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 a.s.sertions 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 amba.s.sador, 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 sh.o.r.e 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 princ.i.p.al 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 cla.s.ses 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>

Ill.u.s.tration of 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 sh.o.r.e, 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 inst.i.tuted 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 cla.s.sified 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. At.w.a.ter 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 sh.o.r.e, while the ma.s.sive 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.

Ill.u.s.tration of Stone Mask found in Tennessee.-----------

REFERENCES

(1) The ma.n.u.script of this chapter was submitted to Cyrus Thomas, Ph.D., of the Bureau of Ethnology, for criticism.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

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

(5) Morgan's "Ancient Society," p. 269.

(6) The gens, phratry, and tribe were subdivisions of the Ancient Greeks. Of a similar import were the gens, curiae, 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.

First Phratry, Bear or Wolf Gens.

Brotherhood. Beaver Turtle TRIBE.

Second Phratry, Deer or Snipe Gens.

Brotherhood. Heron Hawk

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._ (7) The Mexican tribes form no exception to this statement. See this volume, Chapter XV.

(8) Lewis's "Wild Races of South-eastern India."

(9) Grote's "History of Greece," Vol. II.

(10) Mallery: "American a.s.sociation Reports," 1877.

(11) Hochelaga.

(12) Morgan: "Contribution to N. A. Ethnology," Vol. IV, p. 119.

(13) "Luis Hernando De Biedman," and "A Gentleman of Elvas,"

both translated in "Historic Collections of Louisiana," Vol. II.

(14) "Historical Collections of Louisiana," Vol. I, p. 61.

(15) Morgan's "Contribution to N. A. Ethnology," Vol. IV, p. 114.

(16) Read Capt. John Smith, "Hist. of Virginia;" also "Ma.s.s.