A person would be described as of such a gens, phratry, and tribe. It is sufficient to state the words gens, and phratry simply denote subdivisions of a tribe.<6> This is the ancient system of government, and goes very far back in the history of the race. It is that state of society which everywhere preceded history and civilization. When we go back to the first beginning of history in Europe, we find the Grecian, Roman, and Germanic tribes in the act of subst.i.tuting the modern system of government for the tribal state, under which they had pa.s.sed from savagism into and through the various stages of barbarism, and entered the confines of civilization. The Bible reveals to us the tribal state of the Hebrews and the Canaanites.
Under the light of modern research, we can not doubt but what this form of government was very ancient, and substantially universal. It originated in the morning of time, and so completely answered all the demands of primitive society that it advanced man from savagism, through barbarism, and sufficed to enable him to make a beginning in civilization. It was so firmly established as one of the primitive inst.i.tutions, that when it was found insufficient to meet the demands of advancing society, it taxed to the utmost the skill of the Aryan tribes to devise a system to take its place.
This was the system of government throughout North America when the Spaniards landed on its sh.o.r.es. This is true, at least as far as our investigations have gone.<7> In several cases tribes speaking dialects of the same stock-language had united in a confederacy; as, for instance, the celebrated league of the Iroquois, and in Mexico, the union of the three Aztec tribes. But confederacies did not change the nature of tribal government. As there was but one general form or plan of government in vogue amongst the Aborigines of North America at the time of discovery, we ought certainly to find common features in the culture of the Pueblo Indians of the South-west, the Mound Builders of the Mississippi Valley, and the various Indian tribes; and if the lines of resemblance are sufficient to show a gradual progress from the rude remains of savage tribes to the more finished works of the Pueblos, and between these and the Mound Builders, then we may consider this fact as one more reason for believing that they const.i.tute but one people in different stages of development.
The tribal state of society is always a.s.sociated with village life. It makes no difference where we commence our investigations, we will soon be convinced that village life is the form in which people organized in tribes lived. This is true of the wild tribes in Africa, and of the hill tribes of India to-day.<8> The same was true of the early Greeks.<9> There must be a reason for this. It is found in their peculiar system of government. People divided into groups and cl.u.s.ters would naturally be drawn together into villages. We would expect, then, to find that the Indian tribes lived in villages. We are accustomed to speak of them as wandering nomads. This is scarcely correct; or rather, it is certainly wrong, if applied to the tribes east of the Mississippi, when first encountered by the whites. Some of them may have been in a state of migration, in search of better homes, or homes more secure from the attacks of too powerful enemies, as was the case with the Shawnees, and wandering bands on hunting or warlike expeditions were common enough.
The Germanic, tribes that overthrew the Roman Empire, for a similar reason, were in a migrating state. But it is none the less certain that they established permanent villages wherever they found suitable places.
Nearly all the tribes claimed separate districts, in which they had permanent villages, often stockaded.<10> The site of Montreal was a famous Indian village,<11> and other villages were found in Canada. The Iroquois tribes had permanent villages, and resided in them the greater part of the year.<12> One visited in 1677 is described as having one hundred and twenty houses, the ordinary one being from fifty to sixty feet long, and furnishing shelter to about twelve families. In one case, at least, the town was surrounded by palisades.
In 1539 De Soto made his appearance on the coast of Florida. Four years later a feeble remnant of this expedition landed at Panuco, Mexico. His route has not been accurately traced, but it is certain he travelled the Gulf States and crossed the Mississippi. De Soto himself found a grave in the waters of this river, but under new leaders the expedition pushed on through Arkansas, and probably found its most western point on the prairies of the West, where, disheartened, it turned back to near where De Soto died, constructed some rude boats, and floated down the Mississippi, and so to Mexico. We have two accounts written by members of this expedition,<13> and a third, written by Garcila.s.so de La Vega from the statements of eye-witnesses and memoranda which had fallen into his hands.
From these considerable can be learned of the Southern Indians before they had been subjected to European influences. One of the first things that arrests attention is the description of the villages. They found, to be sure, some desert tracts, but every few miles, as a rule, they found villages containing from fifty to three hundred s.p.a.cious and commodious dwellings, well protected from enemies--sometimes surrounded by a wall, sometimes also by a ditch filled with water. When west of the Mississippi they found a tribe living in movable tents, they deemed that fact worthy of special mention. But in the same section they also found many villages.
One hundred and forty years afterward the French explorer, La Salle, made several voyages up and down the Mississippi. He describes much the same state of things as do the earlier writers. The tribes still dwelt in comfortable cabins, sometimes constructed of bark, sometimes of mud,<14> often of large size, in one case forty feet square, and having a dome-shaped roof. Nor was this village life confined to the more advanced tribes. The Dakota tribes, which include the Sioux and others, have been forced on the plains by the advancing white population, but when first discovered they were living in villages around the headwaters of the Mississippi. Their houses were framed of poles and covered with bark.<15>
Lewis and Clark, in 1805, found the valley of the Columbia River inhabited by tribes dest.i.tute of pottery, and living mainly on fish, which were found in immense quant.i.ties in the river. They describe them as living in large houses, one sometimes forming a village by itself.
They describe one house capable of furnishing habitations for five hundred people. Other authorities could be quoted, showing that the Algonquin Indians, living in Eastern and Atlantic States, had permanent villages.<16> The idea then, that the Indians are nothing but wandering savages, is seen to be wrong. It is well to bear this in mind, because it is often a.s.serted that the Mound Builders must have been a people possessing fixed habitations. While this is doubtless correct, we see that it is also true of the Indians.<17>
There is another feature of Indian life which we will mention here, because it shows us a common element in the building of houses, seen alike in the pueblo structures of the West and the long houses of the Iroquois. That is, the Indian houses were always built to be inhabited by a number of families in common. All nations in a tribal state possess property in common. It is not allowed to pa.s.s out of the gens of the person who possesses it, but at his death is supposed to be divided among the members of his gens; in most cases, however, to those nearest of kin within the gens.<18> This communism showed itself in the method of erecting houses.
The long house of the Iroquois was divided into apartments so as to shelter from one hundred to two hundred Indians. A number of these houses gathered together composed a village. These were quite creditable structures of Indian art, being warm and comfortable, as well as roomy.
Should we examine the whole list of writers who have mentioned Indian villages, we would find them all admitting that the houses were usually occupied by a number of families, one in the Columbia Valley, as we see, sheltering five hundred persons.
There is no question but the pueblos were built by people holding property in common. They were, of course, erected by a more advanced people, who employed better materials in construction, but it is quite plain that they were actuated by the same instincts, and built their houses with the same design in view as the less advanced Indian tribes in other sections of the country. What we have described as the small houses in Arizona in the preceding chapter, in most cases includes several rooms, and we are told that in one section they "appear to have been the abode of several families."<19>
Ill.u.s.tration of Long House of the Iroquois.---------
One of the main points the Indians would have to attend to in the construction of their villages was how to defend them, and we can not do better than to examine this point. A French writer represents the villages of Canada as defended by double, and frequently triple, rows of palisades, interwoven with branches of trees.<20> Cartier, in 1535, found the village of Hochelaga (now Montreal) thus defended. In 1637 the Pequot Indians were the terror of the New England colonies, and Capt.
Mason, who was sent to subject them, found their princ.i.p.al villages, covering six acres, strongly defended by palisades.
Ill.u.s.tration of Stockaded Onondaga Village.--------
The Iroquois tribes also adopted this method of defense. In 1615 Champlain, with Indian allies, invaded the territory of the Iroquois.
He left a sketch of his attack on one of their villages. This sketch we reproduce in this ill.u.s.tration, which is a very important one, because it shows us a regularly palisaded village among a tribe of Indians where the common impression in reference to them is that they were a wandering people with no fixed habitations. The sketch is worthy of careful study.
The buildings within are the long houses which we have just described.
They are located near together, three or four in a group. The arrangement of the groups is in the form of a square, inclosing a court in the center. This tendency to inclose a court is a very common feature of Indian architecture. Such, as we have seen, is the arrangement of the pueblos. Such was also the arrangement of the communal buildings in Mexico, Central America, and Peru. In this case the village covered about six acres also. The defense was by means of palisades. There seem to be two rows of them. They seem to have been well made, since Champlain was unsuccessful in his attack. In earlier times these fortified villages were numerous.
Ill.u.s.tration of Pomeiock. (Bureau of Ethnology.)-----
Further south, this method of inclosing a village was also in use. In 1585 the English sent an expedition to the coast of North Carolina.
An artist attached to this expedition left some cuts, one of which represents a village near Roanoke. It is surrounded, as we see, by a row of palisades, and contains seventeen joint tenement houses, besides the council house. The historians of De Soto"s expedition make frequent mention of walled and fortified towns. "The village of Mavilla," from which comes our name Mobile, says Biedman, "stood on a plain surrounded by strong walls." Herrera, in his General History, states that the walls were formed by piles, interwoven with other timber, and the s.p.a.ces packed with straw and earth so that it looked like a wall smoothed with a trowel.
Speaking of the region west of the Mississippi, Biedman says: "We journeyed two days, and reached a village in the midst of a plain, surrounded by walls and a ditch filled by water, which had been made by Indians." This town is supposed to have been situated in the north-eastern part of Arkansas, and it is interesting to note that recent investigators find what are probably the remains of these walled towns, in the shape of inclosures with ditches and mounds, in North-eastern Arkansas and South-eastern Missouri.<21> The tribes throughout the entire extent of the Mississippi Valley were accustomed to palisade their villages--at least, occasionally.<22>
Ill.u.s.tration of Mandan Village. (Bureau of Ethnology.)------
On the Missouri River we find some Indian tribes that have excited a great deal of interest among archaeologists. It has been surmised that, if their history could be recovered, it would clear up a great many difficult questions. They were accustomed to fortify their village"s with ditches, embankments, and palisades. This gives us a cut of one of their villages. It is to be observed that it has a great likeness to some of the inclosures ascribed to the Mound Builders.
This has been noted by many writers. Says Brackenridge: "In my voyage up the Missouri I observed the ruins of several villages which had been abandoned twenty or thirty years, which in every respect resembled the vestiges on the Ohio and Mississippi."<23> Lewis and Clark, in their travels, describe the sites of several of these abandoned villages, the only remains of which were the walls which had formerly inclosed the villages, then three or four feet high. The opinion has been advanced that the inclosures of the Mound Builders were formerly surmounted by palisades. Mr. At.w.a.ter a.s.serts that the round fort which was joined to a square inclosure at Circleville showed distinctly evidence of having supported a line of pickets or palisades.<24>
Should it be accepted that the inclosures of the Mound Builders represent village sites, and that they were probably further protected by palisades, it would seem, after what we have just observed of the customs of the Indians in fortifying their villages, to be a simple and natural explanation of these remains.
We have already referred to the fact that scholars draw a distinction between the more ma.s.sive works found in the Ohio Valley and the low, crumbling ruins occupying defensive positions found in such abundance along Lake Erie and in Western New York, a.s.serting the former to be the works of the Mound Builders proper, and the latter the remains of fortified Indian villages. This may be true, but it seems to us that there is such a common design running through all these remains that it is more reasonable to infer that the more ma.s.sive works were constructed by people more advanced than those who built the less pretentious works, but not necessarily of a dilterent race. We can not do better than to quote the remarks of Mr. Brackenridge in this connection: "We are often tempted by a fondness for the marvelous to seek out remote and impossible causes for that which may be explained by the most obvious."<25>
But inclosures and defensive works are only a small part of the Mound Builders" remains. We know that large numbers of mounds are scattered over the country, and we recall in this connection what was said as to the erection of mounds by Indian tribes in a preceding essay. Somewhat at the risk of repet.i.tion we will once more examine this question. It is generally admitted that it was the custom of Indian tribes to erect piles of stones to commemorate several events, such as a treaty, or the settlement of a village, but more generally to mark the grave of a chief, or some noted person, or of a person whose death occurred under unusual circ.u.mstances.<26> These cairns are not confined to any particular section of the country, being found in New England, throughout the South, and generally in the Mississippi Valley. From their wide dispersion, and from the fact that they do not differ from the structures built by Indian tribes within a few years past, it is not doubted but what they are the works of Indians.
Now, if we could draw a dividing line, and say that, while the Indians erected mounds of stone, the Mound Builders built theirs of earth, it would be a strong argument in favor of a difference of race. But this can not be done. When De Soto landed in Florida, nearly three hundred and fifty years ago, he had an opportunity of observing the customs of the Indians as they were before the introduction of fire-arms, and before contact with the Whites had wrought the great change in them it was destined to. Therefore, what few notes his historians have given us of the ways of life they observed amongst the southern tribes are of great importance in this connection. At the very spot where he landed (supposed to be Tampa Bay) they observed that the house of the chief "stood near the sh.o.r.e, upon a very high mound, made by hand for strength."
Garcila.s.so tells us "the town and the house of the Cacique (chief) Ossachile are like those of the other caciques in Florida.... The Indians try to place their villages on elevated sites, but, inasmuch as in Florida there are not many sites of this kind where they can conveniently build, they erect elevations themselves, in the following manner: They select the spot, and carry there a quant.i.ty of earth, which they form into a kind of platform, two or three pikes in height, the summit of which is large enough to give room for twelve, fifteen, or twenty houses, to lodge the cacique and his attendants. At the foot of this elevation they mark out a square place, according to the size of the village, around which the leading men have their houses. To ascend the elevation they have a straight pa.s.sage-way from bottom to top, fifteen or twenty feet wide. Here steps are made by ma.s.sive beams, and others are planted firmly in the ground to serve as walls. On all other sides of the platform the sides are cut steep."<27>
Biedman, the remaining historian, says of the country in what is now (probably) Arkansas. "The caciques of this country make a custom of raising, near their dwellings, very high hills, on which they sometimes build their huts."<28> Twenty-five years later the French sent an expedition to the east coast of Florida. The accounts of this expedition are very meager, but they confirm what the other writers have stated as to the erection of platform mounds with graded ways.<29> Le Moyne, the artist of this expedition, has left us a cut of a mound erected over a deceased chief. It was, however, but a small one.<30>
La Harpe, writing in 1720, says of tribes on the lower Mississippi: "Their cabins... are dispersed over the country upon mounds of earth made with their own hands." As to the construction of these houses, we learn that their cabins were "round and vaulted," being lathed with cane and plastered with mud from bottom to top, within and without. In other cases they were square, with the roof dome-shaped, the walls plastered with mud to the height of twelve feet.<31> It is interesting to observe how closely what little we do know about Mound Builders" houses coincides with the above.
Recent investigations by the Bureau of Ethnology have brought to light vestiges of great numbers of their buildings. These were mostly circular, but those of a square or rectangular form were also observed.
In Arkansas their location was generally on low, flat mounds, but vestiges of some were also noticed near the surface of large mounds.
In Southern Illinois, South-eastern Missouri, and Middle and Western Tennessee the sites of thousands were observed, not in or on mounds, but marked by little circular, saucer-shaped depressions, from twenty to fifty feet in diameter, surrounded by a slight earthen ring. We know the framework of these houses was poles, for in several cases the charred remains of these poles were found. We know they were plastered with a thick coating of mud, for regular layers of lumps of this burnt plastering are found. These lumps have often been mistaken for bricks, as in the Selzertown mound. In several cases the plastering had been stamped with an implement, probably made of split cane of large size.<32>
On the lower Mississippi we meet with the Natchez, a tribe that has excited a great deal of interest; but at present we only want to note that they also constructed mounds. They were nearly exterminated by the French in 1729. But before this Du Pratz had lived among them, and left a description of their customs. Their temple was about thirty feet square, and was situated on a mound about eight feet high, which sloped insensibly from its main front on the north, but was somewhat steeper on the other sides. He also states that the cabin of the chief, or great sun, as he was called, was placed upon a mound of about the same height, though somewhat larger, being sixty feet over the surface.<33> A missionary who labored among them, stated that when the chief died his mound was deserted, and a new one built for the next chief.<34>
Neither was this custom of erecting mounds confined to the Southern Indians. Colden states of the Iroquois: "They make a round hole in which the body is placed, then they raise the earth in a round hill over it."<35> It was the custom among a large number of tribes to gather together the remains of all who had died during several years and bury them all together, erecting a mound over them.<36> Mr. Jefferson, in his notes on Virginia, describes one of these mounds, and relates this interesting fact in reference to it: "A party of Indians pa.s.sing about thirty years ago through the part of the country where this barrow is, went through the woods directly to it, without any instructions or inquiry; and having staid about it some time, with expressions which were construed to be those of sorrow, they returned to the high road, which they had left about a half dozen miles to pay this visit, and pursued their journey."<37>
Coming down to our own times, the Indians had lost a great many of their ancient customs, yet, at times, this old instinct of mound burial a.s.serts itself. About the first of the century Blackbird, a celebrated chief of the Omahas, returning to his native home after a visit to Washington, died of the small-pox. It was his dying request that his body be placed on horseback, and the horse buried alive with him.
Accordingly, in the presence of all his nation, his body was placed on the back of his favorite white horse, fully equipped as if for a long journey, with all that was necessary for an Indian"s happiness, including the scalps of his enemies. Turfs were brought and placed around the feet and legs, and up the sides of the unsuspecting animal, and so gradually the horse and its rider were buried from sight, thus forming a good-sized burial mound.<38> Another instance came under Mr.
Catlin"s observation at the pipe stone quarry in Dakota. He visited there about 1832 and saw a conical mound, ten feet high, that had been erected over the body of a young man accidentally killed there two years before.
Enough references have now been given to show that the Indian tribes certainly did erect mounds, and that there is every reason to suppose they were the authors of the temple mounds of the South, or of some of them, at any rate. We have now shown that, according to early writers, the Indians did live in permanent villages, often stockaded, and knew very well how to raise embankments and mounds. It would seem as if this removed all necessity for supposing the existence of an extinct race to explain the numerous remains, collectively known as Mound Builders"
works. Yet, as this is surely an important point, it may be well to carry the investigations a little further.
Taking in account the great amount of labor necessary to raise such structures as the mounds at Cahokia and Grave Creek, and the complicated works at Newark, some writers have a.s.serted that the government of the Mound Builders was one in which the central authority must have had absolute power over the persons of the subjects, that they were in effect slaves;<39> and as this was altogether contrary to what is known amongst Indian tribes, they must have been of a different race.
If the Indians in a tribal state are known to have erected some mounds, and to have built temple-platforms and walled towns in the south, then all they needed was sufficient motive, religious or otherwise, to have built the most stupendous works known. We think the ruined pueblos in the Chaco Canyon represent as great an amount of work as many of those of the Mound Builders. A calculation has been made, showing that over thirty million pieces of stone were required in the construction of one pueblo,<40> besides an abundance of timber. Each piece of stone had to be dressed roughly to fit its place; the timbers had to be brought from a considerable distance, cut and fitted to their places in the wall, and then covered with other courses, besides other details of construction, such as roof-making, plastering, and so forth, and this is not the calculation of the largest pueblo either.<41> Yet no one supposes that the Indian tribes who erected these structures were under a despotic form of government.
We think, however, that it might be freely admitted that in all probability the government of the Mound Builders was arbitrary, but so was the government of a great many Indian tribes. Amongst the Natchez the chief was considered as descended from the sun. Nor was this belief confined to the Natchez, as the tribes of the Floridian Peninsula a.s.serted the same thing of their chiefs. Among all these latter tribes the chief held absolute and unquestioned power over the persons, property, and time of their subjects.<42>
Amongst the Natchez the power of the Great Sun (their t.i.tle for chief) seems to have been very great. This nation had a regularly organized system of priesthood, of which the chief was also the head. On the death of the chief a number of his subjects were put to death to keep him company. But we must notice that the subjects considered it an honor to die with the chief, and made application beforehand for the privilege.
Bearing these facts in mind, it does not seem improbable that in more distant days, when the Natchez or some kindred tribe were in the height of their power, the death of some great chief might well be memorialized by the erection of a mound as grand in proportion as that of Grave Creek.
In fact, the more we study the subject, the more firmly we become convinced that there is no hard and fast line separating the works of the Mound Builders from those of the later Indians. We therefore think that we may safely a.s.sert that the best authorities in the United States now consider that the mound building tribes were Indians, in much the same state of culture as the Indian tribes in the Gulf States at the time of the discovery of America, and we shall not probably be far out of the way if we a.s.sert, that when driven from the valley of the Ohio by more warlike people they became absorbed by the southern tribes, and, indeed the opinion is quite freely advanced that the Natchez themselves were a remnant of the "Mysterious Mound Builders."