Fig. 1. Great Mound at Miamisburgh, Ohio.
From a sketch by Henry Howe, Esq.
The truncated pyramid at Cahokia, Illinois, has an altitude of ninety feet, and is upwards of two thousand feet in circumference at the base. It has a level summit of several acres area. The great mound at Selserstown, Mississippi, is computed to cover six acres of ground. Mounds of these extraordinary dimensions are most common at the south, though there are some of great size at the north. The usual dimensions are, however, considerably less than in the examples here given. The greater number range from six to thirty feet in perpendicular height, by forty to one hundred feet diameter at the base.[4] p006
All the above-mentioned constructions are composed of earth or stone; though a combination of these materials in the same work is by no means rare. When there are no ditches interior or exterior to the embankments, pits or “dug holes,” from which the earth for their formation was taken, are generally visible near by. These are sometimes very broad and deep, and occasionally quite symmetrical in shape.[5] In the vicinity of large mounds such excavations are common. The earth and stone composing these works are sometimes foreign to the locality which they occupy, and must have been brought from considerable distances.
A large, perhaps the larger, portion of these enclosures are regular in outline, the square and the circle predominating. Some are parallelograms, some ellipses, others polygons, regular or irregular. The regular works are almost invariably erected on level river-terraces, great care having evidently been taken to select those least broken. The irregular works are those which partake most of the character of defences, and are usually made to conform to the nature of the ground upon which they are situated,—running along the brows of hills, or cutting off the approaches to strong natural positions. The square and the circle often occur in combination, frequently communicating with each other or with irregular works directly, or by avenues consisting of parallel lines of embankment. Detached parallels are numerous. The mounds are usually simple cones in form; but they are sometimes truncated, and occasionally terraced, with graded or winding ascents to their summits. Some are elliptical, others pear-shaped, and others squares or parallelograms, with flanking terraces. Besides these, there are others already alluded to, most common in the extreme north-west, which assume the forms of animals and reptiles. Another variety of remains are the causeways or “roads,” and the graded descents to rivers and streams, or from one terrace to another. These several classes of works will be described at length, under appropriate heads.
As already remarked, these remains occur mainly in the valleys of the Western rivers and streams. The alluvial terraces, or “river-bottoms,” as they are popularly termed, were the favorite sites of the builders. The principal monuments are found where these “bottoms” are most extended, and where the soil is most fertile and easy of cultivation. At the junction of streams, where the valleys are usually broadest and most favorable for their erection, some of the largest and most singular remains are found. The works at Marietta; at the junction of the Muskingum with the Ohio; at the mouth of Grave Creek; at Portsmouth, the mouth of the Scioto; and at the mouth of the Great Miami, are instances in point. Occasional works are found on the hill tops, overlooking the valleys, or at a little distance from them; but these are manifestly, in most instances, works of defence or last resort, or in some way connected with warlike purposes. And it is worthy of remark, that the sites selected for settlements, towns, and cities, by the invading Europeans, are often those which were the especial favorites of the mound-builders, and the seats of their heaviest population. Marietta, Newark, Portsmouth, Chillicothe, p007 Circleville, and Cincinnati, in Ohio; Frankfort in Kentucky; and St. Louis in Missouri, may be mentioned in confirmation of this remark. The centres of population are now, where they were at the period when the mysterious race of the mounds flourished.[6]
The aboriginal monuments of the Mississippi valley, the general character of which has been thus briefly and imperfectly indicated, fall within two general divisions, namely, CONSTRUCTIONS OF EARTH OR STONE, comprising Enclosures, Mounds, etc.; and MINOR VESTIGES OF ART, including the Implements, Ornaments, Sculptures, etc. of the ancient people.
The Earth and Stone Works resolve themselves into two classes, viz: ENCLOSURES, bounded by embankments, circumvallations, or walls; and simple tumuli, or MOUNDS.[7] They constitute, together, a single system of works; but, for reasons which will satisfactorily appear, it is preferred to classify them as above. These grand classes resolve themselves into other subordinate divisions: ENCLOSURES FOR DEFENCE, SACRED AND MISCELLANEOUS ENCLOSURES; MOUNDS OF SACRIFICE, TEMPLE MOUNDS, MOUNDS OF SEPULTURE, etc.
- FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I.
- [1] Some ancient works, probably belonging to the same system with those of the Mississippi valley, and erected by the same people, occur upon the Susquehanna river, as far down as the Valley of Wyoming, in Pennsylvania. The mound-builders seem to have skirted the southern border of Lake Erie, and spread themselves, in diminished numbers, over the western part of the State of New-York, along the shores of Lake Ontario to the St. Lawrence river. They penetrated into the interior, eastward, as far as the county of Onondaga, where some slight vestiges of their works still exist. These seem to have been their limits at the north-east.
- [2] The only reference we have to the mounds of Oregon is contained in a paragraph in the Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition, vol. iv. p. 313:
- “We soon reached the Bute Prairies, which are extensive, and covered with tumuli, or small mounds, at regular distances asunder. As far as I can learn, there is no tradition among the natives concerning them. They are conical mounds, thirty feet in diameter, about six or seven feet above the level, and many thousands in number. Being anxious to ascertain if they contained any relics, I subsequently visited these prairies, and opened three of the mounds, but found nothing in them but a pavement of round stones.”
- [3] Lewis and Clarke describe one on the Missouri river which they estimated to contain not far from six hundred acres.—Travels, p. 47.
- [4] “We have seen mounds which would require the labor of a thousand men employed upon our canals, with all their mechanical aids, and the improved implements of their labor, for months. We have more than once hesitated, in view of one of these prodigious mounds, whether it were not really a natural hill. But they are uniformly so placed, in reference to the adjacent country, and their conformation is so unique and similar, that no eye hesitates long in referring them to the class of artificial erections.”—Flint’s Geography, p. 131.
- [5] These are the “wells” of Mr. Atwater and other writers on American antiquities. It is barely possible that a few were really wells, or secondarily designed for reservoirs.
- [6] “The most dense ancient population existed in precisely the places where the most crowded future population will exist in ages to come. The appearance of a series of mounds generally indicates the contiguity of rich and level lands, easy communications, fish, game, and the most favorable adjacent positions.”—Flint.
- “The most numerous, as well as the most considerable of these remains are found precisely in any part of the country where the traces of a numerous population might be looked for.”—Brackenridge.
- [7] The term Mound is used in this work in a technical sense, as synonymous with Tumulus or Barrow, and in contradistinction to embankment, wall, &c.
p008