated in some sacrificial or burial rites.
The side was crushed in, as if with a club. I have connected
together the pieces of the upper jaw so that they retain the
position in which they were found, a position which cannot with
probability be supposed to be the result of the settling of the
earth around it, if unbroken when buried. The bones of the
bodies, although so friable that they could not be preserved,
were entire, in positions indicating that the bodies had not
been dismembered and forbidding the supposition that they were
the remains of a cannibal feast.
The excavation was carried forward as indicated on the plat and
on a level with the location of the skeletons first found. It
became evident at once that the material of which the mound was
constructed was taken from the immediate neighborhood, it being
composed of the same alluvial soil, full of the shells found on
the surface, but in a much better state of preservation; but no
arrow-heads, chippings of flints, or fragments of pottery now
covering the surface were found. These would have been abundant
if the mound had been erected subsequent to the manufacture of
the pottery and arrow-heads at that place. Single fragments of
pottery were found, but these were painted and of much better
quality than those found on the surface.
The mound was composed of alternate layers of earth and ashes,
showing that a surface of the size of the top, when finished,
was kept substantially level, and raised only 2 to 3 feet at a
time, when fires were kindled, which must have been large or
continued for a long time, as the amount of the ashes and
charcoal abundantly indicates.
Near the center of the mound rows of stake-holes were found, as
far as followed, marking two sides of a rectangular
parallelogram, which continued would have formed an enclosure
around the center. In some of these were the remains of the
wood and bark, not enough to show the marks of tools, if any
had been used. They penetrated the natural surface of the
ground to the depth of about 2 feet.
Here and at about the same level as at No. 1 were found the
skeletons of which the skull bones and other parts are marked
No. 2. They were apparently the remains of a youngish woman and
two children, all so far decomposed that only the parts sent
could be preserved. The larger skeleton was in such a position
as a person would take on kneeling down, then sitting upon the
feet; the hands were brought to the head and the body doubled
down upon the knees. The head was toward the south. The remains
of the children were found at the right side of this body, the
bones mingled together.
About 2 feet directly under these the skeleton of which the
skull is marked No. 3 was found, in a similar position, it is
said (I was not present when it was taken out), with the one
above it.
I attempt no description and indulge in no speculations in
regard to these remains, as I have decided to forward them to
you for the examination of those who can compare them with
other skulls and are better qualified to make a proper use of
them. They are unquestionably of the age of the mound-builders.
We are reminded, by the remains of upright timbers found here, of the
wooden vaults of the Grave Creek and other mounds of West Virginia, but
in the form of the mound we have an indication that it belongs to the
southern class of ancient works.
Rev. E. O. Dunning mentions[41] a stone-grave mound which he examined in
the valley of the Little Tennessee. Speaking of this mound he remarks:
I did not expect to find rock graves in a mound of earth, but
after clearing away rubbish and penetrating 6 feet below the
top, near the center the workman struck a slab of slate, which
proved to be part of the covering of a stone tomb. It was much
like those scattered over the "river bottom"--more nicely
constructed, however, and fitted with more care, being arched
over the top, at an acute angle, with pieces of slate 3 inches
thick. Owing to its situation, raised above the level of the
river and covered with sand to the depth of 6 feet, its
contents were better preserved than those of the graves just
mentioned. At the head of it I took out a vessel of fine red
clay and pulverized mussel shells a foot in diameter,
gourd-shaped, and having a handle and spout 6 inches long, and
holding about a quart. It was preserved nearly whole.
Artificial fire had been kindled in the tomb, but it had been
smothered by the throwing in of sand before all the contents
were consumed. Besides some entire bones of the human skeleton,
flint arrow-heads and a large number of flint and stone beads
were removed. The beads could be traced along the lines of the
legs and arms, as if they had been attached to the garment in
which the dead was buried. Further excavations disclosed two
more of these stone sepulchers, the first 3 feet below the one
described, the other 2 feet from it, in the same plane. They
contained only fragments of bones, charcoal, and ashes.
The mound, which was conical in shape, must have been 15 feet
high and 50 feet in diameter. Successive floods had impaired
its original dimensions. The last carried away a section on the
west side, exposing a tomb and some valuable relics, which have
not been preserved. Among them were large shells, pyrulas,
probably, judging from the description, from the Gulf of
Mexico. In connection with marine shells, images in stone were
found in this tomb. The mound was composed of sand-loam taken
from the bank of the river, and raised upon a foundation of
water-washed rocks 4 feet high, from the bed of the stream hard
by. There had been extensive burnings throughout this mound, at
various depths, indicated by layers of charcoal, ashes, and
burned clay, simply in honor of the dead, or to consume their
effects or mortal parts, or for human sacrifices to their
manes.
Speaking of stone graves in the immediate vicinity as explanatory of
those in the mound, he says:
They are built of slabs of slate, nicely fitted together, about
3 inches thick, 4 feet long, and 2 broad, enclosing receptacles
not of uniform space, generally 5 feet long, 4 feet high, and 2
broad, covered with flat pieces, resting upon the upright slabs
and conforming to the rounded corners of the tomb.
As one of the principal objects in view in exploring and studying the
mounds of our country is to ascertain, if possible, by what people or
tribes they were built, a brief discussion of the question so far as it
relates to the district now under consideration will be in place. My
reasons for touching upon the topic in this connection, and limiting the
discussion to the antiquities of the one district, are as follows:
First. The characteristics of the works of this section are so well
marked as to leave little, if any, doubt on the mind of any one who will
study them carefully that they are work of one people, probably of a
single tribe.
Second. Because in this instance I think the evidence points with at
least reasonable certainty to the particular tribe by which they were
erected.
Third. Whether our second reason prove to be correct or not, we find
data here which appear to form connecting links between the prehistoric
and the historic times, and hence call for some discussion in regard to
the authors.
Fourth. The statement of the result of our explorations of these works
(especially the burial mounds) will, as I conceive, be incomplete
without some intimation of the bearing they have had on my own mind in
reference to their authorship. This it is true will apply with equal
force to the works of other districts. I have already briefly stated my
conclusions in this respect regarding the antiquities of Wisconsin, but
have refrained from entering at length upon the question as to the Ohio
and West Virginia works, as I confess and have already intimated that
these present more difficulties in the way of explanation than most of
the other sections.
It may be thought premature to speculate in this direction, and some of
our ablest scientific journals appear to deprecate any such attempts
until more data have been obtained and the materials already collected
are more thoroughly digested. I admit that, as a very general and almost
universal rule, such a course is the proper one in respect to scientific
investigations, but must dissent from its application in this instance,
for the following reasons:
The thought that a mighty nation once occupied the great valley of the
Mississippi, with its frontier settlements resting on the lake shores
and Gulf coasts, nestling in the valleys of the Appalachian Range and
skirting the broad plains of the West, a nation with its systems of
government and religion, its chief ruler, its great central city, and
all the necessary accompaniments, but which has disappeared before the
inroads of savage hordes, leaving behind it no evidences of its
existence, its glory, power, and extent save these silent forest-covered
remains, has something so fascinating and attractive in it, that when
once it has taken possession of the mind, it warps and biases all its
conclusions.[42]
So strong, in fact, is the hold which this theory (in the broad sense,
including also the Toltec and Aztec theories) has taken of the minds of
both American and European archæologists, that it not only biases their
conclusions, but also molds and modifies their nomenclature, and is
thrust into their speculations and even into their descriptions as
though no longer a simple theory but a conceded fact. Hence it is
necessary, before a fair and unbiased discussion of the data can be had,
to call attention to the fact that there is another side to the
question.
Unless some protest is presented or some expression of opinion is made
on this point in my paper, the facts I give will be viewed through the
medium of this "lost race" theory. This I desire, if possible, to
prevent, and whether the "Indian theory" proves to be correct or not, I
wish to obtain for it at least a fair consideration. I believe the
latter theory to be the correct one, as the facts so far ascertained
appear to point in that direction, but I am not wedded to it; on the
contrary, I am willing to follow the facts wherever they lead.
Although additional data will hereafter be obtained and many new and
important facts be brought to light, yet, as I believe, sufficient
evidence has been collected (though much of it remains unpublished) to
indicate what will be the final result so far as this general question
is concerned.
We see that already the theory that these remains scattered over the
face of our country from Dakota to Florida and from New York to
Louisiana were the work of one people, one great nation, is fast
breaking down before the evidence that is being produced.
The following quotation from the last report of the Peabody Museum,
which is repeated in substance in Science, June 27, 1884, p. 775, will
serve not only to indicate the conflict which is going on in the minds
of some of our most active and progressive archæologists on this
subject, but also to show the difficulty of finding applicable and
well-defined terms, and of clearly stating the real question at issue:
The different periods to which the various mounds and burial
places belong can only be made out by such a series of
explorations as the museum is now conducting in the Little
Miami Valley, and when they are completed we shall be better
able to answer the question, "Who were the mound-builders?"
than we are now. That more than one of the several American
stocks or nations or groups of tribes built mounds seems to me
to be established. What their connections were is not yet by
any means made clear, and to say that they all must have been
one and the same people seems to be making a statement directly
contrary to the facts, which are yearly increasing as the spade
and pick in careful hands bring them to light. That many Indian
tribes built mounds and earthworks is beyond doubt, but that
all the mounds and earthworks of North America were made by
these same tribes or their immediate ancestors is not thereby
proved.
Mr. Carr, in his recent paper published by the Kentucky
Geological Survey, has taken up the historical side of the
question, but it must not be received for more than he
intended. He only shows from historical data what the spade and
pick have disclosed to the archæologist. It is simply one side
of the shield; the other is still waiting to be turned to the
light; and as history will not help us to read the reverse,
only patient and careful exploration will bring out its
meaning.[43]
This, it is true, is but an incidental paragraph thrown into a report of
the work of the museum, but I have selected it as the latest expression
on this subject by one of our most active and practical American
archæologists, and because it will furnish a basis for the remarks I
desire to make on this subject.
In order that the reader may clearly understand the particular points to
which I shall call attention, I will introduce here a brief review of
the leading opinions so far presented regarding the authorship of these
ancient works.
It was not until about the close of the eighteenth century that the
scientific men of the Eastern States became fully impressed with the
fact that remarkable antiquities were to be found in our country.
About this time President Stiles, of New Haven, Dr. Franklin, Dr.
Barton, and a few other leading minds of that day, becoming thoroughly
convinced of the existence of these antiquities, and having received
descriptions of a number of them, began to advance theories as to their
origin. William Bartram had come to the conclusion, from personal
observation and from the statement of the Indians that "they knew
nothing of their origin," that they belonged to the most distant
antiquity.
Dr. Franklin, in reply to the inquiry of President Stiles, suggested
that the works in Ohio might have been constructed by De Soto in his
wanderings. This suggestion was followed up by Noah Webster with an
attempt to sustain it,[44] but he afterwards abandoned this position
and attributed these works to Indians.
Captain Heart, in reply to the inquiries addressed to him by Dr. Barton,
gives his opinion that the works could not have been constructed by De
Soto and his followers, but belonged to an age preceding the discovery
of America by Columbus; that they were not due to the Indians or their
predecessors, but to a people not altogether in an uncultivated state,
as they must have been under the subordination of law and a
well-governed police.[45]
This is probably the first clear and distinct expression of a view which
has subsequently obtained the assent of so many of the leading writers
on American archæology.
About the commencement of the nineteenth century two new and important
characters appear on the stage of American archæology. These are Bishop
Madison, of Virginia, and Rev. Thaddeus M. Harris, of Massachusetts.
Dr. Haven, to whose work we are indebted for reference to several of the
facts above stated, remarks:
These two gentlemen are among the first who, uniting
opportunities of personal observation to the advantages of
scientific culture, imparted to the public their impressions of
western antiquities. They represent the two classes of
observers whose opposite views still divide the sentiment of
the country; one class seeing no evidence of art beyond what
might be expected of existing tribes, with the simple
difference of a more numerous population, and consequently
better defined and more permanent habitations; the other
finding proofs of skill and refinement, to be explained, as
they believe, only on the supposition that a superior race, or
more probably a people of foreign and higher civilization, once
occupied the soil.[46]
Bishop Madison was the representative of the first class. Dr. Harris
represented that section of the second class maintaining the opinion
that the mound-builders were Toltecs, who after leaving this region
moved south into Mexico.
As we find the principal theories which are held at the present day on
this subject substantially set forth in these authorities, it is
unnecessary to follow up the history of the controversy except so far as
is required to notice the various modifications of the two leading
opinions.
Those holding the opinion that the Indians were not the authors of these
works, although agreeing as to this point and hence included in one
class, differ widely among themselves as to the people to whom they are
to be ascribed, one section, of which, as we have seen, Dr. Harris may
be considered the pioneer, holding that they were built by the Toltecs,
who, as they supposed, occupied the Mississippi Valley previous to their
appearance in the vale of Anahuac.
Among the more recent advocates of this theory are Mr. John T. Short,
author of "The North Americans of Antiquity;"[47] Dr. Dawson, in his
"Fossil Man," who accepts the tradition respecting the Tallegwi, but
identifies them with the Toltecs; Rev. J. P. MacLean, author of the
"Mound Builders" and Dr. Joseph Jones, in his "Antiquities of
Tennessee."
Wilson, in his "Prehistoric Man,"[48] modifies this view somewhat,
looking to the region south of Mexico for the original home of the
Toltecs, and deriving the Aztecs from the mound-builders.