In this plate we have specimens of the ordinary painted ware from the ancient ruins. The most of these are restorations, but so many fragments have been obtained of each vessel that we have no doubt of the accuracy of the drawings. They decorated their pottery by painting. Even in many cases where they were further ornamented by indentations they still painted it, showing that painting was regarded as of the most importance. We notice that the ornamentation consists almost entirely of geometrical figures, parallel lines, and scrolls. Over the entire field of ruins the body of the vessels is of one of two colors; it is either white or red. The color employed to produce the ornamentation is black. There is almost no exception to this rule, though sometimes the ornamentation is of a brownish color with a metallic luster. Along the Rio Grande and the Gila some changes are noticed. The ornamentation is not strictly confined to two colors. Symbolical representations of clouds, whirlwind, and lightning are noticed. The red ware has disappeared, and a chocolate-colored ground takes its place.

All have noticed the superiority of the ancient pottery over that of the present tribes. Says Prof. Putnam. “A comparison of this ancient pottery with that made by the present inhabitants of the pueblos shows that a great deterioration has taken place in native American art, a rule which I think can be applied to all the more advanced tribes of America. The remarkable hardness of all the fragments of colored pottery which have been obtained from the vicinity of the old ruins in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah, and also of the pottery of the same character found in the ruins of adobe houses, and in caves in Utah, shows that the ancient people understood the art of baking earthenware far better than their probable descendants now living in the pueblos of New Mexico and Arizona.”38

We have learned that the remnant of an aboriginal people, now living in the inhabited pueblos of the West, present us, in their primitive usage, with the fading outlines of a culture once widespread in the section of country we have examined. Many of the early sedentary tribes have vanished completely. Traditions state that other tribes have moved southward into regions unknown. “The picture which can be dimly traced to-day of this past is a very modest and unpretending one. No great cataclysms of nature, no wave of destruction on a large scale, either natural or human, appear to have interrupted the slow and tedious development of the people before the Spaniards came. One portion rose while another fell, sedentary tribes disappeared or moved off, and wild tribes roamed over the ruins of their former abode.” At present but a few pueblos are left to show us what the people once were. But the fate of the Pueblo of Pecos hangs over them all. The rising tide of American civilization is rapidly surrounding them. Before many decades, possibly centuries, the present Pueblo tribes will yield to their fate. They, too, will be numbered among the vanished races of men.

REFERENCES

  1. The manuscript of this chapter was submitted to Mr. Ad. F. Bandelier, of Highland, Illinois. As agent for the Archæological Institute of America, he spent three years in explorations in the Pueblo country.
  2. See an excellent historical account by Bandeliers: “Papers of the Archæological Institute of America.” American series No. 1.
  3. The term “City of Zuñi” is scarcely correct; it should be Pueblo of Zuñi.
  4. Pacific Railroad Report; Whipple, Vol. III., pp. 67 and 68.
  5. “Archæological Institute of America,” Fifth An. Rep., pp. 55 and 56.
  6. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. I., p. 534.
  7. His guide.
  8. The ruins on the top were, however, built after 1680, when the inhabitants of Flavona, the Spanish “Alvona,” fled to the top of the mesa to escape the forays of the Navajos. The ruins were abandoned before 1705. Zuñi is partly built on the ruins of Flavona, which is still its aboriginal name. (Bandelier.)
  9. Pacific Railroad Reports, Whipple, Vol. III., p. 69.
  10. Pacific Railroad Reports, Whipple, Vol. III., p. 65.
  11. “Simpson’s Report,” p. 124.
  12. Dr. Loew, in “U.S. Geographical Survey West of the 100th Meridian,” Vol. VII, p. 343.
  13. “Fifth An. Rep. Archæological Inst. of America,” p. 61.
  14. Bandelier’s “Papers of the Archæological Inst.” p. 46.
  15. These facts are drawn from Mr. Bandelier’s article already referred to.
  16. “Colorado River of the West,” p. 119, et seq.
  17. U.S. Survey, Hayden, 1876, p. 390.
  18. Bandelier, “Fifth Annual Report Archæological Inst. of America,” pp. 62, 68, and 65.
  19. “Contributions to North American Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 172, et seq.
  20. Holmes.
  21. U.S. Survey, Hayden, 1876, p. 419.
  22. Rendered by Ingersoll, in N.Y. Tribune, Nov. 3, 1874.
  23. Bandelier, in Fifth Ann. Rep., Arch. Inst., p 79.
  24. U.S. Survey West of 100th M., Vol. VII, p. 358.
  25. “First Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology,” p. 74.
  26. “Fifth Annual Report Arch. Inst.,” pp. 42, 78.
  27. Morgan: “Contribution to N. A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 163.
  28. “Smithsonian Report,” 1863, p. 313.
  29. Whipple, Pacific R. R. Report, Vol. III.
  30. Wherever reference is made to Mr. Bandelier’s discoveries, it is taken from the oft-quoted Fifth Annual Report, Archæological Institute.
  31. Whipple, Pacific R. R. Reports, Vol. III., p. 14.
  32. Bartlett’s “Personal Narrative.”
  33. Carr’s “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley.”
  34. Morgan’s “House and House Life,” p. 218.
  35. Fifth Annual Report, p. 84.
  36. “Contributions to N. A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV., p. 192.
  37. Bandelier’s “Fifth Annual Report Arch. Inst.,” p. 76.
  38. U.S. Survey West of 100th Meridian, Vol. VII., p. 381.

Chapter XII
THE PREHISTORIC AMERICANS.1

Different views on this subject—Modern system of government— Ancient system of government—Tribal government universal in North America—The Indians not wandering Nomads—Indian houses communal in character—Indian methods of defense—Mandan villages—Indians sometimes erected mounds—Probable government of the Mound Builders—Traditions of the Mound Builders among the Iroquois—Among the Delawares—Probable fate of the Mound Builders—The Natchez Indians possibly a remnant of the Mound Builders—Their early traditions—Lines of resemblance between the Pueblo tribe and the Mound Builders—The origin of the Indians—America inhabited by Indians from a very early time— Classification of the Indian tribes—Antiquity of the Mound Builders’ works.

attempts to explain the origin of the numerous tribes found in possession of America at the time of its discovery by Europeans have been many and various. There are so many difficulties attending the solution of this problem that even at this day no theory has received that full assent from the scientific world deemed necessary for its establishment as an ascertained fact. New interest has been thrown around this question by the discoveries of late years. In our south-western territories we have clearly established the former wide extension of the village Indians, remnants of which are still to be found in the inhabited pueblos; and, as we have seen, the wide expanse of fertile soil, known as the Mississippi Valley, has undoubtedly been the home of tribes who are generally supposed to have attained a much higher stage of culture than that of the Indians—at least, of such culture as we are accustomed to ascribe, whether justly or not, to Indian tribes. It becomes an interesting question, therefore, to determine what connection, if any, existed between the Mound Builders and the Indian tribes on the one hand, and the Pueblo tribes on the other.

As to the works of the Mound Builders, one class of critical scholars think they see in them the memorials of a vanished race, and point out many details of construction, such as peculiarities in form, in size, and position, which they think conclusively prove that the works in question could only have been produced by races or tribes far more advanced in culture than any Indians. This belief finds expression by a well-known writer in the following words: “A broad chasm is to be spanned before we can link the Mound Builders to the North American Indians. They were essentially different in their form of government, their habits, and their daily pursuits.” This is substantially the opinion of a great many writers on this subject.2