The Problem of Ohio Mounds | Page 4

posture
The use of fire in burial ceremonies
Similarity of the stone implements and ornaments of various tribes

Mound and Indian pottery
CHAPTER III.
Stone graves and what they teach
CHAPTER IV.
The Cherokees as mound-builders
CHAPTER V.
The Cherokees and the Tallegwi

INTRODUCTION.
No other ancient works of the United States have become so widely
known or have excited so much interest as those of Ohio. This is due in
part to their remarkable character but in a much greater degree to the
"Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley," by Messrs. Squier and
Davis, in which these monuments are described and figured.
The constantly recurring question, "Who constructed these works?" has
brought before the public a number of widely different theories, though
the one which has been most generally accepted is that they originated
with a people long since extinct or driven from the country, who had
attained a culture status much in advance of that reached by the
aborigines inhabiting the country at the time of its discovery by
Europeans.
The opinion advanced in this paper, in support of which evidence will
be presented, is that the ancient works of the State are due to Indians of
several different tribes, and that some at least of the typical works, were
built by the ancestors of the modern Cherokees. The discussion will be
limited chiefly to the latter proposition, as the limits of the paper will
not permit a full presentation of all the data which might be brought

forward in support of the theory, and the line of argument will be
substantially as follows:
FIRST. A brief statement of the reasons for believing that the Indians
were the authors of all the ancient monuments of the Mississippi Valley
and Gulf States; consequently the Ohio mounds must have been built
by Indians.
SECOND. Evidence that the Cherokees were mound builders after
reaching their historic seats in East Tennessee and western North
Carolina. This and the preceding positions are strengthened by the
introduction of evidence showing that the Shawnees were the authors
of a certain type of stone graves, and of mounds and other works
connected therewith.
THIRD. A tracing of the Cherokees, by the mound testimony and by
tradition, back to Ohio.
FOURTH. Reasons for believing that the Cherokees were the Tallegwi
of tradition and the authors of some of the typical works of Ohio.
CHAPTER I.
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.
Space will not permit any review here of the various theories in regard
to the builders, or of the objections made to the theory that they were
Indians, or of the historical evidence adducible in support of this theory.
Simple declaration on these points must suffice.
The historical evidence is clear and undisputed that when the region in
which the mounds appear was discovered by Europeans it was
inhabited by Indians only. Of their previous history nothing is known
except what is furnished by vague and uncertain traditions or inferred
from the study of their languages and customs. On the other hand there
is no historical or other evidence that any other race or people than the
Indians ever occupied this region, or any part of it, previous to its
discovery by Europeans at the close of the fifteenth century.

We enter the discussion, therefore, with at least a presumption in favor
of the conclusion that these works were built by the Indians--a
presumption which has not received the consideration it deserves;
indeed, it is so strong that it can be overcome only by showing that
those mounds, or the specimens of art found in them, which were
unquestionably the work of the builders, indicate an advancement in
skill and knowledge entirely beyond that reached by the Indians
previous to contact with Europeans. But all the genuine discoveries so
far made in the explorations of the mounds tend to disprove this view.
If it can be shown that tribes occupying the mound region at the time
they were first visited by Europeans used mounds, and in some cases
built them, it will be a fair inference that all these structures are due to
the same race until the contrary is proved.
The objection urged by many that the Indian has always been a restless
nomad, spurning the restraints of agriculture, has been effectually
answered, especially by Mr. Lucien Carr. [Footnote: Mounds of the
Mississippi Valley Historically Considered.] History also bears us out
in the assertion that at the time of the discovery nine tenths of the tribes
in the mound district had fixed seats and local habitations, depending to
a great extent for sustenance upon the cultivation of the soil. So far as
the southern districts, now comprising the Gulf States, are concerned, it
goes further and asserts over and over again that the tribes of that
section were mound-builders when