Chapter IV: Part 4

No. 2. A skeleton in a sitting posture, facing northeast; a pipe near the mouth and a polished celt over the head.

No. 3. Sitting, facing east, with shell beads around the neck and also around the arms just below the shoulders.

No. 4. Horizontal, on the back, head east and resting on the concave surface of an engraved shell; a conch shell (_Busycon perversum_) at the side of the head, and copper and shell beads around the neck.

No. 5. Horizontal, head northeast; shell beads around the neck and two discoidal stones and one celt at the feet.

No. 6. A communal grave, containing at least twenty-five skeletons, in two tiers, buried without any apparent regularity as to direction or relative position. Thirteen of the twenty-five were "flat-heads;" that is, "the heads running back and compressed in front."

Scattered through this grave, between and above the skeletons, were polished celts, discoidal stones, shells, mica, galena, fragments of pottery, and one whole pot. Around the neck and wrists of some of the skeletons were also shell beads. There may have been more than twenty-five individuals buried here, this, however, being the number of skulls observed.

No. 7. Horizontal, on the left side, head northwest; no implements.

No. 8. An irregular layer of water-worn stones, about 4 feet square. On top was a bed of charcoal 3 or 4 inches thick, on and partially imbedded in which were three skeletons, but showing no indications of having been in the fire. Scattered over these were discoidal stones, one small, saucer-shaped dish, shells (of which one is engraved), pipes, shell beads, and pieces of pottery.

No. 9. A grave containing three skeletons, lying horizontally on their backs and side by side, the outer ones with their heads east and the middle one with the head west; no implements.

No. 10. Horizontal, on the right side, head north, with stone implements in front of the face.

No. 11. Doubled up, top of the head south; shell beads around the neck and celts at the feet.

No. 12. A grave containing seventeen skeletons, seven of which had flat heads, two of the number children. Two of the adult heads were resting on engraved shells.

In this grave were found four pots and two food-cups, the handle of one representing an owl's head and that of the other an eagle's head. One of the small pots was inside a larger one. Scattered among the skeletons were shell beads, polished celts, discoidal stones, paint, etc. None of the skeletons were inclosed in stone graves.[36]

In order to convey an idea of the number of articles deposited with the dead in some of these burial places, I give here a list of those obtained from the pit last described:

One stone ax.

Forty-three polished celts.

Nine vessels of clay.

Thirty-two arrow-heads.

Twenty soapstone pipes, mostly uninjured.

Twelve discoidal stones.

Ten rubbing stones.

Two hammer stones.

One broken soapstone vessel.

Six engraved shells.

Four shell gorgets.

One _Busycon perversum_ entire, and two or three broken ones.

Five very large copper beads.

One lot of fragments of shells, some of them engraved.

A few rude shell pins.

Shell beads.

A few small copper beads.

Specimens of paint and plumbago.

Three skulls.

It is evident from the foregoing descriptions that the mode of burial and the depositories of the dead of the mound-building tribes of this part of North Carolina differed in several marked and important respects from the mode of burial and burial mounds of the sections previously alluded to, and in fact from those of any other district.

Here the pit seems to have been the important part of the depository and the mound a mere adjunct. In some cases the bodies appear to have been buried soon after death, while in others--as, for example, the groups in the triangle and Lenoir burial pit--the skeletons were probably deposited after the flesh was removed.

We are reminded by these pits of the mode of burial practiced by some of the Indian tribes, as mentioned by Lafitau,[37] Brebeuf,[38] etc.; but, before attempting to draw conclusions, we will give other illustrations of the burial mounds of this district, which are far from being uniform in character.

Comparatively few mounds have as yet been opened in North Carolina; hence the data relating to this region is somewhat meager. As bearing upon the subject, and probably relating to a period immediately following the close of the mound-building era, I give from Mr. Rogan's notes the description of a burial place explored by him on the farm of Mr. Charles Hunt, in the central part of Wilkes County:

This is not a "burial place," in the usual sense of that term, but is probably the site of a camp or temporary village. It is about three miles and a half east of Wilkesborough, on the second bottom or terrace of the Yadkin River. It differs from the burial places just described in having no large pit, the graves being separate and independent of each other. A diagram showing the relative positions of the graves and small pits accompanies Mr. Rogan's report but is omitted here, although the numbering of the graves is retained in the description.

No. 1 is a grave or oval-shaped pit 2 feet long and 18 inches wide, the top within 8 inches of the surface of the ground, while the bottom is 2-1/2 feet below it. This contained the remains of two skeletons, which were surrounded by charcoal; some of the bones were considerably charred. In the pit were some fragments of pottery, a few flint chips, and a decayed tortoise shell.

No. 2. A grave 2 feet wide, 6 feet long, and 5 feet deep. It contained quite a quantity of animal bones, some of them evidently those of a bear; also charcoal, mussel shells, and one bone implement.

No. 3. A grave of the same size and depth as No. 2, containing animal bones, broken pottery, and some charcoal.

No. 4. Grave; the size, depth, and contents same as the preceding.

No. 5. A circular pit 2 feet in diameter and 2 feet deep. This contained a very large pot, in which were some animal bones; it was on its side and crushed.

No. 6. A pit 2-1/2 feet deep and 2 feet square, with a bed of charcoal in the bottom 6 inches deep. On this bed was a layer of flint chips, and on the chips a quantity of broken pottery, animal bones, a discoidal stone, and a bone implement.

No. 7. A grave similar to those described.

No. 8. A large grave, containing three skeletons, lying at full length upon the right side, with the heads a little east of north. Between the front and the middle one was a mass of mussel shells. At the head and back of the front one were a number of animal bones, and between it and the middle one, opposite the pelvis, was a large broken pot. The right arm of the third or back one was extended forward and upward, the left arm resting across the head, a white flint chip grasped in the hand. The head of this skeleton was resting on a piece of a broken pot, and in front of the face, at the distance of a foot, was also part of a pot, containing a stone fragment and some animal bones. Under the legs of the three skeletons, the head extending in front of the legs of the third or back one, was the skeleton of a bear, and in front of the latter were three broken pots, containing animal bones.

No. 9. A basin-shaped fire-bed, or bed of burnt clay, 8 inches thick. A section of this bed is shown in Fig. 34--_b_, _b_, _b_, the bed of burnt clay, 8 inches thick, the material evidently placed here and not a part of the original soil. The basin _a_ was filled with ashes, to the depth of 12 inches; the diameter, from 1 to 2, 2 feet 3 inches, from 1 to 3 and from 2 to 4, 1 foot 6 inches.

No. 10. A bed of mussel shells, 3 inches thick and 3 feet in diameter, lying on a flat bed of burnt earth 3 inches thick.

No. 11. A pit 5 feet deep and 3 feet in diameter, filled with animal bones, mussel shells, and broken pottery.

There was no mounding over any of these graves or pits.

The basin-shaped fire-bed, No. 9, reminds us very strongly of the so-called altars of the Ohio mounds, and may possibly assist us in arriving at a correct conclusion concerning these puzzling structures.

A mound opened by Dr. J. M. Spainhour in Burke County, some years ago, presents some variations, though, so far as the posture and relative positions of the skeletons are concerned, reminding us of those in Caldwell County. The following extract is from the article containing the description:[39]

Digging down I struck a stone about 18 inches below the surface,
which was found to be 18 inches long and 16 inches wide and from
2 to 3 inches in thickness, the corners rounded. It rested on
solid earth and had been smoothed on top.

I then made an excavation in the south of the mound, and soon
struck another stone, which upon examination proved to be in
front of the remains of a human skeleton in a sitting posture;
the bones of the fingers of the right hand had been resting on
the stone. Near the hand was a small stone about 5 inches long,
resembling a tomahawk or Indian hatchet. Upon a further
examination many of the bones were found, though in a very
decomposed condition, and upon exposure to the air they soon
crumbled to pieces. The heads of the bones, a considerable
portion of the skull, jaw-bones, teeth, neck-bones, and the
vertebræ were in their proper places. Though the weight of the
earth above them had driven them down, yet the frame was
perfect, and the bones of the head were slightly inclined
toward the east. Around the neck were found coarse beads that
seemed to be of some substance resembling chalk.

A small lump of red paint, about the size of an egg, was found
near the right side of this skeleton. From my knowledge of
anatomy, the sutures of the skull would indicate the subject to
have been twenty-five or twenty-eight years of age. The top of
the skull was about 12 inches below the mark of the plow.

I made a further excavation in the west part of this mound and
found another skeleton similar to the first, in a sitting
posture, facing the last. A stone was on the right, on which
the right hand had been resting, and on this was a tomahawk
which had been about 7 inches in length, broken into two
pieces, and much better finished than the first. Beads were
also on the neck of this one, but were much smaller and of
finer quality than those on the neck of the first; the
material, however, seemed to be the same. A much larger amount
of paint was found by the side of this than the first. The
bones indicated a person of larger frame and I think of about
fifty years of age. Everything about this one had the
appearance of superiority over the first. The top of the skull
was about 6 inches below the mark of the plow.

I continued the examination, and after diligent search found
nothing at the north part of the mound, but on reaching the
east side found another skeleton, in the same posture as the
others, facing the west. On the right side of this was a stone
on which the right hand had been resting, and on the stone was
also a tomahawk about 8 inches in length, broken into three
pieces, much smoother and of finer material than the others.
Beads were also found on the neck of this, but much smaller and
finer than on those of the others, as well as a large amount of
paint. The bones would indicate a person of forty years of age.
The top of the skull had been moved by the plow.

There was no appearance of hair discovered; besides, the
principal bones were almost entirely decomposed, and crumbled
when handled.

A complete exploration of this mound, the dimensions of which are not given, would possibly have shown that the skeletons were arranged somewhat in a circle. The doctor does not state whether there was a pit.

Some mounds in Henderson County, opened in 1884 by Mr. J. W. Emmert, who was temporarily employed by the Bureau, present some peculiarities worthy of notice. One of these, situated on the farm of Mrs. Rebecca Conner, and perfectly circular, was found to be 44 feet in diameter and 6 feet high; a number of small trees were growing on it. The annexed cut (Fig. 35) shows a vertical section of it, the dark central triangle representing a conical mass of charcoal and ashes. The conical mass measured 16 feet in diameter at the base and 5 feet high, the top reaching within 1 foot of the top of the mound. The outer portion consisted of charcoal, evidently the remains of pine poles, which had been placed in several layers, sloping toward the apex. The inner portion consisted of ashes and coals mixed with earth, in which were found some burnt human (?) bones, and some accompanying articles, among which were two stones with holes drilled through them. The fragments of bones and the specimens were at the base, in the center.

A mound on the farm of Mr. J. B. Alexander, 2 miles above the one just described, was examined by Mr. Emmert, and found to cover a pit similar to those explored in Caldwell County.

This mound was situated on an elevated level, about a quarter of a mile from the creek, in an old field which had been plowed over for sixty years. It was 2 feet high when he explored it, but the old people stated to him that it was formerly 10 feet high, and had a "tail" or ridge running away from it 200 feet long; but the only indication of this that Mr. Emmert could see was a strip of clay running off where it was stated to have been. It runs in the direction of the creek bottom, where any quantity of broken pottery may be picked up. The mound, which was 30 feet in diameter and composed wholly of red clay, was entirely removed to the original surface of the ground. Nothing was found in it, but after reaching the surface he discovered a circular pit 12 feet in diameter, which had been dug to the depth of 4 feet in the solid red clay. This he found to be filled full of ashes and charcoal, but failed to find any bones or specimens in it.

Although Mr. Emmert failed to find any evidence that this was a burial mound, its similarity with those of Caldwell County will, I think, justify us in concluding it was constructed for this purpose.

Another mound on the same farm as the one last mentioned, a 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.

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.

Another section of this class includes those who, although rejecting the 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. * * *