In a few cases copper tools have been recovered which may have served for digging in the ground, but in most cases their art furnished them nothing higher than spades, shovels, picks, and hoes made of stone, horn, bone, and probably wood. In this cut are specimens of such agricultural tools. These were doubtless furnished with handles of wood. The notched one was perhaps provided with a handle at right angles to it, so as to constitute a hoe. That we are right in regarding these implements as agricultural tools, is shown not only by their large size, but also by the traces of wear discovered on them. We must admit, however, that agriculture carried on with such tools as these, must have been in a comparatively rude state.

In this connection we must refer to the garden beds noticed in some places. We read that in Western Michigan the so-called garden beds are a distinguishing feature of the ancient occupation, often covering many acres in a place, in a great variety of forms, both regular and grotesque.¹⁰¹ These seem from the above account to be very similar to the garden beds of Wisconsin. Dr. Lapham tells us that in the latter State they consist of low, broad, parallel ridges, as if corn had been planted in drills.

The average four feet in width, and the depth of the walk between them is six inches. Traces of this kind of cultivation are found in various parts of the State. We are also referred to the presence of garden mounds in Missouri, but in this case the low mounds are of the same mysterious class that Prof. Forshey says occur by millions in the South-west, and may not be the work of man. Just what the connection is between the garden beds and the Mound Builders is hard to determine. Mr. Lapham thinks that those in Wisconsin were certainly later in date than the mounds. He observed that they were frequently constructed right across the works of the Mound Builders. This would seem to imply that the makers were not one and the same people.

As to the government and religion of the Mound Builders, all is conjecture. On both of these points a great deal has been assumed, but when we try to find out the grounds on which these theories rest we quickly see how little real foundation there is for any knowledge on this subject. If we are right in our views as to the effigy mounds of Wisconsin, then a sort of animal worship prevailed. Whether the great inclosures in the Scioto Valley were of a religious nature or not is very doubtful. The great serpent mound was probably an object of worship. The assertion is quite frequently made that the Mound Builders were sun worshipers, which may be correct, but we must observe that we have no proofs of it in the works they have left. We judge it to be true only because sun-worship was probably a part of the religion of a large proportion of the Indian race, and because we find special proofs of its existence among some of the Southern Indians who are supposed to be closely related to the Mound Builders.

As we approach the South, we meet with what are supposed to be rude and uncouth idols, but they have not been found under such circumstances as to make it positive that they belonged to the Mound Builders. In this illustration we have two idols, considered to be genuine relics of the stone-grave people of Tennessee. The first one is an Aztec idol found at Cholula, and introduced here simply for comparison. What position these idols held in connection with the religion of the race, we are not prepared to say.

Similar remarks might be made as to the system of government. A number of writers, taking into account the immense labor involved in constructing some of the works, have insisted that the people must have lived under a despotic form of government, one in which the state had unlimited power over the lives and fortunes of its subjects.¹⁰²

There is no real foundation for such views, and we think they are misleading. No one doubts but that the Mound Builders were living in a tribal state of society. If so, they doubtless had the usual subdivisions of a tribe. This point we remember afforded us some insight into the meaning of the effigy mounds of Wisconsin.

This would imply the government by the council, and while the rulers may have been hereditary, the officers of the tribe were probably elective, and could be deposed for cause. We do not mean to assert that this is an exact picture of the state of government of the Mound Builders, because our knowledge on this point is not sufficient to make such a positive statement, but it is far more likely to be true than the picture of a despotic government, ruling from some capital seat a large extent of country, holding a court with barbaric pomp and circumstances such as some writers would have us believe.

We hope our readers have not been wearied by this somewhat extended investigation of the Mound Builders. Every storm that beats upon their works tends to level them. The demands of our modern life are fast obliterating the remaining monuments and, indeed, it is now only those which are situated in favorable localities, or are massive in construction, that are left for our inspection. But these nearly obliterated records of the past are of more than passing interest to us as monuments of the prehistoric times of our own country. We wander over these ruins and find much to interest us, much to excite our curiosity. The purposes of many are utterly unknown. Some, by their great proportions, awaken in us feelings of admiration for the perseverance and energy of their builders. But when we investigate the objects of stone, of clay, and of copper this people left behind them, we notice how hard it is to draw a dividing line between them and the Indians.

In fact, there is no good reason for separating them from the Indian race as a whole. We do not mean to say that they were not, in many respects, different from the tribes found in the same section of the country by the early explorers, though, we ought, perhaps, to confine this remark to the central portion of the country occupied by these ancient remains. But the American of to-day differs from the American of early Colonial times. The miserable natives of Southern California were Indians, but very different indeed from the ambitious, warlike Iroquois, who displayed so much statesmanship in the formation of their celebrated league. In another chapter we shall discuss this part of our subject, as well as the question of the antiquity of the ruins.

REFERENCES

1. (1) The manuscript of this chapter was submitted to Prof. F. W. Putnam, curator of the Peabody Museum of Archæology and Ethnology, Harvard University, for criticism.
2. (2) Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p. 122.
3. (3) Force: “Some Considerations on the Mound Builders,” p. 64; “Am. Antiquarian,” March, 1884, pp. 93-4; “10th Annual Report, Peabody Museum,” p. 11.
4. (4) Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity”, p. 28.
5. (5) Squier and Davis’s “Ancient Monuments,” p. 105.
6. (6) Foster’s “Prehistoric Paces,” p. 148.
7. (7) Squier’s “Aboriginal Monuments of New York,” Smithsonia Contribution No. 11, p. 83.
8. (8) Squier’s “Aboriginal Monuments of New York,” Smithsonia Contribution No. 11, p. 87.
9. (9) Foster’s “Prehistoric Races,” p. 121.
10. (10) “They are numbered by millions.” Ibid.
11. (11) Prof. Forshey could frame no satisfactory hypothesis of their origin. Ibid, p. 122.
12. (12) “Native Races,” Vol. IV, pp. 739 and 740.
13. (13) Smithsonian Rep., 1870, p. 406.
14. (14) Narrative of U.S. exploring expedition during the years 1838-42, Vol. IV, p. 334.
15. (15) Prof. Gibbs in Frank Leslie’s Monthly, August, 1883.
16. (16) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 139.
17. (17) Jones’s “Explorations in Tennessee,” p. 15.
18. (18) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 143. Explorers for Bureau of Ethnology so report it in the South. Prof. Putnam, who has certainly had great experience, says he has always found the layers to be horizontal.
19. (19) “Sixteenth Annual Report Peabody Museum,” p, 171. An ornament shaped to resemble the head of a wood-pecker, made of gold, derived from some Spanish source, was found in a mound in Florida. This particular mound must have been erected after the discovery of America. (“Smithsonian Report,” 1877, p. 298, et seq.)
20. (20) “Sixteenth and Seventeenth Report Peabody Museum.” These ornaments were made of hammered iron. This is the first time that native iron has been found in the mounds. (Putnam.)
21. (21) “Prehistoric Races,” p. 178.
22. (22) J. E. Stevens’s Paper, read before the Muscatine Academy of Science, Dec., 1878.
23. (23) That this was at any rate sometimes the case See “Ancient Monuments,” p. 159.
24. (24) “Peabody Museum Reports,” Vol. II, p. 58.
25. (25) Jones’s “Explorations in Tennessee,” p. 15. See also “First An. Rep. Bureau of Ethnology,” p. 198.
26. (26) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 169. See also note on same page for another account of a larger number of skeletons.
27. (27) Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” App. A.
28. (28) James’s “Popular Science,” File 1883, p. 445.
29. (29) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 173.
30. (30) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 74.
31. (31) “Views of Louisiana.”
32. (32) This cut represents the mound as it probably was before the outlines were destroyed by cultivation. It is based on a model prepared by Dr. Patrick for the Peabody Museum.
33. (33) “Peabody Museum Report,” Vol. II, p.473. As this may include some of the wash from the mound, perhaps it would be better to give the real area of the base as over twelve acres.
34. (34) That is, if we follow the plan.
35. (35) “Prehistoric Races,” p. 107.
36. (36) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 174.
37. (37) Pickett’s “History of Alabama,” Vol. I., p. 301.
38. (38) Carr’s “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” pp. 91, 92; note, 103.
39. (39) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 117. Note.—For the statement made in this text we are under obligation to Prof. Thomas, of the Bureau of Ethnology, who, in answer to a letter of inquiry, kindly furnished the information.
40. (40) “Am. Antiquarian,” March, 1884, p. 99.
41. (41) It may be that no mounds were built for signaling purposes alone. The work of erecting mounds was so great that it is quite likely they were always erected for some other purpose, and used only secondarily for signal purposes. Such is shown to be the case with many of the signal mounds in Ohio. Such is the opinion of Mr. MacLean, who has made extensive researches.
42. (42) Force’s “Some Consideration of the Mound Builders,” p. 65.
43. (43) Similar effigy mounds have been recently observed in Minnesota, but they have not yet been described. (Putnam.)
44. (44) Peet’s American Antiquarian, May, 1884, p. 184.
45. (45) Peet’s American Antiquarian, January, 1884. We are indebted to the writings of Mr. Peet in this periodical for the months of January, May, and July, 1884, for many interesting facts in reference to the effigy mounds. He has studied them more than any other person, and his conclusions are consequently of great value.
46. (46) Peet’s “Emblematic Mounds and Totem System of the Indian Tribes.”
47. (47) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 40.
48. (48) American Antiquarian, January, 1883.
49. (49) Putnam, in “Proceedings of American Antiquarian Society,” 1884.
50. (50) Peet’s “Emblematic Mounds and Totem System of the Indian Tribes.”
51. (51) Abbott’s “Primitive Industry,” p. 383.
52. (52) Peet’s “Military Architecture of the Emblematic Mound Builders.”
53. (53) “Smithsonian Report,” 1877, p. 278, et seq.
54. (54) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 97; American Antiquarian, January, 1883, p. 77.
55. (55) This information is communicated by Mr. L. N. Tower, a gentleman in the employ of C. “&” N. W. E. R., at Tracy, Minn., who, at the request of the writer visited this locality, made measurements, etc.
56. (56) American Antiquarian, November, 1884, p. 403.
57. (57) The dimensions of this figure vary. Mr. MacLean’s survey makes the entire length of the serpent part eleven hundred and sixteen feet; the distance between the extended jaws, one hundred feet. The oval figure is one hundred and thirteen feet long by fifty feet wide. The frog or head portion is fifty-five feet. Mr. Squier says, “The entire length, if extended, would be not less than one thousand feet.” Mr. Putnam’s measurements make it fourteen hundred and fifteen feet. The writer would state that he visited this effigy in the summer of 1884. Though there but a very short time, and not prepared to make careful measurements, he did notice some points in which the illustrations, previously given, are certainly wrong. The oval is not at the very extremity of the cliff. The little projections generally called ears of the serpent are not at right angles to the body, but incline backwards. The convolutions of the serpent’s body bend back and forth quite across the surface of the ridge.
58. (58) Schmuckers.
59. (59) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 47.
60. (60) Foster’s “Prehistoric Races,” p. 175.
61. (61) “Contributions North American Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 210. A cut of this “restored” pueblo is there given.
62. (62) See discussion of this subject in “Proceedings of Am. Antiq. Society,” Oct., 1883.
63. (63) “Peabody Museum Reports,” Vol. II, p. 205.
64. (64) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 47.
65. (65) Peet: “The Mound Builders.”
66. (66) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 53.
67. (67) Force: “Some Considerations on the Mound Builders,” p. 64.
68. (68) “Archæologia Americana,” Vol. I, p. 129.
69. (69) For words at Newark, consult “Ancient Monuments,” p. 67, et seq. “American Antiquarian,” July, 1882.
70. (70) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 74.
71. (71) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 88.
72. (72) Mr. Putnam visited the work a few years since, and came to the conclusion that the larger and old openings were part of the original design, and that they were places where it was easier to put up log structures than earthen walls. Just such openings occur in the massive stone wall around Fort Hill, in Highland County. A few of the openings at Fort Ancient he thinks are unquestionably of recent origin, in order to drain the holes inside the embankments.
73. (73) Cincinnati Quart. Journal Science, 1874, p. 294.
74. (74) Peet: “The Mound Builders.”
75. (75) Peet’s “Mound Builders:” “If the reader will compare some of these last cuts with that of the fortified camp at Cissbury, Eng., p. 183, he will see how similar this last work is to those just mentioned. Perhaps the real lesson to be learned is that rude people, whether Indians, Mound Builders, or Celts, resorted to about the same method of defense.”
76. (76) “Antiquarian Research,” p. 89.
77. (77) Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p. 15, et seq. Mr. Conant refers to Mr. Pidgeon’s work in such a way as to give the impression that he was convinced of the genuineness of his account.
78. (78) “Traditions of Decodah,” p. 89, et seq.
79. (79) “Antiquarian Research,” p. 190.
80. (80) “The American Indian, so far as known, without the exception of a single tribe, worshiped the sun.” Carr’s “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 56.
81. (81) Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p. 60.
82. (82) Ibid., p. 32. If the explorers are really satisfied this was a walled town, it ought to throw some light on the inclosures in the Ohio Valley.
83. (83) Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p. 35.
84. (84) Conant’s “Footprints of Vanished Races,” p. 77.
85. (85) Vol. III, p. 290, et seq.
86. (86) Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 11.
87. (87) “Ancient Monuments,” p. 210; also Peet: “The Mound Builders.” “Their relics are marked by a peculiar finish.”
88. (88) Rau’s “Anthropological Research.”
89. (89) “Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society,” April, 1877, p. 61.
90. (90) “Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge,” Vol. XIII.
91. (91) Abbott’s “Primitive Industry,” p. 315.
92. (92) “Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology,” 1880-1, p. 123, et seq.
93. (93) In the “Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology,” for 1880-1, Mr. Henshaw has very fully discussed these mound-pipes, and shown that Messrs. Squier and Davis wore mistaken in a number of their identifications of the animal forms. He concludes there “are no representations of birds or animals not indigenous to the Mississippi Valley.”
94. (94) The recent discoveries by Putnam and Metz, in the Altar-mounds in the Little Miami Valley, have brought to light many interesting and important sculptures in stone and terra-cotta, which, as works of art, are in some respects superior to those from the Scioto Valley, but as they have not yet been figured, we can only refer to them here in this brief note.
95. (95) “Number Eight,” Mound City, near Chillicothe, Ohio. “Ancient Monuments,” p. 152.
96. (96) Rau: “Anthropological Subjects,” p. 130.
97. (97) Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 12.
98. (98) American Antiquarian, 1879, p. 64.
99. (99) McAdams: American Antiquarian, 1880, p. 140.
100. (100) “Smithsonian Report,” 1866. We have gathered these points for comparison from Dr. Rau’s article in that report.
101. (101) Bella Hubbard, American Antiquarian, 1876, p. 219.
102. (102) Foster’s “Prehistoric Races,” p. 346.