Chapter XII: The Prehistoric Americans.1

Different views on this subject—Modern system of government—
Ancient system of government—Tribal government universal in North
America—The Indians not wandering Nomads—Indian houses communal
in character—Indian methods of defense—Mandan villages—Indians
sometimes erected mounds—Probable government of the Mound
Builders—Traditions of the Mound Builders among the
Iroquois—Among the Delawares—Probable fate of the Mound
Builders—The Natchez Indians possibly a remnant of the Mound
Builders—Their early traditions—Lines of resemblance between the
Pueblo tribe and the Mound Builders—The origin of the
Indians—America inhabited by Indians from a very early time—
Classification of the Indian tribes—Antiquity of the Mound
Builders’ works.

The attempts to explain the origin of the numerous tribes found
in possession of America at the time of its discovery by
Europeans have been many and various. There are so many
difficulties attending the solution of this problem that even at
this day no theory has received that full assent from the
scientific world deemed necessary for its establishment as an
ascertained fact. New interest has been thrown around this
question by the discoveries of late years. In our south-western
territories we have clearly established the former wide extension
of the village Indians, remnants of which are still to be found
in the inhabited pueblos; and, as we have seen, the wide expanse
of fertile soil, known as the Mississippi Valley, has undoubtedly
been the home of tribes who are generally supposed to have
attained a much higher stage of culture than that of the
Indians—at least, of such culture as we are accustomed to
ascribe, whether justly or not, to Indian tribes. It becomes an
interesting question, therefore, to determine what connection, if
any, existed between the Mound Builders and the Indian tribes on
the one hand, and the Pueblo tribes on the other.

As to the works of the Mound Builders, one class of critical
scholars think they see in them the memorials of a vanished race,
and point out many details of construction, such as peculiarities
in form, in size, and position, which they think conclusively
prove that the works in question could only have been produced by
races or tribes far more advanced in culture than any Indians.
This belief finds expression by a well-known writer in the
following words: “A broad chasm is to be spanned before we can
link the Mound Builders to the North American Indians. They were
essentially different in their form of government, their habits,
and their daily pursuits.” This is substantially the opinion of a
great many writers on this subject.2

But this conclusion has not been allowed to pass unchallenged. We
have on record the convictions of a few careful investigators
that there is no necessity for supposing that only an extinct or
vanished race could have built the mounds and thrown up the
embankments which we observe in the valley of the Ohio and
elsewhere; that there is nothing, in fact, either in the
construction of the mounds themselves or in the remains of art
found in them, which we may not with safety ascribe to the
ancestors of our present Indians.3 It will be seen that we may,
indeed, be at a loss to know what conclusion to adopt; hence, as
an aid to us in this direction, it may be well to inquire into
the organization of Indian tribes and their customs and manners
at the time of their discovery.

It is not necessary to sketch their history, as this has been
done many times. Moreover, it is but a dreary recital of the
gradual encroachment of the Whites on the lands of the Indians,
the vain endeavors of the latter to repress them, and a record of
many cruel acts of savage warfare, burning villages, midnight
massacre, and scenes of terrible sufferings. The uniform result
was that the Indian tribes were steadily driven away from their
ancient homes, until we now find them but a sorry remnant on
scattered reservations or grouped together in the Indian
Territory. Their ancient institutions are nearly broken down, and
it is with difficulty that we can gain an understanding of their
early condition; and yet this seems to be necessary before we are
prepared to decide on the origin of the mound-building people.

It seems necessary here to briefly describe the two great plans
or systems of government, under one or the other of which
mankind, as far as we know them, have always been organized,
though, theoretically, there must have been a time, in the very
infancy of the race, when there was either no government or
something different from either of them. At the present day, in
all civilized countries, government is founded upon territory and
upon property. A person is described as living in such a
township, county, and state.4 This seems to be a very simple and
natural division, but, like every thing else, it is the result of
growth—of a development. It took nearly three centuries of
civilization and a succession of able men, each improving on what
the other had done, to fully develop this system among the
Greeks.5 This is the basis of the modern form of government.
Whenever it was organized, it marked the termination of ancient
government. The other plan of government is founded on personal
relations.

A person would be described as of such a gens, phratry, and
tribe. It is sufficient to state the words gens, and phratry
simply denote subdivisions of a tribe.6 This is the ancient
system of government, and goes very far back in the history of
the race. It is that state of society which everywhere preceded
history and civilization. When we go back to the first beginning
of history in Europe, we find the Grecian, Roman, and Germanic
tribes in the act of substituting the modern system of government
for the tribal state, under which they had passed from savagism
into and through the various stages of barbarism, and entered the
confines of civilization. The Bible reveals to us the tribal
state of the Hebrews and the Canaanites.

Under the light of modern research, we can not doubt but what
this form of government was very ancient, and substantially
universal. It originated in the morning of time, and so
completely answered all the demands of primitive society that it
advanced man from savagism, through barbarism, and sufficed to
enable him to make a beginning in civilization. It was so firmly
established as one of the primitive institutions, that when it
was found insufficient to meet the demands of advancing society,
it taxed to the utmost the skill of the Aryan tribes to devise a
system to take its place.

This was the system of government throughout North America when
the Spaniards landed on its shores. This is true, at least as far
as our investigations have gone.7 In several cases tribes
speaking dialects of the same stock-language had united in a
confederacy; as, for instance, the celebrated league of the
Iroquois, and in Mexico, the union of the three Aztec tribes. But
confederacies did not change the nature of tribal government. As
there was but one general form or plan of government in vogue
amongst the Aborigines of North America at the time of discovery,
we ought certainly to find common features in the culture of the
Pueblo Indians of the South-west, the Mound Builders of the
Mississippi Valley, and the various Indian tribes; and if the
lines of resemblance are sufficient to show a gradual progress
from the rude remains of savage tribes to the more finished works
of the Pueblos, and between these and the Mound Builders, then we
may consider this fact as one more reason for believing that they
constitute but one people in different stages of development.

The tribal state of society is always associated with village
life. It makes no difference where we commence our
investigations, we will soon be convinced that village life is
the form in which people organized in tribes lived. This is true
of the wild tribes in Africa, and of the hill tribes of India
to-day.8 The same was true of the early Greeks.9 There must be a
reason for this. It is found in their peculiar system of
government. People divided into groups and clusters would
naturally be drawn together into villages. We would expect, then,
to find that the Indian tribes lived in villages. We are
accustomed to speak of them as wandering nomads. This is scarcely
correct; or rather, it is certainly wrong, if applied to the
tribes east of the Mississippi, when first encountered by the
whites. Some of them may have been in a state of migration, in
search of better homes, or homes more secure from the attacks of
too powerful enemies, as was the case with the Shawnees, and
wandering bands on hunting or warlike expeditions were common
enough. The Germanic, tribes that overthrew the Roman Empire, for
a similar reason, were in a migrating state. But it is none the
less certain that they established permanent villages wherever
they found suitable places.

Nearly all the tribes claimed separate districts, in which they
had permanent villages, often stockaded.10 The site of Montreal
was a famous Indian village,11 and other villages were found in
Canada. The Iroquois tribes had permanent villages, and resided
in them the greater part of the year.12 One visited in 1677 is
described as having one hundred and twenty houses, the ordinary
one being from fifty to sixty feet long, and furnishing shelter
to about twelve families. In one case, at least, the town was
surrounded by palisades.

In 1539 De Soto made his appearance on the coast of Florida. Four
years later a feeble remnant of this expedition landed at Panuco,
Mexico. His route has not been accurately traced, but it is
certain he travelled the Gulf States and crossed the Mississippi.
De Soto himself found a grave in the waters of this river, but
under new leaders the expedition pushed on through Arkansas, and
probably found its most western point on the prairies of the
West, where, disheartened, it turned back to near where De Soto
died, constructed some rude boats, and floated down the
Mississippi, and so to Mexico. We have two accounts written by
members of this expedition,13 and a third, written by Garcilasso
de La Vega from the statements of eye-witnesses and memoranda
which had fallen into his hands.

From these considerable can be learned of the Southern Indians
before they had been subjected to European influences. One of the
first things that arrests attention is the description of the
villages. They found, to be sure, some desert tracts, but every
few miles, as a rule, they found villages containing from fifty
to three hundred spacious and commodious dwellings, well
protected from enemies—sometimes surrounded by a wall, sometimes
also by a ditch filled with water. When west of the Mississippi
they found a tribe living in movable tents, they deemed that fact
worthy of special mention. But in the same section they also
found many villages.

One hundred and forty years afterward the French explorer, La
Salle, made several voyages up and down the Mississippi. He
describes much the same state of things as do the earlier
writers. The tribes still dwelt in comfortable cabins, sometimes
constructed of bark, sometimes of mud,14 often of large size, in
one case forty feet square, and having a dome-shaped roof. Nor
was this village life confined to the more advanced tribes. The
Dakota tribes, which include the Sioux and others, have been
forced on the plains by the advancing white population, but when
first discovered they were living in villages around the
headwaters of the Mississippi. Their houses were framed of poles
and covered with bark.15

Lewis and Clark, in 1805, found the valley of the Columbia River
inhabited by tribes destitute of pottery, and living mainly on
fish, which were found in immense quantities in the river. They
describe them as living in large houses, one sometimes forming a
village by itself. They describe one house capable of furnishing
habitations for five hundred people. Other authorities could be
quoted, showing that the Algonquin Indians, living in Eastern and
Atlantic States, had permanent villages.16 The idea then, that
the Indians are nothing but wandering savages, is seen to be
wrong. It is well to bear this in mind, because it is often
asserted that the Mound Builders must have been a people
possessing fixed habitations. While this is doubtless correct, we
see that it is also true of the Indians.17

There is another feature of Indian life which we will mention
here, because it shows us a common element in the building of
houses, seen alike in the pueblo structures of the West and the
long houses of the Iroquois. That is, the Indian houses were
always built to be inhabited by a number of families in common.
All nations in a tribal state possess property in common. It is
not allowed to pass out of the gens of the person who possesses
it, but at his death is supposed to be divided among the members
of his gens; in most cases, however, to those nearest of kin
within the gens.18 This communism showed itself in the method of
erecting houses.

The long house of the Iroquois was divided into apartments so as
to shelter from one hundred to two hundred Indians. A number of
these houses gathered together composed a village. These were
quite creditable structures of Indian art, being warm and
comfortable, as well as roomy. Should we examine the whole list
of writers who have mentioned Indian villages, we would find them
all admitting that the houses were usually occupied by a number
of families, one in the Columbia Valley, as we see, sheltering
five hundred persons.

There is no question but the pueblos were built by people holding
property in common. They were, of course, erected by a more
advanced people, who employed better materials in construction,
but it is quite plain that they were actuated by the same
instincts, and built their houses with the same design in view as
the less advanced Indian tribes in other sections of the country.
What we have described as the small houses in Arizona in the
preceding chapter, in most cases includes several rooms, and we
are told that in one section they “appear to have been the abode
of several families.”19

Long House of the Iroquois.

One of the main points the Indians would have to attend to in the
construction of their villages was how to defend them, and we can
not do better than to examine this point. A French writer
represents the villages of Canada as defended by double, and
frequently triple, rows of palisades, interwoven with branches of
trees.20 Cartier, in 1535, found the village of Hochelaga (now
Montreal) thus defended. In 1637 the Pequot Indians were the
terror of the New England colonies, and Capt. Mason, who was sent
to subject them, found their principal villages, covering six
acres, strongly defended by palisades.

Stockaded Onondaga Village.

The Iroquois tribes also adopted this method of defense. In 1615
Champlain, with Indian allies, invaded the territory of the
Iroquois. He left a sketch of his attack on one of their
villages. This sketch we reproduce in this illustration, which is
a very important one, because it shows us a regularly palisaded
village among a tribe of Indians where the common impression in
reference to them is that they were a wandering people with no
fixed habitations. The sketch is worthy of careful study. The
buildings within are the long houses which we have just
described. They are located near together, three or four in a
group. The arrangement of the groups is in the form of a square,
inclosing a court in the center. This tendency to inclose a court
is a very common feature of Indian architecture. Such, as we have
seen, is the arrangement of the pueblos. Such was also the
arrangement of the communal buildings in Mexico, Central America,
and Peru. In this case the village covered about six acres also.
The defense was by means of palisades. There seem to be two rows
of them. They seem to have been well made, since Champlain was
unsuccessful in his attack. In earlier times these fortified
villages were numerous.

Pomeiock. Further south, this method of inclosing a village was
also in use. In 1585 the English sent an expedition to the coast
of North Carolina. An artist attached to this expedition left
some cuts, one of which represents a village near Roanoke. It is
surrounded, as we see, by a row of palisades, and contains
seventeen joint tenement houses, besides the council house. The
historians of De Soto’s expedition make frequent mention of
walled and fortified towns. “The village of Mavilla,” from which
comes our name Mobile, says Biedman, “stood on a plain surrounded
by strong walls.” Herrera, in his General History, states that
the walls were formed by piles, interwoven with other timber, and
the spaces packed with straw and earth so that it looked like a
wall smoothed with a trowel.

Speaking of the region west of the Mississippi, Biedman says: “We
journeyed two days, and reached a village in the midst of a
plain, surrounded by walls and a ditch filled by water, which had
been made by Indians.” This town is supposed to have been
situated in the north-eastern part of Arkansas, and it is
interesting to note that recent investigators find what are
probably the remains of these walled towns, in the shape of
inclosures with ditches and mounds, in North-eastern Arkansas and
South-eastern Missouri.21 The tribes throughout the entire extent
of the Mississippi Valley were accustomed to palisade their
villages—at least, occasionally.22

Mandan Village. On the Missouri River we find some Indian tribes
that have excited a great deal of interest among archæologists.
It has been surmised that, if their history could be recovered,
it would clear up a great many difficult questions. They were
accustomed to fortify their village’s with ditches, embankments,
and palisades. This gives us a cut of one of their villages. It
is to be observed that it has a great likeness to some of the
inclosures ascribed to the Mound Builders.

This has been noted by many writers. Says Brackenridge: “In my
voyage up the Missouri I observed the ruins of several villages
which had been abandoned twenty or thirty years, which in every
respect resembled the vestiges on the Ohio and Mississippi.”23
Lewis and Clark, in their travels, describe the sites of several
of these abandoned villages, the only remains of which were the
walls which had formerly inclosed the villages, then three or
four feet high. The opinion has been advanced that the inclosures
of the Mound Builders were formerly surmounted by palisades. Mr.
Atwater asserts that the round fort which was joined to a square
inclosure at Circleville showed distinctly evidence of having
supported a line of pickets or palisades.24

Should it be accepted that the inclosures of the Mound Builders
represent village sites, and that they were probably further
protected by palisades, it would seem, after what we have just
observed of the customs of the Indians in fortifying their
villages, to be a simple and natural explanation of these
remains.

We have already referred to the fact that scholars draw a
distinction between the more massive works found in the Ohio
Valley and the low, crumbling ruins occupying defensive positions
found in such abundance along Lake Erie and in Western New York,
asserting the former to be the works of the Mound Builders
proper, and the latter the remains of fortified Indian villages.
This may be true, but it seems to us that there is such a common
design running through all these remains that it is more
reasonable to infer that the more massive works were constructed
by people more advanced than those who built the less pretentious
works, but not necessarily of a dilterent race. We can not do
better than to quote the remarks of Mr. Brackenridge in this
connection: “We are often tempted by a fondness for the marvelous
to seek out remote and impossible causes for that which may be
explained by the most obvious.”25

But inclosures and defensive works are only a small part of the
Mound Builders’ remains. We know that large numbers of mounds are
scattered over the country, and we recall in this connection what
was said as to the erection of mounds by Indian tribes in a
preceding essay. Somewhat at the risk of repetition we will once
more examine this question. It is generally admitted that it was
the custom of Indian tribes to erect piles of stones to
commemorate several events, such as a treaty, or the settlement
of a village, but more generally to mark the grave of a chief, or
some noted person, or of a person whose death occurred under
unusual circumstances.26 These cairns are not confined to any
particular section of the country, being found in New England,
throughout the South, and generally in the Mississippi Valley.
From their wide dispersion, and from the fact that they do not
differ from the structures built by Indian tribes within a few
years past, it is not doubted but what they are the works of
Indians.

Now, if we could draw a dividing line, and say that, while the
Indians erected mounds of stone, the Mound Builders built theirs
of earth, it would be a strong argument in favor of a difference
of race. But this can not be done. When De Soto landed in
Florida, nearly three hundred and fifty years ago, he had an
opportunity of observing the customs of the Indians as they were
before the introduction of fire-arms, and before contact with the
Whites had wrought the great change in them it was destined to.
Therefore, what few notes his historians have given us of the
ways of life they observed amongst the southern tribes are of
great importance in this connection. At the very spot where he
landed (supposed to be Tampa Bay) they observed that the house of
the chief “stood near the shore, upon a very high mound, made by
hand for strength.”

Garcilasso tells us “the town and the house of the Cacique
(chief) Ossachile are like those of the other caciques in
Florida. . . . The Indians try to place their villages on
elevated sites, but, inasmuch as in Florida there are not many
sites of this kind where they can conveniently build, they erect
elevations themselves, in the following manner: They select the
spot, and carry there a quantity of earth, which they form into a
kind of platform, two or three pikes in height, the summit of
which is large enough to give room for twelve, fifteen, or twenty
houses, to lodge the cacique and his attendants. At the foot of
this elevation they mark out a square place, according to the
size of the village, around which the leading men have their
houses. To ascend the elevation they have a straight passage-way
from bottom to top, fifteen or twenty feet wide. Here steps are
made by massive beams, and others are planted firmly in the
ground to serve as walls. On all other sides of the platform the
sides are cut steep.”27

Biedman, the remaining historian, says of the country in what is
now (probably) Arkansas. “The caciques of this country make a
custom of raising, near their dwellings, very high hills, on
which they sometimes build their huts.”28 Twenty-five years later
the French sent an expedition to the east coast of Florida. The
accounts of this expedition are very meager, but they confirm
what the other writers have stated as to the erection of platform
mounds with graded ways.29 Le Moyne, the artist of this
expedition, has left us a cut of a mound erected over a deceased
chief. It was, however, but a small one.30

La Harpe, writing in 1720, says of tribes on the lower
Mississippi: “Their cabins . . . are dispersed over the country
upon mounds of earth made with their own hands.” As to the
construction of these houses, we learn that their cabins were
“round and vaulted,” being lathed with cane and plastered with
mud from bottom to top, within and without. In other cases they
were square, with the roof dome-shaped, the walls plastered with
mud to the height of twelve feet.31 It is interesting to observe
how closely what little we do know about Mound Builders’ houses
coincides with the above.

Recent investigations by the Bureau of Ethnology have brought to
light vestiges of great numbers of their buildings. These were
mostly circular, but those of a square or rectangular form were
also observed. In Arkansas their location was generally on low,
flat mounds, but vestiges of some were also noticed near the
surface of large mounds. In Southern Illinois, South-eastern
Missouri, and Middle and Western Tennessee the sites of thousands
were observed, not in or on mounds, but marked by little
circular, saucer-shaped depressions, from twenty to fifty feet in
diameter, surrounded by a slight earthen ring. We know the
framework of these houses was poles, for in several cases the
charred remains of these poles were found. We know they were
plastered with a thick coating of mud, for regular layers of
lumps of this burnt plastering are found. These lumps have often
been mistaken for bricks, as in the Selzertown mound. In several
cases the plastering had been stamped with an implement, probably
made of split cane of large size.32

On the lower Mississippi we meet with the Natchez, a tribe that
has excited a great deal of interest; but at present we only want
to note that they also constructed mounds. They were nearly
exterminated by the French in 1729. But before this Du Pratz had
lived among them, and left a description of their customs. Their
temple was about thirty feet square, and was situated on a mound
about eight feet high, which sloped insensibly from its main
front on the north, but was somewhat steeper on the other sides.
He also states that the cabin of the chief, or great sun, as he
was called, was placed upon a mound of about the same height,
though somewhat larger, being sixty feet over the surface.33 A
missionary who labored among them, stated that when the chief
died his mound was deserted, and a new one built for the next
chief.34

Neither was this custom of erecting mounds confined to the
Southern Indians. Colden states of the Iroquois: “They make a
round hole in which the body is placed, then they raise the earth
in a round hill over it.”35 It was the custom among a large
number of tribes to gather together the remains of all who had
died during several years and bury them all together, erecting a
mound over them.36 Mr. Jefferson, in his notes on Virginia,
describes one of these mounds, and relates this interesting fact
in reference to it: “A party of Indians passing about thirty
years ago through the part of the country where this barrow is,
went through the woods directly to it, without any instructions
or inquiry; and having staid about it some time, with expressions
which were construed to be those of sorrow, they returned to the
high road, which they had left about a half dozen miles to pay
this visit, and pursued their journey.”37

Coming down to our own times, the Indians had lost a great many
of their ancient customs, yet, at times, this old instinct of
mound burial asserts itself. About the first of the century
Blackbird, a celebrated chief of the Omahas, returning to his
native home after a visit to Washington, died of the small-pox.
It was his dying request that his body be placed on horseback,
and the horse buried alive with him. Accordingly, in the presence
of all his nation, his body was placed on the back of his
favorite white horse, fully equipped as if for a long journey,
with all that was necessary for an Indian’s happiness, including
the scalps of his enemies. Turfs were brought and placed around
the feet and legs, and up the sides of the unsuspecting animal,
and so gradually the horse and its rider were buried from sight,
thus forming a good-sized burial mound.38 Another instance came
under Mr. Catlin’s observation at the pipe stone quarry in
Dakota. He visited there about 1832 and saw a conical mound, ten
feet high, that had been erected over the body of a young man
accidentally killed there two years before.

Enough references have now been given to show that the Indian
tribes certainly did erect mounds, and that there is every reason
to suppose they were the authors of the temple mounds of the
South, or of some of them, at any rate. We have now shown that,
according to early writers, the Indians did live in permanent
villages, often stockaded, and knew very well how to raise
embankments and mounds. It would seem as if this removed all
necessity for supposing the existence of an extinct race to
explain the numerous remains, collectively known as Mound
Builders’ works. Yet, as this is surely an important point, it
may be well to carry the investigations a little further.

Taking in account the great amount of labor necessary to raise
such structures as the mounds at Cahokia and Grave Creek, and the
complicated works at Newark, some writers have asserted that the
government of the Mound Builders was one in which the central
authority must have had absolute power over the persons of the
subjects, that they were in effect slaves;39 and as this was
altogether contrary to what is known amongst Indian tribes, they
must have been of a different race.

If the Indians in a tribal state are known to have erected some
mounds, and to have built temple-platforms and walled towns in
the south, then all they needed was sufficient motive, religious
or otherwise, to have built the most stupendous works known. We
think the ruined pueblos in the Chaco Cañon represent as great an
amount of work as many of those of the Mound Builders. A
calculation has been made, showing that over thirty million
pieces of stone were required in the construction of one
pueblo,40 besides an abundance of timber. Each piece of stone had
to be dressed roughly to fit its place; the timbers had to be
brought from a considerable distance, cut and fitted to their
places in the wall, and then covered with other courses, besides
other details of construction, such as roof-making, plastering,
and so forth, and this is not the calculation of the largest
pueblo either.41 Yet no one supposes that the Indian tribes who
erected these structures were under a despotic form of
government.

We think, however, that it might be freely admitted that in all
probability the government of the Mound Builders was arbitrary,
but so was the government of a great many Indian tribes. Amongst
the Natchez the chief was considered as descended from the sun.
Nor was this belief confined to the Natchez, as the tribes of the
Floridian Peninsula asserted the same thing of their chiefs.
Among all these latter tribes the chief held absolute and
unquestioned power over the persons, property, and time of their
subjects.42

Amongst the Natchez the power of the Great Sun (their title for
chief) seems to have been very great. This nation had a regularly
organized system of priesthood, of which the chief was also the
head. On the death of the chief a number of his subjects were put
to death to keep him company. But we must notice that the
subjects considered it an honor to die with the chief, and made
application beforehand for the privilege. Bearing these facts in
mind, it does not seem improbable that in more distant days, when
the Natchez or some kindred tribe were in the height of their
power, the death of some great chief might well be memorialized
by the erection of a mound as grand in proportion as that of
Grave Creek.

In fact, the more we study the subject, the more firmly we become
convinced that there is no hard and fast line separating the
works of the Mound Builders from those of the later Indians. We
therefore think that we may safely assert that the best
authorities in the United States now consider that the mound
building tribes were Indians, in much the same state of culture
as the Indian tribes in the Gulf States at the time of the
discovery of America, and we shall not probably be far out of the
way if we assert, that when driven from the valley of the Ohio by
more warlike people they became absorbed by the southern tribes,
and, indeed the opinion is quite freely advanced that the Natchez
themselves were a remnant of the “Mysterious Mound Builders.”

If the Mound Building tribes were here at a comparatively late
date, we ought to expect to find some traditions of their former
existence. The statement is quite often made that the Indians had
no tradition as to the origin or purpose of the mounds, and from
this it is argued that the mounds are of great antiquity. But,
instead of finding no traditions, we find nearly every tribe
possessed of some, and often very full and distinct.43 It makes
no difference that a number of those traditions are childish, and
that traditions are a very unsatisfactory sort of proof at best.
Still, if we observe that the traditions, such as they are, are
corroborative of other proofs, it is well to examine into them
anyway.

The Iroquois tribes have a tradition, that is given in the
writing of Cusick, a Tuscaroa Indian. It is generally considered
as a nonsensical production, but Mr. Hale points out that,
“whenever his statements can be submitted to the tests of
language, they are invariably confirmed.”44 Such, for instance,
are the assertions that they formerly inhabited the country
around the St. Lawrence River in Canada, and further, that the
Mohawk was the oldest tribe, from whence the others separated in
time.

The substance of the tradition supposed to refer to the Mound
Builders, is as follows: South of the great lakes was the seat of
a great empire. The emperor resided in a golden city. The nations
to the north of the great lakes formed a confederacy, and seated
a great council fire on the river St. Lawrence. This confederacy
appointed a high chief as ambassador, who immediately departed to
the south to visit the emperor at the golden city. Afterwards,
the emperor built many forts throughout his dominions, and almost
penetrated to Lake Erie. The people to the north considered this
an infringement on their territory, and it resulted in a long
war.

The people of the north were too skillful in the use of bows and
arrows, and could endure hardships which proved fatal to a
foreign people. At last, the northern people gained the victory,
and all the towns and forts were totally destroyed and left in
ruins.45 If this tradition stood alone, it would not be deserving
of much attention, but we know the Iroquois tribes did originally
live in the valley of the St. Lawrence. We also feel sure the
Mound Builders were a powerful people, and lived in the Ohio
Valley. What is there unreasonable, therefore, in supposing that
the Iroquois came in contact with them, and that this tradition
rests on facts?

But this tradition is very similar to one among the Delawares.
This tribe spoke a different stock language than the Iroquois,
and belonged to the Algonquin division of the Indian tribes.
There were many wars between the Delawares and the Iroquois, but
finally the latter were acknowledged masters. It is well to keep
this in mind, because with this feeling between the two tribes,
they would not be apt to have similar traditions unless there was
a basis of fact.46

Mr. Gallatin informs us that the original home of the Algonquins
was to the north of Lake Superior. The tradition states that the
Delawares (they called themselves the Leni-lenape) were living in
a cold, fir-tree country—evidently the wooded regions north of
Lake Superior. Getting tired of this country, they set out
towards the East in search of a better place, and probably
followed the lake shore around until they finally came to a great
river—that is, the Detroit. The country beyond was inhabited by a
numerous and powerful people, called the Allegewi,47 who dwelt in
great fortified towns. Here they found the Huron-Iroquois tribes.
This was before the Iroquois had separated from the Hurons.

Some treachery on the part of the Allegewi was made the occasion
of war. The Leni-lenape and the Hurons united their forces. This
is perhaps the Confederacy of Cusic. A long war resulted, but in
the end the Allegewi were defeated, and, as the tradition states,
“all went southward.”48 We see no reason to doubt but what we
have here a traditional account of the overthrow of the Mound
Builders. The remnant that fled south found the country inhabited
by mound-building tribes, and doubtless became absorbed among
them. In confirmation of this view it may be said that the
languages of the tribes of the Gulf States, which belong to one
stock language,49 have all been greatly influenced by words
derived from a foreign source.50

Perhaps a large body of them may have lived on as a fully
organized tribe. As we have already stated, the opinion is quite
freely advanced that this is the origin of the Natchez.51 It
seems advisable to inquire more particularly into the customs and
traditions of this tribe. Du Pratz, who lived among them in 1718,
and claims to have enjoyed the confidence of their chiefs and
principal men, has left the most complete account of them; though
Father Charlevoix, a Jesuit priest, in his letters, also
describes them fully.

A number of interesting statements in regard to them, at once
arrest attention. Most of the tribes in the southern region of
the United States spoke dialects of a common stock language
(Chata-muskoki), showing a derivation from a common source. The
Natchez spoke a different language. Sun-worship seems to have
been carried to a greater extent than among any other tribes we
are acquainted with. As late as 1730 they still had their
temples, where the eternal fire was kept burning, carefully
watched; for they believed that should it become extinguished, it
would surely bring great trouble on the tribe. Among the Natchez,
if anywhere among Indian tribes, the power of the chief was
absolute, and there seems to have been something like privileged
classes amongst them. We have already referred to them as Mound
Builders.

But most interesting is it to learn of their former wide
extension and ancient power. Du Pratz says, “According to their
traditions they were the most powerful nation of all North
America, and were looked upon by other nations as their
superiors, and on that account were respected by them. To give an
idea of their power, I shall only mention that formerly they
extended from the River Manchas, or Iberville, which is about
fifty leagues from the sea, to the River Wabash, which is distant
from the sea about four hundred and sixty leagues; and that they
had about eight hundred suns, or princes.”52 It is at least a
reasonable supposition that that the Natchez were a remnant of
the Mound Builders.

So far we have dwelt chiefly on the relations between the Indians
and the Mound Builders. Let us now see if we can not detect some
connection between the Pueblo tribes of the south-west and the
Mound Builders. All the tribes in the Gulf States had traditions
of a western and south-western origin. In regard to the Creek
Indians, this tradition is very distinct. They relate, with many
details, their journey from the west, their fight with the
Alabamas, etc.53 In the Natchez tradition, as given by Du Pratz,
they are seen, not only to come from the same western source, but
distinctly preserve recollections of pueblo houses.

The substance of their traditions is that they came from a
pleasant country and mild climate, “under the sun,” and in the
south-west, where the nation had lived for many ages, and had
spread over an extensive country of mountains, hills, and plains,
in which the houses were built of stone, and were several stories
high. They further relate how, owing to increase of enemies, the
great sun sent some one over to examine and report on the country
to be found to the east. The country being found extremely
pleasant, a large part of their nation removed thither; and,
after many generations, the great sun himself came also. Speaking
of the ancient inhabitants of the country they came from, the
tradition states that “they had a great number of large and small
villages, which were all built of stone, and in which were houses
large enough to lodge a whole tribe.”54 We would offer the same
suggestion on these traditions as on the others. They are of
value only so far as supported by other testimony. The great
objection to them is that the pueblo structures of the west are
evidently of recent origin. So these traditions would prove that
the Natchez Indians were quite recently connected with the Pueblo
tribes, which is not at all probable. We have some slight
evidence that does not rest on traditions. Mr. Holmes has given
us a plan of an ancient village he discovered on the La Platte
River, San Juan Valley. It will be seen by reference to the plate
that the buildings were separated from each other. The forms are
chiefly rectangles and circles, and one or two seem to have been
elliptical. This description certainly reminds us of the circles
and squares so common among the Mound Builders. But there is also
a truncated mound, fifty by eighty feet, and nine feet high. “Its
flat top and height give it more the appearance of one of the
sacrificial mounds of the Ohio Valley than any others observed in
this part of the West.” Mounds are known to exist in Utah.55

Ruins near the La Platte Valley of the San Juan. We need not
expect to trace a continuous line of ruins from the San Juan
Valley to that of the Ohio, granting the migration to have taken
place, because a migrating race would not be apt to erect
monuments until they reached the end of their line of migration.
Those who take this view of it say that it is not at all strange
that when these migrating tribes reached their new homes in the
Mississippi Valley they erected structures differing from those
they had formerly built, because all their surroundings would be
different, and in the prairie sections they would find neither
stone for building their pueblos nor clay suitable for adobe
construction. So they would do the next best thing, and build a
fortified village. This is the view of that eminent scholar, Mr.
Morgan. It must be borne in mind, however, that the fortified
villages of the southern Indians, including those of the
Mississippi Valley, corresponded more nearly with those of the
Atlantic shore, and more northern tribes, than with the pueblo
structures.

There is another line of proof which we think has been read the
wrong way, or, at least, applied too strongly, and made to do
service in proving that the Mound Builders migrated from the
valley of the Ohio to Mexico, and there laid the foundation of
that wonderful civilization which is yet a riddle to the
antiquarian.56 This is derived from a study of the skulls
procured from various sections of this country, Peru, and Mexico.
It is sufficient to state that anatomists have made a careful
study of the skulls of individuals of various nations, and
instituted certain comparisons between them, and discoveries of
great importance have been made by this means. Now, some of our
best American scholars have insisted that the skulls of the Mound
Builders and the ancient inhabitants of Mexico and the Inca
Peruvians are so similar that they must have belonged to the same
race.

This type of skull, however, is characteristic, not only of the
Mound Builders, the ancient Mexicans and the Peruvians, but of
the Pueblos, and of such tribes as the Natchez, Creeks, and
Seminoles. We think, with all due regard to the opinions of
others, that in the present state of our knowledge of craniology
we are not authorized in drawing very important conclusions
therefrom. About all we are justified in stating is that the
sedentary or village Indians, whether found in North or South
America, have certain common features.

It is also hard to see any great resemblance between the works of
the Mound Builders and the Pueblo tribes. The truncated mounds
discovered by Mr. Holmes, we remember, were also used as
foundations for house structures along the Gila. In this feature
we, of course, see a resemblance to the platform mounds of the
Mississippi Valley. But we must be careful in tracing connections
on such a slim basis as this. We must remember also what a
difference there is in the pottery of the two sections.57 If we
were to give an opinion, based on the present known facts, we
should say the separation between the people who afterwards
developed as the pueblo builders of the west and the Mound
Builders of the Mississippi Valley took place at an early date.

But let us not suppose that this conclusion clears up all
mysteries. A problem which has thus far defied the efforts of
some of our best thinkers is still before us, and that is: “From
whence came the Indians?” As we remarked at the beginning of this
chapter, no one theory has yet received universal acceptance. In
view of these facts, it is not best to present any theories, but
content ourselves with such statements as seem reasonably well
settled. On all hands it is agreed that the Indians have been in
America a long while, and whatever advance they were able to make
in the scale of civilization has been achieved in this country.58

This statement implies that they were in undisturbed possession
of this country long enough for some tribes of them to reach the
middle status of barbarism, which means advancement sufficient to
enable them to cultivate the ground by irrigation, and to acquire
a knowledge of the use of stone and adobe brick in building.59
More than half the battle of civilization had then been won. Look
at it as we will, this demands an immense period of time for its
accomplishment. In the arts of subsistence, government, language,
and development of religious ideas the advancement they had been
able to make from a condition of savagism to that in which the
Mound Builders evidently lived, or the Aztecs in Mexico,
represents a progression far greater than from thence to
civilization.

We are, therefore, sure that the Indians have inhabited this
country for an extended period. We can prolong the mental vision
backwards until we discover them, a savage race, gaining a
precarious livelihood by fishing and the chase. In America there
was but one cereal, or grain, growing wild. That was maize, or
Indian corn. We can not tell in what portion of the continent it
was native, but, in whatever section it was, there, probably,
first commenced permanent village life.

A settled residence, and being no longer dependent on hunting for
a livelihood, would advance the Indians greatly in the scale of
culture. So we can understand how in one section would arise
Indian tribes possessed of quite complicated systems of
government and religion and a knowledge of agriculture. And from
this as a center they would naturally spread out to other
sections. The conclusion to which we seem driven is, that there
is no necessity for supposing the Mound Builders to be any thing
more than village Indians, in much the same state of development
as the southern Indians at the time of the discovery. The Indian
race shows us tribes in various stages of development, from the
highly developed Pueblo Indians on the one hand to the miserable
Aborigines of California on the other.

These various tribes may be classified as the wild hunting tribes
and the sedentary, partially civilized tribes. To this last
division belong the Mound Builders. We have seen how the
partially civilized tribes in the valley of the San Juan were
gradually driven south by the pressure of wild tribes. We need
not doubt but such was the case in the Mississippi Valley. But we
need not picture to ourselves any imposing movement of tribes. In
one location a mound-building tribe may have been forced to
abandon its territory, which would be occupied by bands of
hunting tribes. In other cases they would cling more tenaciously
to their territory. The bulk of them may have been forced south;
some in other directions, and, like the Pimas on the River Gila,
or the Junanos east of the Rio Grande, have retrograded in
culture.60 Some bands may even have reached Mexico, and exerted
an influence on the culture of the tribes found there.61

It is only necessary to add a brief word as to the antiquity of
the Mound Builders’ works, or rather as to the time of
abandonment. On this point there is a great diversity of opinion,
and it seems to us almost impossible to come to any definite
conclusion. The time of abandonment may vary greatly in different
sections of the country, and we have seen how apt Indian tribes,
even in the same section, are to abandon one village site in
order to form another a few miles away.62 Fort Hill, in Ohio,
that so strongly impressed its first explorers with a sense of
antiquity,63 may have been abandoned long before the Circleville
works, where Mr. Atwater could still distinguish vestiges of the
palisades that once helped to defend it.

We have said about all that can be said in a brief review of the
prehistoric life in America north of Mexico. We have seen how
much there is still for our scholars to work up before we can
profess to as full and complete a knowledge as we have of the
prehistoric life in Europe. We are just on the threshold of
discoveries in regard to the Paleolithic Age in this country. The
southern boundary of the great ice sheet is now known to us. Many
scholars have pointed out to us the scattering bits of evidence
going to show that the ancestors of the present Eskimos once
inhabited the interior of this continent. Dr. Abbott has found
unmistakable evidence of the presence of such a people in New
Jersey. Our Indian tribes who came next, are not properly
prehistoric, though many questions relating to them belong to
that field.

We have examined the works of the people known as Mound Builders.
They are indeed varied and full of interest, but our conclusion
leaves their origin involved in the still deeper question of the
origin of the Indian race. We are satisfied that they were
village Indians and not tribes of a vanished people. We have also
examined that section of country wherein the greatest development
of village Indian life north of Mexico took place. It would be
very satisfactory could we show lines of migration from the
valley of the San Juan, as a center, to the Mississippi Valley on
the one hand, and to Mexico and the South on the other. We can
find some lines of evidence, but not enough to positively state
such an important truth.

We must now leave this field of inquiry. We trust such of our
readers as have followed us in these pages will have clearer
ideas of the prehistoric life in North America. They must however
regard this knowledge as simply a foundation, a starting-point,
or as the shallows along the shore, while the massive building,
the long journey, or the great ocean, is still before them. Our
scholars are giving their time and attention to these problems.
They are learning what they can of the traditions and myths of
the tribes still existing. They are studying their languages and
plan of government. They are also making great collections of the
works of their hands. We will hope some day for clear light on
all these topics, which will either confirm our present
conclusions or show us wherein we must change them, or, perhaps,
reject them altogether.

Stone Mask found in Tennessee. REFERENCES

The manuscript of this chapter was submitted to Cyrus Thomas,
Ph.D., of the Bureau of Ethnology, for criticism.

Baldwin’s “Ancient America,” p. 58. Gallatin, Trans. Am.
Ethnol. Soc., I., p. 207. Short’s “North Americans of
Antiquity,” p. 65. Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p.
120. Jone’s “Antiquities of Tennessee,” p. 146. MacLean’s “The
Mound Builders,” Chap. xii.

Carr’s “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley.” Schoolcraft’s
“Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge,” Vol. I., p. 66; Vol. II.,
p. 30. Morgan’s “House and House Life American Aborigines,”
Vol. IV.; “Contributions to N. A. Ethnology,” p. 199. Brinton:
_American Antiquarian,_ October, 1881. Thomas: _American
Antiquarian,_ March, 1884. Powell: Transactions of
Anthropological Society, 1881, p. 116.

Of course these words vary in different nations, but the
meaning is the same in all.

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 269.

The gens, phratry, and tribe were subdivisions of the Ancient
Greeks. Of a similar import were the gens, curiæ, and tribe of
the Roman tribes. The Irish sept and the Scottish clan are the
same in meaning as the gens of other tribes. American authors,
in treating of the Indians, have generally used the words tribe
and clan as equivalent of gens. This is not correct. Almost all
the tribes had a complete organization in gens and phratries,
though of course they did not so name them. These terms are
adopted by Mr. Morgan because they have a precise and
historical meaning. As an example of Indian
tribal-organization, we give an outline of the Seneca-Iroquois
tribe.

TRIBE.
First Phratry, or Brotherhood.
Bear Wolf Beaver Turtle
Gens.

Second Phratry, or Brotherhood.
Deer Snipe Heron Hawk
Gens.

It is proper to remark that the phratries are not a necessary member of the series. Several of the Indian tribes had only gens and tribe. Mr. Schoolcraft uses the words totemic system to express the same organization. Totem, the Ojibway dialect, signifies the symbol or devise which they use to designate the gens. Thus the figure of a bear would be the totem of the bear gens. We must remember that the tribes of to-day have, in many cases, lost their ancient organization. See Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” where this subject is fully treated. Also Powell, in “First Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology;” Grote’s “History of Greece,” Vol. III, p. 55, _et seq._; Smith’s “Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,” articles, gens, civitas, tribus, etc.; also Dorsey, in _American Antiquarian,_ Oct., 1883, p. 312, _et seq._

The Mexican tribes form no exception to this statement. See
this volume, Chapter XV.

Lewis’s “Wild Races of South-eastern India.”

Grote’s “History of Greece,” Vol. II.

Mallery: “American Association Reports,” 1877.

Hochelaga.

Morgan: “Contribution to N. A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 119.

“Luis Hernando De Biedman,” and “A Gentleman of Elvas,” both
translated in “Historic Collections of Louisiana,” Vol. II.

“Historical Collections of Louisiana,” Vol. I, p. 61.

Morgan’s “Contribution to N. A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 114.

Read Capt. John Smith, “Hist. of Virginia;” also “Mass. Hist.
Col.,” Vol. VIII, of the third series.

Consult “The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” by Lucian Carr,
of the Kentucky Graphical Survey, where this subject is fully
treated, and copious quotations given.

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 526.

Bandelier’s “Fifth Annual Report, Arch. Inst.,” p. 60.

“Charlevoix’s Travels in North America,” p. 241.

Fourth Annual Report of Peabody Museum, and from information
furnished me by the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology.

“The custom of palisading appears to have been general among
the northern tribes.”—Brackenridge’s “Views of Louisiana,” p.
182.

“Views of Louisiana,” p. 183.

“Archæology Americanæ,” Vol. I., p. 145.

“Views of Louisiana,” p. 182.

Carr: “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 78.

Quoted from Brinton, _Am. Antiq.,_ Oct., 1881.

Hist. Col. of Louisiana, Vol. II., p. 105.

“Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 90.

“Expedition to Florida,” p. 15.

Shea’s “Early Voyages on the Mississippi,” p. 135. “Historical
Collections of Louisiana,” Vol. I., p. 61. Quoted from Cyrus
Thomas in _American Antiquarian,_ March, 1884.

See article by Cyrus Thomas, of the Bureau of Ethnology, in
_American Antiquarian,_ March, 1884.

“History of Louisiana,” Lond., 1763, Vol. II., pp. 188 and 211.

Father Le Petit: Note, p. 142. “Hist. Col. Louisiana,” Vol.
III.

“Hist. of the Five Nations,” Introduction, p. 16.

Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge, No. 259, p. 15; “Mounds
of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 87.

“Notes on Virginia,” p. 191.

Catlin’s “North American Indians,” p. 95.

Foster’s “Prehistoric Races of the U.S.,” p. 346.

Pueblo Chettro-kettle, Chaco Cañon.

“Geographical and Geological Survey of the Territories,”
Hayden, 1876, p. 440. Calculations made by Mr. Holmes.

Brinton’s “Floridian Peninsula,” p. 21. We think, however, this
statement requires to be taken with some allowance. Personal
liberty seems to have been the birthright of every Indian.
(“Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” Carr, p. 24.) The council
of the tribe is the real governing body of all people in a
tribal state of society. (“Ancient Society,” Morgan.) When the
war-chief united in his person priestly powers also, he at once
became an object of greater interest. This explains why the
government of the chiefs among all the Southern Indian tribes
appears so much more arbitrary than among the northern tribes.
His real power was probably much the same in both cases, but
superstition had surrounded his person with a great many
formalities. The early explorers, acquainted only with the
arbitrary governments of Europe, saw in all this despotic
powers whereas there might not have been much foundation for
this belief.

“Traditions of Decodah,” Pidgeon. Carr, “Mounds of the
Mississippi Valley,” p. 70.

“Indian Migrations,” _American Antiquarian,_ April, 1883.

Mr. Hale suggests that copper was the gold of the North
American Indians, and that the “golden city” simply means a
city or town where they knew how to work copper. It is well
known that the mound building tribes had such knowledge, at
least they knew how to work native copper.

This tradition was first made known by Heckwelder, a missionary
among the Delawares, in his “History of the Indian Nations.” It
is repeated at much greater length, and with additional
particulars, in a paper read by Mr. E. G. Squier, before the
Historical Society of New York. Mr. Squier has simply
translated a genuine Indian record known as the Bark Record.
The two authorities here mentioned consider the Delawares as
coming from west of the Mississippi. Mr. Hale points out that
it was more likely the Upper St. Lawrence—that portion known as
the Detroit River—that was the “Great River” of the traditions.

From this word comes Alleghany Mountains and River.

In this connection it is at least interesting to note that
several authors—Squier, MacLean, and others—have contended,
judging from the fortified hills and camps, that the pressure
of hostilities on the Mound Builders of the Ohio Valley was
from the north-east.

The Chata-muskoki family. (Brinton.)

Hale: _American Antiquarian,_ April, 1883.

We are not at all certain but our scholars will shortly come to
the conclusion that the Cherokees or Shawnees are quite as
likely to be the descendants of the Allegewi as the Natchez.

It is scarcely necessary to caution the reader as to the value
of this statement of ancient greatness. The chroniclers of De
Soto’s expedition had nothing to say about it.

Pickett’s “History of Alabama,” Vol. II.

Du Pratz: “History of Louisiana,” Vol. II.

Stone _metates,_ or mills, have so far been found only in
Missouri, not far from the Missouri River. As this is such an
important implement among the Pueblo tribes, its presence in
this locality is significant. (Thomas.)

(56) As the proof seems to be conclusive that the Indians of
the south who were encountered by the Europeans first visiting
that section were the builders of the mounds of that region, it
brings these works down to a date subsequent to the entry of
the civilized tribes into Mexico. (Thomas.)

Some of the pottery from South-eastern Missouri and Arkansas
shows a strong resemblance to that of some Pueblo tribes.
(Thomas.)

Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 202.

Morgan: “Ancient Society,” p. 12.

“Fifth Annual Report Archæological Institute,” p. 85.

Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 458.

Carr: “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 97.

“Ancient Monuments,” p. 14.