Ohio History Journal

WHO WERE THE MOUND BUILDERS?

 

J. P. MACLEAN, PH. D.

An ancient and unknown race of people possessing a well-

developed type of civilization, once inhabited the valleys of the

Ohio and Mississippi. This race has left no written history,

but the testimony of its existence and advancement in the arts

and sciences is attested in the stupendous structures, consisting

of mounds, walled enclosures and domestic implements, which

have long attracted the attention of observers, scientists and the

public generally.

The origin of this race, known as the Mound-Builders, is

still an unsolved problem. The evidences of its origin have

either been obliterated, or else so carefully concealed as to es-

cape the closest scrutiny. The ethnologist has been intensely

interested as to the type of mankind that constructed the re-

mains. Many are the theories that have been propounded; but

certain testimonies exist which enable us to arrive at plausible

conclusions. It may be considered that the first and most im-

portant step in this consideration has been definitely settled.

It was in the year 1833 that Dr. Samuel George Morton

published his monumental work, "Crania Americana," in which

he identified the crania of the Mound-Builders with that of the

American family. Adopting the classification as given by Buf-

fon, the American family is characterized by "a brown complex-

ion, long, black, lank hair, and deficient beard. The eyes are

black and deep-set, the brow low, the cheek bones high, the

nose large and the lips turned and compressed. The skull is

small, wide between the parietal protuberances, prominent at the

vertex, and flat on the occiput." This family is divided into

two grand classes, the American family and the Toltecan family.

Morton's investigations rested upon the crania. It is possible

that Morton did not have before him a sufficient number of un-

questionable Mound crania. However, his results do not rest

upon inconclusive evidence. Take the skull found near Chilli-

(91)

• 1
 

92        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

cothe, discovered by Squier and Davis in a mound, reposing in a

deposit of buried earth, as an evidence. Dr. Morton declared

that its characteristic features resembled the Toltecan. Nott and

Gliddon state that it is exceedingly characteristic of our Amer-

ican races, although more particularly of the Toltecan. Accord-

ing to both Doctors Morton and Nott, the peculiarities of this

consist of the "forehead, low, narrow and receding; flattened

occiput; a perpendicular line drawn through the external meatus

of the ear divides the brain into two unequal parts, of which the

posterior is much the smaller. Viewed from above, the anterior

part of the brain is narrow, and the posterior and middle portion,

over the organs of caution, secretiveness, destructiveness, etc.,

very broad, thus lending much support to phrenology; vertex

prominent."

The celebrated Dr. John C. Warren pronounced the Mound

and Peruvian crania to be alike. This would agree essentially

with Morton for the Peruvian is a fair representative of the Tol-

tecan type.

Aside from this science of craniology a strong showing may

be produced from that class of structures known as "temple

mounds." These are large, truncated mounds with graded ways

leading to their summits, the most noted of which is the great

Cahokia mound, about nine miles from East St. Louis, Illinois.

This mound has four terraces. The temple mounds are more

numerous in Kentucky than in Ohio. The farther south, the

greater is the number. Their development from north to south

gradually passes over to the higher structures of Mexico, and

bears a striking resemblance to the Mexican Teocallis, which

early suggested the name "temple," by which they are almost

universally designated.

The ancient Mexicans and Mayas were much given to ser-

pent worship, or at least the serpent was a common symbol in

their religious rites. What relation the great serpent mound of

Adams County, Ohio, has to the symbolism of the Mexicans and

Central Americans may, of itself, have no significance, but when

considered with other phases, it must be a very strong link in the

chain of evidence.

• 2
 

Who Were the Mound Builders?               93

 

At this juncture, it should be noted that the American fam-

ily is represented by all types of civilization, from the wild, or

savage tribes to that people who constructed the wonderful

houses and temples of stone in Yucatan and Chiapas. The ruins

of the temple at Palenque must ever remain as one of the won-

ders of the world. If the ancient Mayas had not passed the

semi-barbarous state, they certainly were encroaching upon the

dividing line.

The wild tribes did not erect the squares and temples at

Marietta, Ohio, nor the squares, circulars, octagons, parallelo-

grams, parallel lines of walls, etc., so characteristic of the mound-

building race. The North American Indian has no habits of

progressive industry. He is restless, revengeful, fond of war,

and reactionary. There is not one scintilla of evidence that the

Indians built these mounds. Their own testimony is against it.

To say the least, they were incapable of the task.

Indian traditions, like all others cannot be relied on. In

them there may be germs of truth, but not sufficient to be re-

lied on as historic evidence. There is a tradition that, many

centuries ago, the Lenni-Lenape swept in a flood of migration

from the far west, but on reaching the valleys east of the Miss-

issippi, they were confronted by a well-intrenched people pos-

sessing a mighty civilization. These people they dominated the

Allegewi. The progress of the Lenni-Lenape was arrested, and

they were driven back, but not discouraged. At the same time,

the Iroquois were trying to effect a passage in a more northerly

direction. The two migratory peoples now entered into a military

league, and proclaimed a war of extermination against the Al-

legewi. The strongholds of the latter were reduced, the lands des-

olated, and the people forced to become wanderers upon the

shores of the streams they had attempted to defend. Another

tradition affirms that the primitive inhabitants of Kentucky per-

ished in a war of extermination, waged against them by the

Indians, and that the last great battle was fought at the falls of

the Ohio, where the remnant was driven upon a small island

below the rapids and "the whole of them cut to pieces." The

Indian chief, Tobacco, informed General George Rogers Clark of

a tradition in which it was stated that there was a battle at Sandy

• 3
 

94        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

Island, that decided the fall of the ancient inhabitants. The In-

dian chief, Cornplanter, affirmed that Ohio, Kentucky and Ten-

nessee had once been inhabited by a white people, who were

familiar with arts, of which the Indians knew nothing, and that,

after a series of battles with the Indians, they were exterminated.

He also declared that the old burial-places were the graves of

an unknown people; that the old forts had not been built by the

Indians, but belonged to "a very long ago" people, who were of

a white complexion, and skilled in arts.

It is possible that the Indians had such traditions. It is

also possible that the tradition was formed to suit the occasion.

These ancient remains had awakened great interest in the minds

of the early explorers, and the Indians, desiring to give such

answers as would suit the interlocutor, devised a satisfactory

answer. Admitting the genuineness of the traditions, but little

can be extracted therefrom. The Indians were almost con-

stantly on the warpath, and were of a more or less migratory

nature, and it is not improbable that they engaged in some strug-

gles that made a lasting impression on their minds.

The Indians did have a superstition relative to Kentucky.

One Indian expressed great astonishment that white people could

live in a country which had been the scene of such conflicts as

had taken place there. An old Sac, in 1800, said that Kentucky

was filled with the ghosts of its slaughtered inhabitants, and

wondered how the white man could make it his home.

That these early people were affirmed to be white, would

only indicate that they were not as dark as the narrator. Ken-

tucky was the battle-ground between the northern and southern

Indians; but one great fact is always overlooked by the repeat-

ers of these traditions: The strongest military works are north

of the Ohio, the best known of which is Fort Ancient, in War-

ren County, where we have over four miles of walls, varying

from five to twenty feet in height. The forts in Ross, High-

land, Warren and Butler counties, Ohio, indicate that the

Mound-Builders were disturbed by powerful foes, for structures

on points of land suitable for defensive purposes would not be

erected unless there was a destructive assailant.

• 4
 

Who Were the Mound Builders?              95

 

There is no proof that the people were assailed at every set-

tlement. The sacred enclosures at Marietta were not protected

by military works. Such evidence as we have, judging from the

remains alone, indicate that the invasion was from the north,

and the people, step by step, retreated southward. And yet, the

Indians have no traditions of violence with a primitive people

in the valleys of the rivers of southern Ohio, unless that of the

Lenni-Lenape be so construed.

Having referred this shadowy race of the mounds to the

Toltecan family, it may be worth a passing notice to explain this

term. Relying on Doctor Morton's "Crania Americana," this

group embraces the civilized nations of Mexico, Peru and Bo-

gata, extending from the Rio Gila, thirty-third degree north lat-

itude, along the western margin of the continent, to the fron-

tier of Chili; but in North America this people was spread from

ocean to ocean, through Mexico, Yucatan, Guatamala, Nica-

ragua, etc. From this it is not to be inferred that all the peo-

ple embraced in this region were Toltecan, because a very large

proportion of the inhabitants were of other tribes, both exotic

and indigenous.

At the time of the discovery the people were divided into

two distinct classes, constituting nobles and plebeians. There ap-

pears to have been as much objection to the amalgamation of

these two classes as ever existed in any aristocratic court of

Europe. The advent of the Spaniards reduced both classes to

one and imposed an equal servitude on all alike.

The Toltecan family had a powerful priesthood, which,

practically, was the governing power. The great structures of

Mexico and the Central American states were built under the

direction of the priests. Only a powerful government, among a

semi-civilized people, could effect such monuments.

The temple mounds and geometrical works of the Ohio

would indicate a government of the priesthood. When the vast

amount of labor required, by primitive methods, is considered,

it must be apparent that the ancient priesthood of the Ohio Val-

ley was absolute and despotic.  Such a condition, uncurbed,

must enervate the nation, and a less civilized people must fall a

prey, or be driven from their homes.

• 5
 

96       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.   The problem of the mounds must, of necessity, remain an interesting one, because of the uncertainty surrounding it. To this must be added the unfortunate fact that whoever pries into this question must needs project a theory, however unsupported it may be by facts. The evidences as to who the Mound-Build- ers were must rest upon the crania and the character of the mon- uments. Much labor has been bestowed upon the mound problem. Ohio is the most prolific in the remains of this people. The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, is doing good service in placing information before the people, as well as in- vestigating the remains. It owns both Fort Ancient and the Serpent Mound now made free to the public.

• 6