June 20, 1890.] 



SCIENCE. 



?>^7 



One result of the more recent explorations and study of 

 the ancient works of the mound region is the conviction that 

 the mound-builders were divided into numerous tribes, 

 though belonging substantially to the same culture state, 

 which was of a lower grade than that attained by the people 

 of Mexico and Central America, and apparently somewhat 

 less advanced than that of the Pueblo tribes of New Mexico 

 and Arizona. However, there are no data to justify the be- 

 lief that they pertained to different "races," using this term 

 in its broad and legitimate sense. This assertion will, of 

 course, be questioned by some of our archaeologists who base 

 their conclusions in reference to this subject on the forms of 

 the skulls. Without entering into a discussion of this ques- 

 tion, which would draw too heavily on our space, and is not 

 appropriate at this point, it may be asserted, with the assur- 

 ance of being sustained by the facts, that the study of the 

 forms of mound-builders' skulls has not been productive of 

 any satisfactory results bearing upon the question of races 

 or nationality. This is shown by the remarks of Mr. Lucien 

 Carr, in his paper on the "Crania from Stone Graves in 

 Tennessee," published in the "Eleventh Annual Report of 

 the Peabody Museum:" — 



''Names, however, are of but little import: the one cen- 

 tral fact is to be found in the presence in these graves of 

 skulls, which, after excluding those tabulated as distorted or 

 much flattened, are shown by their measurements to belong 

 to the two extremes of classification, and which cannot be 

 brought into the same group without doing violence to all 

 ideas of craniology. If the terms 'dolichoeephalism' and 

 'brachycephalism' mean any thing, then these two forms of 

 skulls are to be found here, and there is no method of meas- 

 urement sufficiently elastic to include them both under one 

 head. This fact is by no means new or novel, though it has 

 not been many years since Dr. Morton and anthropologists 

 of his school stoutly maintained the uniform brachycephalic 

 type of crania among all the American aborigines except the 

 Eskimo. Of late years, however, the contrary opinion, so 

 ably advocated by Dr. D. Wilson, has been steadily gaining 

 ground, and to-day there is little hazard in saying that it is 

 generally received. But the evidence furnished by this col- 

 lection seems to lead still farther; and we are required not 

 only to admit the existence of different forms of skulls, as 

 there well might be in different tribes, but also to conclude 

 that they are to be found among the same people or peoples 

 living under the same tribal organization, much after the 

 fashion in which they are to-day known to exist among the 

 composite peoples of our great commercial cities. This is 

 hardly in accord with the opinion generally held as to the 

 purity of race in prehistoric times; but it seems impossible 

 to avoid the conclusion, if it be admitted that the fact that 

 these skulls were found buried together indiscriminately in 

 the same style or set of graves in the same mound, and so 

 far as we can judge at or near the same time,' is any proof 

 that they belonged to people of the same tribe and race." 



It will be seen from this conclusion of one best qualified 

 to express an opinion on this subject, that a classification of 

 . the mound-builders upon the forms of the skulls is not only 

 unsatisfactory, but is misleading and valueless. That the 

 people found inhabiting the continent at the time of the Co- 

 lumbian discovery may have been, and probably were, de- 

 rived from different races, is not denied. Possibly the 



mound-builders of the section herein designated the "mound 

 region" may have been derived from different races; but, if 

 so, this cannot be determined by the crania found in the 

 mounds of the Mississippi valley. Indications of tribal pe- 

 culiarities, of variations in local customs depending on en- 

 vironment, and perhaps traces even of customs peculiar to 

 certain stocks or families, are observed in the ancient works 

 of the region indicated, but nothing whatever to suggest 

 different races. This is a bold and venturous statement to 

 make, in view of what has been published on this subject; 

 nevertheless the writer feels justified in making it, and be- 

 lieves that the data, when thoroughly studied, will sustain 

 him. 



The evidence of division into tribes is found in the nu- 

 merous indications of intertribal warfare, such as the works 

 of defence of various kinds met with in different sections. 

 For instance, there are the hill-forts of Ohio, of which Fort 

 Ancient is a well known example. No one has ever doubted 

 that these were constructed for defence. Nor is it likely the 

 other enclosures, such as the circles, squares, and octagons, 

 would have been ascribed to any other object but for the 

 introduction of the theory of a semi-civilized, mound-build- 

 ing race, with its priesthood and religious ceremonies. As- 

 sume that the authors were the ancestors of the Indian tribes 

 found inhabiting the coiintry, and the idea of this overpow- 

 ering religious influence vanishes at once. The enclosures 

 of New York, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, south eastern 

 Missouri, and the Gulf States, are admitted to be defensive 

 works. In addition to these, there are in many places de- 

 fensive walls and embankments across projecting spurs, jie- 

 ninsulas, and river bends. Village sites are also often found 

 in positions which could have been selected for no conceiva- 

 ble reason except that they might be easily defended against 

 attack. 



The only reasonable explanation of these facts, and of the 

 evidences of different customs found in the mounds, is that 

 the mound-builders consisted of different tribes. Even in 

 the comparatively limited area of Ohio are found abundant 

 evidences of the presence of different tribes, and of succes- 

 sive occupation by different peoples. The same thing is true 

 also of the areas embraced iu eastern Iowa, Wisconsin, Illi- 

 nois, Indiana, and Kentucky ; but, on the other hand, wes- 

 tern New York, a strip along the lake border of Ohio, and 

 the Cherokee region of East Tennessee and western North 

 Carolina, appear to be exceptions to this rule. 



As the connection indicated between the works of the 

 Kanawha valley and those of Ohio relates primarily to the 

 sepulchral and so-called " sacrificial mounds," and second- 

 arily to the geometric enclosures of the type found in the 

 Scioto valley, attention is called to the latter. 



Forty yeai-s ago, Messrs. Squier aad Davis, while admit- 

 ting that some of the enclosures of this State were built for 

 defence, advanced the theory that a large number of the 

 earth-works were designed for sacred or religious purposes, 

 and places for performiug superstitious rites, — a view which 

 has generally been adopted by subsequent writers. That 

 this theory was based upon a preconceived notion held by 

 these authors, is appai'ent from the following statement in 

 " Ancient Monuments: " "We have reason to believe that 

 the religious system of the mound-builders, like that of the 

 Aztecs, exercised among them a great, if not a controlling, 



