The Problem of the Ohio Mounds

or of the objections made to the theory that they were Indians, or of the historical evid

y nothing is known except what is furnished by vague and uncertain traditions or inferred from the study of their languages and customs. On the other hand there is no historical or o

indeed, it is so strong that it can be overcome only by showing that those mounds, or the specimens of art found in them, which were unquestionably the work of the builders, indicate an advancement in s

visited by Europeans used mounds, and in some cases built them, it will be a fair infe

s of the tribes in the mound district had fixed seats and local habitations, depending to a great extent for sustenance upon the cultivation of the soil. So far as the southern districts, now comprising the Gulf States, are concerned, it goes further and asserts over and over again that the tribes of that section were mound-builders wh

tested by various contemporaneous au

ir dwellings very high hills, on which they sometimes build th

not many sites of this kind where they can conveniently build, they erect elevations themselve

igh mount made by hand for defense. [Footnote: Gentl

r. S. T. Walker,[Footnote: Smithsonian Report, 1879 (1880), pp. 392-422.] was found to consist of three layers. In the lower were "no ornaments and but little pottery, but in the middle and top layers, especi

ods, in which were buried the chiefs of the country, and took from it a quantity of pearls which

oadway sufficiently broad for six men to walk abreast." [Footnote: Garcilasso de la Vega, Hist. Fla., ed. 1723, p. 139.] (There are goo

ng in the extreme, inclosed by timber and ear

e, where the cacique's house stood upon a mound made by ar

ench Voyages, pp. 126, 136.] speaks of mo

at these nations are very ancient and were formerly very numerous, although at the present time they hardly number two hundred and fifty persons." [Footnote: Lu Rarpe, Hist. Coll. La., part 3, p. 106, New York,

y build the cabin of him who is to replace him in this dignity." [Footnote: La Petit, Hist. Coll. La., vol. 3, pp. 141, 14

co the council- house was on a mound, as also at

p. 516.] the Choctaws raised mounds ove

otes on Virginia. 4th Am ed., 1801, pp. 142-147.] tha

re sufficient to bear out the assertion that history testif

ery midst of the Cahokia group. Colden notes that "a round hill was sometimes raised over the grave in which a corpse had been deposited." [Footnote: Hist. Five Nations, introd., vol. 1, London, 1755, p. 16.] Carver noticed ancient earthworks on the Mississippi near Lake Pepin, but knew nothing of their origin. [Footnote: Travels, ed. 1796

were collected and deposited in one common grave. This method, which was followed by some southern tribes, has been described by Bartram, [Footnote: Travels (1791), p.516.] Dumont, [Footnote: Memoires Hist. La., vol. 1, p. 246.] Romans, [Footnote: Nat. and Civil Hist. Fla., pp. 88-90.] and others, but most fully by Jean deo Brebeuf. [Footnote: In his acc

southern Indians were accustomed to erect palisade

Osage village, in honor of one of their deceased chiefs." It is probable this is the mound referred to by Major Sibley, [Footnote: Featherstoubaugh, Excur. through Slave States, p. 70.] who says an Osage Indian informed him that a chief of his tribe having died while all the men were off on a hunt, he was buried in the usual manner, with his weapons, etc

umerous earthworks, including mounds, which were known to be the work of contemporaneous

ndotte Indian of Summit County, was killed, "the Indians buried him on the ground where he fell, and according to thei

ider his grave as entitled to the tribute of a portion of earth from each passer-by, which the traveler sedulously carried with him on his journey. Hence the first grave form

Footnote: Ibid., p. 26

(Great Hill of the Dea

x Indian) warriors sl

h in

es in Wisconsin were built by that tribe, and others by the Sa

nty, Mich., are the burying places of those killed in a battle between the Chippewas and Pottawatom