Ohio History Journal

SOME POPULAR ERRORS IN REGARD TO MOUND

BUILDERS AND INDIANS.

THE   erroneous ideas of persons, otherwise well in-

formed, concerning archaeological matters would amaze

one who could attain to any considerable knowledge of

the science without previously becoming familiar to some

extent with the many absurd theories and notions pro-

mulgated by authors ignorant of their subject and writing

only to strike the popular mind and pocket. The tend-

ency of most of these works-and the exceptions are not

to be found among those of greatest fame and widest cir-

culation-is to indulge in sentiment without much regard

to facts; to appeal to the reader's emotions instead of to

his reason; to induce a state of melancholy over the

mournful and mysterious disappearance of a numerous

and interesting people, instead of furnishing any informa-

tion about them; to adroitly rehash old matter and pre-

sent it in a new and attractive form, thereby gaining for

the compiler the reputation of being a great and learned

man.

It may seem harsh thus to characterize them, but a milder

phraseology scarcely seems admissible; even allowing full

honesty of purpose, the rhapsodies of ill-informed enthusiasts

are as harmful as the deliberate misstatements of intentional

deceivers; and one can not resist a feeling of indignation

that the wide-spread desire for accurate information on

a most interesting subject is met and perforce satisfied

with such trash as forms the bulk of our archaeological

literature.

Since the time of Squier and Davis, who more than

forty years ago published the results of what purported to

be a careful and critical survey and examination of mounds

and other remains in the Scioto Valley, there have

forced themselves upon public attention hosts of writ-

ers, who, knowing nothing but what they had read,

380

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders. 381

and unable to interpret even that correctly, have flooded

the market with books that cause a feverish excitement

in the minds of those who are really interested in a study

of the pre-historic condition of our country, and mystify

the seekers after knowledge. Very seldom does a new fact

appear, and when one does it is not duly set forth, or else

is so distorted or slurred over that its importance is lost.

Of late years a few persons have been opening mounds

in a somewhat intelligent manner; and when the results

of numerous investigations by private parties can be col-

lected and combined with those conducted by public in-

stitutions; when the similarities and differences of earth-

works, and especially of the internal structure of mounds,

can be studied; when a careful comparison can be had of

the relics in all public and private collections-then will

it be time to attempt a solution of the questions present-

ing themselves on every hand. But knowledge of what

has been done, and skill to classify intelligently are essen-

tial to a successful prosecution of this work. The noto-

riety derived from newspapers and from connection with

some public concern may create but cannot sustain a rep-

utation for ability; and the work must finally be done by

some one who has not derived all his information at sec-

ond-hand or from his inner consciousness, but who has

fitted himself for the task by careful study and observa-

tion of the works themselves.

Mainly by reason of the teachings of these sciolists,

there are many widely prevalent ideas which are at vari-

ance with all observed facts, or in support of which only

negative evidence can be produced. It is the purpose of

this paper to call attention to a few of these, and while

their falsity may not be shown in a manner to satisfy the

"laws of evidence," it is possible that a line of thought

different from that to which we have so long been accus-

tomed may be pointed out, which in competent hands

may lead to good results.

It is not intended to give a systematic or logical order

382  Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

of statement and argument, but only to point out some

mistakes; and these will be cited somewhat at random.

Nor are exact quotations aimed at; what are so marked

are not from any particular book or author, but are to be

considered as expressing the general views of a large class

of readers, or persons who "are interested in the subject,"

and are put in quotation marks merely to avoid an intro-

ductory clause or sentence with each.

*  *

"The works of the Mound Builders evince a high cul-

ture or civilization."

So far as has yet been discovered, these people could

not build a stone wall that would stand up. In the ab-

sence of springs or streams, they could procure water only

by excavating a shallow pond; they could not even wall

up a spring when one was convenient. They left not one

stone used in building that shows any mark of a dressing

tool. Their mounds and embankments were built by

bringing loads of earth, never larger than one person

could easily carry, in baskets or skins, as is proven by the

hundreds of lens-shaped masses observable in the larger

mounds. They had not the slightest knowledge of the

economic use of metals, treating what little they had as a

sort of malleable stone; even galena, which it seems im-

possible they could have without discovering its low melt-

ing point, is always worked, if worked at all, as a piece of

slate or other ornamental stone would be. They left

nothing to indicate that any system of written language

existed among them, the few "hieroglyphics" on "in-

scribed tablets" having no more significance than the

modern carving by a boy on the smooth bark of the beech,

or else being deliberate frauds-generally the latter in the

case of the more elaborate specimens. They had not a

single beast of burden, unless we accept the "proof" of-

fered-as convincing, indeed, as the usual run of "proof"

in these matters-by a New York author, that they har-

nessed up mastodons and worked them. Beyond peddling

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders. 383

from tribe to tribe a few ornaments or other small articles

that a man could easily carry or transport in a canoe, they

had no trade or commerce.

Now, is there possible under such circumstances, any-

thing in the nature of what may be called "civilization ?"

Can we conceive of a people as possessing even a slight

degree of "culture," who are lacking in any of these par-

ticulars ? We are accustomed to use these terms only in

connection with those who are able to provide themselves

with at least the ordinary comforts of life; and it is in-

cumbent upon those calling the Mound Builders such, to

produce some evidence in support of their assertion.

"The great magnitude of the works shows a numerous

population distributed over a wide area, but all subject to

one great central power, with kings, and chiefs, and high-

priests, and laws, and established religious systems, and

despotic power, and servile obedience, and "- Heaven

only knows what all besides.

If the assumption upon which all this is based were

correct, namely, that the various works scattered through

the Mississippi Valley were occupied at one time by one

people, there would be some probability of its truth; but

the little that is definitely known points the other way-

to distinct races of Mound Builders" at widely separated

periods of time.

I venture to say that the construction of all the aborigi-

nal earthworks of every description within the limits of

the State of Ohio did not require an amount of labor equal

to that used in the excavation of the Erie and Miami

canals. A close study of the enclosures leads to the con-

viction that the population was not numerous, except in

the immediate vicinity; they were not necessarily built

synchronously-in fact, some have the appearance of

being of much more ancient date than others only a few

miles distant. What their use may have been, has always

been a very puzzling question, any conjecture finding

384  Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

many difficulties to overcome. Among other suggestions

is the plausible one that they were intended as a means

of defense to the villages built within them. If this be

the correct theory (which is not asserted) it can be readily

understood that when the population of one of these vil-

lages increased to such a degree as to feel crowded, a por-

tion would branch off and establish themselves at some

convenient spot, where they would construct an enclosure

or protective wall similar to that from which they had re-

moved. It required no great haste; several years may

have been spent in the work, the builders, meanwhile,

returning temporarily to their old abode, should it become

necessary.

Moreover, if the great center of all this power was

within the southern half of Ohio (for the works at New-

ark are the most northern, as they are the most extensive

of their kind, and the system of works and mounds

stretches from them down to the Ohio by the tributary

valleys), is it not strange that a "mighty nation" should

build its principal fortifications and protective works in

the interior, leaving the frontier exposed? Does not this

go to show that they were not " numerous " and " mighty"

and "far-reaching," but just the reverse, spreading out in

peaceful times to a considerable distance, perhaps, but

ready to retreat in case of danger to their great enclosures ?

They were, no doubt, many thousands in number, but

to suppose them to " equal or exceed in number those now

living in the same region of country," is absurd.

The "kings," "priesthood," "religious systems," etc.,

result from the influence of a vivid imagination upon the

desire to furnish an extraordinary and complicated ex-

planation of a matter which the writers do not exactly

understand.

The problem is difficult to solve when viewed in its

simplest aspect, but well-nigh impossible if to the orig-

inal question be added the mystery and nonsense in which

so many are trying to envelop it.

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders. 385

" The works are constructed with mathematical accu-

racy; the squares are always exact squares, and the circles

perfect circles."

This belief is based upon the statement to that effect by

Squier and Davis, who furthermore proceed "to set all

skepticism at rest " by stating that "the work was done

by the authors in person." Squier was editor of a news-

paper, Davis a physician, both in small country towns;

their work was done with an old-fashioned worn-out

"compass," borrowed from a surveyor in Chillicothe, who

showed them how to use it. I give this on the authority

of a gentleman who remembers the circumstance. No

one has ever impugned Dr. Davis's honesty, but an article

in a Chillicothe paper last spring, copied, I think, from

the Cincinnati Commercial-Gazette, gives Squier a reputa-

tion of being somewhat unreliable, and ready to make a

sacrifice of truth when such action could be made to turn

to his advantage; and we are justified in declining to

believe them experts, or to accept their figures and plans

without question, even though we may thereby bring

down upon our heads the scathing epithet of " skeptic."

In their description of the works in Liberty Township,

eight miles southeast of Chillicothe, they give field notes

of what they claim to be a careful survey, in which twelve

stations were established at regular intervals of three hun-

dred feet, with a deflection of 30° at each, the last meas-

urement bringing them to the starting point.

If this were correct, it might be conclusive, as it is not

at all probable that in an irregular figure twelve points at

equal intervals would fall on the circumference of a circle;

and the assertion seems to have been accepted without

question as applying to the smaller circle there described.

But the diameter of this same circle is given as eight hun-

dred feet; in other words, they have constructed a poly-

gon with a perimeter of thirty-six hundred feet, and then

managed to circumscribe it with a circle whose circumfer-

ence is a little more than twenty-five hundred feet! And

Vol. II-25

386  Ohio Archaeological and Historic Quarterly.

this ridiculous thing has been used all these years as a

proof of " mathematical accuracy." It seems incredib

that so manifest an error should not only have gone uncor-

rected, but in addition been used to uphold a theory.

True, there is not a positive statement that this is the

"circle" to which reference is made; but when we find it

in the description of these works, and find a " supplemen-

tary plan" on the plate where they are figured, the infer-

ence is natural, and has been general, that this one is

meant, especially as no other circle is anywhere described

to which the measurements given will apply.

Nearly all the enclosures of Ohio and of the allied

works of the Kanawha Valley, whose condition is such as

to admit of it, have lately been very carefully surveyed,

and not a single "exact square" or "perfect circle" has

been found among them, though some of the works ap-

proach very closely to these forms. There is sufficient

accuracy in some cases to make one wonder that the

builders could have done as well as they did, but no evi-

dence of any "calculation" beyond the mere sighting and

measuring possible to any one. The "square" at the

Hopeton works, for instance, has eleven sides with as

many different bearings and angles, and not a right angle

among them.

As the results of these surveys are the property of the

Bureau of Ethnology, they can not be given here, and the

reader must await the publication of the report containing

them, to consult the facts and figures in this connection.

While Squier and Davis deserve great credit, and should

always stand out foremost among those who have con-

tributed to our knowledge of pre-historic America; while

their numerous minor errors in regard to the geological

features connected with the works must be excused, for

the reason that in their time no one even knew there had

been a glacial epoch in this section; while their energy

and devotion to the cause in doing the work at their own

expense and in the face of many difficulties, is deserving

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders. 387

of great praise; still, we must deplore the almost universal

errors and mistakes that have resulted from their inability

to do accurate work, or from their desire to make all plans

and statements conform to a theory which they either con-

structed before completing their work or formulated when

the results were collated, and which has been a stumbling

block to archeologists ever since.

The many coincidences in lines, angles and areas disap-

pear when transit and chain and careful methods are em-

ployed, and thus a great breach is made in the foundation

upon which have been erected some wonderful theories.

While on this topic, it may be well to state that the cele-

brated "Graded Way" near Piketon,whose use has caused

much speculation, is not a graded way at all in the sense

usually employed. The point can not be made clear with-

out a diagram, but the depression is simply an old water-

way or "thoroughfare" of Beaver Creek, through which,

in former ages, a portion of its waters were discharged,

probably in times of flood. It is not just "1,080 feet in

length," but reaches to the creek, nearly half a mile away.

The artificial walls on either side are not "composed of

earth excavated in forming the ascent," for the earth from

the ravine or cut-off went down the Scioto before the

the lower terraces were formed, but are made of earth

scraped up near by and piled along the edge of the ravine,

just as any other earth walls are made. The walls are of

different lengths, both less than eight hundred feet in

length along the top; neither do they taper off to a point,

the west wall in particular being considerably higher and

wider at the southern extremity, looking, when viewed

from the end, like an ordinary conical mound. The earth

in the walls thus built up, if spread evenly over the hol-

low between them, would not fill it up more than two

feet, and that for less than a third of its length.

But to correct individual errors would require an entire

number of the QUARTERLY.

388  Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

"The great age of the mounds is shown by the fact that

none are ever found on the lowest or latest formed terraces

along our streams."

This is not true in regard to numerous localities in the

Southern States; but, admitting it so far as Ohio is con-

cerned, it would seem a very foolish proceeding to place

the mounds or other structures on ground subject to fre-

quent overflow when sites fully as desirable in other

respects, and beyond the reach of floods, could be found

a short distance away. By the same process of reasoning

one might prove the "immense antiquity" of the farm

houses along our rivers.

"Trees centuries old crown their tops."

How is it known they are centuries old? Size is no

indication of age, for that depends mainly on soil and

climate; there are groves in Ohio containing trees large

enough to furnish saw-logs, that have grown up on what

was called " prairie land," within the memory of men now

living. The old theory of growth-rings must be aban-

doned, as it is proven beyond dispute that by alternations

of wet and dry periods two, or even more, rings may form

in one year. I have heard the assertion made by an intel-

ligent man that a white pine required at least four hun-

dred years to attain a diameter of twenty inches. This

would allow only one-fortieth of an inch of growth-ring

per year, but he wished to have it very old because it

stood on the top of a mound.

There has been no satisfactory method yet discovered

of settling this point, and until there has, there is but

little use in trying to prove anything by it.

"That certain spots were densely populated, and that

an extensive trade was carried on by the inhabitants, is

shown by the works being most numerous where our

large cities have sprung into existence."

There are certain laws governing the locations of towns

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders. 389

and cities, despite the general opinion that they spring up

independently of all human calculations.

At first, pioneers were led to make their settlements

where they could find fertile soil and good water; the

Mound Builders, being agricultural and living in com-

munities, were influenced by the same considerations.

Next, the settlers, recognizing the advantages of naviga-

tion and the difficulties of overland travel in new coun-

tries, established their towns on rivers; the Mound Build-

ers also would find it easier to travel in canoes. Finally,

with improved methods of transit, cities take their rise at

points offering the best facilities for the collection and dis-

tribution of goods; but the Mound Builder never got

beyond the stage of the canoe, consequently only the

question of soil and stream entered into his calculation.

In Ohio, Marietta, Portsmouth, Chillicothe and Newark

are located upon the sites or in the immediate vicinity of

the most extensive remains; and not even the most enthu-

siastic citizen of any of these towns will venture a com-

parison with Toledo, Columbus, Cleveland or Cincinnati,

where the works, if they existed at all, were found only to

a minor extent. The same holds true of all the area in

which the ancient works are found; although thriving

towns may exist coincident with the most intricate or

wide-spread remains, yet the large cities are developed

elsewhere. St. Louis may be considered an exception;

but even here the great Cahokia group is on the opposite

side of the river, where a city is impossible under present

conditions.

"The earth of which mounds and other works is com-

posed is usually clay, quite unlike the surrounding soil in

color, and is apparently brought from distant or unknown

localities."

The first part of the statement, namely, in regard to

the color, is generally correct; but a wrong explanation is

given of its cause. It is assumed that the earth is clay,

390 Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

because it is of the same color; and it is further assumed

that no clay is to be found in the neighborhood. But

many mounds, even large ones, and a majority of the em-

bankments, contain no clay, unless the term be applied to

the clayey loam lying about them, or forming the sub-soil.

If a mound be composed of soil scooped up evenly to a

slight depth, it may be difficult to find after long cultiva-

tion; but when, as is usually the case, the earth is dug

more deeply to furnish material, the sub-soil makes up

the bulk of the mound, and its position is apparent at a

glance, even when it is plowed to a level with the sur-

rounding surface. Further, the soil around may become

darker by the gradual accumulation of decaying vegetable

matter, while the mound has its upper portion continually

dragged toward the base by the plow and harrow and

washed down by the rains, with the effect of having a

fresh surface always exposed to view.

For several years I have paid close attention to this

point, looking carefully for the source of material, and

have yet to see a mound or embankment containing any

sort of earth that may not be found within a few minutes'

walk; generally it is to be found close at hand, either on

the surface or at a slight depth beneath, and especially is

this the case with works in glaciated areas, where very dif-

ferent sorts of earth may be found within a limited space.

It is a question which can be readily settled by any one

who will take the trouble to dig a few holes about the

base of any earthwork; he will be very apt to find that if

he places earth from the work and from the hole side by

side, he will be unable to distinguish one from the other.

"The Mound Builders were much beyond the average

in size; in most of the skeletons the jaw-bone will easily

slip over the face of a large man."

The lower jaw being somewhat V-shaped, narrowest at

the chin, one may be very readily slipped over a man's

face-as far as it will go; but the condyle will be apt to

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders. 391

stop on the cheek instead of going back to the correspond-

ing part of the one on which it is placed. The proper

test is to turn it upside down, and place it against the

lower part of the jaw with which it is to be compared.

The result will probably surprise the experimenter. Even

should it prove to be somewhat larger, it may be only an-

other example of the law that "use promotes growth," for

long-continued mastication of coarse or tough food will

tend to produce a greater development of the necessary

organs.

In speaking of jaws, one naturally thinks of teeth, and

is thus reminded of some mistakes in regard to them.

" Mound Builders' teeth are always very solid and per-

fect."

I have never yet found in a mound a skeleton with a

full set of sound teeth; sometimes all the teeth remaining

were sound, but some would be missing; again, the full

number were in the jaw, but some were carious. The

skull belonging to the skeleton of a man not past middle

age, exhumed from a mound near Waverly, 0., had only

twenty-two teeth remaining, and of these, thirteen showed

that they were more or less decayed before the death of

the individual-some of them badly so. An error similar

to this prevails in respect to the teeth of negroes, it being

commonly supposed that they have very white, clean teeth,

whereas such are more rare among them than among

whites.

"They had double teeth [molars] all around, a peculiar-

ity which separates them from all other races."

Fortunately for anatomists, the "double teeth" may be

explained without overturning all systems of classification.

Very many (not all) Mound Builders had prominent chins,

which caused the incisors to meet squarely. This caused

them to be worn off flat, and eventually brought the crowns

of all the teeth down to about the same level. Physiogno-

mists tell us this is indicative of a mild, benevolent dispo-

392  Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

sition, while persons whose upper incisors overlap are cruel

and bloodthirsty-the one being vegetarians and the others

meat eaters.

" The amount of wear of the teeth shows they survived

to an extreme old age."

While this may be true under ordinary circumstances,

it by no means follows in the case of the people who pre-

ceded us. There is nothing to show they had any better

methods of preparing food than were in use by the later

Indians; and a diet of parched corn, bread made from

corn pounded in a stone mortar or with a stone pestle and

baked in hot ashes, with meat cooked on coals or boiled in

water heated by throwing in hot stones, would certainly

furnish any set of teeth a good excuse for wearing out in

an ordinary life-time.

" Specimens obtained from mounds have a beauty and

artistic finish far beyond anything found on the surface or

known to be fabricated by modern Indians."

This is the great argument that is considered conclusive

by those who do not know very much about specimens. It

would imply that the Mound Builders never lost anything

or left any specimens behind them save such as are found

in the mounds, which would be inconsistent with the idea

of a "numerous population," unless we suppose that only

those buried in the mounds possessed such property; and

is on a par with the belief, almost too ridiculous to men-

tion, and yet floating vaguely through the minds of a great

many people, that the skeletons found in a mound are the

remains of the individuals who erected it.

After a careful examination of many public and private

collections, and two winters of close work in the museum

of the Smithsonian Institution-which is admitted to be

fairly representative of pre-historic art in this country-

spent in preparing a paper on stone implements, I am

utterly unable to decide between the two, except in such

specimens as will deteriorate from exposure, but will be

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders. 393

well preserved when protected from atmospheric influ-

ences. For example, one may readily infer that an en-

graved shell, a perfect pot, or a sheet of mica came from a

mound, or at least from a sheltered place; but for all arti-

cles made of stone there is no way of distinguishing one

class from the other. The finest stone ax I ever saw in

shape and finish was picked up on the surface; no arrow-

points found in mounds can equal in delicate workman-

ship those made by the ignorant fish-eating tribes of

Oregon; though of a different design, the mound pipes

are in no way superior to some made by the Indians of

to-day; the mound pottery is far inferior to that made by

the Zunis. More than this, let any one make, from any

collection, such selection as he wishes of undoubted mound

specimens, and it will be easy to make a similar collection

of surface finds so like them that it will be beyond the

power of any one to assign with certainty each to its

proper place. And this may be carried down to single

specimens-always, of course, subject to the exception

above indicated.

* * * A common error is to apply the name of "dart"

or "arrow-head" to almost every sort of pointed flint im-

plement, the larger ones being considered especially fitted

for such use. So they might be if the propelling force

were in ratio to the size; but there is a limit to the size of

the bow which a man can draw, and with the same veloc-

ity a small arrow-point has a much greater penetrating

power than a large one.

The so-called "rotary [beveled] arrow-heads" have

been adduced as a proof that the aborigines had studied

out the advantage of a rotary or "rifle" motion to a mis-

sile long before the whites had discovered it. There are

two objections to this theory: First, with very few excep-

tions, such are not arrow-points at all, as they are too large

for that use, but are probably skinning knives, for which

purpose they are better adapted than almost any other

form of stone implement can be; secondly, the shape of

394  Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

the point has no effect upon the flight of the arrow any-

how, as has been proven by modern archers-the rifling,

when desired, being accomplished by a spiral arrangement

of the feathers at the other end of the shaft. At any rate,

they could scarcely " tear and mangle the flesh of the vic-

tim," as the rotary motion, allowing it to have been pro-

duced, must stop as soon as the point had penetrated the

skin.

A theory has also been evolved concerning another

common form of this class. The natural fracture of flint

being conchoidal, a flake is commonly curved, and an

arrow-point or knife hastily made from it may have the

same shape or "twist."  But some of those who find a

mysterious signification in everything pertaining to the

subject, have discovered that the maker of such form of

arrow-point knew that by having the convex side down

when it left the bow the resistance of the air would give a

constant upward impulse to the arrow, thus counteracting

the force of gravity and allowing a flight of indefinite

duration. Had that savage lived in our day, he would

probably have invented a gun that would kill an enemy

on the opposite side of a tree.

It has occurred to another author-the same, I think,

who discovered that the Flathead Indians indulge in their

peculiar practice in order that they may peep over logs

and from behind trees without incurring the danger of

having the tops of their heads shot off-that the curved or

"twisted " flint is used for pointing fish-spears; one cast

at the apparent position of a fish curving around to its

real position and transfixing it-with surprise at such

"mathematical accuracy," perhaps.

* * * But as these minor matters could be multiplied

almost indefinitely, let us drop them and consider next

some of the many reasons that are given as to why the

Mound Builders were not Indians, or vice versa.

"Indians, whose traditions go back for centuries, know

nothing of the origin of the 'ounds."

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders. 395

Heckwelder records a tradition of the Delawares to the

effect that they came from a place far to the west, and

after journeying for a long time came to a river, beyond

which dwelt a people called the Tallegwi. These gave

the Delawares permission to pass through their country,

but when the migrating party had divided, the Tallegwi

attacked that portion which had crossed the boundary

river, and drove them with great slaughter. A long and

bloody war followed; the Tallegwi made strong fortifica-

tions of earth and defended themselves with great bravery,

but were gradually driven backward, building forts and

other defenses as they went, until they finally passed

beyond the Ohio. Heckwelder identifies the Detroit as

the river where the two tribes met, and says that some of

the defensive works of the Tallegwi were pointed out to

him, as well as a mound, or mounds, beneath which lay

the bones of some of the slain.

In the summer of 1887, at Munissing, Michigan, I met

Mr. William Cameron, a man considerably above the aver-

age intellectually; he had been educated in France, and

had retained through life a fondness for reading, which he

indulged at every opportunity, being quite familiar with

the works of Darwin, Huxley and others of that class.

The attractions of the wilderness, however, had proven

too great for him to resist, and for more than sixty years

-being then eighty-four, though not appearing more

than fifty years of age-he had almost literally lived in

the woods. He lived for a time, at first, among the Chip-

pewas, who told him that when they first came into the

country, they found the Sioux in possession, and war was

carried on with varying fortunes for several years. The

Chippewas finally obtained a supply of fire-arms from the

French, and drove the Sioux westward.

Afterward, Cameron went among the Sioux, and ques-

tioning the old chiefs, as was his custom with all Indian

tribes he encountered, about their origin and history, he

was told the same story. They added that in going west-

396  Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

ward they came to a race of people who lived in mounds

which they piled up. These people were large and strong,

but cowardly. To use the Sioux expression, "if they had

been as brave as they were big, between them and the

Chippewas we would have been destroyed; but they were

great cowards, and we easily drove them away."

Mr. B. G. Armstrong, of Ashland, Wisconsin, to whom

I mentioned this story, said he had taken great pains to

investigate it, and was satisfied of its truth. He added

that from all he could gather, these people, whom the

Sioux called Ground House Indians, built houses of logs

and posts, around and over which they piled earth until

it formed a conical mass extending several feet above the

roof. He gave the limits of their territory, which, in the

absence of my notes, I can not repeat accurately; but they

extended from Lake Eau Claire, about thirty miles south

of Lake Superior, to a point on the Wisconsin near Wau-

sau or Stevens' Point; down that river a short distance;

thence west into Minnesota, but how far he could not say;

then around north of Yellow Lake to the Eau Claire

region again. Some of the maps give a "Ground House

River" in the eastern part of Minnesota. The Sioux ex-

terminated the tribe, the last survivors being an old man,

and woman who had married a Sioux; they were taken

to the present site of Superior, near Duluth, where they

died about two centuries ago.

Gordon, an Indian or half-breed, living at the railway

station of the same name, a short distance south of Su-

perior, was familiar with this tradition, as, indeed, many

of the Chippewas were. Gordon says he has heard "the

old men " say these Indians erected their houses of wood

and piled several feet of dirt over them, and buried their

dead in little mounds out in front of their houses, and a

few hundred feet away. He told of a mound that was

opened near Yellow Lake, in which the position of the

skeletons, two or three of children being among them,

showed as plainly as anything could, that the inmates had

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders. 397

been sitting or lounging around the fire, when the roof

fell in and killed them.

I see no reason to doubt this tradition; Cameron and

Armstrong are both held in high estimation, the latter

having filled several responsible offices, and seen this

country from New Brunswick to Mexico, and from Florida

to Alaska; and I do not believe that either had the slight-

est idea of deception or "playing a trick;" they do not

seem to be that sort of men. Gordon, too, spoke in the

same way as he would in describing a piece of land, or

any ordinary occurrence. At any rate, within the limits

designated by Armstrong there are thousands of small

mounds.

I give this story somewhat in full, as, so far as I know,

it has never before been in print. Such men as I have

named could give a vast amount of valuable and interest-

ing matter concerning many things that should be known.

They are getting old, and with them will perish much that

might be preserved. But they must be seen and ques-

tioned; adventures like those of romance seem so com-

monplace in their experience that they do not consider

them worth speaking of, unless urged to it.

But to return to our mound question.

The chroniclers of De Soto's expedition mention many

villages of the Tchellakees [Cherokees] in which the

houses stand on mounds erected by those people, and

describe the method of their formation.

The French accounts of the Natchez Indians tell us

that the King's house stood on a high mound, with the

dwellings of the chiefs on smaller mounds about it: when

a King died, his successor did not occupy the house of

the deceased, but a new mound was erected on which he

fixed his abode.

It is conceded by a majority of students that many, if

not most, of the earthworks of Western New York and

the adjacent portions of Ohio and Pennsylvania were

398 Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

built by the Iroquois and allied tribes; even Squier ad-

mitted this toward the last.

Most readers are probably familiar with the account of

the burial of a chief in a mound on the Missouri River,

above Council Bluffs, about 1820.

At the foot of Torch Lake, near Traverse Bay, Michi-

gan, are two mounds which an old Indian told me were

erected, one by the Chippewas, the other by the Sioux,

over their respective warriors slain in a fight near here

about a century back.

Near the north line of Ogemaw County, in the same

State, are some small mounds, built over their dead by

the Indians who lived there until a few years since. Some

lumbermen opened one of them some years ago, took out

two skeletons, ran a pole up through the chest of each, to

which they fastened the bones, and then tied them to a tree,

with a piece of bread between the teeth of one, and an old

pipe in the fleshless jaws of the other. The Indians soon

discovered what had been done, and hunted several days

for the desecrators of their kinsmen's graves, swearing to

take their lives if they could find them.

A few other mounds in this section of country are said

to have been put up by the Sioux, Chippewas and (one at

least) by the Iroquois.

Many other instances could be cited if space allowed.

The Indians of the Ohio Valley may well have been ig-

norant on the subject, for most of the tribes found here by

the whites had been in the country but a comparatively

short time, and the earlier explorers of regions where

mounds are found bothered themselves very little about

the matter one way or the other, calling it all "Indian"

alike.

Tradition is very unreliable at the best. How many

people can tell the last previous place of residence of their

ancestors, or how many know their grandmother's maiden

name?

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders. 399

"Indians lived by hunting and fishing-upon the natu-

ral products of the forests and the waters; whereas, the

Mound Builders were an agricultural people, subsisting

mainly upon the products of the soil."

From the time of De Soto, down to the latest Indian

wars of Ohio, the narratives of all expeditions or cam-

paigns constantly allude to the soil products found at all

permanent settlements or villages. De Soto's chronicles

make frequent mention of the granaries belonging to

every town; the early settlers of Virginia and New Eng-

land were saved from starvation time and again by sup-

plies obtained from the Indians; Generals Clarke, Wayne,

and others, not to mention small marauding parties, burned

or otherwise destroyed great quantities of corn, sometimes

thousands of bushels on one raid or at one place; and yet

even the very school histories that tell our children these

things, go on droning over the tiresome assertion that In-

dians are now, and consequently always have been, lazy,

dirty, stupid, and everything else they should not be,

spending their time in hunting, loafing, or watching for a

chance to hide behind a bush and shoot some passer-by

with an arrow; and these are among the various reasons

given by some of our writers why the Indians could not

have been the authors of our aboriginal remains.

Admitting, for the moment, in full measure the worst

that has been said of them, is the cause far to seek?

For four centuries they have been constantly subject to

war with a superior foe, armed with weapons that made

them irresistible; to new and strange diseases which they

could neither combat nor understand; to continual enforced

migrations in advance of a relentless despoiler. It is less

a wonder that they should be what they are, than that they

should continue to exist at all.

Four centuries ago, the Moors were the only civilized

people of Europe; they fought long and suffered much,

but when once expelled from their strongholds, warfare

ceased; though compelled to leave the country, they

400  Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

were not molested further, and an opportunity was

offered them to retrieve their fortunes in another land.

But war against the Indians has known no cessation:

whether by arms or by treaties, they have been kept con-

stantly on the losing side. Yet when we compare the two,

are not the Moors now much further below their former

condition than the Indians are below the highest culture

that may reasonably be attributed to the Mound Builders ?

Let us compare what is known about the Indians with

what may be considered settled in regard to the Mound

Builders.

Does it require any greater energy or forethought to

build one of our enclosures, than to plan and execute war

or hunting expeditions that may last for months and ex-

tend hundreds of miles? Is there any more labor in-

volved in raising a bushel of corn than in running down a

deer ? Is more endurance or fortitude required in building

a mound than in fasting, or dancing, or suffering great pri-

vation and exposure for days and nights in succession?

Can the Indian who, at the death of a chief or relative,

destroyed property which he knew would require days or

even weeks of labor to replace, be more justly called

"lazy" than he who piled up a few yards of earth on a

similar occasion? There is no reason for supposing that

a mound was built in a short period of time, or that only

a limited number took part in the work. I have opened

mounds which showed beyond question that work on them

had been suspended at some stage until at least one full

season had elapsed, and had then been renewed; and if a

whole tribe lament the death of a chief at this day, and

take part in the funeral exercises, why need we suppose it

was different at a time when it was the custom to erect

mounds over the dead ?

Among some of the modern tribes, it is customary when

a feast is held at the close of a fishing, or sugar-making,

or hunting season, to offer a portion of whatever they may

have at the graves of such of their tribe as may be buried

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders. 401

in the vicinity, and to decorate them in such way as they

can, even though the interments may have taken place

many years previously; would it be any greater mark of

respect or affection to add little by little to a mound under

which one of their tribe was buried ?

Will any one possessing the slightest knowledge of the

power of hereditary influences, pretend that a Logan, a

Corn Planter, a Red Jacket, or a host of other illustrious

men could be possible among a stupid and indolent

people ?

Could the brain that devised a conspiracy like Pontiac's,

reaching over hundreds of miles of wilderness, completed

to the smallest details under difficulties that would be in-

surmountable to many of our modern statesmen, kept

secret from the enemy until time for the blow to fall, and

failing at the last moment only from circumstances unfore-

seen and beyond control of the directing spirit-could

such a mind be incapable of planning the defensive works

of the Mississippi Valley ?

Can anyone suppose the largest and most complicated

of these works-even allowing them to be the outcome of

a definite, pre-arranged plan, which seems altogether im-

probable-overtax the mental powers of Tecumseh who

almost succeeded in perfecting a confederacy among many

tribes indifferent or hostile to one another, and extending

from the lakes to the gulf?

Can men like these originate and mature in the midst

of ignorance and degradation such as most writers picture

for the Indian? Is it likely that a people so energetic in

war and the chase, could be so inert in all other directions ?

Does such literature take its models from the Iroquois

Confederation, the Muskogees, the present inhabitants of

the Indian Territory, or from the drunken, diseased out-

casts of frontier towns, and the predatory nomads of the

West? In telling of our own civilization, does an author

describe the whining beggar, the spiritless pauper in our

alms-houses, the tramp on the highway, the clay-eaters of

Vol. II-26

402 Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly.

the South, the toughs of our large cities, the desperadoes

in temporary Western towns? Suppose he should, and

then say that the " cities and railroads could not have been

built by such;" would the statement be considered worthy

an argument ?

Granting that an Indian did but little work, as we use

the word, why should he do more than sufficed to supply

his temporary needs? If he produced a surplus of food,

what could he do with it? He had no way of conveying

it to others at a distance, and if he had, his neighbor

raised for himself what he needed in that line; so who

would take it? His productions were not of a nature to

be long preserved, why should he have them accumulate

only to spoil on his hands? It would appear more like an

intelligent use of labor to stop when one has enough, than

to strive further for what can only go to waste when ob-

tained.

* * * Great stress is laid on the fact that in the sane

mound may be found "mica from North Carolina, copper

from Lake Superior, shells from the Gulf of Mexico, and

obsidian from the Rocky Mountains," and this is supposed

to indicate, in some undefined way, superior power and

intelligence. Cameron says that the Chippewas informed

him they formerly carried copper to the south and east

to exchange for such small articles as the other Indians

in those directions had for barter, going sometimes as

far as the coast of Virginia. On inquiring of them whether

the "old Chippewas "- that is, those of previous genera-

tions-had worked the ancient mines, he was told they had

not; that the mines were there before the Chippewas came

into the country, and the latter obtained their supplies by

gathering up fragments where they could find them, or by

chipping off pieces with their hatchets from the "nuggets"

or "boulders" that were to be found in various places. It

does not follow that a piece of obsidian or catlinite, for

example, found in a mound, was brought from its native

place by its last owner; such things pass from place to

Popular Errors in Regard to Mound Builders.  403

place in course of trade, and may thus be carried many

hundred miles.

In conclusion, what single item of proof has ever been

offered of this fancy superiority of the Mound Builder

to the Indian? What do we know, or what can we infer,

of the one that may not be equally true of the other?

What evidence has been produced to show that they are

not the same people, whose habits of life have become

modified to the extent only that they have ceased, in re-

cent times, to build earthworks on a large scale? Or if

we grant they are a "lost people," in no wise akin to the

Indians, what is there to show that they were in the

slightest degree in any particular the superiors of the Indians

of New York and Georgia a hundred years ago?

A man is not required to disprove another's assertion;

it is in order, therefore, for the advocates of a "different

nation" to give a reason for the faith that is in them.

The truth of the matter probably is, that all this mis-

conception is due to the readiness of the people to accept

notoriety and bombast for authority and learning; to be-

lieve the false, rather than the true, so long as it appeals

strongly to their love of the marvelous.

And this credulity is, in turn, fostered and encouraged

by shrewd empirics who see in it something that may be

worked to their own advantage; or stimulated by the

honest but mistaken enthusiast who wishes to believe,

and to have others believe, that these mounds of earth

indicate for ancient America a dominion and glory like

that shadowed forth by the stupendous ruins of half-for-

gotten empires of the East.

GERARD FOWKE, COLUMBUS, OHIO.