THE APPALACHIAN DISTRICT.

This district, as already defined, includes East Tennessee, western North Carolina, southwestern Virginia, and the southeastern part of Kentucky. It is probable that northeastern Georgia and the northwestern part of South Carolina should be included, but the investigations in most of the sections named have not been sufficiently thorough to enable us to fix with any degree of certainty the boundaries of the district.

Although there is uncertainty in reference to the area occupied by the people who left behind them the antiquities found in this region, there can be no doubt that here we find a class of burial mounds differing in several important respects from any we have so far noticed.

Some of the most important mounds of this class found in this district were discovered in Caldwell County, North Carolina, and opened in 1882 by Mr. J. P. Rogan, one of the Bureau assistants, aided by Dr. J. M. Spainhour, a resident of the county.

As Mr. Rogan's descriptions are somewhat full, I give them substantially as found in his report:

The T. F. Nelson mound.—This mound, so insignificant in appearance as scarcely to attract any notice, was located on the farm of Rev. T. F. Nelson, in Caldwell County, North Carolina, on the bottom land of the Yadkin, about 100 yards from the river-bank. It was almost a true circle in outline, 38 feet in diameter, but not exceeding at any point 18 inches in height. The thorough excavation made revealed the fact that the builders of the mound had first dug a circular pit, with perpendicular margin, to the depth of 3 feet, and 38 feet in diameter, then deposited their dead in the manner hereafter shown, and afterwards covered them over, raising a slight mound above the pit.

A plan of the pit, drawn at the time (after the removal of the dirt), showing the stone graves and skeletons, is given in Fig. 25.

The walled graves or vaults and altar-shaped mass were built of water worn bowlders and clay or earth merely sufficient to hold them in place.

No. 1, a stone grave or vault standing exactly in the center of the pit. In this case a small circular hole, a little over 3 feet in diameter and extending down 3 feet below the bottom of the large pit, had been dug, the body or skeleton placed perpendicularly upon its feet, and the wall built up around it from the bottom of the hole, converging, after a height of 4 feet was reached, so as to be covered at the top by a single soapstone rock of moderate size. On the top of the head of the skeleton and immediately under the capstone of the vault were found several plates of silver mica, which had evidently been cut with some rude implement. Although the bones were much decayed, yet they were retained in position by the dirt which filled the vault, an indication that the flesh had been removed before burial and the vault filled with dirt as it was built up.

Fig. 25.—Appearance of T. F. Nelson mound after excavation.

Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, although walled around in a similar manner, were in a sitting posture on the bottom of the pit. In the grave of No. 2 was found a polished celt, in that of No. 3 a single discoidal stone, in that of No. 6 two polished celts, and immediately over No. 9 a pitted stone.

Nos. 11, 12, and 13 are three skeletons in a squatting posture, with no wall around them and unaccompanied by relics of any kind.

Nos. 14 and 15 are two uninclosed skeletons, lying horizontally at full length. With the former some pieces of broken soapstone pipes were found, and with the latter one polished celt.

No. 16, an uninclosed "squatter," of unusually large size, not less than 7 feet high when living. Near the mouth was an uninjured soapstone pipe. The legs were extended in a southwest direction, upon a bed of burnt earth.

The faces of all the squatting skeletons were turned away from the standing central one.

At A was found a considerable quantity of black paint in little lumps, which appear to have been molded in the hull of some nut. At B was a cubical mass of water-worn bowlders, built up solidly and symmetrically, 24 inches long, 18 inches wide, and 18 inches high, but with no bones, specimens of art, coal, ashes, or indications of fire on or around it. Many of the stones of the vaults and the earth immediately around them, on the contrary, bore unmistakable evidences of fire; in fact, the heat in some cases left its mark on the bones of the inclosed skeletons, another indication that the flesh had been removed before burial here, either by previous burial or otherwise.

Scattered through the dirt which filled the pit were small pieces of pottery and charcoal. The bottom, and sides of the pit were so distinctly marked that they could be traced without difficulty.

This mound stood about 75 yards south of the triangular burial pit described below.

Fig. 26.—Burials in the T. F. Nelson triangle, Caldwell County, North Carolina.

The T. F. Nelson triangle.—This is the name applied by Mr. Rogan to an ancient triangular burying ground found on the same farm as the mound just described and about 75 yards north of it.

It is not a mound, but simply a burial pit in the form of a triangle, the two longest sides each 48 feet and the (southern) base 32 feet, in which the bodies and accompanying articles were deposited and then covered over, but not heaped up into a mound; or, if so, it had subsequently settled until on a level with the natural surface of the ground. The apex, which points directly north, was found to extend within 3 feet of the break of the bank of the Yadkin River, the height above the usual water-level being about 12 feet. The depth of the original excavation, the lines of which could be distinctly traced, varied from 2½ to 3 feet. A rude sketch of this triangle, showing the relative positions of the skeletons, is given in Fig. 26.

Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 indicate the positions of single skeletons found lying horizontally, on their backs, heads east and northeast. With No. 2 was found a broken soapstone pipe, and with Nos. 5 and 9 one small polished celt each.

Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 indicate the positions of skeletons inclosed in rude stone vaults built of cobblestones and similar to those in the preceding mound. (See Fig. 25.) Nos. 10, 12, 13, and 15 were in a sitting posture, without any accompanying articles.

Graves 11 and 14 contained each two bodies, extended horizontally, the lower ones, which were of smaller stature than the upper ones, face up and with heavy flat stones on the extended arms and legs. The upper ones, with face down, were resting on those below. No implements or ornaments were found with them.

Near No. 12 about a peck of singular, pinkish-colored earth was found.

Fig. 27.—Engraved shell gorget from mound, Caldwell County, North Carolina.

In the northwest part of the triangle (at A in Fig. 26) ten or more skeletons were found in one grave or group, which from the arrangement the explorers concluded must have been buried at one time; the "old chief" (?), or principal personage of the group, resting horizontally on his face, with his head northeast and feet southwest. Under his head was a large engraved shell gorget (Fig. 27); around his neck were a number of large-sized shell beads, evidently the remains of a necklace; at the sides of the head, near the ears, were five elongate copper beads, or rather small cylinders, varying in length from one and a quarter to four and a half inches, part of the leather thong on which the smaller were strung yet remaining in them. These are made of thin pieces of copper cut into strips and then rolled together so that the edges meet in a straight joint on one side. (See Fig. 28.) The plate out of which they were made was as smooth and even in thickness as though it had been rolled.

Fig. 28.—Cylindrical copper bead from mound, Caldwell County, North Carolina.

Fig. 29.—Bracelet of copper and shell beads, Caldwell County, North Carolina.

A piece of copper was also under his breast. His arms were partially extended, his hands resting about a foot from his head. Around each wrist were the remains of a bracelet composed of copper and shell beads, alternating, thus (Fig. 29):

Fig. 30.—Iron celt from mound, Caldwell County, North Carolina.

At his right hand were four iron specimens, much corroded but still showing the form. Two of them were of uniform thickness, one not sharpened at the ends or edges, the other slightly sharpened at one end, 3 to 3½ inches long, 1 to 1½ inches broad, and about a quarter of an inch thick. The form is shown in Fig. 30. Another is 5 inches long, slightly tapering in width from one and an eighth to seven-eighths of an inch, both edges sharp; it is apparently part of the blade of a long, slender, cutting or thrusting weapon of some kind, as a sword, dagger, or knife. (Shown in Fig. 31.) The other specimen is part of a round, awl-shaped implement, a small part of the bone handle in which it was fixed yet remaining attached to it.

Fig. 31.—Iron implement from mound, Caldwell County, North Carolina.

Under his left hand was another engraved shell, the concave surface upward and filled with shell beads of all sizes.

Around and over the skeleton of this chief personage, with their heads near his, were nine other skeletons. Under the heads of two of these were two engraved shells. Scattered over and between the ten skeletons of the group were numerous polished celts, discoidal stones, copper arrow-points, plates of mica, lumps of paint, black lead, etc.

The W. D. Jones mound.—Two miles east of Patterson, same county, and near the north bank of the Yadkin River, running out from a low ridge to the river bank, is a natural terrace about 12 feet high, with a level area on top of about an acre, the sides steep and abrupt. According to tradition this terrace was formerly occupied by an Indian village.

About 200 yards east of this, on the second river bottom or terrace, was located a low, circular mound 33 feet in diameter and not more than 1 foot high, on the land of Mr. W. D. Jones.

This mound was found on investigation to cover a circular pit 32 feet in diameter and 3 feet deep, the margin and bottom being so well defined as to leave no doubt as to the limits of the pit; in fact, the bottom, which was of clay, had been baked hard by fire to the depth of 2 or 3 inches. The mound and the filling of the pit consisted of earth and loose yellow clay, similar to that around it. In this mound were found twenty-five skeletons and one stone heap, the relative positions of which are shown in Fig. 32.

1. A "squatter," walled in with water-worn stones, the face turned toward the west; no relics.

2. Sitting with the face toward the center; two polished celts at the feet, and immediately in front of the face a cylinder of hard gray mortar (not burned) about 5 inches long and 2 inches in diameter, with a hole through one end.

3. Sitting with the face toward the center; several polished celts at the feet.

Fig. 32.—W. D. Jones mound, Caldwell County, North Carolina.

4. Horizontal, head southeast; several celts at the feet.

5. Horizontal, head toward the center; several celts at the feet.

6. Facing the center, sitting; shell beads around the neck, a Unio shell on top of the head, with the concave surface down, a conch shell (Busycon perversum) in front of the face, and celts at the feet.

7. Sitting, facing the center; celts at the feet.

8. Very large, lying on the left side, legs partially drawn up, walled in with bowlders; no implements.

9. Horizontal, face down, head toward the center; celts and discoidal stones at the feet, and a pot resting, mouth down, upon the head.

10. Horizontal, face up, feet toward the center; pot resting on the face, stone implements at the feet.

11. Horizontal, head southeast, arms extended, and a bracelet of copper and shell beads around each wrist; shell beads around the neck; face up and food-cup (without handle) at the right side of the head.

12. Horizontal, face up, head southeast; shell beads around the neck, a hook or crescent shaped piece of copper on the breast, and a soapstone pipe near the face; one hand near each side of the head, each grasping small, conical copper ornaments (ear-drops) and a bunch of hair. Was this individual, apparently a female, buried alive?

13. Horizontal, lying on the back, head southeast; copper and shell beads around the neck and wrists, a hook or crescent shaped piece of copper on the breast, a food-cup (with handle) lying on its side with mouth close to the face, a pipe near the mouth, and two celts over the head.

14. Horizontal, lying on the back, head northeast, arms extended; each hand resting on a shell which had evidently been engraved, though the figures are almost totally obliterated.

15. Horizontal, on the back, head west, knees drawn up; stone implements at the feet.

16. Too much decayed to determine the position.

17. Four skeletons in one grave, horizontal, heads toward the east, and large rocks lying on the legs below the knees; no implements.

18. Two skeletons in one grave, heads west, faces down, knees drawn up; no implements.

19. On the back, horizontal, head east; no implements.

20. Sitting, with face toward the east, walled in, a large rock lying on the feet (though this may have fallen from the wall); no implements.

21. Sitting, walled in; over the head, but under the capstone of the vault, a handful of flint arrow-heads.

22. Doubled up, with the head between the feet.

A. A solid oval-shaped mass of bowlders, 33 inches long, 22 inches wide, and 24 inches high, resting on the bottom of the pit. No ashes or other indications of fire about it.

Fragments of pottery, mica, galena, charcoal, red and black paint, and stone chips were found scattered in small quantities through the earth which filled the pit. All the celts were more or less polished.

R. T. Lenoir burial pit.—This is a circular burial pit, similar to those already described, but without any rounding up of the surface. It is located on the farm of Mr. Rufus T. Lenoir, about 9 miles northeast of Lenoir and nearly a mile west of Fort Defiance.

A diagram showing the relative positions of the graves or burials is given in Fig. 33.

It is on the first river terrace or bottom of Buffalo Creek and some 200 yards from the stream, which empties into the Yadkin about half a mile southwest of this point. This bottom is subject to overflow in time of high water.

The pit, which is 27 feet in diameter and about 3½ feet deep, is almost a perfect circle, and well marked, the margin, which is nearly perpendicular, and the bottom being easily traced. The dirt in this case, as in the others, was all thrown out.

No. 1. A bed of charred or rather burnt bones, occupying a space 3 feet long, 2 feet wide, and about 1 foot deep. The bones were so thoroughly burned that it was impossible to determine whether they were human or animal. Beneath this bed the yellow sand was baked to the depth of 2 or 3 inches. Under the bones was an uncharred shell gorget.

No. 2. A skeleton in a sitting posture, facing northeast; a pipe near the mouth and a polished celt over the head.

No. 3. Sitting, facing east, with shell beads around the neck and also around the arms just below the shoulders.

No. 4. Horizontal, on the back, head east and resting on the concave surface of an engraved shell; a conch shell (Busycon perversum) at the side of the head, and copper and shell beads around the neck.

Fig. 33.—Plan of the R. T. Lenoir burial pit, Caldwell County, North Carolina.

No. 5. Horizontal, head northeast; shell beads around the neck and two discoidal stones and one celt at the feet.

No. 6. A communal grave, containing at least twenty-five skeletons, in two tiers, buried without any apparent regularity as to direction or relative position. Thirteen of the twenty-five were "flat-heads;" that is, "the heads running back and compressed in front."

Scattered through this grave, between and above the skeletons, were polished celts, discoidal stones, shells, mica, galena, fragments of pottery, and one whole pot. Around the neck and wrists of some of the skeletons were also shell beads. There may have been more than twenty-five individuals buried here, this, however, being the number of skulls observed.

No. 7. Horizontal, on the left side, head northwest; no implements.

No. 8. An irregular layer of water-worn stones, about 4 feet square. On top was a bed of charcoal 3 or 4 inches thick, on and partially imbedded in which were three skeletons, but showing no indications of having been in the fire. Scattered over these were discoidal stones, one small, saucer-shaped dish, shells (of which one is engraved), pipes, shell beads, and pieces of pottery.

No. 9. A grave containing three skeletons, lying horizontally on their backs and side by side, the outer ones with their heads east and the middle one with the head west; no implements.

No. 10. Horizontal, on the right side, head north, with stone implements in front of the face.

No. 11. Doubled up, top of the head south; shell beads around the neck and celts at the feet.

No. 12. A grave containing seventeen skeletons, seven of which had flat heads, two of the number children. Two of the adult heads were resting on engraved shells.

In this grave were found four pots and two food-cups, the handle of one representing an owl's head and that of the other an eagle's head. One of the small pots was inside a larger one. Scattered among the skeletons were shell beads, polished celts, discoidal stones, paint, etc. None of the skeletons were inclosed in stone graves.[36]

In order to convey an idea of the number of articles deposited with the dead in some of these burial places, I give here a list of those obtained from the pit last described:

One stone ax.

Forty-three polished celts.

Nine vessels of clay.

Thirty-two arrow-heads.

Twenty soapstone pipes, mostly uninjured.

Twelve discoidal stones.

Ten rubbing stones.

Two hammer stones.

One broken soapstone vessel.

Six engraved shells.

Four shell gorgets.

One Busycon perversum entire, and two or three broken ones.

Five very large copper beads.

One lot of fragments of shells, some of them engraved.

A few rude shell pins.

Shell beads.

A few small copper beads.

Specimens of paint and plumbago.

Three skulls.

It is evident from the foregoing descriptions that the mode of burial and the depositories of the dead of the mound-building tribes of this part of North Carolina differed in several marked and important respects from the mode of burial and burial mounds of the sections previously alluded to, and in fact from those of any other district.

Here the pit seems to have been the important part of the depository and the mound a mere adjunct. In some cases the bodies appear to have been buried soon after death, while in others—as, for example, the groups in the triangle and Lenoir burial pit—the skeletons were probably deposited after the flesh was removed.

We are reminded by these pits of the mode of burial practiced by some of the Indian tribes, as mentioned by Lafitau,[37] Brebeuf,[38] etc.; but, before attempting to draw conclusions, we will give other illustrations of the burial mounds of this district, which are far from being uniform in character.

Comparatively few mounds have as yet been opened in North Carolina; hence the data relating to this region is somewhat meager. As bearing upon the subject, and probably relating to a period immediately following the close of the mound-building era, I give from Mr. Rogan's notes the description of a burial place explored by him on the farm of Mr. Charles Hunt, in the central part of Wilkes County:

This is not a "burial place," in the usual sense of that term, but is probably the site of a camp or temporary village. It is about three miles and a half east of Wilkesborough, on the second bottom or terrace of the Yadkin River. It differs from the burial places just described in having no large pit, the graves being separate and independent of each other. A diagram showing the relative positions of the graves and small pits accompanies Mr. Rogan's report but is omitted here, although the numbering of the graves is retained in the description.

No. 1 is a grave or oval-shaped pit 2 feet long and 18 inches wide, the top within 8 inches of the surface of the ground, while the bottom is 2½ feet below it. This contained the remains of two skeletons, which were surrounded by charcoal; some of the bones were considerably charred. In the pit were some fragments of pottery, a few flint chips, and a decayed tortoise shell.

No. 2. A grave 2 feet wide, 6 feet long, and 5 feet deep. It contained quite a quantity of animal bones, some of them evidently those of a bear; also charcoal, mussel shells, and one bone implement.

No. 3. A grave of the same size and depth as No. 2, containing animal bones, broken pottery, and some charcoal.

No. 4. Grave; the size, depth, and contents same as the preceding.

No. 5. A circular pit 2 feet in diameter and 2 feet deep. This contained a very large pot, in which were some animal bones; it was on its side and crushed.

No. 6. A pit 2½ feet deep and 2 feet square, with a bed of charcoal in the bottom 6 inches deep. On this bed was a layer of flint chips, and on the chips a quantity of broken pottery, animal bones, a discoidal stone, and a bone implement.

No. 7. A grave similar to those described.

No. 8. A large grave, containing three skeletons, lying at full length upon the right side, with the heads a little east of north. Between the front and the middle one was a mass of mussel shells. At the head and back of the front one were a number of animal bones, and between it and the middle one, opposite the pelvis, was a large broken pot. The right arm of the third or back one was extended forward and upward, the left arm resting across the head, a white flint chip grasped in the hand. The head of this skeleton was resting on a piece of a broken pot, and in front of the face, at the distance of a foot, was also part of a pot, containing a stone fragment and some animal bones. Under the legs of the three skeletons, the head extending in front of the legs of the third or back one, was the skeleton of a bear, and in front of the latter were three broken pots, containing animal bones.

Fig. 34.—Fire-bed, Wilkes County, North Carolina.

No. 9. A basin-shaped fire-bed, or bed of burnt clay, 8 inches thick. A section of this bed is shown in Fig. 34—b, b, b, the bed of burnt clay, 8 inches thick, the material evidently placed here and not a part of the original soil. The basin a was filled with ashes, to the depth of 12 inches; the diameter, from 1 to 2, 2 feet 3 inches, from 1 to 3 and from 2 to 4, 1 foot 6 inches.

No. 10. A bed of mussel shells, 3 inches thick and 3 feet in diameter, lying on a flat bed of burnt earth 3 inches thick.

No. 11. A pit 5 feet deep and 3 feet in diameter, filled with animal bones, mussel shells, and broken pottery.

There was no mounding over any of these graves or pits.

The basin-shaped fire-bed, No. 9, reminds us very strongly of the so-called altars of the Ohio mounds, and may possibly assist us in arriving at a correct conclusion concerning these puzzling structures.

A mound opened by Dr. J. M. Spainhour in Burke County, some years ago, presents some variations, though, so far as the posture and relative positions of the skeletons are concerned, reminding us of those in Caldwell County. The following extract is from the article containing the description:[39]

Digging down I struck a stone about 18 inches below the surface, which was found to be 18 inches long and 16 inches wide and from 2 to 3 inches in thickness, the corners rounded. It rested on solid earth and had been smoothed on top.

I then made an excavation in the south of the mound, and soon struck another stone, which upon examination proved to be in front of the remains of a human skeleton in a sitting posture; the bones of the fingers of the right hand had been resting on the stone. Near the hand was a small stone about 5 inches long, resembling a tomahawk or Indian hatchet. Upon a further examination many of the bones were found, though in a very decomposed condition, and upon exposure to the air they soon crumbled to pieces. The heads of the bones, a considerable portion of the skull, jaw-bones, teeth, neck-bones, and the vertebræ were in their proper places. Though the weight of the earth above them had driven them down, yet the frame was perfect, and the bones of the head were slightly inclined toward the east. Around the neck were found coarse beads that seemed to be of some substance resembling chalk.

A small lump of red paint, about the size of an egg, was found near the right side of this skeleton. From my knowledge of anatomy, the sutures of the skull would indicate the subject to have been twenty-five or twenty-eight years of age. The top of the skull was about 12 inches below the mark of the plow.

I made a further excavation in the west part of this mound and found another skeleton similar to the first, in a sitting posture, facing the last. A stone was on the right, on which the right hand had been resting, and on this was a tomahawk which had been about 7 inches in length, broken into two pieces, and much better finished than the first. Beads were also on the neck of this one, but were much smaller and of finer quality than those on the neck of the first; the material, however, seemed to be the same. A much larger amount of paint was found by the side of this than the first. The bones indicated a person of larger frame and I think of about fifty years of age. Everything about this one had the appearance of superiority over the first. The top of the skull was about 6 inches below the mark of the plow.

I continued the examination, and after diligent search found nothing at the north part of the mound, but on reaching the east side found another skeleton, in the same posture as the others, facing the west. On the right side of this was a stone on which the right hand had been resting, and on the stone was also a tomahawk about 8 inches in length, broken into three pieces, much smoother and of finer material than the others. Beads were also found on the neck of this, but much smaller and finer than on those of the others, as well as a large amount of paint. The bones would indicate a person of forty years of age. The top of the skull had been moved by the plow.

There was no appearance of hair discovered; besides, the principal bones were almost entirely decomposed, and crumbled when handled.

A complete exploration of this mound, the dimensions of which are not given, would possibly have shown that the skeletons were arranged somewhat in a circle. The doctor does not state whether there was a pit.

Fig. 35.—Section of mound, Henderson County, North Carolina.

Some mounds in Henderson County, opened in 1884 by Mr. J. W. Emmert, who was temporarily employed by the Bureau, present some peculiarities worthy of notice. One of these, situated on the farm of Mrs. Rebecca Conner, and perfectly circular, was found to be 44 feet in diameter and 6 feet high; a number of small trees were growing on it. The annexed cut (Fig. 35) shows a vertical section of it, the dark central triangle representing a conical mass of charcoal and ashes. The conical mass measured 16 feet in diameter at the base and 5 feet high, the top reaching within 1 foot of the top of the mound. The outer portion consisted of charcoal, evidently the remains of pine poles, which had been placed in several layers, sloping toward the apex. The inner portion consisted of ashes and coals mixed with earth, in which were found some burnt human (?) bones, and some accompanying articles, among which were two stones with holes drilled through them. The fragments of bones and the specimens were at the base, in the center.

A mound on the farm of Mr. J. B. Alexander, 2 miles above the one just described, was examined by Mr. Emmert, and found to cover a pit similar to those explored in Caldwell County.

This mound was situated on an elevated level, about a quarter of a mile from the creek, in an old field which had been plowed over for sixty years. It was 2 feet high when he explored it, but the old people stated to him that it was formerly 10 feet high, and had a "tail" or ridge running away from it 200 feet long; but the only indication of this that Mr. Emmert could see was a strip of clay running off where it was stated to have been. It runs in the direction of the creek bottom, where any quantity of broken pottery may be picked up. The mound, which was 30 feet in diameter and composed wholly of red clay, was entirely removed to the original surface of the ground. Nothing was found in it, but after reaching the surface he discovered a circular pit 12 feet in diameter, which had been dug to the depth of 4 feet in the solid red clay. This he found to be filled full of ashes and charcoal, but failed to find any bones or specimens in it.

Although Mr. Emmert failed to find any evidence that this was a burial mound, its similarity with those of Caldwell County will, I think, justify us in concluding it was constructed for this purpose.

Fig. 36.—Section of mound, Henderson County, North Carolina.

Another mound on the same farm as the one last mentioned, a cross-section of which is shown in Fig. 36, is of the common type, examples of which are found in most of the districts: diameter 52 feet and height 9 feet; the upper layer, No. 1, red clay, about 4 feet thick, No. 2, a thin layer of charcoal, about 3 inches thick; the lower stratum or central core, No. 3, dark-colored earth. In this lower layer were found five skeletons, on the natural surface and at the points indicated by the dots, which crumbled to pieces as soon as exposed to the air. With one were sixteen large, rudely made, white flint arrow-heads, so nearly alike as to make it apparent they were the work of one individual, and with another a small pipe and some arrow-heads.

Passing westward over the mountains into East Tennessee, we find some variations in the modes of burial, but not so widely different from those east of the range as to justify the belief that the authors of the works of the two localities were different peoples or belonged to different tribes.

A burial mound opened by Mr. Emmert in the valley of the Holston, Sullivan County, described by him as mound No. 1, on the north side of the river, was found to be 22 feet in diameter and 4 feet high. It was composed of red clay and sand. Digging down to the level of the surrounding ground, there was found a pile of rock in the center, which proved to be a burial vault built of water-worn bowlders, over a sitting skeleton. It was 3½ feet in diameter at the base and 3 feet high. On the head of the skeleton was a slender, square copper spindle about 11 inches long and a quarter of an inch thick in the middle. It has evidently been hammered out with a stone hammer. Under the lower jaw were two small copper drills or awls, with portions of the deer-horn handles still attached. About the shoulders, one on each side, were two polished stones, with holes in them. Near the head was a small pile of flint chips, and at the knees a flint scalping knife. The bones were so badly decayed that but few of them could be secured.

Mound No. 2 was on the south side of the river, opposite No. 1 and about the same distance from the river. It was 38 feet in diameter and 5 feet high, and on the top was a pine stump 14 inches in diameter.

Mr. Emmert, in opening it, commenced at the edge to cut a ditch 4 feet wide through it, but soon reached a wall 3 feet high, built of "river rock." He then worked around this, finding it to be an almost perfect circle, 14 feet in diameter, inside of which were found, on throwing out the dirt, twelve stone graves or vaults, built of the same kind of stones, each containing a sitting skeleton, as shown in Fig. 37. One of these graves or vaults was exactly in the center, the other eleven being placed in a circle around it, and about equally spaced, as shown in the diagram.

Fig. 37.—Mound on Holston River, Sullivan County, Tennessee.

Fig. 38.—Pipe from mound, Sullivan County, Tennessee.

In the center grave he found shell beads around the neck of the skeleton, and near the mouth the pipe shown in Fig. 38.

The bottom of the area within the circular wall was covered to the depth of about 3 inches with charcoal, and the graves were built on this layer. Both of these mounds were on the bench or upper bottom, and about three-fourths of a mile from the river.

Mr. Emmert says he learned that there was a tradition of the neighborhood that the Indians once fought a great battle at this place, and that one party buried some of their dead in mound No. 2, and the other party buried their dead on the opposite side of the river, where there is a large pile or mound of "river rock."

He opened one of the rock mounds occurring in this region half a mile from the river and near the foot of the mountain. A large tree had grown up through it, the stump of which was yet standing, or the mound had been built around it. After removing the rock and digging up the stump, he found, at the depth of 4 feet and directly under the stump, two stone axes, a large number of arrow-heads, two polished celts, and some pieces of mica.

Another mound on the Holston River, 2 miles above the two heretofore described, was examined. This was 60 feet in diameter and 4½ feet high. The original surface of the earth had been first covered over about 3 inches thick with charcoal, then the bodies or skeletons laid on it, and each walled up separately with river rock. These were then covered with black earth, over which was cast a layer of sand about the same thickness, the remainder being top soil.

Mr. Emmert, who opened this, commenced cutting a ditch 4 feet wide, proceeding until he struck the bed of charcoal; then followed around the outer edge of it, finally removing all the dirt inside the circle. One side of the circle had six skeletons in it, all walled up, as before stated, separately, but so thoroughly decayed that only one skull could be saved.

The other side of the mound had nothing in it except a fine pipe which he found on the bed of coals, some 10 or 12 feet from the nearest skeleton; some beautiful arrow-heads, shell beads, a polished celt, and two small stones with holes in them were also discovered.

In addition to the foregoing descriptions from the reports of my assistants, I present the following, from accounts of earlier explorations in this region:

A burial mound situated on the left bank of the Tennessee River, about 1 mile from Chattanooga, was opened by Mr. M. O. Read in 1865. This was oval in form and flat on top, the diameters of the base 158 and 120 feet, and those of the top 82 and 44 feet; height, 19 feet. Mr. Read says:[40]

For the purpose of examination, a tunnel was excavated into the mound from the east, a little one side of the center and on a level with the natural surface of the ground. When the point directly under the outer edge of the top of the mound was reached, holes were found containing fragments of rotted wood showing that stakes or palisades had been erected here when the mound was commenced. The sound of the pick indicating a cavity or different material below, the excavation was carried downward about 2 feet, when two skeletons were uncovered, fragments of which preserved are marked No. 1. The bones were packed in a small space, as though the bodies were crowded down, without much regard to position of hands, into a pit not exceeding 3 feet in length. One of the skulls is of especial interest, as possibly indicating that the remains are those of victims immolated in some sacrificial or burial rites. The side was crushed in, as if with a club. I have connected together the pieces of the upper jaw so that they retain the position in which they were found, a position which cannot with probability be supposed to be the result of the settling of the earth around it, if unbroken when buried. The bones of the bodies, although so friable that they could not be preserved, were entire, in positions indicating that the bodies had not been dismembered and forbidding the supposition that they were the remains of a cannibal feast.

The excavation was carried forward as indicated on the plat and on a level with the location of the skeletons first found. It became evident at once that the material of which the mound was constructed was taken from the immediate neighborhood, it being composed of the same alluvial soil, full of the shells found on the surface, but in a much better state of preservation; but no arrow-heads, chippings of flints, or fragments of pottery now covering the surface were found. These would have been abundant if the mound had been erected subsequent to the manufacture of the pottery and arrow-heads at that place. Single fragments of pottery were found, but these were painted and of much better quality than those found on the surface.

The mound was composed of alternate layers of earth and ashes, showing that a surface of the size of the top, when finished, was kept substantially level, and raised only 2 to 3 feet at a time, when fires were kindled, which must have been large or continued for a long time, as the amount of the ashes and charcoal abundantly indicates.

Near the center of the mound rows of stake-holes were found, as far as followed, marking two sides of a rectangular parallelogram, which continued would have formed an enclosure around the center. In some of these were the remains of the wood and bark, not enough to show the marks of tools, if any had been used. They penetrated the natural surface of the ground to the depth of about 2 feet.

Here and at about the same level as at No. 1 were found the skeletons of which the skull bones and other parts are marked No. 2. They were apparently the remains of a youngish woman and two children, all so far decomposed that only the parts sent could be preserved. The larger skeleton was in such a position as a person would take on kneeling down, then sitting upon the feet; the hands were brought to the head and the body doubled down upon the knees. The head was toward the south. The remains of the children were found at the right side of this body, the bones mingled together.

About 2 feet directly under these the skeleton of which the skull is marked No. 3 was found, in a similar position, it is said (I was not present when it was taken out), with the one above it.

I attempt no description and indulge in no speculations in regard to these remains, as I have decided to forward them to you for the examination of those who can compare them with other skulls and are better qualified to make a proper use of them. They are unquestionably of the age of the mound-builders.

We are reminded, by the remains of upright timbers found here, of the wooden vaults of the Grave Creek and other mounds of West Virginia, but in the form of the mound we have an indication that it belongs to the southern class of ancient works.

Rev. E. O. Dunning mentions[41] a stone-grave mound which he examined in the valley of the Little Tennessee. Speaking of this mound he remarks:

I did not expect to find rock graves in a mound of earth, but after clearing away rubbish and penetrating 6 feet below the top, near the center the workman struck a slab of slate, which proved to be part of the covering of a stone tomb. It was much like those scattered over the "river bottom"—more nicely constructed, however, and fitted with more care, being arched over the top, at an acute angle, with pieces of slate 3 inches thick. Owing to its situation, raised above the level of the river and covered with sand to the depth of 6 feet, its contents were better preserved than those of the graves just mentioned. At the head of it I took out a vessel of fine red clay and pulverized mussel shells a foot in diameter, gourd-shaped, and having a handle and spout 6 inches long, and holding about a quart. It was preserved nearly whole. Artificial fire had been kindled in the tomb, but it had been smothered by the throwing in of sand before all the contents were consumed. Besides some entire bones of the human skeleton, flint arrow-heads and a large number of flint and stone beads were removed. The beads could be traced along the lines of the legs and arms, as if they had been attached to the garment in which the dead was buried. Further excavations disclosed two more of these stone sepulchers, the first 3 feet below the one described, the other 2 feet from it, in the same plane. They contained only fragments of bones, charcoal, and ashes.

The mound, which was conical in shape, must have been 15 feet high and 50 feet in diameter. Successive floods had impaired its original dimensions. The last carried away a section on the west side, exposing a tomb and some valuable relics, which have not been preserved. Among them were large shells, pyrulas, probably, judging from the description, from the Gulf of Mexico. In connection with marine shells, images in stone were found in this tomb. The mound was composed of sand-loam taken from the bank of the river, and raised upon a foundation of water-washed rocks 4 feet high, from the bed of the stream hard by. There had been extensive burnings throughout this mound, at various depths, indicated by layers of charcoal, ashes, and burned clay, simply in honor of the dead, or to consume their effects or mortal parts, or for human sacrifices to their manes.

Speaking of stone graves in the immediate vicinity as explanatory of those in the mound, he says:

They are built of slabs of slate, nicely fitted together, about 3 inches thick, 4 feet long, and 2 broad, enclosing receptacles not of uniform space, generally 5 feet long, 4 feet high, and 2 broad, covered with flat pieces, resting upon the upright slabs and conforming to the rounded corners of the tomb.

As one of the principal objects in view in exploring and studying the mounds of our country is to ascertain, if possible, by what people or tribes they were built, a brief discussion of the question so far as it relates to the district now under consideration will be in place. My reasons for touching upon the topic in this connection, and limiting the discussion to the antiquities of the one district, are as follows:

First. The characteristics of the works of this section are so well marked as to leave little, if any, doubt on the mind of any one who will study them carefully that they are work of one people, probably of a single tribe.

Second. Because in this instance I think the evidence points with at least reasonable certainty to the particular tribe by which they were erected.

Third. Whether our second reason prove to be correct or not, we find data here which appear to form connecting links between the prehistoric and the historic times, and hence call for some discussion in regard to the authors.

Fourth. The statement of the result of our explorations of these works (especially the burial mounds) will, as I conceive, be incomplete without some intimation of the bearing they have had on my own mind in reference to their authorship. This it is true will apply with equal force to the works of other districts. I have already briefly stated my conclusions in this respect regarding the antiquities of Wisconsin, but have refrained from entering at length upon the question as to the Ohio and West Virginia works, as I confess and have already intimated that these present more difficulties in the way of explanation than most of the other sections.

It may be thought premature to speculate in this direction, and some of our ablest scientific journals appear to deprecate any such attempts until more data have been obtained and the materials already collected are more thoroughly digested. I admit that, as a very general and almost universal rule, such a course is the proper one in respect to scientific investigations, but must dissent from its application in this instance, for the following reasons:

The thought that a mighty nation once occupied the great valley of the Mississippi, with its frontier settlements resting on the lake shores and Gulf coasts, nestling in the valleys of the Appalachian Range and skirting the broad plains of the West, a nation with its systems of government and religion, its chief ruler, its great central city, and all the necessary accompaniments, but which has disappeared before the inroads of savage hordes, leaving behind it no evidences of its existence, its glory, power, and extent save these silent forest-covered remains, has something so fascinating and attractive in it, that when once it has taken possession of the mind, it warps and biases all its conclusions.[42]

So strong, in fact, is the hold which this theory (in the broad sense, including also the Toltec and Aztec theories) has taken of the minds of both American and European archæologists, that it not only biases their conclusions, but also molds and modifies their nomenclature, and is thrust into their speculations and even into their descriptions as though no longer a simple theory but a conceded fact. Hence it is necessary, before a fair and unbiased discussion of the data can be had, to call attention to the fact that there is another side to the question.

Unless some protest is presented or some expression of opinion is made on this point in my paper, the facts I give will be viewed through the medium of this "lost race" theory. This I desire, if possible, to prevent, and whether the "Indian theory" proves to be correct or not, I wish to obtain for it at least a fair consideration. I believe the latter theory to be the correct one, as the facts so far ascertained appear to point in that direction, but I am not wedded to it; on the contrary, I am willing to follow the facts wherever they lead.

Although additional data will hereafter be obtained and many new and important facts be brought to light, yet, as I believe, sufficient evidence has been collected (though much of it remains unpublished) to indicate what will be the final result so far as this general question is concerned.

We see that already the theory that these remains scattered over the face of our country from Dakota to Florida and from New York to Louisiana were the work of one people, one great nation, is fast breaking down before the evidence that is being produced.

The following quotation from the last report of the Peabody Museum, which is repeated in substance in Science, June 27, 1884, p. 775, will serve not only to indicate the conflict which is going on in the minds of some of our most active and progressive archæologists on this subject, but also to show the difficulty of finding applicable and well-defined terms, and of clearly stating the real question at issue:

The different periods to which the various mounds and burial places belong can only be made out by such a series of explorations as the museum is now conducting in the Little Miami Valley, and when they are completed we shall be better able to answer the question, "Who were the mound-builders?" than we are now. That more than one of the several American stocks or nations or groups of tribes built mounds seems to me to be established. What their connections were is not yet by any means made clear, and to say that they all must have been one and the same people seems to be making a statement directly contrary to the facts, which are yearly increasing as the spade and pick in careful hands bring them to light. That many Indian tribes built mounds and earthworks is beyond doubt, but that all the mounds and earthworks of North America were made by these same tribes or their immediate ancestors is not thereby proved.

Mr. Carr, in his recent paper published by the Kentucky Geological Survey, has taken up the historical side of the question, but it must not be received for more than he intended. He only shows from historical data what the spade and pick have disclosed to the archæologist. It is simply one side of the shield; the other is still waiting to be turned to the light; and as history will not help us to read the reverse, only patient and careful exploration will bring out its meaning.[43]

This, it is true, is but an incidental paragraph thrown into a report of the work of the museum, but I have selected it as the latest expression on this subject by one of our most active and practical American archæologists, and because it will furnish a basis for the remarks I desire to make on this subject.

In order that the reader may clearly understand the particular points to which I shall call attention, I will introduce here a brief review of the leading opinions so far presented regarding the authorship of these ancient works.

It was not until about the close of the eighteenth century that the scientific men of the Eastern States became fully impressed with the fact that remarkable antiquities were to be found in our country.

About this time President Stiles, of New Haven, Dr. Franklin, Dr. Barton, and a few other leading minds of that day, becoming thoroughly convinced of the existence of these antiquities, and having received descriptions of a number of them, began to advance theories as to their origin. William Bartram had come to the conclusion, from personal observation and from the statement of the Indians that "they knew nothing of their origin," that they belonged to the most distant antiquity.

Dr. Franklin, in reply to the inquiry of President Stiles, suggested that the works in Ohio might have been constructed by De Soto in his wanderings. This suggestion was followed up by Noah Webster with an attempt to sustain it,[44] but he afterwards abandoned this position and attributed these works to Indians.

Captain Heart, in reply to the inquiries addressed to him by Dr. Barton, gives his opinion that the works could not have been constructed by De Soto and his followers, but belonged to an age preceding the discovery of America by Columbus; that they were not due to the Indians or their predecessors, but to a people not altogether in an uncultivated state, as they must have been under the subordination of law and a well-governed police.[45]

This is probably the first clear and distinct expression of a view which has subsequently obtained the assent of so many of the leading writers on American archæology.

About the commencement of the nineteenth century two new and important characters appear on the stage of American archæology. These are Bishop Madison, of Virginia, and Rev. Thaddeus M. Harris, of Massachusetts.

Dr. Haven, to whose work we are indebted for reference to several of the facts above stated, remarks:

These two gentlemen are among the first who, uniting opportunities of personal observation to the advantages of scientific culture, imparted to the public their impressions of western antiquities. They represent the two classes of observers whose opposite views still divide the sentiment of the country; one class seeing no evidence of art beyond what might be expected of existing tribes, with the simple difference of a more numerous population, and consequently better defined and more permanent habitations; the other finding proofs of skill and refinement, to be explained, as they believe, only on the supposition that a superior race, or more probably a people of foreign and higher civilization, once occupied the soil.[46]

Bishop Madison was the representative of the first class. Dr. Harris represented that section of the second class maintaining the opinion that the mound-builders were Toltecs, who after leaving this region moved south into Mexico.

As we find the principal theories which are held at the present day on this subject substantially set forth in these authorities, it is unnecessary to follow up the history of the controversy except so far as is required to notice the various modifications of the two leading opinions.

Those holding the opinion that the Indians were not the authors of these works, although agreeing as to this point and hence included in one class, differ widely among themselves as to the people to whom they are to be ascribed, one section, of which, as we have seen, Dr. Harris may be considered the pioneer, holding that they were built by the Toltecs, who, as they supposed, occupied the Mississippi Valley previous to their appearance in the vale of Anahuac.

Among the more recent advocates of this theory are Mr. John T. Short, author of "The North Americans of Antiquity;"[47] Dr. Dawson, in his "Fossil Man," who accepts the tradition respecting the Tallegwi, but identifies them with the Toltecs; Rev. J. P. MacLean, author of the "Mound Builders" and Dr. Joseph Jones, in his "Antiquities of Tennessee."

Wilson, in his "Prehistoric Man,"[48] modifies this view somewhat, looking to the region south of Mexico for the original home of the Toltecs, and deriving the Aztecs from the mound-builders.

Another section of this class includes those who, although rejecting the idea of an Indian origin, are satisfied with simply designating the authors of these works a "lost race," without following the inquiry into the more uncertain field of racial, national, or ethnical relations. To this type belong a large portion of the recent authors of short articles and brief reports on American archæology, and quite a number of diligent workers in this field whose names are not before the world as authors.

Baldwin believes that the mound-builders were Toltecs, but thinks they came originally from Mexico or farther south, and, occupying the Ohio Valley and the Gulf States, probably for centuries, were at the last driven southward by an influx of barbarous hordes from the more northern regions, and appeared again in Mexico.[49] Bradford, thirty years previous to this, had suggested Mexico as their original home.[50] Lewis H. Morgan, on the other hand, supposes that the authors of these remains came from the Pueblo tribes of New Mexico. Dr. Foster[51] agrees substantially with Baldwin. We might include in this class a number of extravagant hypotheses, such as those held by Haywood, Rafinesque, and others among the older, as well as by a few of the more recent authors.

The opposite class, holding that the mound-builders were the ancestors of some one or more of the modern tribes of Indians, or of those found inhabiting the country at the time of its discovery, numbers comparatively few leading authorities among its advocates; in other words, the followers of Bishop Madison are far less numerous than the followers of Dr. Harris. The differences between the advocates of this view are of minor importance, and only appear when the investigation is carried one step further back and the attempt is made to designate the particular tribe, nation, people, or ethnic family to which they appertained.

The traditions of the Delawares, as given by Heckewelder, in his "History of the Indian Nations," having brought upon the stage the Tallegwi, they are made to play a most important part in the speculations of those inclined to the theory of an Indian origin. As this tradition agrees very well with a number of facts brought to light by antiquarian and philological researches, it has had considerable influence in shaping the conclusions even of those who are not professed believers in it.

One of the ablest early advocates of the Indian origin of these works was Dr. McCulloch; and his conclusions, based as they were on the comparatively slender data then obtainable, are remarkable not only for the clearness with which they are stated and the distinctness with which they are defined, but as being more in accordance with all the facts ascertained than perhaps those of any contemporary.

Samuel G. Drake, Schoolcraft, and Sir John Lubbock were also disposed to ascribe these ancient works to the Indians. But the most recent advocate of this view is Prof. Lucien Carr, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, who has presented, in a recent paper entitled "The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley historically considered" (contained in the Memoirs of the Kentucky Geological Survey), a very strong array of historical evidence going to show not only that the Indian tribes at the time of the discovery were capable of producing these works, but also that several of the tribes were in the habit of erecting mounds.

But it is proper that we should mention an article by Dr. D. G. Brinton in the October number, 1881, of the American Antiquarian, bearing upon the same subject, in which considerable historical evidence tending to the same conclusion is given. These two papers may justly be considered the commencement of a rediscussion of this question, in which the Indians, after a long exclusion, will be readmitted as a possible factor in the problem.

The reader will observe from the foregoing brief review that the opinions regarding the authors of the mounds—or, as Dr. Brinton expresses it, "the nationality of the mound-builders"—as heretofore given to the world, may be divided into two classes—those holding that the builders were "Indians," and those holding that they were not "Indians." But the paragraph we have quoted from the Report of the Peabody Museum introduces other considerations, which render it necessary not only to define the terms used but to restate the question at issue in a more exact and definite form.

What mounds? What earth works? The authority quoted remarks, "That many Indian tribes built mounds and earthworks is beyond doubt, but that all the mounds and earthworks of North America were made by these same tribes or their immediate ancestors is not thereby proved."

That the term "mound-builders" is as applicable to the people who constructed the mounds of Siberia, Japan, or elsewhere as those who built the tumuli of the Mississippi Valley must be admitted, but the term, when used in this country with reference to the mounds of this country, has, as is well known, been generally understood to include only those found in that part of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains unless otherwise stated; and Mr. Carr's paper, to which allusion is made in the next sentence of the quotation, is expressly limited to the "mounds of the Mississippi Valley." North America is therefore a broader field than is generally understood by those who enter upon the discussion, and I may add that "these same tribes," unless with explicit definition, is a limitation claimed by no one.

The term "Indian" is so indefinite and so variously applied that more or less uncertainty must ensue unless the writer discussing this question makes clear the sense in which he uses it. It was probably an appreciation of this fact that caused the author of the report referred to to make use of the terms "American stocks," "nations," and "groups of tribes." We can fully appreciate the difficulty he and all others writing upon this subject experience from the want of an adequate and definite nomenclature that is applicable. But his expansions in one direction and limitations in another, in the paragraph quoted, as it seems to me, have left the statement of the question in worse confusion than it was before.

In what sense does he use the terms "Indians," "Indian tribes," "American stocks," and "groups of tribes"? Are the cultured Central American and Mexican nations and the Pueblo tribes to be included or excluded? Professor Carr evidently proceeds upon the idea that they are to be excluded, and that the mounds and other ancient works of the Mississippi Valley are to be attributed to one or more of the American stocks found in possession of this region at the time of its discovery by Europeans.

This I believe to be the correct view, except in this: Professor Carr fails to clear his work of the idea of one people, one stock, when the evidence is conclusive that the mound-builders were divided into tribes and stocks, as were the Indians when first encountered by the whites. Hence when I use the terms "Indians," "Indian tribes," and "American stocks" in this connection, they are to be understood as thus limited.

I do not claim that this use of these terms is correct, but it is not my intention at present to discuss the question "What is the proper use of the indefinite term Indian?" My only object in referring to it and the other equivalent terms is to explain the sense in which I use them in this connection, because I can find no better ones.

As thus limited the question for discussion maybe stated as follows:

Were all the mounds and other ancient works found in that part of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains (except such as are manifestly the work of Europeans of post-Columbian times) built by the Indians found in possession of this region at the time of its discovery and their ancestors, or are they in part to be attributed to other more civilized races or peoples, as the Aztecs, Toltecs, Pueblo tribes, or some lost race of which we possess no historical mention? I say in part, as it has long been conceded, that some of these works are to be attributed to the Indians.

If it can be shown that some of the mounds and other works of all the different types and classes found in the Mississippi Valley and Gulf States were built by Indians, or even that they were built by people in the same stage of culture and art and having the same customs and habits as the Indians of this region in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, we shall be justified in concluding that the rest are the work of the same race and of the same tribes, or those, closely allied in habits, customs, art, and culture. That here and there a single mound-building tribe may have become extinct or absorbed into other tribes in pre-Columbian times, as has been the fate of some since the discovery of the continent, does not alter the case, unless it be claimed that such tribes belonged to different "American stocks" and had reached a higher degree of culture than those found in this part of the continent at the time of the arrival of the Europeans.

No one believes that we will ever be able to ascertain the history of the construction of each mound and earthwork; the utmost to be hoped is that we may be able to determine with satisfactory certainty that such and such works were built by such and such tribes.

But one step in the investigation is to reach the general conclusion as to whether all classes of these remains in the region designated may justly be attributed to the Indians, or whether there are some types which must be ascribed to a different race, to a people that had attained a higher position in the scale of civilization than the Indians. This it is possible to accomplish, without being able to determine conclusively what tribe erected any particular work.

Nevertheless the conclusion will be strengthened by every proof that the works of certain sections are to be ascribed to certain tribes or stocks. It is for this reason that I propose to discuss somewhat briefly the question of the probable authorship of the works in the Appalachian district.