Chapter X: The Mound Builders.1 (3)

Our next cut is named by Mr. Pidgeon the “Sacrificial Pentagon.”
Writing in 1850, he states, “This remarkable group . . . has
probably elicited more numerous conjectures as to its original
use than any other earth-work yet discovered in the valley of the
Mississippi. . . . It is situated on the west highlands of the
Kickapoo River, in Wisconsin.”76 Mr. Pidgeon claims to have
discovered two of these pentagons. We are not aware that any one
else has verified these discoveries, and it is difficult to
decide what value to give to his writings. He claims to have made
extensive researches around the head-waters of the Mississippi as
early as 1840, and there to have met an aged Indian—the last of
his tribe—who gave him many traditions as to the mounds in that
locality. Most of our scholars think his writings of no account,
whatever, and yet Mr. Conant says, “He seems to have been a
thoroughly conscientious and careful observer, faithfully noting
what he saw and beard.”77

Sacrificial Pentagon.

We will briefly describe a few of the earth-works he mentions,
notice their singular form, and give an outline of the traditions
in regard to them, leaving the reader to draw his own
conclusions. Of this work the outer circle is said to have been
twelve hundred feet in circumference, the walls being from three
to five feet in height; width on the ground from twelve to
sixteen feet. The walls of the pentagon were from four to six
feet high. The inner circle was of very slight elevation. The
central mound was thirty-six feet in diameter. This singular
arrangement of circle, pentagon, and mounds, is traditionally
represented to have been a sacred national altar—the most holy
one known to tradition—and no foot, save that of a priest, might
pass within the sacred walls of the pentagon after its
completion. The sacrifice offered on this altar was that of human
life. Twice each year the offering was made.78

Festival Circle.

The work represented in the figure at left is stated to have been
in the near neighborhood of the former, and to have been
intimately connected with it. Mr. Pidgeon claims to have found
five of these circles and two pentagons. So far as we know, he is
the only authority for their occurrence, no one else having been
so fortunate as to have found them. This is surely a singular
work, and we can not fail to recognize in it a representation of
the sun and the moon. In excavating in the central mound, we are
assured that small pieces Of mica were found abundantly mixed
with the soil. “Had the surface-soil been removed with care, and
the stratum beneath been washed by a few heavy showers of rain,
so thoroughly studded was it with small particles of mica, that
under the sun’s rays it certainly would have presented no unapt
symbolic representation of that luminary.”79

Crescent Works.

Our next figure is another singular arrangement of
crescent-shaped works and mounds. Lapham says that
crescent-shaped works are found in Wisconsin. Pidgeon says that
crescent works are found in Illinois, but works arranged as shown
in this wood-cut he found in but four places in Wisconsin. Could
we verify this author’s statements, this illustration and the
preceding one would be very good evidence of the prevalence of
sun-worship among the effigy Mound Builders of Wisconsin. This
would be nothing singular, since the Indian race almost
universally reverenced the sun.80

The figure below represents a group of works which, we are told,
were of a class formerly abundant in Missouri and Iowa. The
embankments are stated to be of varying heights, but all of the
same length. They do not quite meet, but a mound defends the
opening. Sometimes a square is so represented, and sometimes but
two walls.

Triangular Works.

A singular statement is made in reference to a nice proportion
said to be observed between the heights of the embankments and
walls. In this case, for instance, the heights of the embankments
are, three, four, and five feet; the sum of these, twelve feet,
was the exact height of the central mound. Furthermore, the
square of the sum of the heights of three embankments gives us
one hundred and forty-four feet, which is the length of the
embankments. We are gravely assured that this same nice
proportion is always observed in works of this kind. The
embankments being always of equal length, but of varying heights,
still the sum of these heights, whether three or four sides,
being always equal to the height of the central mound.81 We do
not know of any specimen of this class of works now existing. If
this early explorer’s account be reliable, then we have in works
of this class very good evidence that some of their inclosures
were in the nature of sacred inclosures. The trouble is to verify
Mr. Pidgeon’s account. There is a good deal that is strange and
marvelous in reference to the Mound Builders, and we must use
judgment as to what is told us, unless we are sure there is no
mistake, or unless the reports are vouched for by many observers.

We wish to call attention to some singular works in Missouri,
which would imply that the Mound Builders were possessed of no
little engineering skill. We have every indication that near New
Madrid was a very extensive settlement. The works consist of
inclosures, large and small mounds in great numbers, and
countless residence sites. One of fifty acres was noticed, which
had evidently been inclosed by earthen walls. In some places in
the forest, where this wall had been preserved, its height was
found to be from three to five feet, and its base width fifteen
feet.82 But the suggestive features about these works are noticed
along the edge of the swamp near which they stood. This swamp in
1811 was a lake, with a clear, sandy bottom. It is not at all
doubted but that it was at one time the bed of the Mississippi
River, and probably this town stood on its banks. The river is
now some eighteen miles away. It must suddenly have changed its
course, leaving behind it a lake, which, in course of time,
became a swamp.

But along the shores of this ancient lake, in front of the
inclosure, small tongues of land have been carried out into the
water, from fifteen to thirty feet in length, by ten, or fifteen
in width, with open spaces between, which, small as they are,
forcibly remind one of the wharfs of a seaport town. The cypress
trees grew very thickly in all the little bays thus formed, and
the irregular, yet methodical, outlines of the forest, winding in
and out close to the shore of these tongues of land, is so marked
as to remove all doubt as to their artificial origin.83 The
suggestion is made in view of these wharfs, that the Mound
Builders must have had some sort of boats to navigate the waters
of the lake.

And the singular part is, that right in this neighborhood are
many evidences of a system of canals. A glance at the map will
show that the portion of Missouri around New Madrid, and to the
south of it, is dotted with swampy lakes and sluggish bayous. The
evidence is to the effect that the ancient inhabitants connected
these bayous and lakes with artificial canals, so as to form
quite an extended system of inland water-ways. Right east of the
town of Gayoso, we are told that a canal had been dug that now
connects the Mississippi with a lake called Big Lake. A bayou
running into this lake was joined by a canal with Cushion Lake.

From this last lake, by means of bayous and lakes, a clear course
could be pursued for some miles north, where finally another
canal was cut to join with the Mississippi a few miles below New
Madrid. The entire length of this water way was some seventy
miles, but we are not told how much of it was artificial, neither
are the dimensions given. Prof. Swallow speaks of a canal “fifty
feet wide, and twelve feet, deep.” Whether this was one of this
series or not, we do not know.84 This is indeed a singular piece
of work. It would be more satisfactory if we had more definite
information in regard to the same.

With our present knowledge of the state of society among the
Mound Builders, as made evident by the remains of their
implements and ornaments, we are not justified in believing this
part of a system of internal navigation. We have already seen
that further south they sometimes surrounded their village sites
with a wide and deep moat or ditch, as was observed around the
inclosure containing the great mound on the Etowah. We are
inclined to believe that a more careful survey would greatly
modify the accounts we have of these canals, if it did not, in
fact, show that they were the works of nature. According to a
writer in the _American Antiquarian,_85 the whole lower part of
the Mississippi Valley was abundantly supplied with canals,
irrigating ditches, and evidences of a high intelligence. He
speaks of observing the presence of an extensive canal a little
north of the section we have described. He asserts they were dug
to convey the surplus waters of the Mississippi in times of flood
to the White and St. Francis Rivers, thus preventing disastrous
overflows. It is needless to caution the reader against such
conclusions. Our information in regard to those canals is far too
limited to support the views advanced.

This finishes our examination of the works of the Mound Builders.
Except in the case of the more massive works, they have become
obliterated, but here and there are left traces of the former
presence of these now vanished people. The antiquary muses over
the remains of their inclosures, their fortified places, their
effigies and mounds. By the combined efforts of scholars in many
departments, we may yet hope that the darkness now enshrouding
this race may be dissipated, but at present our positive
knowledge is very limited indeed. It is as if we were asked to
reconstruct a picture which had faded in the lapse of time so
that only traces here and there are visible. Here, perhaps, a
hand is seen; there a piece of foliage; in one place something we
think representing water, in another a patch of sky, or a
mountain peak. Until a key is found which shall show us how to
connect these scattered parts, our efforts are useless, since
many pictures could be formed, but we have no surety we are
right. So we may form mental conceptions of the Mound Builders,
but they are almost as varied as the individual explorers.
Science may yet discover the key which will enable us to form a
clear mental conception of the race which flourished here many
years ago, and left their crumbling memorials to excite the
curiosity of a later people.

We must now turn our attention to another branch of inquiry and
learn what we can of the culture of the Mound Builders. This is
to be determined by an investigation of the remains of their
implements, weapons, and ornaments. When we know the skill with
which they manufactured these articles, and gain an insight into
some of their probable customs, we shall know where to place them
in the scale of civilization. What we have learned of their works
has already convinced us that we are dealing with a people
considerably above the scale of Savagery. The nice proportion
between the parts, the exact circles and coincident angles show
considerable advance in mechanical skill. The character of the
works indicates that the people had permanent places of abode,
and were not subject to the vicissitudes of a hunter’s state of
life for subsistence. This implies that we are dealing with a
people living in village communities, practising agriculture and
many other arts, and therefore entitled to rank in the middle
status of Barbarism corresponding to the Neolithic inhabitants of
Europe.86 We will now see how far this conclusion is sustained by
an examination of the remains of the handiwork of the people.

Arrow Points. Ax found in a Mound.

Implements of stone are of course abundant. But men, when in the
culture of the Stone Age, having a common material to work upon,
and under the pressure of common needs, have everywhere provided
similar forms. For this reason it is hard to find distinctive
points of difference between implements of stone of Mound
Builders’ work and a series of similar implements the work of
Indians. We are assured, however, that when examining a series of
each, those of the Mound Builders display a superior finish.87
The preceding wood-cut represents a collection of arrow-points
found in the mounds, but they are not particularly so
distinguishable from specimens found on the surface. Great
numbers of arrow-points are occasionally found on altars. Here we
have a view of one of the stone axes fashioned by the hands that
heaped the mounds. It is certainly a very fine specimen.

The Mound Builders must have had all the varieties of stone
implements common to people in their stage of culture, such as
axes, fleshers, and chisels. They also must have possessed
mortars and pestles for grinding corn, and some implements did
duty as hoes and spades. We represent in a group a collection of
weapons and implements from the mounds and stone graves of
Tennessee. All these articles are finely finished. One of the
axes has a hole bored through it. One of them is further provided
with a stone handle, and is characterized as being the “most
beautiful and perfect stone implement ever exhumed from the
aboriginal remains within the limits of the United States.”

Weapons of Stone from Tennessee. (Smith. Inst.)

People in the culture of the Stone Age make but very rare use of
metal, as metals are to them simply varieties of stone, much less
useful for their purpose than the different kinds of flints,
except for ornaments. From the altar mounds, near Cincinnati,
were taken ornaments of silver, copper, iron and traces of gold,
all of which had been worked into their present shape by simply
hammering. The iron, it should be remarked, was meteoric iron,
which can be hammered as easily as native copper. We have already
remarked that about the only native iron is obtained from such
sources. Copper was utilized for a great variety of purposes.

Copper Ax.

We give a cut of a copper ax found in one of the Ohio mounds.
Copper axes have lately been found quite frequently in mounds
near Davenport, Iowa, and in most cases before being deposited in
the mounds, they had been wrapped in cloth. Copper ornaments are
a more common find. Bracelets, beads, and ear ornaments are
numerous. Our next cut represents some very fine bracelets found
in a mound near Chillicothe, Ohio, Copper tools and weapons have
been found quite frequently on the surface, but we are not sure
in this case whether they are not the work of recent Indians. The
early explorers noticed the presence of copper ornaments among
the Indians. “When Henry Hudson discovered, in 1609, the
magnificent river that bears his name, he noticed among the
Indians of that region pipes and ornaments of copper.” The
account says: “They had red copper tobacco pipes, and other
things of copper they did wear about their necks.”88 De Soto also
noticed among the Southern Indians axes of copper. Other accounts
could be quoted showing that the Indians were well acquainted
with copper.89 The fact is, in this matter also, it is impossible
to draw a dividing line between relics of the Mound Building
tribes and the Indians. However, the Mound Builders were
certainly acquainted with copper, but to their minds it was only
a singular stone, one that they could hammer, into a desired
shape.

Copper Bracelets.

Where did they obtain their copper? We are all aware that in this
country great supplies of pure copper exist near the southern
shore of Lake Superior, and there is a peculiarity about the
copper found there, that is, the presence of small pieces of
silver with the copper. This is a very singular mixture, and we
are not aware of its occurrence elsewhere. It would trouble the
best chemists to explain it. From this fact we are enabled to
identify articles of copper derived from that source, and to that
region we can trace the copper from which are formed most of the
copper implements and ornaments found in this country. It is also
noticeable that the nearer we get to this region the more
numerous are the finds of articles of copper. More are reported
from Wisconsin than the rest of the United States put together.

This leads us to a very interesting subject. In 1848 Mr. S. O.
Knapp, agent of the Minnesota Mining Company on the northern
peninsula of Michigan, discovered that the modern miners were but
following in the footsteps of some ancient people who had mined
for copper there some time now far past. The general conclusion
is that these old miners were Mound Builders, but here the
evidence of their presence is not found in the existence of
mounds and earthworks, but of pits and excavations, which, by the
slow accumulation of years, had become filled to near the surface
with _débris_ of various kinds. Many had noticed these little
pits and depressions without suspecting they had aught to do with
the presence of man. The hollows made by large trees, overturned
by the wind, frequently left as well marked depressions as these
excavations.

We have abundant proof that these old miners were practical
workmen. They evidently did not neglect the most trifling
indication of metals. They made thorough research and discovered
the principal lodes. Our present day miners have long since
learned to regard the presence of these ancient pits as excellent
guides in this matter. With modern appliances they penetrate far
beyond the power of the old workmen. At the Waterbury mine there
is in the face of the vertical bluff an artificial opening, which
is twenty-five feet wide, fifteen feet high, and twelve feet
deep. The materials thrown out in digging had accumulated in
front, and on this forest trees common to that region were
growing of full size. Some of the blocks of stone which were
removed from this recess would probably weigh two or three tons,
and must have required the use of levers to move them. Beneath
the surface rubbish was discovered the remains of a cedar trough,
by which the water from the mines was conducted away. Wooden
bowls were found, which were probably used to dip the water from
the mine into this trough.

Near the bottom of the pit, shovels, made of cedar, were found,
shaped much like a canoe paddle, but showing by their wear that
they were used as shovels. Although they appeared solid while in
water, yet, on drying, they shrunk up, and were with difficulty
preserved. A birch tree, two feet in diameter, was observed
growing directly over one of these shovels. No marks of metallic
tools were observed anywhere about this large pit.

Ancient Mine, Michigan.

In this case they constructed a sort of a cave, but in many cases
they mined open to the air, that is, they simply dug trenches or
pits. A row of these ancient pits, now slight depressions,
indicate a vein. What they seem to have especially sought after
was lumps of copper that they could easily manage and fashion by
hammering. They had not discovered the art of melting. When they
found an unusually large piece, they broke off what they could by
vigorous hammering. In one case they found a mass weighing about
six tons of pure copper. They made an attempt to master this
piece. By means of wedges they had got it upon a cob-work of
round logs or skids, six or eight inches in diameter, but the
mass was finally abandoned for some unknown reason after breaking
off such pieces as they could until the upper surface was smooth.
This mass rested on the framework of logs while the years came
and went, until, after the lapse of unknown time, the white men
once more opened the old mine.

On the rubbish in front of this mine was standing the stump of a
pine tree ten feet in circumference. These ancient mines are
found not only on the main-land, but on the islands off the coast
as well. The only helps they seem to have employed was fire,
traces of which are found everywhere, and stone mauls and axes.
The mauls consist of oblong water-worn bowlders of hard tough
rock, nature having done every thing in fashioning them except to
form the groove, which was chiseled out around the middle. Some
copper implements were also found.

Col. Whittlesey, from whose writings we have drawn the foregoing,
concludes that these mines were worked by the Mound Builders. As
he finds no traces of graves or houses, or other evidence of a
protracted stay, he thinks they were worked only through the
Summer season of the year by bands of workmen from the south.

As to what caused the abandonment of the works we do not know. It
might have been an impulse of their race hurrying them on to some
distant migration; or, more probably, pressed by foes from
without, they were compelled to abandon their ancient homes.
Whatever the cause was, nature resumed her sway. Forest trees
crept up to and grew around the mouths of the deserted mines.
Col. Whittlesey concludes from the group of trees growing on the
top of the rubbish heap that at least five hundred years passed
away before the white man came from the south to resume the work
of his ancient predecessor.90

It is not, however, proven that the Mound Builders were the sole
workers of these ancient mines. It is known that the Indians
mined for flint. Some of the excavations for this purpose, in
what is known as Flint Ridge, in Muskingum County, Ohio, are as
marked as the traces of ancient mining in Michigan. Similar
appearances are recorded in Missouri. As copper was in demand
among the Indians, and as it is probable that they obtained much
of it from the North, they may have continued to work the ancient
copper mines until comparatively recent times. Mr. Lapham
believes that the progenitors of the Indian tribes found dwelling
in the regions near these mines, carried on mining operations
there. Dr. Rau thinks it probable that small bands of various
Northern tribes made periodical excursions to the locality,
returning to their homes when they had supplied themselves with
sufficient quantities of the much-desired metal. The fact that
many of the modern Indian tribes knew nothing about these mines
is not of much weight, when we reflect how easily a barbarian
people forget events, even those of a striking nature.

We are apt to judge the culture of a people by the skill they
display in works of arts. The article on which the Mound Builder
lavished most of his skill was the pipe. This would show that
with them, as with the modern Indians, the use of the pipe was
largely interwoven with their civil and religious observances. In
making war and in concluding peace, it probably played a very
important part. “To know the whole history of tobacco, of the
custom of smoking, and of the origin of the pipe, would be to
solve many of the most interesting problems of American
ethnology.”91

The general decoration consisted in carving the bowl of the pipe
into the shape of some animal or bird. In some instances we have
carved representations of the human head. Such as these are of
particular interest and value, as they are probably faithful
representations of the features of the Mound Builders. This is a
fine specimen found in one of the altar mounds in Ohio. The
method of wearing the hair is worthy of notice. The holes placed
in a row encircling the forehead and coming down as low as the
ears, were once filled with pearls. In some they still remained
when found, though they had been burned in the fire. The lines
upon the face obviously imitate the custom of tattooing the
countenance.

Sculptured Face and Face of a Female.

Scholars have called attention to the fact that Humboldt
discovered in Mexico a small statue which he supposed represented
an Aztec priestess. This statue had sculptured upon its forehead
a row of pearls, worn in the same manner as is represented in
this pipe. This is another pipe of great interest, and is
supposed to represent the head of a woman. The countenance is
expressive, the eyes prominent, and the lips full and rounded. We
must notice again the headdress. While the faces are of Indian
type, the method of wearing the hair is different from that of
the typical Indian of the North.

Beaver.

The animal forms into which the pipe-bowls are carved, are also
full of interest. This is not so much on account of animal forms
themselves as the insight we gain as to the artistic skill of the
people who fashioned the pipes, and in various ways learn of bits
of customs and manners peculiar to them. Here we have figured a
pipe, the bowl of which is carved to represent a beaver. No one
need hesitate as to the animal which the carver had in mind. It
is represented in a characteristic attitude, and has the broad,
flat tail of its species. It must have required no little skill
and patient labor to work a rough stone into this finished pipe,
especially when we remember that the maker had no edged tools
with which to work.

Otter.

We can not always determine the animal which the artist had in
mind. In this illustration we have figured such a pipe.
Considerable discussion has arisen as to the animal represented.
Some cases of this nature have been thought to show either
migration from a distant country on the part of the maker or else
an extended system of trade.

Squier and Davis, who first figured it, supposed it to represent
a manatee, or sea-cow. This animal is essentially a tropical
species, the only known place where it was found in the United
States being Florida. From the presence of this carved specimen,
found a thousand miles to the north, some interesting queries, as
the origin of the mound-building tribes, and the state of life
among them, were raised. It is almost certain, however, that the
animal intended to be represented was the otter.92

Birds on Pipes.

The most general form of sculpture was that of birds, and we find
specimens of almost all the common varieties. In this group we
recognize the tufted heron striking a fish; the eagle, or hawk,
tearing a smaller bird; the swallow, apparently just ready to
fly; and in the last figure, one that has given rise to a good
deal of discussion. Some think from the circumstance of its
having a very large bill, toes pointing behind as well as before,
that it represents a toucan, which, if true, would make it a most
interesting specimen. But cautious scholars conclude that the
“figure is not of sufficient distinctness to identify the
original that was before the artist’s mind.” And therefore it is
not wise to make this specimen the subject of a far-reaching
speculation.93

It may be of interest to inquire whether the Indians made pipes
as tastefully ornamented as those we have described. We should
notice that all the pipes here described are from one very
limited locality in Ohio, and that is the valley of the Scioto,
the same section of country where were found the great inclosures
of a mathematical shape. We have no reason for supposing that the
Mound Builders generally throughout the Mississippi Valley had
this artistic skill. We have seen nowhere any thing to show a
superiority for them in this respect. Whatever conclusion can be
drawn from those pipes, applies only to the tribe in the Scioto
Valley. It is believed they do constitute a peculiar class by
themselves. As works of art, there are but few aboriginal relics
of North American origin their equal.94

We would also refer to the fact that most of these specimens were
obtained from one altar-mound.95 We do not know what ceremonies
were performed around this altar, but if it were a place of
burial or cremation, they might have been the obsequies of some
distinguished maker of pipes. That such a person would be the
recipient of honor, is not singular, for “the manufacture of
stone pipes, necessarily a painful and tedious labor, may have
formed a branch of aboriginal industry, and the skillful pipe
carver probably occupied among the former Indians a rank equal to
that of the experienced sculptor in our times.” Among the Ojibway
Indians, we are told, are persons who possess peculiar skill in
the carving of pipes, and make it their profession, or at least
the means of gaining, in part, their livelihood. One “inlaid his
pipes very tastefully with figures of stars, and flowers of black
and white stones. But his work proceeded very slowly, and he sold
his pipes at high prices.”96 So we see how cautious we must be
about drawing inferences from this peculiar class of pipes found
in one limited locality.

The knowledge of how to manufacture pottery is justly regarded as
a turning point in the advance of primitive man along the weary
road that brings him at last to civilization. At this point he
ceases to be a savage, and enters the confines of Barbarism.97
The skill shown in using this knowledge is one of the many things
we have to take into consideration in determining the rank of a
people in the scale of enlightenment. The Mound Builders were
evidently quite well along in the potter’s art; and as they have
left behind them many examples of their work, we must try and
acquaint ourselves with some of the more important varieties.

Group of Clay Vessels.

This illustration is of a group of clay vessels of the bowl
pattern, found in mounds in different parts of the Mississippi
Valley. In one of these we see a good example of the style of
ornamentation by means of incised lines. In the duck-headed
vessel we have a representation of a class of vessels common in
Missouri and Tennessee. Not unfrequently one or both of the
handles of vessels of this class is in the form of a human head
instead of that of an animal. Our next illustrations represent a
group of such specimens. Judging from the skill with which they
imitated animals, it is not unreasonable to believe that in these
faces we have rude likenesses of the people who made them.

Bowls with Human Faces.

The two bottle-shaped vessels here figured, are from mounds in
Louisiana. As will be noticed, the ornamentation is quite
artistic. The ware is of a good quality, and they are good
examples of the Mound Builders’ art. The form with the long neck
is perhaps a water-cooler. When filled with water, and allowed to
stand, some of the water passes through the pores, and
evaporating, keeps the surface of the vessel cool.

They also made some vessels of large size to serve for cooking
purposes. On some of the larger vessels the imprint of woven
weeds and willows of a basket on the outer surface leads to the
belief that such vessels were formed or moulded within baskets.
Many large pots and urns, however, were made without this aid.
Some large urns were used for burial purposes. In a Michigan
mound an urn about three feet in height had been so used. It was
standing upright, and into it the whole skeleton of a man had
been compressed, and a closely-fitting lid covered the top.98
Very large, shallow vessels were used to manufacture salt—that
is, they were filled from some salt-spring, and then the water
was evaporated, leaving the salt. In localities near
salt-springs, thick fragments of rude earthenware have been found
that must have come from vessels as large as barrels.

Bottle-shaped Vessels. (Smith. Inst.)
Water Cooler.

In the next group we have representations of a singular class of
vessels. In some cases the mouth and neck of the vessel is shaped
in imitation of animals. In the smallest one we recognize the
head of a man, with an opening in the back of the head. Many
vessels of this form are known, and a great many different animal
heads are represented. The fish-shaped vessel is a curious one.
The one figured evidently represents a sun-fish. The long vase or
jug is in the shape of a child’s leg, with an opening in the
heel.

Pottery Vessels. (Smith. Inst.)

Some very beautiful vessels of the character of those we have
figured, have been found in Missouri. One enthusiastic explorer
says, “Perhaps we have very few modern artists who could equal
those ancient pottery makers in taste, skill, curious design, and
wonderful imitation of nature. Birds, beasts, fishes, even the
shells on the river shore, have an exact counterpart in their
domestic utensils.” “While digging in one of these pottery mounds
in Missouri, we unearthed a large tortoise. We thought it was
alive, and seizing it, to cast it into the woods for its liberty,
we were suddenly surprised to find our tortoise was an earthen
vessel in that shape. In the same mound we uncovered a huge
shell—the single valve of a unio. Closer inspection revealed that
it was a perfect earthen vessel. Following these came a perfect
fish, exhibiting, to our astonishment, the scales, fins, and
peculiarities of that species of fish in detail.”99

We must leave this interesting part of our subject. An entire
volume would scarcely do justice to it, but for the sake of
comparison, we must inquire as to the state of this art among the
Indian tribes. It seems that before the arrival of the whites,
the Indian tribes throughout North America, with few exceptions,
were apt potters. The whites, however, soon supplied them with
superior utensils of metal, so, that the majority of the Eastern
tribes soon lost the knowledge of the art. It lingered longer
among the tribes of the South, and of the interior, and even to
this day the Pueblo tribes of New Mexico and Arizona make an
excellent article of pottery. Early travelers wrote in high terms
of the skill of the Southern Indians in this matter. Du-Pratz
thought so highly of the work of the Natchez Indians that he had
them make him an entire dinner set.

Catlin, speaking of the Mandan Indians, says the women of that
tribe made great quantities of dishes and bowls, modeled after
many forms. He says they are so strong and serviceable that they
cook food in them by hanging them over the fire, as we would an
iron pot. “I have seen specimens,” he continues, “which have been
dug up in Indian mounds and tombs in the Southern and Middle
States, placed in our Eastern museums, and looked upon as a great
wonder, when here this novelty is at once done away with, and the
whole mystery: where women can be seen handling and using them by
hundreds, and they can be seen every day in the summer, also,
moulding into many fanciful forms, and passing them through the
kilns, where they are hardened.”

Dr. Rau, speaking of the artistic skill of the Indian potters, as
shown by numerous remains gathered in Illinois, does not hesitate
to assert, after personal examination of Mound Builders’ pottery,
that the Indian relics were in every respect equal to those
specimens exhumed from the mounds of the Mississippi Valley.100
Lapham, speaking of fragments of Mound Builders’ pottery in
Wisconsin, says, “They agree in every respect with fragments
found about the old Indian villages.”

The culture of a people is also determined by their knowledge of
agriculture. The savage depends entirely upon hunting and fishing
for subsistence. A knowledge of horticulture, of domestic
animals, and of agriculture, even though rude, are each and all
potent factors in advancing man in culture. So we must inquire as
to the traces of agricultural knowledge observable among the
remains of the Mound Builders. Some writers speak in quite
glowing terms of the enormous crops they must have raised for
their populous cities. The fact is, that while it is doubtless
true that they practiced agriculture, yet we have no reason to
suppose it was any thing more than a rude tillage, such as was
practiced among the village Indian tribes. This is evident from
the tools with which they worked.

Agricultural Implements. (Smith. Inst.)

In a few cases copper tools have been recovered which may have
served for digging in the ground, but in most cases their art
furnished them nothing higher than spades, shovels, picks, and
hoes made of stone, horn, bone, and probably wood. In this cut
are specimens of such agricultural tools. These were doubtless
furnished with handles of wood. The notched one was perhaps
provided with a handle at right angles to it, so as to constitute
a hoe. That we are right in regarding these implements as
agricultural tools, is shown not only by their large size, but
also by the traces of wear discovered on them. We must admit,
however, that agriculture carried on with such tools as these,
must have been in a comparatively rude state.

In this connection we must refer to the garden beds noticed in
some places. We read that in Western Michigan the so-called
garden beds are a distinguishing feature of the ancient
occupation, often covering many acres in a place, in a great
variety of forms, both regular and grotesque.101 These seem from
the above account to be very similar to the garden beds of
Wisconsin. Dr. Lapham tells us that in the latter State they
consist of low, broad, parallel ridges, as if corn had been
planted in drills.

The average four feet in width, and the depth of the walk between
them is six inches. Traces of this kind of cultivation are found
in various parts of the State. We are also referred to the
presence of garden mounds in Missouri, but in this case the low
mounds are of the same mysterious class that Prof. Forshey says
occur by millions in the South-west, and may not be the work of
man. Just what the connection is between the garden beds and the
Mound Builders is hard to determine. Mr. Lapham thinks that those
in Wisconsin were certainly later in date than the mounds. He
observed that they were frequently constructed right across the
works of the Mound Builders. This would seem to imply that the
makers were not one and the same people.

As to the government and religion of the Mound Builders, all is
conjecture. On both of these points a great deal has been
assumed, but when we try to find out the grounds on which these
theories rest we quickly see how little real foundation there is
for any knowledge on this subject. If we are right in our views
as to the effigy mounds of Wisconsin, then a sort of animal
worship prevailed. Whether the great inclosures in the Scioto
Valley were of a religious nature or not is very doubtful. The
great serpent mound was probably an object of worship. The
assertion is quite frequently made that the Mound Builders were
sun worshipers, which may be correct, but we must observe that we
have no proofs of it in the works they have left. We judge it to
be true only because sun-worship was probably a part of the
religion of a large proportion of the Indian race, and because we
find special proofs of its existence among some of the Southern
Indians who are supposed to be closely related to the Mound
Builders.

Idols. (Smith. Inst.)

As we approach the South, we meet with what are supposed to be
rude and uncouth idols, but they have not been found under such
circumstances as to make it positive that they belonged to the
Mound Builders. In this illustration we have two idols,
considered to be genuine relics of the stone-grave people of
Tennessee. The first one is an Aztec idol found at Cholula, and
introduced here simply for comparison. What position these idols
held in connection with the religion of the race, we are not
prepared to say.

Similar remarks might be made as to the system of government. A
number of writers, taking into account the immense labor involved
in constructing some of the works, have insisted that the people
must have lived under a despotic form of government, one in which
the state had unlimited power over the lives and fortunes of its
subjects.102

There is no real foundation for such views, and we think they are
misleading. No one doubts but that the Mound Builders were living
in a tribal state of society. If so, they doubtless had the usual
subdivisions of a tribe. This point we remember afforded us some
insight into the meaning of the effigy mounds of Wisconsin.

This would imply the government by the council, and while the
rulers may have been hereditary, the officers of the tribe were
probably elective, and could be deposed for cause. We do not mean
to assert that this is an exact picture of the state of
government of the Mound Builders, because our knowledge on this
point is not sufficient to make such a positive statement, but it
is far more likely to be true than the picture of a despotic
government, ruling from some capital seat a large extent of
country, holding a court with barbaric pomp and circumstances
such as some writers would have us believe.

We hope our readers have not been wearied by this somewhat
extended investigation of the Mound Builders. Every storm that
beats upon their works tends to level them. The demands of our
modern life are fast obliterating the remaining monuments and,
indeed, it is now only those which are situated in favorable
localities, or are massive in construction, that are left for our
inspection. But these nearly obliterated records of the past are
of more than passing interest to us as monuments of the
prehistoric times of our own country. We wander over these ruins
and find much to interest us, much to excite our curiosity. The
purposes of many are utterly unknown. Some, by their great
proportions, awaken in us feelings of admiration for the
perseverance and energy of their builders. But when we
investigate the objects of stone, of clay, and of copper this
people left behind them, we notice how hard it is to draw a
dividing line between them and the Indians.

In fact, there is no good reason for separating them from the
Indian race as a whole. We do not mean to say that they were not,
in many respects, different from the tribes found in the same
section of the country by the early explorers, though, we ought,
perhaps, to confine this remark to the central portion of the
country occupied by these ancient remains. But the American of
to-day differs from the American of early Colonial times. The
miserable natives of Southern California were Indians, but very
different indeed from the ambitious, warlike Iroquois, who
displayed so much statesmanship in the formation of their
celebrated league. In another chapter we shall discuss this part
of our subject, as well as the question of the antiquity of the
ruins.

REFERENCES

(1) The manuscript of this chapter was submitted to Prof. F. W.
Putnam, curator of the Peabody Museum of Archæology and
Ethnology, Harvard University, for criticism.

(2) Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p. 122.

(3) Force: “Some Considerations on the Mound Builders,” p. 64;
“Am. Antiquarian,” March, 1884, pp. 93-4; “10th Annual Report,
Peabody Museum,” p. 11.

(4) Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity”, p. 28.

(5) Squier and Davis’s “Ancient Monuments,” p. 105.

(6) Foster’s “Prehistoric Paces,” p. 148.

(7) Squier’s “Aboriginal Monuments of New York,” Smithsonia
Contribution No. 11, p. 83.

(8) Squier’s “Aboriginal Monuments of New York,” Smithsonia
Contribution No. 11, p. 87.

(9) Foster’s “Prehistoric Races,” p. 121.

(10) “They are numbered by millions.” Ibid.

(11) Prof. Forshey could frame no satisfactory hypothesis of
their origin. Ibid, p. 122.

(12) “Native Races,” Vol. IV, pp. 739 and 740.

(13) Smithsonian Rep., 1870, p. 406.

(14) Narrative of U.S. exploring expedition during the years
1838-42, Vol. IV, p. 334.

(15) Prof. Gibbs in Frank Leslie’s Monthly, August, 1883.

(16) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 139.

(17) Jones’s “Explorations in Tennessee,” p. 15.

(18) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 143. Explorers for Bureau of
Ethnology so report it in the South. Prof. Putnam, who has
certainly had great experience, says he has always found the
layers to be horizontal.

(19) “Sixteenth Annual Report Peabody Museum,” p, 171. An
ornament shaped to resemble the head of a wood-pecker, made of
gold, derived from some Spanish source, was found in a mound in
Florida. This particular mound must have been erected after the
discovery of America. (“Smithsonian Report,” 1877, p. 298, _et
seq._)

(20) “Sixteenth and Seventeenth Report Peabody Museum.” These
ornaments were made of hammered iron. This is the first time
that native iron has been found in the mounds. (Putnam.)

(21) “Prehistoric Races,” p. 178.

(22) J. E. Stevens’s Paper, read before the Muscatine Academy
of Science, Dec., 1878.

(23) That this was at any rate sometimes the case See “Ancient
Monuments,” p. 159.

(24) “Peabody Museum Reports,” Vol. II, p. 58.

(25) Jones’s “Explorations in Tennessee,” p. 15. See also
“First An. Rep. Bureau of Ethnology,” p. 198.

(26) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 169. See also note on same page
for another account of a larger number of skeletons.

(27) Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” App. A.

(28) James’s “Popular Science,” File 1883, p. 445.

(29) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 173.

(30) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 74.

(31) “Views of Louisiana.”

(32) This cut represents the mound as it probably was before
the outlines were destroyed by cultivation. It is based on a
model prepared by Dr. Patrick for the Peabody Museum.

(33) “Peabody Museum Report,” Vol. II, p.473. As this may
include some of the wash from the mound, perhaps it would be
better to give the real area of the base as over twelve acres.

(34) That is, if we follow the plan.

(35) “Prehistoric Races,” p. 107.

(36) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 174.

(37) Pickett’s “History of Alabama,” Vol. I., p. 301.

(38) Carr’s “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” pp. 91, 92;
note, 103.

(39) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 117. Note.—For the statement made
in this text we are under obligation to Prof. Thomas, of the
Bureau of Ethnology, who, in answer to a letter of inquiry,
kindly furnished the information.

(40) _“Am. Antiquarian,”_ March, 1884, p. 99.

(41) It may be that no mounds were built for signaling purposes
alone. The work of erecting mounds was so great that it is
quite likely they were always erected for some other purpose,
and used only secondarily for signal purposes. Such is shown to
be the case with many of the signal mounds in Ohio. Such is the
opinion of Mr. MacLean, who has made extensive researches.

(42) Force’s “Some Consideration of the Mound Builders,” p. 65.

(43) Similar effigy mounds have been recently observed in
Minnesota, but they have not yet been described. (Putnam.)

(44) Peet’s _American Antiquarian,_ May, 1884, p. 184.

(45) Peet’s _American Antiquarian,_ January, 1884. We are
indebted to the writings of Mr. Peet in this periodical for the
months of January, May, and July, 1884, for many interesting
facts in reference to the effigy mounds. He has studied them
more than any other person, and his conclusions are
consequently of great value.

(46) Peet’s “Emblematic Mounds and Totem System of the Indian
Tribes.”

(47) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 40.

(48) _American Antiquarian,_ January, 1883.

(49) Putnam, in “Proceedings of American Antiquarian Society,”
1884.

(50) Peet’s “Emblematic Mounds and Totem System of the Indian
Tribes.”

(51) Abbott’s “Primitive Industry,” p. 383.

(52) Peet’s “Military Architecture of the Emblematic Mound
Builders.”

(53) “Smithsonian Report,” 1877, p. 278, _et seq._

(54) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 97; _American Antiquarian,_
January, 1883, p. 77.

(55) This information is communicated by Mr. L. N. Tower, a
gentleman in the employ of C. “&” N. W. E. R., at Tracy, Minn.,
who, at the request of the writer visited this locality, made
measurements, etc.

(56) _American Antiquarian,_ November, 1884, p. 403.

(57) The dimensions of this figure vary. Mr. MacLean’s survey
makes the entire length of the serpent part eleven hundred and
sixteen feet; the distance between the extended jaws, one
hundred feet. The oval figure is one hundred and thirteen feet
long by fifty feet wide. The frog or head portion is fifty-five
feet. Mr. Squier says, “The entire length, if extended, would
be not less than one thousand feet.” Mr. Putnam’s measurements
make it fourteen hundred and fifteen feet. The writer would
state that he visited this effigy in the summer of 1884. Though
there but a very short time, and not prepared to make careful
measurements, he did notice some points in which the
illustrations, previously given, are certainly wrong. The oval
is not at the very extremity of the cliff. The little
projections generally called ears of the serpent are not at
right angles to the body, but incline backwards. The
convolutions of the serpent’s body bend back and forth quite
across the surface of the ridge.

(58) Schmuckers.

(59) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 47.

(60) Foster’s “Prehistoric Races,” p. 175.

(61) “Contributions North American Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 210.
A cut of this “restored” pueblo is there given.

(62) See discussion of this subject in “Proceedings of Am.
Antiq. Society,” Oct., 1883.

(63) “Peabody Museum Reports,” Vol. II, p. 205.

(64) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 47.

(65) Peet: “The Mound Builders.”

(66) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 53.

(67) Force: “Some Considerations on the Mound Builders,” p. 64.

(68) “Archæologia Americana,” Vol. I, p. 129.

(69) For words at Newark, consult “Ancient Monuments,” p. 67,
_et seq. “American Antiquarian,”_ July, 1882.

(70) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 74.

(71) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 88.

(72) Mr. Putnam visited the work a few years since, and came to
the conclusion that the larger and old openings were part of
the original design, and that they were places where it was
easier to put up log structures than earthen walls. Just such
openings occur in the massive stone wall around Fort Hill, in
Highland County. A few of the openings at Fort Ancient he
thinks are unquestionably of recent origin, in order to drain
the holes inside the embankments.

(73) _Cincinnati Quart. Journal Science,_ 1874, p. 294.

(74) Peet: “The Mound Builders.”

(75) Peet’s “Mound Builders:” “If the reader will compare some
of these last cuts with that of the fortified camp at Cissbury,
Eng., p. 183, he will see how similar this last work is to
those just mentioned. Perhaps the real lesson to be learned is
that rude people, whether Indians, Mound Builders, or Celts,
resorted to about the same method of defense.”

(76) “Antiquarian Research,” p. 89.

(77) Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p. 15, _et seq._
Mr. Conant refers to Mr. Pidgeon’s work in such a way as to
give the impression that he was convinced of the genuineness of
his account.

(78) “Traditions of Decodah,” p. 89, _et seq._

(79) “Antiquarian Research,” p. 190.

(80) “The American Indian, so far as known, without the
exception of a single tribe, worshiped the sun.” Carr’s “Mounds
of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 56.

(81) Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p. 60.

(82) Ibid., p. 32. If the explorers are really satisfied this
was a walled town, it ought to throw some light on the
inclosures in the Ohio Valley.

(83) Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p. 35.

(84) Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p. 77.

(85) Vol. III, p. 290, _et seq._

(86) Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 11.

(87) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 210; also Peet: “The Mound
Builders.” “Their relics are marked by a peculiar finish.”

(88) Rau’s “Anthropological Research.”

(89) “Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society,” April, 1877, p. 61.

(90) “Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge,” Vol. XIII.

(91) Abbott’s “Primitive Industry,” p. 315.

(92) “Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology,” 1880-1, p. 123,
_et seq._

(93) In the “Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology,” for 1880-1,
Mr. Henshaw has very fully discussed these mound-pipes, and
shown that Messrs. Squier and Davis wore mistaken in a number
of their identifications of the animal forms. He concludes
there “are no representations of birds or animals not
indigenous to the Mississippi Valley.”

(94) The recent discoveries by Putnam and Metz, in the
Altar-mounds in the Little Miami Valley, have brought to light
many interesting and important sculptures in stone and
terra-cotta, which, as works of art, are in some respects
superior to those from the Scioto Valley, but as they have not
yet been figured, we can only refer to them here in this brief
note.

(95) “Number Eight,” Mound City, near Chillicothe, Ohio.
“Ancient Monuments,” p. 152.

(96) Rau: “Anthropological Subjects,” p. 130.

(97) Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 12.

(98) _American Antiquarian,_ 1879, p. 64.

(99) McAdams: _American Antiquarian,_ 1880, p. 140.