CHAPTER XIX.—CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS, … 301–306 #/

LIST OF PLATES.

TITLES Facing page

I. View of ancient works at Marietta, ---- II. Map of a section of 12 miles of Scioto valley, 3 III. Map of a section of 6 miles of Miami valley, 4 No. 2. Map of 6 miles of Paint creek valley, 4 IV. Stone work near Bourneville, Ross co., Ohio, 11 V. Fort Hill, Highland county, Ohio, 14 VI. Fortified Hill, Butler county, Ohio, 16 VII. Fort Ancient, Warren county, Ohio, 18 VIII. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 21 No. 2. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 22 No. 3. Ancient work near Piqua, Miami co., Ohio, 23 No. 4. Ancient work near Dayton, Montgomery county, Ohio, 23 IX. Fortified Hill near Granville, Licking co., Ohio, 24 No. 2. Fortified Hill at the mouth of Great Miami river, 25 No. 3. Ancient work near Lexington, Kentucky, 26 X. Ancient work, Ross county, Ohio, 26 XI. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 29 No. 2. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 29 No. 3. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 30 XII. Stone work on Duck river, Tennessee, 31 No. 2. Ancient work, Preble county, Ohio, 33 No. 3. Ancient work, Greene county, Ohio, 33 No. 4. Ancient work, Ross county, Ohio, 34 XIII. Ancient work, Bourbon county, Kentucky, 35 No. 2. Colerain works, Butler county, Ohio, 35 XIV. Ancient work, Pickaway county, Ohio, 36 No. 2. Ancient Work, Franklin county, Ohio, 36 No. 3. Ancient work, Fayette county, Kentucky, 36 No. 4. Ancient work, Fayette county, Kentucky, 36 XV. Ancient work, Huron county, Ohio, 37 No. 2. Ancient work, Ashtabula county, Ohio, 38 No. 3. Ancient work, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 38 No. 4. Ancient work, Lorain county, Ohio, 39 No. 5. Ancient work, Lorain county, Ohio, 39 No. 6. Ancient work, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 40 No. 7. Ancient work Cuyahoga county Ohio 40 No. 8. Ancient work Wood county Ohio 40 XVI. High Bank works Ross county Ohio 50 XVII. Hopeton works Ross county Ohio 51 XVIII. Cedar Bank works Ross county Ohio 52 XIX. Mound City Ross county Ohio 54 XX. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 56 XXI. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 57 No. 2. Ancient work Ross county, Ohio 57 No. 3. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 58 No. 4. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 59 XXII. Junction Group Ross county Ohio 60 No. 2. Blackwater Group Ross county, Ohio 61 XXIII. Dunlap’s works Ross county Ohio 63 No. 2. Ancient work Athens county Ohio 64 XXIV. Ancient work Pike county Ohio 66 XXV. Newark works Licking county Ohio, 67 XXVI. Marietta works Washington county Ohio 73 XXVII. Portsmouth works, Scioto county Ohio 77 XXVIII. Portsmouth works Group A 78 No. 2. Portsmouth works Group B 80 No. 3. Portsmouth works Group C 81 XXIX. Ancient works Montgomery county, Ohio 82 No. 2. Ancient works, Scioto county, Ohio, 83 No. 3. Ancient works Franklin county, Ohio, 84 XXX. Ancient works, Butler county Ohio 85 No. 2. Ancient works Butler county Ohio 85 No. 3. Ancient works Ross county Ohio 86 No. 4. Stone work Ross county, Ohio 87 XXXI. Graded way, Pike county, Ohio, 88 No. 2. Ancient work, Butler county, Ohio, 90 No. 3. Ancient work Butler county Ohio 90 No. 4. Ancient work Butler county Ohio, 90 XXXII. Ancient work, Butler county Ohio 91 No. 2. Ancient work Washington county Ohio 92 No. 3. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 92 No. 4. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 92 No. 5. Ancient work Ross county Ohio 92 No. 6. Ancient work Montgomery co Kentucky, 93 XXXIII. Ancient work Montgomery co Kentucky, 93 No. 2. Ancient work Randolph county, Indiana 94 XXXIV. Ancient work, Clermont county, Ohio, 94 No. 2. Ancient work Clermont county, Ohio 95 No. 3. Ancient work, Greene county Ohio 95 No. 4. Ancient work Greene county, Ohio 95 XXXV. Great Serpent, Adams county Ohio 96 XXXVI. The Cross Pickaway county, Ohio 97 No. 2. The Alligator, Licking county Ohio 98 No. 3. Ancient work, Fairfield county Ohio 100 No. 4. Map of section of Newark valley, 101 XXXVII. Ancient work Wateree District S. C. 105 XXXVIII. Ancient works on Etowah river, Alabama 108 ---- Ancient works on Tennessee river, Alabama 109 No. 2. Ancient works, Chickasaw surveys, Miss. 110 No. 3. Ancient works, Lafayette county, Miss. 111 No. 4. Ancient works, Prairie Jefferson, Louisiana. 113 XXXIX. Ancient work, Madison parish, Louisiana. 115 Ancient work, Bolivar county, Mississippi. 116 XL. Ancient works, Dade county, Wisconsin. 126 XLI. Ancient works, Dade county, Wisconsin. 127 No. 2. Ancient works, Dade county, Wisconsin. 127 XLII. Ancient works, Dade county, Wisconsin. 128 No. 2. Ancient works, Richland county, Wisconsin. 128 XLIII. Ancient works, Grant county, Wisconsin. 129 Nos. 2 to 13, various localities. 130 XLIV. Ancient work on Rock river, Wisconsin. 131 Nos. 2 to 8, various localities. 132 XLV. View of great mound at Marietta. 138 XLVI. Pottery from the mounds. 139 XLVII. Crania from the mounds. 288 XLVIII. Crania from the mounds. 288

LITHOGRAPHERS.—Sarony & Major, 117 Fulton street, New York.

WOOD ENGRAVERS.—Orr & Richardson, 90 Fulton street, New York.

PRINTER.—Edward O. Jenkins, 114 Nassau street, New York.

PLATES SUPPLEMENTAL DATA.

“Date of survey.” Surveyors Delineators.

I. ---- Charles Sullivan, II. 1847 E. G. Squier, III. 1840 James McBride, No. 2. 1847 E. G. Squier, IV. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis. E. G. Squier, V. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis. E. G. Squier, VI. 1836 James McBride. James McBride. VII. 1842 John Locke, M.D. John Locke. VIII. 1840 James McBride and J. W. Erwin, James McBride, No. 2. 1840 James McBride J. W. Erwin, James McBride, No. 3. 1846 James McBride, James McBride, No. 4. 1846 James McBride and Sam. Forrer, James McBride, IX. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, E. G. Squier. No. 2. ---- No. 3. 1818 C. S. Rafinesque, C. S. Rafinesque. X. 1845 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, E. G. Squier, XI. 1836 James McBride and J. W. Erwin, J. W. Erwin, No. 2. 1832 James McBride, James McBride. No. 3. 1840 James McBride and J. W. Erwin, James McBride, XII. ---- C. S. Rafinesque, C. S. Rafinesque, No. 2. 1846 James McBride. James McBride, No. 3. 1846 S. T. Oweins and L. K. Dille, S. T. Oweins, No. 4. 1846 P. N. White, P. N. White, XIII. 1820 C. S. Rafinesque, C. S. Rafinesque, No. 2. 1836 James McBride and J. W. Erwin, James McBride, XIV. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey, No. 2. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey, No. 3. 1820 C. S. Rafinesque. C. S. Rafinesque, No. 4. 1820 C. S. Rafinesque. C. S. Rafinesque. XV. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey, No. 2. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey, No. 3. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey, No. 4. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey, No. 5. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey, No. 6. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey, No. 7. ---- Charles Whittlesey Charles Whittlesey No. 8. ---- Charles Whittlesey Charles Whittlesey XVI. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier XVII. 1845 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier XVIII. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier XIX. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier XX. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier XXI. 1847 E. G. Squier E. G. Squier No. 2. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier No. 3. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier No. 4. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier XXII. 1845 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier No. 2. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier XXIII. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier No. 2. 1836 S. P. Hildreth S. P. Hildreth, XXIV. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier, XXV. 1836 C Whittlesey E. G. S. and E. H. D. XXVI. 1837 C Whittlesey and E. G. Squier Charles Whittlesey, XXVII. 1847 E. G. Squier, XXVIII. 1846 E. G. Squier and D Morton E. G. Squier, No. 2. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, E. G. Squier, No. 3. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, E. G. Squier, XXIX. ---- James McBride James McBride, No. 2. ---- Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey, No. 3. 1823 Charles Whittlesey, Charles Whittlesey, XXX. 1840 James McBride, James McBride, No. 2. 1847 James McBride and J. W. Erwin, James McBride, No. 3. 1845 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier, No. 4. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier, XXXI. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier, No. 2. ---- James McBride and J. W. Erwin J. W. Erwin No. 3. ---- James McBride and J. W. Erwin J. W. Erwin No. 4. 1842 James McBride and J. W. Erwin James McBride XXXII. ---- James McBride and J. W. Erwin James McBride No. 2. 1846 No. 3. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier, No. 4. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier, No. 5. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier, No. 6. 1818 C. S. Rafinesque C. S. Rafinesque, XXXIII. 1818 C. S. Rafinesque C. S. Rafinesque, No. 2. 1847 James McBride, James McBride, XXXIV. 1847 E. H. Davis, E. H. Davis, No. 2. ---- Gen Lytle, Gen Lytle, No. 3. 1846 S. Kyle and L. K. Dillo No. 4. 1846 S. Kyle and L. K. Dillo XXXV. 1846 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier XXXVI. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier No. 2. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier No. 3. 1847 E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis E. G. Squier No. 4. 1847 E. G. Squier XXXVII. ---- William Blanding William Blanding XXXVIII. ---- C. S. Rafinesque. C. S. Rafinesque. ---- ---- No. 2. 1846 R. Morris. R. Morris. No. 3. 1846 R. Morris. R. Morris. No. 4. ---- C. G. Forshey. C. G. Forshey. XXXIX. ---- James Hough. James Hough. ---- James Hough. James Hough. XL. ---- R. C. Taylor. R. C. Taylor. XLI. ---- R. C. Taylor and John Locke. No. 2. ---- John Locke. John Locke. XLII. ---- John Locke. John Locke. No. 2. ---- S. Taylor. S. Taylor. XLIII. ---- S. Taylor. S. Taylor. ---- S. Taylor. S. Taylor. XLIV. ---- ---- S. Taylor. S. Taylor. XLV. 1847 C. Sullivan. XLVI. ---- E. G. Squier. XLVII. ---- J. French. XLVIII. ---- J. French.

LIST OF WOOD ENGRAVINGS.

FIG. PAGE.

1. View of Great Mound at Miamisburgh, Ohio, 3 2. Section, exhibiting Septaria, 13 3. Group of Mounds within an enclosure, 27 4. Plan of Ancient Work, Lorain county, Ohio, 39 5. Plan of Ancient Work, Lorain county, Ohio, 39 6. Plan of Ancient Work, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 40 7. Plan of Ancient Work, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, 40 8. Plan of Ancient Work, Wood county, Ohio, 40 9. Circle and truncated Pyramid, 53 10. Plan of Ancient Work, at Circleville, Ohio, 60 11. Plan of Sacred Enclosure, Pike county, Ohio, 66 12. Bird-shaped Mound, Newark, Ohio, 68 13. View of Gateway of Octagon, Newark, Ohio, 69 14. Truncated Mound covering gateway, 69 15. Crown-work of Circle, 69 16. View of “Observatory” at Newark, 70 17. “Elevated Squares” at Marietta, Ohio, 74 18. Plan of Ancient Work, Parkersburgh, Virginia, 77 19. Circle and Mound, Greenup county, Kentucky, 82 20. Graded Way, Piketon, Ohio, 88 21. Plan of Ancient Work in Alabama, 109 22. Plan of Ancient Work in Bolivar county, Mississippi, 116 23. Public Square of the Muscogulges, 121 24. Mound at Mount Royal, Florida, 122 25. Plan of Mound and Parallels, 122 26. Plan of Works in Wisconsin, 133 27. Group illustrating the forms of the Mounds, 139 28. Hill Mounds, 141 29. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 144 30. Structure of Mounds, 144 31. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 147 32. Plan of Altar, 147 33. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 148 34. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 149 35. Section of Altar, 150 36. Section of Altar, 150 37. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 152 38. Plan of Altar, 152 39. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 153 40. Position of recent deposits, 153 41. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 154 42. Plan of Excavation, etc. 154 43. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 155 44. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 156 45. Section of Sacrificial Mound, 156 46. Section of a Stratified Mound, 158 47. Section of a Mound, 159 48. View of Elliptical Mound, 160 49. Group of Sepulchral Mounds, 161 50. Section of Sepulchral Mound, 162 51. Plan of Sepulchral Chamber, 162 52. Section of Sepulchral Mound, 164 53. Position of Skeleton, 164 54. Section of Sepulchral Mound, 165 55. Section of Grave creek Mound, 169 56. View of Grave creek Mound, 169 57. Plans of groups of Mounds, 170 58. Mounds of Oregon, 171 59. Terraced Mound, 173 60. Plan of Cahokia Mound, 174 61. Lozenge-shaped Mound, 175 62. Section of a truncated Mound, 176 63. Plan of an Ancient octagonal Terrace, 176 64. Plan of an Ancient rectangular Terrace, 176 65. Plan of Temple Mound with graded ascent, 177 66. Group of Sepulchral Mounds, 177 67. Plan and Section of Anomalous Mound, 178 68. Ancient Pipe from the Mounds, 179 69. Section of Anomalous Mound, 180 70. Conical Mound, 185 71. Ancient Pottery, three figures, 191 72. Ancient Pottery, three figures, 192 73. Ancient Earthen Vessel, 192 74. Ancient Earthen Vessel, 192 75. Ancient Terra Cotta, 193 76. Terra Cotta from the Mounds, 194 77. Terra Cotta from the Mounds, 194 78. Terra Cotta from the Mounds, 194 79. Terra Cotta from the Mounds, 194 80. Terra Cotta from the Mounds, 194 81. Copper Axe from the Mounds, 197 82. Earthen Pipes, two figures, 197 83. Adjustment of Ancient Axes, 198 84. Copper Axe from the Mounds, 199 85. Copper Gravers from the Mounds, five figures, 200 86. Copper Spear-head and Knife, 201 87. Ancient Copper Implements, five figures, 201 88. Copper Bracelets from the Mounds, 204 89. Copper Gorgets from the Mounds, 205 90. Copper Ornament from the Mounds, 206 91. Copper Ornament from the Mounds, 206 92. Ancient Work-block of stone, 206 93. Copper Beads from the Mounds, 207 94. Copper Fibulæ from the Mounds, 207 95. Copper Bands, etc., 207 96. Silver Beads from the Mounds, 207 97. Silver Cross, 208 98. An article of Lead, 209 99. Flint Spear-heads, three figures, 211 100. Quartz Spear-head, 211 101. Ancient Mexican «mahquahuitl», 211 102. Sword of Pacific Islanders, 211 103. Arrow-heads, nine figures, 212 104. Hornstone Disks, three figures, 214 105. Flint Knives, three figures, 215 106. Hematite Cutting Implements, 215 107. Slate Cutting Implements, 216 108. Ancient Stone Axe, 216 109. Ancient Stone Axe, four figures, 217 110. Stone Axe from Mounds, 217 111. Stone Hand-axe, 218 112. Ancient Stone-axe, four figures, 218 113. Ancient Scandinavian Axes, two figures, 218 114. Ancient ornamented Axes, six figures, 218 115. Ancient ornamented Axe, 219 116. Ancient Club-head of Stone, 219 117. Ancient Club-head of Stone, 219 118. Pestles of Stone, two figures, 220 119. Implements of Bone, three figures. 220 120. Ancient Bone Awls, 220 121. Discoidal Stones, six figures, 221 122. Tubes of Stone, two figures, 224 123. Ornamented Stone Tube, 225 124. Stone Tube, 226 125. Stone Tubes, 227 126. Ancient Mound Pipe, 227 127. Granite Pipe, 228 128. Modern Indian Pipes, 230 129. Beads of Shell, 232 130. Beads of Shell, three figures, 233 131. Pendants, eight figures, 234 132. Pendants of Stone, 235 133. Stone Gorgets, two figures, 236 134. Stone Gorget, 237 135. Stone Gorget, 237 136. Stone Gorgets, seventeen figures, 237 137. Section of Gorget, 238 138. Stone Ornaments, 239 139. Prismatic Tube, 240 140. Articles of Stone, 240 141. Mica Ornaments, 240 142. Sculptured head from the Mounds, two views, 244 143. Sculptured head from the Mounds, two views, 244 144. Sculptured head from the Mounds, two views, 245 145. Sculptured head from the Mounds, two views, 245 146. Ancient Sculpture, 247 147. Sculptured Pipe, 247 148. Sculptured Pipe, 248 149. Sculptured Pipe, 249 150. Mask of Stone, 250 151. Mask of Stone, 251 152. Mask of Stone, 251 153. Sculpture of the Manitus, 251 154. Sculpture of the Manitus, 252 155. Sculpture of the Beaver, 256 156. Sculpture of the Otter, 256 157. Sculpture of the Otter, 256 158. Sculpture of the Panther, 256 159. Sculpture of the Panther, 256 160. Sculpture of the Panther, 256 161. Sculptured head of Elk, 257 162. Sculptured Head, 258 163. Sculptured Head, 258 164. Sculpture of tufted Heron, 259 165. Sculpture of Eagle, 259 166. Sculpture of Hawk, 261 167. Sculpture of Swallow, 261 168. Sculpture of Summer Duck, 261 169. Sculpture of Toucan? 261 170. Sculpture of Grouse, 261 171. Sculpture of Turkey Buzzard? 261 172. Sculpture of Paroquet, 263 173. Sculpture of Bird 263 174. Sculpture of Bird 263 175. Sculpture of Bird 263 176. Sculpture of Bird 263 177. Sculpture of Bird 264 178. Sculpture of Toucan, 266 179. Sculpture of unknown Bird, 267 180. Heads of Eagles, 267 181. Head of Raven? 267 182. Sculpture of unknown Bird, 267 183. Sculpture of Toad, 269 184. Sculpture of Toad, 269 185. Sculpture of Frog, 269 186. Sculpture of Rattlesnake, 269 187. Sculptured head of Goose, 269 188. Sculptured Death’s Head, 269 189. Sculptured Head of Bear? 271 190. Sculptured Head of Wolf? 271 191. Sculptured Head of unknown animal, 271 192. Sculptured Head of unknown animal, 271 193. Sculptured Head of unknown animal, 271 194. Front View of Tablet found at Cincinnati, 275 195. Reverse of same, 275 196. Carving of Rattlesnake, coiled, 276 197. Shark’s Teeth, fossil, 282 198. Marine Shell, pyrula perversa, 283 199. Section of Hill Mound, 289 200. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 294 201. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 295 202. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 295 203. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 296 204. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 296 205. Inscribed Rock on Guyandotte river, Va., 297 206. Inscribed Rock on Ohio river, 298 207. Site of Sculptured Rocks of the Guyandotte 299

PREFACE.

The fact of the existence, within the valley of the Mississippi river and its tributaries, of many ancient monuments of human labor and skill, seems to have escaped the notice of the adventurers who first made known to the world the extent and fertility of that vast region. Except some incidental allusions by La Vega, and the Portuguese chronicler of De Soto’s unfortunate expedition, to structures bearing some analogy to those of the West, (and which seem to have been occupied, if they were not built, by the Indians of Florida,) we find no mention made of these monuments by any of the earlier explorers. No sooner, however, had trade been opened with the Indians beyond the Alleghanies, and the valley of the Mississippi begun to attract the attention of the rival nations that laid claim to this division of the continent, than the less prominent features of the country became subjects of observation and remark. Then, for the first time, we find these ancient monuments distinctly alluded to. It was not however until some time afterwards, when settlements had been established at various prominent points within the valley, and the tide of emigration began to flow thitherward, that any special attention was directed to them. Carver in 1776, and Hearte and others in 1791, were among the earliest of these observers at the North. Their accounts, however, served scarcely to make known the existence of these remains, and failed to convey any clear idea of their extent or character. But as the country became better known and more densely populated, notices of their existence became more numerous, and some detailed accounts of particular groups were presented to the world, in the form of incidental notices in books of travel and local gazetteers, or in contributions to the pages of periodicals, and to the transactions of learned societies. HARRIS, in his “«Tour into the Territory north-west of the Ohio»,” published in 1805, noticed at considerable length the ancient remains at Marietta on the Ohio river; and H. H. BRACKENRIDGE, one of the most accurate of the early explorers of the West, in his “«Views of Louisiana»,” published in 1814, and in a paper in the first volume of the new series of the Transactions of the “American Philosophical Society,” presented accounts of ancient remains at various points, together with some general remarks upon our antiquities, distinguished for their comprehensiveness and sound philosophical spirit. Bishop MADISON of Virginia, in 1803, addressed to Dr. Barton, then Vice President of the American Philosophical Society, a communication of considerable length “upon the supposed fortifications of the western country,” which was published in the sixth volume of the old series of the Transactions of that institution. It contains some interesting facts relative to the ancient remains found within the valley of the great Kenhawa river, in Virginia, and is principally devoted to combating the popular notion that «all» the ancient earthworks were of defensive origin. BARTRAM, in his animated Journal of Travels in Florida, published in 1779, makes frequent mention of the ancient remains which fell under his notice. His accounts have been amply confirmed by later observations, and they may be regarded as presenting a very accurate view of their general character. Previous to Bartram’s expedition, Adair, in his “Account of the American Indians,” published in 1775, mentioned the existence of these remains, but gave no details respecting them.

In 1817, DE WITT CLINTON, whose active mind neglected no department of inquiry, read a paper before the “Literary and Philosophical Society of New York,” (an institution no longer existing,) upon the “Antiquities of the western part of New York,” which was subsequently published in a pamphlet form. It gave a connected view of these antiquities so far as then known, and indicated their character with such clearness, as to identify them at once as belonging to that imposing class of remains found in the valley of the Mississippi. MCCAULEY, in his “«History of New York»,” published at a later period, (1829,) added considerably to the number of facts presented by Mr. CLINTON.

Among the earliest and more important contributions to the general stock of information respecting the western monuments, is the chapter entitled “Antiquities,” contained in “«The Natural and Statistical View of Cincinnati and the Miami country»,” by DANIEL DRAKE, M.D., published in 1815. It not only embraces many facts, but is free from the tendency towards exaggeration which has been the prevailing fault of most that has been written upon the subject of American Antiquities. In connection with what was published by Mr. BRACKENRIDGE, and at a subsequent date by the late President HARRISON, (Address before the Historical Society of Ohio, 1832,) it presents a better view of the ancient remains of the region north of the Ohio, than can be obtained from any other source,—Mr. ATWATER’S Memoir, in the Transactions of the American Antiquarian Society, alone excepted.

It would be impossible, as it is unnecessary, particularly to point out all that has been published upon this subject, chiefly consisting, as it does, of detached and incidental observations. In addition to the several authorities above named, we may mention LEWIS and CLARKE, Major LONG, Dr. EDWIN JAMES, HENRY R. SCHOOLCRAFT, TIMOTHY FLINT, HUGH WILLIAMSON, Dr. BARTON, Rev. JOSEPH DODDRIDGE, President JEFFERSON, Dr. LEWIS C. BECK, Dr. S. P. HILDRETH, KEATING, HAYWOOD, HOWE, NUTTALL, LATROBE, ROCHEFAUCAULT, SHORT, COLLINS, DICKESON, BROWN, FEATHERSTONHAUGH, Professors GERARD TROOST, JOHN LOCKE, and C. G. FORSHEY, R. C. and S. TAYLOR, Prince MAXIMILIAN, Prof. RAFINESQUE, CHARLES WHITTLESEY, etc., etc., as among those who have contributed to the general stock of information upon this subject.

The first attempt towards a general account of the ancient monuments of the West, was made by Mr. CALEB ATWATER, who deserves the credit of being the pioneer in this department. His Memoir, constituting 150 octavo pages, was published in the first volume of the “Archæologia Americana,” in 1819. It contains plans and descriptions of a considerable number of ancient works,—embracing the imposing structures at Marietta, Newark, Portsmouth, Circleville, etc., etc.,—with accounts of a variety of ancient remains found in the mounds. It gives a better conception of the number, magnitude, and more obvious characteristics of the monuments treated of, than was before possessed, and for a time appeared to have satisfied public inquiry. It contains many errors, for which however we can find a ready apology in the unsettled state of the country, and the attendant difficulties of investigation at the time it was written,—errors which, under present advantages of research, would be inexcusable.

The facts presented by the earlier of the authorities above named, have been collected by various authors, either in support of a favorite hypothesis, or with a view of conveying to the world some conception of the antiquities of our country. These compilations, however, have proved eminently unsatisfactory, not less from the vague nature of the original accounts, than from the circumstance that they were in most instances mixed up with the crudest speculations and the wildest conjectures. Even when this was not the case, the fact that the original observations were made in a disconnected and casual manner, served still further to confuse the mind of the student and render generalization impossible. It was under an impression of existing deficiencies in these respects,—the paucity of facts, and the loose manner in which most of them had been presented,—that the investigations recorded in this memoir were commenced and prosecuted. At the outset, as indispensable to independent judgment, all preconceived notions were abandoned, and the work of research commenced «de novo», as if nothing had been known or said concerning the remains to which attention was directed. It was concluded that if these monuments were capable of reflecting any certain light upon the grand archæological questions connected with the primitive history of the American Continent, the origin, migrations and early state of the American race, that then they should be more carefully and minutely, and above all, more systematically investigated.

The locality chosen for the commencement of operations, is a section of the Scioto river and Paint creek valleys, of which the city of Chillicothe is the centre, and which possesses a deserved celebrity for its beauty, unexampled fertility, and the great number, size, and variety of its ancient remains. Situated in the middle of southern Ohio, and possessing a mild and salubrious climate, this seems to have been one of the centres of ancient population; and, probably, no other equal portion of the Mississippi basin furnishes so rich and interesting a field for the antiquarian. A glance at the “«Map of a Section of Twelve Miles of the Scioto Valley, with its Ancient Monuments»,” Plate II, will fully illustrate this remark.

The plan of operations was agreed upon, and the field-work commenced, early in the spring of 1845. Subsequently, the plan was greatly extended, and the investigations were carried on, over Ohio and the adjacent States, with slight interruption, up to the summer of 1847.

The body of this memoir will indicate with sufficient clearness, the mode in which these investigations were conducted, and the extent to which they were prosecuted. It is perhaps enough here to say, that the surveys of ancient works were, for the most part, made by the authors in person, and that the excavations of mounds, etc., were all of them conducted under their personal direction and supervision. Care was exercised to note down, on the spot, every fact which it was thought might be of value, in the solution of the problems of the origin and purposes of the remains under notice; and particular attention was bestowed in observing the dependencies of the position, structure, and contents of the various works in respect to each other and the general features of the country. Indeed, no exertion was spared to ensure entire accuracy, and the compass, line, and rule were alone relied upon, in all matters where an approximate estimate might lead to erroneous conclusions.

The ancient enclosures and groups of works personally examined or surveyed, are upwards of one hundred in number. Some of these had before been noticed, but most are now for the first time presented to the world. About two hundred mounds, of all forms and sizes, and occupying every variety of position, have also been excavated. Several thousand remains of ancient art were collected in the course of these investigations, chiefly from the mounds themselves. These constitute a cabinet, as valuable in its extent, as it is interesting in the great variety and singular character of the illustrations which it furnishes of the condition of the minor arts, and the connections and communications of the people by whom these monuments were erected.

The prosecution of these researches naturally led to an acquaintance and correspondence with a large number of gentlemen in various parts of the Union, who felt interested in them, or who had devoted attention to the same subject. All of these have kindly rendered their services in cases where they could prove of value, or have freely contributed the results of their own labors to complete the design of the authors, in presenting as full and comprehensive a view of the ancient monuments of our country, as private means and limited facilities would allow.

First among these, it will not be invidious to name JAMES MCBRIDE, Esq., of Hamilton, Butler county, Ohio, whose valuable contributions constitute an important feature in the memoir herewith presented. This gentleman, residing for a long time in the centre of the fertile valley of the Great Miami river, amidst the numerous evidences of ancient population with which that valley abounds, has devoted a large proportion of his time to their attentive examination. Personally, and with the assistance of J. W. ERWIN, Esq., resident engineer on the Miami canal, he has made numerous surveys of ancient enclosures and groups of works in that valley, distinguished for their minute fidelity. He also, without however resorting very extensively to direct excavations, has collected an interesting cabinet of aboriginal relics. Anxious to contribute his share to whatever might elucidate the subject of American Archæology, Mr. MCBRIDE, with a generous liberality, placed in the hands of the authors his notes, plans, and drawings, without restriction, to be used as they deemed proper. This tender was accepted in the same spirit it was made, and the materials thus furnished have been freely used in the succeeding pages, where they rank second to none in interest and value.

Among the most zealous investigators in the field of American antiquarian research, is CHARLES WHITTLESEY, Esq., of Cleveland, formerly Topographic Engineer of Ohio. His surveys and observations, carried on for many years and over a wide field, have been both numerous and accurate, and are among the most valuable, in all respects, of any hitherto made. Although Mr. Whittlesey, in conjunction with JOSEPH SULLIVANT, Esq., of Columbus, Ohio, originally contemplated a joint work, in which the results of his investigations should be embodied, he has nevertheless, with a liberality which will be not less appreciated by the public than by the authors, contributed to this memoir about twenty plans of ancient works, which, with the accompanying explanations and general observations, will be found embodied in the following pages. Relating principally to the aboriginal monuments of northern Ohio, (as do those of Mr. McBride to the remains of western Ohio,) they contribute much to the interest and completeness of this memoir. It is to be hoped the public may yet be put in possession of the entire results of Mr. Whittlesey’s labor, which could not fail of adding greatly to our stock of knowledge on this interesting subject.

Acknowledgment is also due to Rev. R. MORRIS, of Mount Sylvan, Lafayette county, Mississippi, for valuable facts relating to the monuments of the South. Although but recently commenced, Mr. Morris’s investigations have been prosecuted in a manner which gives promise of important results.

It will be observed that several plans and notices of ancient works are presented in the succeeding chapters, upon the authority of the late Prof. C. S. RAFINESQUE. This gentleman, while living, devoted considerable attention to the antiquities of the Mississippi valley, and published several brief papers relating to them. His notes and plans, for the most part brief, crude, and imperfect, at his death found their way into the possession of BRANTZ MAYER, Esq., of Baltimore, late Secretary of the American Legation to Mexico. This gentleman placed them in the hands of the authors, with liberty to make use of the information which they contained. They, however, have chosen to avail themselves of this permission, only so far as to adopt Prof. Rafinesque’s plans, etc., in cases where they have either been able to verify them in person, or to assure themselves by collateral evidence of their accuracy in all essential particulars. His notes are principally important, as indicating the localities of many interesting monuments, rather than as conveying any satisfactory information concerning them.

To SAMUEL GEORGE MORTON, M.D., of Philadelphia, the eminent author of “«Crania Americana»,” is acknowledgment especially due, not only for the warm interest manifested in these investigations from their commencement, but for the use of valuable manuscripts relating to our antiquities,—the collections of many years of laborious research in collateral departments. Among these is the brief account of the ancient remains on the Wateree river in South Carolina, by Dr. WILLIAM BLANDING; and also the highly important account of the monuments of the States bordering the Gulf of Mexico, by WILLIAM BARTRAM, the first naturalist who penetrated the dense tropical forests of Florida. The history of the MSS. from which the latter account was taken, is unknown. It found its way by accident into the hands of its present possessor. It consists of answers to a series of questions, by a second person, (probably Dr. Barton,) relating to the history, religion, manners, institutions, etc., of the tribes which composed the Creek confederacy, and is undoubtedly the most complete and accurate account of those Indians in existence.

Dr. S. P. HILDRETH, of Marietta, and Prof. JOHN LOCKE, of Cincinnati, both of whom have devoted much attention to our antiquities, and whose observations upon the subject are distinguished for their accuracy, are also entitled to honorable mention for facts contributed, and assistance rendered. So also, for surveys of ancient works, drawings and descriptions of ancient relics, and facts of various kinds, is acknowledgment due to J. DILLE, Esq., of Newark, Ohio; S. T. OWEINS and W. B. FAIRCHILD, Esqs., of Xenia, Ohio; Col. B. L. C. WAILES, of Washington, Mississippi; J. H. BLAKE, Esq., of Boston; THOMAS REYNOLDS, M.D., of Brockville, Canada West; ARIUS NYE, Esq., and CHARLES SULLIVAN, Marietta, Ohio; HENRY HOWE, R. BUCHANAN, JOSEPH CLARKE, ERASMUS GEST, jr., and U. P. JAMES, Esqs., of Cincinnati; J. E. WHARTON, Esq., of Wheeling, Virginia; DANIEL MORTON, Esq., of New York; L. K. DILLE, M.D., of Cedarville, Ohio; CHARLES O. TRACY, of Portsmouth, Ohio; Prof. W. W. MATHER, Jackson, Ohio; Rev. W. B. STEVENS, Athens, Georgia; Hon. T. H. CLINGMAN, North Carolina; ASHEL AYLESWORTH, Granville, Ohio; P. N. WHITE, Esq., Circleville, Ohio; C. J. ORTON, Lower Sandusky, Ohio; Lieut. JOHN H. ALLEN, now of Easton, Md.; T. B. HUNT, Esq., of New Haven; WM. F. CLEMSON, Esq., of Chillicothe, Ohio; and JOSEPH SULLIVANT, Esq., Columbus, Ohio.

And while rendering these acknowledgments, it is but proper to express the obligations which the authors of these investigations feel themselves under to gentlemen in the various Atlantic cities, who, if they have not been able to add to the number of facts here presented, have nevertheless by their thorough appreciation of the subject, friendly encouragement, and disinterested aid, extended in various ways, facilitated this new attempt towards the elucidation of the antiquities of our own country. To the learned and venerable President of the American Ethnological Society, Hon. ALBERT GALLATIN, the closing years of whose long, active, and useful life have been closely and successfully devoted to researches in the wide field of American Ethnological Science, are our grateful acknowledgments especially due. His assistance and enlightened approbation have had a controlling influence in sustaining and carrying on these investigations. To JOHN R. BARTLETT, Esq., of New York, Foreign Corresponding Secretary of the Ethnological Society, distinguished for his zeal and energy in organizing and promoting historical and ethnological research, we cannot sufficiently express our obligations. His assistance, in a variety of ways, has been of value, especially in directing public attention to the importance of a subject, the extent and bearings of which were but imperfectly understood.

Hon. GEO. P. MARSH, of Burlington, Vermont, whose disinterested exertions have mainly contributed to the appearance of this memoir in its present form, has kindly examined the following chapters and given them the benefit of his sound and critical judgment. To Prof. EDWARD ROBINSON, D.D., and to Prof. W. W. TURNER, both of New York, and both officers of the American Ethnological Society, are we also indebted. The gentleman last named has supervised the memoir, and his suggestions have been deferred to with a readiness implying a confidence in his critical abilities, which is shared alike by the authors and by the public.

To Professors B. SILLIMAN and B. SILLIMAN, jr., of New Haven; Prof. JEFFRIES WYMAN, of Boston; Prof. LEWIS AGASSIZ, of Cambridge; S. F. HAVENS, Esq., Librarian of the American Antiquarian Society, Worcester; and to numerous other gentlemen in various parts of the Union, and particularly to GEO. R. GLIDDON, Esq., whose lectures and publications upon the subject of Egyptian Archæology have given a new and powerful impulse to cognate researches in America, and invested them with a popular interest indispensable to their successful prosecution,—to all of these are the warmest thanks of the investigators due.

It will not be improper here to mention, that the literary part of the present work, the responsible task of arranging and embodying for publication the original MSS. and other materials jointly got together in the course of these investigations, has devolved mostly upon the gentleman whose name stands first upon the title-page, who has also prepared the plans, drawings, and other illustrations. The other gentleman has been engaged for a number of years in researches connected with our ancient monuments, and in collecting relics of aboriginal art; and it is due to him to say, that the investigations here recorded, so far as they involve inquiries in natural science, have principally been made by him. He has also sustained the larger proportion of the expenses attending these explorations, and devoted considerable time to the restoration and arrangement of the relics recovered from the mounds.

Before concluding these prefatory remarks,—already extended beyond the original design,—we may be permitted to say that it has been a constant aim in the preparation of this memoir, to present facts in a clear and concise form, with such simple deductions and generalizations alone, as may follow from their careful consideration. With no hypothesis to combat or sustain, and with a desire only to arrive at truth, whatever its bearings upon received theories and current prejudices, everything like mere speculation has been avoided. Analogies, apparently capable of reflecting light upon many important questions connected with an enlarged view of the subject, have seldom been more than indicated. Their full consideration, as also that of the relations which the ancient monuments of the Mississippi valley bear to those of other portions of America and the world, has not been attempted here. To such an undertaking, involving long and careful research, as also a more comprehensive view of the monuments of the central parts of the continent, this memoir is only preliminary. It yet remains to be seen whether all the ancient monuments of the Mississippi valley were constructed upon similar principles; whether they denote a common origin, and whether they were probably contemporaneous or otherwise in their erection. It remains to be settled whether the singular and anomalous structures of Wisconsin and the North-west are part of the same grand system of defensive, religious, and sepulchral monuments found in the valley of the Ohio, and the more imposing, if not more regular remains which abound in the Southern States. The work of investigation has been just commenced; its future progress may, and no doubt will, result in new and perhaps more important disclosures than any hitherto made.

The importance of a complete and speedy examination of the whole field, cannot be over-estimated. The operations of the elements, the shifting channels of the streams, the levelling hand of public improvement, and most efficient of all, the slow but constant encroachments of agriculture, are fast destroying these monuments of ancient labor, breaking in upon their symmetry and obliterating their outlines. Thousands have already disappeared, or retain but slight and doubtful traces of their former proportions. Such an examination is, however, too great an undertaking for private enterprise to attempt. It must be left to local explorers, to learned associations, or to the Government. And if this memoir shall succeed in directing that attention to the subject which it merits, and thereby in some manner secure the thorough investigation of these monuments, that result will prove an ample recompense for labors performed in a field of absorbing interest, and one which holds out abundant attractions to the Antiquary and Archæologist.

CHILLICOTHE, OHIO, «June», 1847.

[p001]

ANCIENT MONUMENTS.