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 shore, while the massive 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.

REFERENCES

  1. The manuscript 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, curiæ, 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.

  7. TRIBE.
  8. First Phratry,
    or
    Brotherhood.
  9. Bear
    Wolf
    Beaver
    Turtle
  10. Gens.
  11. Second Phratry,
    or
    Brotherhood.
  12. Deer
    Snipe
    Heron
    Hawk
  13. Gens.

  14. 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.
  15. The Mexican tribes form no exception to this statement. See this volume, Chapter XV.
  16. Lewis’s “Wild Races of South-eastern India.”
  17. Grote’s “History of Greece,” Vol. II.
  18. Mallery: “American Association Reports,” 1877.
  19. Hochelaga.
  20. Morgan: “Contribution to N. A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 119.
  21. “Luis Hernando De Biedman,” and “A Gentleman of Elvas,” both translated in “Historic Collections of Louisiana,” Vol. II.
  22. “Historical Collections of Louisiana,” Vol. I, p. 61.
  23. Morgan’s “Contribution to N. A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 114.
  24. Read Capt. John Smith, “Hist. of Virginia;” also “Mass. Hist. Col.,” Vol. VIII, of the third series.
  25. Consult “The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” by Lucian Carr, of the Kentucky Graphical Survey, where this subject is fully treated, and copious quotations given.
  26. Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 526.
  27. Bandelier’s “Fifth Annual Report, Arch. Inst.,” p. 60.
  28. “Charlevoix’s Travels in North America,” p. 241.
  29. Fourth Annual Report of Peabody Museum, and from information furnished me by the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology.
  30. “The custom of palisading appears to have been general among the northern tribes.”—Brackenridge’s “Views of Louisiana,” p. 182.
  31. “Views of Louisiana,” p. 183.
  32. “Archæology Americanæ,” Vol. I., p. 145.
  33. “Views of Louisiana,” p. 182.
  34. Carr: “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 78.
  35. Quoted from Brinton, Am. Antiq., Oct., 1881.
  36. Hist. Col. of Louisiana, Vol. II., p. 105.
  37. “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 90.
  38. “Expedition to Florida,” p. 15.
  39. Shea’s “Early Voyages on the Mississippi,” p. 135. “Historical Collections of Louisiana,” Vol. I., p. 61. Quoted from Cyrus Thomas in American Antiquarian, March, 1884.
  40. See article by Cyrus Thomas, of the Bureau of Ethnology, in American Antiquarian, March, 1884.
  41. “History of Louisiana,” Lond., 1763, Vol. II., pp. 188 and 211.
  42. Father Le Petit: Note, p. 142. “Hist. Col. Louisiana,” Vol. III.
  43. “Hist. of the Five Nations,” Introduction, p. 16.
  44. Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge, No. 259, p. 15; “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 87.
  45. “Notes on Virginia,” p. 191.
  46. Catlin’s “North American Indians,” p. 95.
  47. Foster’s “Prehistoric Races of the U.S.,” p. 346.
  48. Pueblo Chettro-kettle, Chaco Cañon.
  49. “Geographical and Geological Survey of the Territories,” Hayden, 1876, p. 440. Calculations made by Mr. Holmes.
  50. Brinton’s “Floridian Peninsula,” p. 21. We think, however, this statement requires to be taken with some allowance. Personal liberty seems to have been the birthright of every Indian. (“Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” Carr, p. 24.) The council of the tribe is the real governing body of all people in a tribal state of society. (“Ancient Society,” Morgan.) When the war-chief united in his person priestly powers also, he at once became an object of greater interest. This explains why the government of the chiefs among all the Southern Indian tribes appears so much more arbitrary than among the northern tribes. His real power was probably much the same in both cases, but superstition had surrounded his person with a great many formalities. The early explorers, acquainted only with the arbitrary governments of Europe, saw in all this despotic powers whereas there might not have been much foundation for this belief.
  51. “Traditions of Decodah,” Pidgeon. Carr, “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 70.
  52. “Indian Migrations,” American Antiquarian, April, 1883.
  53. Mr. Hale suggests that copper was the gold of the North American Indians, and that the “golden city” simply means a city or town where they knew how to work copper. It is well known that the mound building tribes had such knowledge, at least they knew how to work native copper.
  54. This tradition was first made known by Heckwelder, a missionary among the Delawares, in his “History of the Indian Nations.” It is repeated at much greater length, and with additional particulars, in a paper read by Mr. E. G. Squier, before the Historical Society of New York. Mr. Squier has simply translated a genuine Indian record known as the Bark Record. The two authorities here mentioned consider the Delawares as coming from west of the Mississippi. Mr. Hale points out that it was more likely the Upper St. Lawrence—that portion known as the Detroit River—that was the “Great River” of the traditions.
  55. From this word comes Alleghany Mountains and River.
  56. In this connection it is at least interesting to note that several authors—Squier, MacLean, and others—have contended, judging from the fortified hills and camps, that the pressure of hostilities on the Mound Builders of the Ohio Valley was from the north-east.
  57. The Chata-muskoki family. (Brinton.)
  58. Hale: American Antiquarian, April, 1883.
  59. We are not at all certain but our scholars will shortly come to the conclusion that the Cherokees or Shawnees are quite as likely to be the descendants of the Allegewi as the Natchez.
  60. It is scarcely necessary to caution the reader as to the value of this statement of ancient greatness. The chroniclers of De Soto’s expedition had nothing to say about it.
  61. Pickett’s “History of Alabama,” Vol. II.
  62. Du Pratz: “History of Louisiana,” Vol. II.
  63. Stone metates, or mills, have so far been found only in Missouri, not far from the Missouri River. As this is such an important implement among the Pueblo tribes, its presence in this locality is significant. (Thomas.)
  64. (56) As the proof seems to be conclusive that the Indians of the south who were encountered by the Europeans first visiting that section were the builders of the mounds of that region, it brings these works down to a date subsequent to the entry of the civilized tribes into Mexico. (Thomas.)
  65. Some of the pottery from South-eastern Missouri and Arkansas shows a strong resemblance to that of some Pueblo tribes. (Thomas.)
  66. Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 202.
  67. Morgan: “Ancient Society,” p. 12.
  68. “Fifth Annual Report Archæological Institute,” p. 85.
  69. Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 458.
  70. Carr: “Mounds of the Mississippi Valley,” p. 97.
  71. “Ancient Monuments,” p. 14.
TRIBE.First Phratry,
or
Brotherhood.		Bear
Wolf
Beaver
Turtle		Gens.
Second Phratry,
or
Brotherhood.		Deer
Snipe
Heron
Hawk		Gens.

Chapter XIII
THE NAHUA TRIBES.

Early Spanish discoveries in Mexico—The Nahua tribes defined—Climate of Mexico—The Valley of Anahuac—Ruins at Tezcuco—The hill of Tezcocingo—Ruins at Teotihuacan—Ancient Tulla—Ruins in the province of Querataro—Casa Grandes in Chihuahua—Ancient remains in Sinaloa—Fortified hill of Quemada—The Pyramid of Cholula—Mr. Bandelier’s investigations at Cholula—Fortified hill at Xochicalco—Its probable use—Ruins at Monte Alban—Ancient remains at Mitla—Mr. Bandelier’s investigations—Traditions in regard to Mitla—Ruins along the Panuco River—Ruins in Vera Cruz—Pyramid of Papantla—Tusapan—Character of Nahua Ruins.