idea of an Indian origin, are satisfied with simply designating the
authors of these works a "lost race," without following the inquiry into
the more uncertain field of racial, national, or ethnical relations. To
this type belong a large portion of the recent authors of short articles
and brief reports on American archæology, and quite a number of diligent
workers in this field whose names are not before the world as authors.
Baldwin believes that the mound-builders were Toltecs, but thinks they
came originally from Mexico or farther south, and, occupying the Ohio
Valley and the Gulf States, probably for centuries, were at the last
driven southward by an influx of barbarous hordes from the more northern
regions, and appeared again in Mexico.[49] Bradford, thirty years
previous to this, had suggested Mexico as their original home.[50] Lewis
H. Morgan, on the other hand, supposes that the authors of these remains
came from the Pueblo tribes of New Mexico. Dr. Foster[51] agrees
substantially with Baldwin. We might include in this class a number of
extravagant hypotheses, such as those held by Haywood, Rafinesque, and
others among the older, as well as by a few of the more recent authors.
The opposite class, holding that the mound-builders were the ancestors
of some one or more of the modern tribes of Indians, or of those found
inhabiting the country at the time of its discovery, numbers
comparatively few leading authorities among its advocates; in other
words, the followers of Bishop Madison are far less numerous than the
followers of Dr. Harris. The differences between the advocates of this
view are of minor importance, and only appear when the investigation is
carried one step further back and the attempt is made to designate the
particular tribe, nation, people, or ethnic family to which they
appertained.
The traditions of the Delawares, as given by Heckewelder, in his
"History of the Indian Nations," having brought upon the stage the
Tallegwi, they are made to play a most important part in the
speculations of those inclined to the theory of an Indian origin. As
this tradition agrees very well with a number of facts brought to light
by antiquarian and philological researches, it has had considerable
influence in shaping the conclusions even of those who are not professed
believers in it.
One of the ablest early advocates of the Indian origin of these works
was Dr. McCulloch; and his conclusions, based as they were on the
comparatively slender data then obtainable, are remarkable not only for
the clearness with which they are stated and the distinctness with which
they are defined, but as being more in accordance with all the facts
ascertained than perhaps those of any contemporary.
Samuel G. Drake, Schoolcraft, and Sir John Lubbock were also disposed to
ascribe these ancient works to the Indians. But the most recent advocate
of this view is Prof. Lucien Carr, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, who has
presented, in a recent paper entitled "The Mounds of the Mississippi
Valley historically considered" (contained in the Memoirs of the
Kentucky Geological Survey), a very strong array of historical evidence
going to show not only that the Indian tribes at the time of the
discovery were capable of producing these works, but also that several
of the tribes were in the habit of erecting mounds.
But it is proper that we should mention an article by Dr. D. G. Brinton
in the October number, 1881, of the American Antiquarian, bearing upon
the same subject, in which considerable historical evidence tending to
the same conclusion is given. These two papers may justly be considered
the commencement of a rediscussion of this question, in which the
Indians, after a long exclusion, will be readmitted as a possible factor
in the problem.
The reader will observe from the foregoing brief review that the
opinions regarding the authors of the mounds--or, as Dr. Brinton
expresses it, "the nationality of the mound-builders"--as heretofore
given to the world, may be divided into two classes--those holding that
the builders were "Indians," and those holding that they were not
"Indians." But the paragraph we have quoted from the Report of the
Peabody Museum introduces other considerations, which render it
necessary not only to define the terms used but to restate the question
at issue in a more exact and definite form.
What mounds? What earth works? The authority quoted remarks, "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."
That the term "mound-builders" is as applicable to the people who
constructed the mounds of Siberia, Japan, or elsewhere as those who
built the tumuli of the Mississippi Valley must be admitted, but the
term, when used in this country with reference to the mounds of this
country, has, as is well known, been generally understood to include
only those found in that part of the United States east of the Rocky
Mountains unless otherwise stated; and Mr. Carr's paper, to which
allusion is made in the next sentence of the quotation, is expressly
limited to the "mounds of the Mississippi Valley." North America is
therefore a broader field than is generally understood by those who
enter upon the discussion, and I may add that "these same tribes,"
unless with explicit definition, is a limitation claimed by no one.
The term "Indian" is so indefinite and so variously applied that more or
less uncertainty must ensue unless the writer discussing this question
makes clear the sense in which he uses it. It was probably an
appreciation of this fact that caused the author of the report referred
to to make use of the terms "American stocks," "nations," and "groups of
tribes." We can fully appreciate the difficulty he and all others
writing upon this subject experience from the want of an adequate and
definite nomenclature that is applicable. But his expansions in one
direction and limitations in another, in the paragraph quoted, as it
seems to me, have left the statement of the question in worse confusion
than it was before.
In what sense does he use the terms "Indians," "Indian tribes,"
"American stocks," and "groups of tribes"? Are the cultured Central
American and Mexican nations and the Pueblo tribes to be included or
excluded? Professor Carr evidently proceeds upon the idea that they are
to be excluded, and that the mounds and other ancient works of the
Mississippi Valley are to be attributed to one or more of the American
stocks found in possession of this region at the time of its discovery
by Europeans.
This I believe to be the correct view, except in this: Professor Carr
fails to clear his work of the idea of one people, one stock, when the
evidence is conclusive that the mound-builders were divided into tribes
and stocks, as were the Indians when first encountered by the whites.
Hence when I use the terms "Indians," "Indian tribes," and "American
stocks" in this connection, they are to be understood as thus limited.
I do not claim that this use of these terms is correct, but it is not my
intention at present to discuss the question "What is the proper use of
the indefinite term _Indian_?" My only object in referring to it and the
other equivalent terms is to explain the sense in which I use them in
this connection, because I can find no better ones.
As thus limited the question for discussion maybe stated as follows:
Were all the mounds and other ancient works found in that part of the
United States east of the Rocky Mountains (except such as are manifestly
the work of Europeans of post-Columbian times) built by the Indians
found in possession of this region at the time of its discovery and
their ancestors, or are they in part to be attributed to other more
civilized races or peoples, as the Aztecs, Toltecs, Pueblo tribes, or
some lost race of which we possess no historical mention? I say in part,
as it has long been conceded, that some of these works are to be
attributed to the Indians.
If it can be shown that some of the mounds and other works of all the
different types and classes found in the Mississippi Valley and Gulf
States were built by Indians, or even that they were built by people in
the same stage of culture and art and having the same customs and habits
as the Indians of this region in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,
we shall be justified in concluding that the rest are the work of the
same race and of the same tribes, or those, closely allied in habits,
customs, art, and culture. That here and there a single mound-building
tribe may have become extinct or absorbed into other tribes in
pre-Columbian times, as has been the fate of some since the discovery of
the continent, does not alter the case, unless it be claimed that such
tribes belonged to different "American stocks" and had reached a higher
degree of culture than those found in this part of the continent at the
time of the arrival of the Europeans.
No one believes that we will ever be able to ascertain the history of
the construction of each mound and earthwork; the utmost to be hoped is
that we may be able to determine with satisfactory certainty that such
and such works were built by such and such tribes.
But one step in the investigation is to reach the general conclusion as
to whether all classes of these remains in the region designated may
justly be attributed to the Indians, or whether there are some types
which must be ascribed to a different race, to a people that had
attained a higher position in the scale of civilization than the
Indians. This it is possible to accomplish, without being able to
determine conclusively what tribe erected any particular work.
Nevertheless the conclusion will be strengthened by every proof that the
works of certain sections are to be ascribed to certain tribes or
stocks. It is for this reason that I propose to discuss somewhat briefly
the question of the probable authorship of the works in the Appalachian
district.
THE CHEROKEES PROBABLY MOUND-BUILDERS.
In 1876, Prof. Lucien Carr, assistant curator of the Peabody Museum,
opened a mound in Lee County, Virginia, in which he made certain
discoveries which, with the form of the mound and the historical data,
led him to the conclusion that it was the work of the Cherokees.
This monument, as he informs us, was a truncated oval, the level space
on the top measuring 40 feet in length by 15 in width.
At the distance of 8 feet from the brow of the mound, on the
slope, there were found buried in the earth the decaying stumps
of a series of cedar posts, which I was informed by Mr. Ely
[the owner] at one time completely encircled it. He also told
me that at every plowing he struck more or less of these posts,
and, on digging for them, some six or seven were found at
different places, and in such order as showed that they had
been placed in the earth at regular intervals and according to
a definite plan. On the top, in the line of the greatest
diameter and near the center of the mound, another and a larger
post or column, also of cedar, was found.[52]
Quoting Bartram's description (given below) of the council house of the
Cherokees in the town of Cowe, he concludes, and I think correctly, that
this mound was the site of a similar building.
Bartram's description is as follows:[53]
The Council or Town House is a large rotunda, capable of
accommodating several hundred people. It stands on the top of
an ancient artificial mount of earth of about 20 feet
perpendicular and the rotunda on the top of it, being above 30
feet more, gives the whole fabric an elevation of about 60 feet
from the common surface of the ground. But it may be proper to
observe that this mount on which the rotunda stands is of a
much ancienter date than the building, and perhaps was raised
for another purpose. The Cherokees themselves are as ignorant
as we are by what people or for what purpose these artificial
hills were raised. * * *
The rotunda is constructed after the following manner: They
first fix in the ground a circular range of posts or trunks of
trees, about 6 feet high, at equal distances, which are notched
at top to receive into them, from one to another, a range of
beams or wall plates. Within this is another circular order of
very large and strong pillars, above 12 feet high, notched in
like manner at top to receive another range of wall plates, and
within this is yet another or third range of stronger and
higher pillars, but fewer in number, and standing at a greater
distance from each other; and, lastly, in the center stands a
very strong pillar, which forms the pinnacle of the building,
and to which the rafters center at top; these rafters are
strengthened and bound together by cross-beams and laths, which
sustain the roof or covering, which is a layer of bark neatly
placed and tight enough to exclude the rain, and sometimes they
cast a thin superficies of earth over all.
There is but one large door, which serves at the same time to
admit light from without and the smoke to escape when a fire is
kindled; but as there is but a small fire kept, sufficient to
give light at night, and that fed with dry, small, sound wood,
divested of its bark, there is but little smoke; all around the
inside of the building, betwixt the second range of pillars and
the wall, is a range of cabins or sophas consisting of two or
three steps, one above or behind the other, in theatrical
order, where the assembly sit or lean down; these sophas are
covered with mats or carpets very curiously made with thin
splits of ash or oak woven or platted together; near the great
pillar in the center the fire is kindled for light, near which
the musicians seat themselves, and around about this the
performers exhibit their dances and other shows at public
festivals, which happen almost every night throughout the year.
From indications, not necessary to be mentioned here, Professor Carr
argues that the mound could not have been intended for burial purposes,
but was evidently erected for the foundation of a building of some kind.
In a subsequent paper,[54] "Mounds of the Mississippi Valley," he not
only adheres to the theory advanced in the tenth report of the Peabody
Museum, but gives additional reasons for believing it to be true.
Although guided by very dim and feeble rays of light I am nevertheless
inclined to believe that Professor Carr has succeeded in entering the
pathway that is to lead to a correct solution of the problem in this
case. As is apparent from what has been given in this paper regarding
the burial mounds of this district, much additional data bearing on the
point have been obtained since Professor Carr's explorations were made,
on which he bases his conclusions.
The Cherokee tribe has long been a puzzling factor to students of
ethnology and North American languages. Whether to be considered an
abnormal offshoot from one of the well-known Indian stocks or families
of North America, or the remnant of some undetermined or almost extinct
family which has merged into another, appear to be questions yet
unsettled; but they are questions which do not trouble us in the present
inquiry; on the contrary, their ethnic isolation and tribal
characteristics are aids in the investigation.
That the internal arrangement of the mounds, modes of burial, and
vestiges of art of this district present sufficient peculiarities to
distinguish them from the mounds, modes of burial, and vestiges of art
of all the other districts, as I have already stated, will be conceded
by any one who will carefully study them and make the comparison. If,
therefore, it be admitted, as stated, that the Cherokees are a somewhat
peculiar people, an abnormal tribe, we have in this a coincidence worthy
of note, if strengthened by corroborating testimony.
As the mounds and other remains to be referred to are located in the
northwest part of North Carolina and the northern part of East
Tennessee, the first point to be established is that the Cherokees did
actually, at some time, occupy this region.
In the first place, it is well known that they claimed all that portion
of the country east of Clinch River to and including the northwest part
of North Carolina, at least to the Yadkin, a claim which was conceded by
the whites and acted on officially by State and national authority and
denied by no Indian tribe.
Haywood expressly states that[55]--
the Cherokees were firmly established on the Tennessee River or
Hogohega [the Holston] before the year 1650, and had dominion
over all the country on the east side of the Alleghany
Mountains, which includes the headwaters of the Yadkin,
Catawba, Broad River, and the headwaters of the Savannah--
a statement borne out by the fact that, as late as 1756, when the
English built Fort Dobbs on the Yadkin, not far from Salisbury, they
first obtained the privilege of doing so by treaty with Attacullaculla,
the Cherokee chief.[56]
Haywood asserts,[57] upon what authority is not known, that--
before the year 1690 the Cherokees, who were once settled on
the Appomattox River, in the neighborhood of Monticello, left
their former abodes and came to the west. The Powhatans are
said by their descendants to have been once a part of this
nation. The probability is that migration took place about, or
soon after, the year 1632, when the Virginians suddenly and
unexpectedly fell upon the Indians, killing all they could
find, cutting up and destroying their crops, and causing great
numbers to perish by famine. They came to New River and made a
temporary settlement, and also on the head of the Holston.
That they formerly had settlements on New River (Upper Kanawha) and on
the Holston is, as I believe, true, but that they came from the vicinity
of Monticello and the Appomattox River, were connected with the
Powhatans, or first appeared in Tennessee in 1632, cannot be believed.
First, because Jefferson makes no mention of their occupancy of this
part of Virginia; on the contrary, he locates them in the "western part
of North Carolina." Secondly, because John Lederer, who visited this
region in 1669-'70, speaking of the Indians of the "Apalatean
Mountains," doubtless the Cherokees, as he was at that time somewhere in
western North Carolina, says: "The Indians of these parts are none of
those which the English removed from Virginia; these were far more rude
and barbarous, feeding only upon raw flesh and fish, until these taught
them to sow corn and showed them the use of it."[58] Thirdly, because
it is evident that they were located in substantially the same territory
when De Soto passed through the northern part of Georgia, as it is now
admitted that the "Chelaques" or "Achalaques" mentioned by the
chroniclers of his ill-starred expedition were the Cherokees. That they
extended their territory a considerable distance farther southward after
the time of the Adelantado's visit can be easily demonstrated, but it is
unnecessary for me to present the proof of this assertion at this time,
as I presume it will be admitted.
Their traditions in regard to their migrations are uncertain and
somewhat conflicting, still there are a few items to be gleaned from
them, which, I think, may be relied upon as pointing in the proper
direction. The first is, the positive statement that they formerly had a
settlement, or were settled on or near the Nolichucky; the second is,
that they were driven from some more northern section by their enemies;
and third, their constant and persistent claim that, of right, the
country about the headwaters of the Holston and eastward into North
Carolina belonged to them.
From all the light, therefore, that I can obtain on this subject, I am
satisfied the Cherokees had at some time in the past moved southward
from a more northern location than that which they were found occupying
when first encountered by the whites. This corresponds with one of their
traditions given by Haywood, that they formerly dwelt on the Ohio and
built the mounds there. That they did at one time actually occupy the
section in which the mounds we allude to are situated cannot be doubted.
Turning now to the mounds of East Tennessee and North Carolina, to which
allusion has been made, let us see what testimony they furnish on the
point now under discussion.
The particular works to which we refer are those located in Caldwell
County, North Carolina, and Sullivan County, East Tennessee,
descriptions of which have been given.
Although we cannot say positively that no other tribe occupied this
particular section between 1540 and 1690, still the evidence and
indications leading to that conclusion are so strong as to justify us in
assuming it. We find their frontiers on the borders of Georgia in 1540;
we can trace back their settlements on the Hiawassee to a period
preceding 1652. We have evidence that the settlements on the Little
Tennessee were still older, and that even these were made subsequent to
those on the Nolichucky. We have their own tradition, as given by
Lederer, that they migrated to this region about the close of the
thirteenth century from a more northern section; and, finally, their
uniform and persistent statement, from the time first encountered by
Europeans, that when they came to this region they found it uninhabited,
with the exception of a Creek settlement on the lower Hiawassee. This
clearly indicates a movement southward, a fact of much importance in the
study of this somewhat abnormal tribe.
If, therefore, we can show that these mounds, or any of the typical
ones, were constructed since the discovery of America, we have good
reason to believe that they are to be attributed to the Cherokees,
notwithstanding their statement to Bartram that they did not build the
one at Cowe.
At the bottom of one of the largest mounds found in this region, the T.
F. Nelson triangle heretofore described, and by the side of the skeleton
of the principal personage interred in it, as shown by the arrangement
of the bodies of those buried with him, and by the ornaments and
implements found with him, were discovered three pieces of iron. That
one of the pieces, at least, is part of an implement of European
manufacture, I think no one who examines it will doubt (see Fig. 31). It
appears to be part of a sword blade or the blade of a large knife.
Another of the pieces is apparently a large awl or punch, a part of the
deer-horn handle yet remaining attached to it. A chemical examination
made by Professor Clarke, chemist of the United States Geological
Survey, shows that these were not made of meteoric iron.
That these cannot be attributed to an intrusive burial is evident from
the following facts: _First_, they were found at the very bottom of the
pit, which had been dug before depositing the bodies; _second_, they
were found with engraved shells, celts, and other relics of this
character; and _third_, they were deposited with the principal personage
who had been buried in the mound.
In the same mound and under the same circumstances some large copper
beads or cylinders were also found. A careful examination of these
specimens shows, as I think very clearly, that the copper plate of which
they were made was not manufactured by any means at the command of the
Indians or the more civilized races of Mexico or Central America, as it
is as smooth and even as any rolled copper; moreover, the beads appear
to have been cut into the proper shape by some metallic instrument. If
this supposition be correct (and I believe an inspection of the
specimens will satisfy any one that it is), it certainly indicates
contact with civilized people. If so, then we have positive proof that
this mound was made subsequent to the discovery of America by Columbus
and in all probability after the date of De Soto's expedition in 1540.