Ohio History Journal

Editorialana.                         261

 

plained. Indeed the annotations themselves have a value second only to

the text which they explain. They constitute a compendium of informa-

tion that evidences the faithfulness and enthusiasm with which Mr. Con-

nelley has performed his work. We cite only one instance especially

interesting to Ohio readers. It is Mr. Connelley's note on the meaning

of the word "Ohio."   He says: "Ohio is derived from     the Iroquois.

The original is variously spoken in the different dialects. In Wyandot

it is Ohezhu; in Mohawk and Cayuga it is oheyo; in Onondaga and

Tuscarora it is Oheye; in Oneida it is Ohe; in Seneca it is very nearly

the same as in Wyandot. Darlington, in his Christopher Gist's Journals,

p. 94, and Morgan in his League of the Iroquois, say this means 'fair,'

'beautiful,' and that the Iroquois called the Ohio the Beautiful River.

The French so called it (La Belle Riviere), but there is no evidence

that they secured the name from any Indian original. The word does

not mean 'fair,' neither does it mean 'beautiful.' It means great. The

Iroquois, therefore, called the Ohio the Great River. The Wyandots

call it Ohezhu Yandawaye--Great River. And in the various dialects

of the Iroquois it is so called without exception. They give the stream

that name from it source to the Gulf of Mexico; with them it is the

main stream and has but one name. When I became acquainted with

the Wyandots they told me of hunting trips to the 'Sunken Lands' on

the Ohio. 'But,' I replied, 'there are no sunken lands on the Ohio.'

'Yes,' they said, 'plenty on Ohio; plenty by New Madrid.' 'But New

Madrid is on the Mississippi,' I insisted. 'We call him Ohio-all along,

Ohio; not call him Mississippi any place.' The Iroquois must have had

at some time a name for the Mississippi above the mouth of the Ohio,

but those I have met do not remember it."

 

GRAVE CREEK MOUND.

 

[One of the most interesting and noted mounds of the West is the one

located at Moundsville, W. Va. It was recently reported that the proprietor

had offered it for sale to any historical society and that in default of a purchaser

he would destroy it, in order to have the use of the grounds for agricultural

purposes. It appears, however, that the West Virginia legislature laudably came

to the rescue and secured the property for preservation. The following interesting

history of this mound and its explorations is from the pen of Mr. Wills De Haas.

The article appeared in a late number of The Philadelphia Ledger. We repro-

duce it in full with an accompanying cut of the famous ancient tablet found in

the mound.-EDITOR.]

The Legislature of West Virginia at its late session did a praise-

worthy act in purchasing the great mound at Moundsville, one of the

largest and most interesting prehistoric tumuli in central North America.

This important mound has long interested scholars and antiquarians, and

has also provoked controversy. A description and a statement of the

controversy may not be uninteresting at this time. The tumulus is a

typical structure of the Mound period--conical, symmetrical and 70 feet

Editorialana.                       263

 

Raflio, Baron Jomard and other European scholars, and not being en-

tirely accurate, has been slightly misleading.

Arthur T. Boreman, then a resident of Elizabethland (Mounds-

ville), communicated to the American Pioneer a sketch of the mound, its

exploration, and containing quite a good impression of the tablet. Mr.

Boreman was the first Governor of West Virginia and later U. S. Senator.

Mr. Schoolcraft visited the mound and made a painstaking and

exhaustive examination, which he reported to the Ethnological Society.

His great work on Indian history and archaeology fully describes the

mound and contents.   Other visitors and writers of distinction have

published descriptions and opinions.

The tablet was deposited temporarily in the Smithsonian Institu-

tion, where casts were made in wax, plaster, etc., and generally dis-

tributed. Professors Henry, Baird and Foreman were interested and

stimulated research in Western archaeology.

Of foreign savants who have written on the inscription, mention

may be made of Professor Raflio, of the Society of Northern Anti-

quaries; the Baron Jomard, Sir J. E. Alexander, Professor Wilson,

Doctor Bing, the Marquis de Naidillac and others.

In this country, Mr. Schoolcraft, the Rev. Dr. Hawks, with scores

of others, have written on the subject. Our learned societies discussed

it, and almost every work on American archaeology treated it.

Several years after the discovery, E. G. Squier, who had been

associated with Doctor Davis in preparing a work on the "Ancient

Monuments of the Mississippi Valley," visited the mound, and in a cap-

tious spirit discredited the tablet because anomalous. This opinion he

repeated in a paper before the American Ethnological Society. Citizens

of Wheeling and Moundsville, familiar with the facts of discovery, and

investigators who had examined and expressed confidence in its authen-

ticity, were indignant at Mr. Squier's attempted impeachment, and re-

solved to establish the authenticity of the tablet. The writer, then re-

siding at Washington, was consulted, and accepted an invitation of the

Ethnological Society to prepare for the society a paper embodying the

facts and discussing fully the authenticity of the tablet.

A meeting comprising most of the prominent literary, scientific and

professional men of New York city, was held, supplemented with a ban-

quet at the residence of the president. A carefully prepared paper, with

a mass of testimony authenticating the discovery of the tablet, was sub-

mitted. Mr. Squier was present, and followed the speaker with a candid

disclaimer of any intention to discredit the tablet. He was convinced

by the facts presented, and moved a vote of thanks.

The tablet is recognized by linguists and archaeologists as a valuable

discovery, but its true character has not been determined. It is prob-

ably a prayer, medal or legend. The character resembles the old Phoe-

necian as found along the Mediterranean. As other chambers have been

264         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

disclosed by the falling in of walls, it is hoped that further explorations

may develop additional tablets and other important relics.

In this connection it may not be inappropriate to state that an in-

scribed stone was taken from another mound of the Grave Creek system

many years ago, and deposited in the museum of Hampden-Sydney Col-

lege, Virginia. It cannot be found, but Doctor Marters, member of the

House of Delegates, who carried the relic to Richmond, testifies to the

fact.

 

JOHN FILSON.

[The following sketch of the life of John Filson is reprinted from The Cin-

cinnati Times-Star of recent date. John Filson was one of the most influential char-

acters in the early history of Ohio and Kentucky, and the following article is well

worthy of permanent preservation.-EDITOR.]

One of the least familiar and at the same time one of the most

fascinating chapters in the history of Cincinnati and of Kentucky is the

story of the life of John Filson, the actual founder of Cincinnati, the

first historian and geographer of Kentucky, the biographer of Daniel

Boone, the man of peace among the warlike pioneers of the Middle

West of the eighteenth century. Filson's name is barely mentioned by

the historians of a later day.  Some of the most complete historical

works, such as that of Bancroft, overlook him entirely. To his memory

there is not a single monument. Even the street in Cincinnati which

was named after him has had its title changed and is now known as

Plum street. The picturesque name, "Losantiville," which he gave to the

city he had laid out opposite the most northerly point of Kentucky, has

vanished from the maps and the gazetteers. Filson's memory is kept

green only through one organization, the Filson Club of Louisville, which

has published a biography of the pioneer, embodying all the known facts

of his life and his services to his country.

One reason why Filson's name has not been preserved in history

to a greater extent may be found in the fact that he was not a fighting

man. In an era when deeds of bloodshed were celebrated to the exclu-

sion of the more peaceful but more useful arts of the teacher, the sur-

veyor and the farmer, such an oversight is quite natural.

Even the date of John Filson's birth is not known. It is known

that he was the second son of Davidson Filson of Brandywine, Pa.,

himself the son of one John Filson) an English pioneer. John Filson,

the explorer, probably was born about 1741, but there is only collateral

evidence of that fact. What his early life and education were can only

be conjectured by piecing together the accounts that have come down

of what colonial life in general was in the middle of the eighteenth

century. It is recorded, however, that he received some instruction in

his youth from the Rev. Samuel Finley, afterwards president of New

Jersey College, and it was from this learned man that he probably obtained

the smattering of Latin, Greek and French he is known to have possessed.