Ohio History Journal

FOWKE'S BOOK AGAIN.

[The following review of Mr. Fowke's volume appears in the Nation

of December 25, 1902. As it is the policy of the Nation to expose defects

wherever they exist and to speak well only of that which deserves high

praise, its general approval of Mr. Fowke's work is something upon which

he is to be congratulated.- E. 0. R.]

"Archaeological History of Ohio: The Mound Builders and

Later Indians. By Gerard Fowke. Published by the Ohio State

Archaeological and Historical Society. Columbus, 1902.

In Ohio are found the most remarkable of the works at-

tributed to those ancient Americans called the Mound Builders,

and here, too, is the field of much that is important and interest-

ing in our later aboriginal history. Probably more nonsense has

been written about the Mound Builders than any other people

that ever existed, the "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel" not excepted.

Fables of "a lost civilization" "geometrical instruments," "a com-

pact civil organization," "myriads of people," "magnificent cities,"

"an extensive empire," have been rolled from writer to writer,

increasing like a snowball as they progressed, until there are

many intelligent persons who believe that there dwelt in the

Ohio Valley an intellectual and civilized race vastly superior to

and totally different from our Red Indians. Hence it is gratify-

ing in the highest degree to have presented in the graphic and

attractive manner of the present work the facts as they exist,

and the conclusion to which they inevitably lead: "Nothing yet

discovered proves for any of the Mound Builders a higher intel-

lectual capacity than is or was, possessed by more than one well-

known tribe of American Indians.

To the demonstration of this thesis Mr. Fowke gives two-

thirds of his book analyzing, ridiculing and demolishing the

reckless statements of many a romancing predecessor, and estab-

lishing beyond cavil such points as these: To erect the works

required neither great skill, large numbers, nor long time. The

artifacts found in the mounds do not in any particular surpass

those picked up on the surface and known to be the work of the

(324)

• 1
 

Fowke's Book Again.                 325

recent Indians. In no particular were the Mound Builders in

advance of many known tribes. The 'mathematical figures,' ex-

cept those at Newark, are of the rudest character. The perfect

circle at Newark could have been made by any one possessed of

the knowledge that a string continues of the same length in what-

soever direction from a center it may be extended. The square

at Newark, alone, requires a geometrical operation, but not one

of a highly complicated order (and, indeed, a square can be laid

out by a formula even simpler than that used by Mr. Fowke).

It is disinctly refreshing to find a book so accurate and sane in

treatment of this mania-producing subject.  Here is, however,

no history of the Mound Builders, for this author is no more able

than his predecessors to tell us who and when they were, nor why

they constructed such extraordinary works. The Indian history

of the state where was, as now seems probable, the early home of

the Siouans, and perhaps also of the Iroquoians, is ignored; and

we pass from the Mound Builders to a brief account of the recent

Indians and a long account of their stone implements, including

a good description of the famous Flint Ridge, the chief armory

of the Indians.

Excellent as this book is, the author's zeal in demolishing

venerable fables leads him by mere momentum to overrun his

objective, and to belabor quite indiscriminately all his prede-

cessors in the field, both the sensible and the foolish. To those

early and industrious Squire and Davis, Mr. Fowke does try, not

always with success, to be just; but in exploiting his rather neat

vein of sarcasm he treats Messrs. Shaler and Putnam with no

more respect than if they were the "silly" Larkin or Hosea of the

mighty imagination. When Mr. Fowke reads his own book crit-

ically he will discover that he is not infallible himself. Yet, all

in all, his is a valuable book, and if properly circulated will do

much to substantiate in the popular mind fact for romance con-

cerning our Mound Builders and later Indians. It is a great pity

that such excellent matter is not presented in better print and

binding. We do not know who prepared the bibliography found

in an appendix. His work would have been more valuable had

he known that the citation of a book is improved if title, date

and name of the author are correctly [fully] given.

• 2
 

326        Ohio Arch. and His. Society Publications.

 

 

PROF. MOORHEAD'S CRITICISM.

[Prof. Warren K. Moorehead was formerly Curator of the Ohio

State Archaeological and Historical Society. He is now the Curator of

the Archaeological Museum of Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass. The

following article from his pen appeared in the Science for April, 1903.-

E. O. R.]

Mr. Fowke's book is not written, so he claims, for scientists

or specialists, but to give laymen an idea of the extent and char-

acteristics of the prehistoric remains found within the borders of

the state of Ohio. It fulfils its mission and presents in its 760

pages a complete resume of all the antiquities of the state, and

also refers to nearly every publication upon the subject. The

work is well done, and as Mr. Fowke compassed a task which

required a great deal of time, and would not have been possible

to any person who had not studied the Ohio field, as he has, for

twenty years, he is deserving of our meed of praise.

But while the above is true, the book itself may not further

the study of archaeology in the United States. Unfortunately the

author is even more than controversial, he is dogmatic, and to

most of the writers and authorities on Ohio antiquities, he is un-

just. Such a book as this is, evincing years of study in its prep-

aration, may do a deal of harm or an equal amount of good.

That is, it may give an erroneous conception of the culture of the

mound-building tribes in Ohio. A scientific critic should be in-

fallible. Mr. Fowke is not infallible. Beginning with the year

1803 and coming down to the present, he has resurrected the pub-

lished opinions of scores of writers, and has held up their theories

to ridicule and contempt. But they were the pioneers in Ameri-

can archeology. These men made many mistakes. It would be

as logical for one interested in the development of steam naviga-

tion to contrast Fulton's steamboat with the Kaiser Wilhelm der

Grosse to the detriment of Fulton, as it is for Mr. Fowke to

measure these pioneers by our present standard of knowledge.

The whole tone of the book is that prehistoric man in Ohio

is scarcely worthy of study; that nothing new has been learned

regarding him; that (p. 148) "Our museums are filling up with

material from all sources, and yet, for years, the accumulation

• 3
 

Fowke's Book Again.                 327

 

has added nothing in the way of real information to what we

already know."

If this is true, why continue work in prehistoric anthro-

pology ?

Mr. Fowke does not believe the prehistoric earthworks and

mounds required the time in their construction assigned by other

investigators, who made many exaggerations. But he presents

a rather illogical argument. I have space for only part of it:

"Forty deck hands on a western steamboat, working steadily,

will transfer ten thousand bushels of corn from the bank to the

vessel in one day. An equal weight of dry earth will make a

mound forty feet in diameter and ten feet high" (p. 85). No

Indian ever worked as deck hands work. The corn in sacks and

usually handled on trucks, is rushed from the deck into the ware-

house, the negroes stimulated to run by the curses of the mate.

Mr. Fowke places the native, who had no shovels, no trucks, and

no inclined planes or board floors on which to move the "dry

earth" - even as negroes hustle sacked corn- on a par with the

fastest workers of modern times. The field testimony is that the

earth for mounds was scooped up in the immediate neighborhood

and carried in baskets or skins. This was naturally a slow pro-

cess, as the natives used stone or shell digging tools.

On page 88 there is a sentence which is calculated to preju-

dice the author in the eyes of fair-minded men. Mr. MacLean,

in one of his books, refers to the Mound Builders as selecting

the region between the lakes and the gulf, the reason for which

is apparent to any observer. As to this opinion, Mr. Fowke says,

"The last quotation is about as sensible as to say that a man dis-

played great literary inclination by electing to be born in Boston."

He contends that the number of rings in a tree is no evidence-

as to its age, to all of which we may subscribe. But, unfortun-

ately, he cites all the trees of rapid growth in support of his argu-

ment, even bringing in trees of tropical regions, as in Yucatan,

where M. Charnay found trees twenty-two years old two feet

in diameter. As to the great oaks four or five feet in diameter,

found on some of the earthworks, he has nothing to say.

Mr. W. C. Mills's important investigations of the last few

years are almost entirely omitted. In many places Squier and

• 4
 

328       Ohio Arch. and His. Society Publications.

 

Davis are cited because their measurements are not in accord

with those of the author, who ignores the fact that the diameter

of an embankment or of a mound may have been enlarged many

feet through continuous cultivation. The Hopewell exploration,

for example, showed that the Effigy mound was originally much

higher and narrower than even in Atwater's time; to-day it is

nearly one-half larger and broader than it was found to be in

1891. Applying to this Mr. Fowke's method of reasoning, the

structure could never have had the dimensions assigned to it by

early observers.

The chapter on Flint Ridge gives an exhaustive account of

that famous site. The pages devoted to the manufacture of im-

plements and to the finished products are also, with the exception

of a few remarks on ceremonial stones, above criticism. In such

descriptions and in field work the author is seen at his best, and

the critical student would be unjust did he not accord due praise

in these directions. It is only in Mr. Fowke's attitude toward

others, in which there is manifest such a spirit of intolerance,

chat he is open to severe criticism.

His conclusions are that several tribes may have occupied

Ohio (p. 470), yet he does not agree with the "long and short

heads" theory.

He uses the terms "tribe" and "race" interchangeably

throughout his book. He says mound finds and surface finds

differ little - a statement not borne out by field testimony. Dif-

ferent sites present varying degrees of culture, and the Turner

site where Putnam found so many evidences of a considerable

advance in art, and the Hopewell were substances from the Yel-

lowstone, the Gulf and other distinct points, together with beau-

tiful carvings in stone and bone, were exhumed, are classed with

sites which evince a very low degree of culture.

No sensible person believes in "civilization of the Mound

Builders" or that there was a "race of Mound Builders." But to

swing to the other extreme and classify a tribe able to construct

the strange "combination-works" of the Lower Scioto with the

Pai Utes or the Comanches is manifestly wrong.

• 5