Chapter II: Earthworks—enclosures (3)

The question whether the North American Indians constructed defensive works of this description, is one of much importance, but which cannot be fully discussed in this connection. All the early writers concur in representing that the Indian tribes, from Florida to Canada, possessed common modes of defending their villages and protecting themselves from the attacks of their enemies. Their fortifications consisted of rows of pickets firmly fixed in the ground, sometimes wattled together, but occasionally placed so far apart, as to permit missiles of various kinds to be discharged between them upon an assailant.[30] They seldom had more than a single entrance, which, among the Floridians, was not direct, but circuitous. Entrenchments of earth, consisting of an embankment and ditch, do not appear to have been constructed by them. It seems, however, that of late years, the Indians to the westward of the Mississippi, particularly the Mandans and Rickarees, have constructed entrenchments of earth, surmounted by palisades.[31] But whether the practice is of recent introduction or otherwise, it is difficult to say. It is stated by Prince Maximilian, in his Travels in America, that the defences of the Mandan village of Mih-tutta-hang-kush, which consisted of a wall and ditch, were built by whites, who were employed by the Indians for that purpose.[32]

The defences of the nations of the central portion of the Continent, and especially those of the Mexicans and Peruvians, so far as we are informed concerning them, bore a close resemblance to those of the mound-builders, although exhibiting a superiority entirely consonant with the further advance which we are justified in supposing they had made in all the arts, including the art of defence.[33] Some reference has already been had to the actual identity which a few of the defences of the West exhibit with those of Mexico, in some of their most interesting features. These resemblances might be pointed out in detail, but they will readily suggest themselves to the Archæologist. The usual mode of fortification in Peru consisted in throwing up a series of embankments around the summits of isolated hills,—a practice which was common among the ancient Celts, and which is still preserved among the Australian and Polynesian islanders.[34] Ulloa observes, [p046] in respect to their numbers, that “one scarcely meets with a mountain without them.” Precisely similar modes of defence prevailed among the savage South American tribes, who invariably crowned their entrenchments of earth with palisades of wood.[35]

The traces of ancient fortifications in the northern part of the State of New York, and upon the head waters of the Susquehanna in Pennsylvania, may, it is believed, be referred with entire safety to the same hands with those of the Mississippi valley. It will be seen that they have a close resemblance to those of northern Ohio, both in position and structure.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] This observation is confirmed by all who have given attention to the subject, in the Ohio and Upper Mississippi valleys. Along the Gulf, and at points on the Lower Mississippi, where the entire country is low, and subject to inundation, and where the operation of natural causes is rather to elevate than depress the beds of the streams, some of the ancient works are invaded by water.

[9] This work is marked C in the “«Map of a Section of Six Miles of the Paint Creek Valley»,” Plate III.

[10] It has been suggested that perhaps the walls of stone were sustained or surmounted by wooden structures of some sort, the destruction of which, in whole or in part, by fire, caused the appearances noticed in the text. The suggestion that these are the traces of “ancient furnaces,” is not to be entertained for an instant.

[11] This work was first described, though not first surveyed, by Professor LOCKE, of Cincinnati, in 1838. His description and plan—to the accuracy and fidelity of which every visitor can bear witness—were published in the “Second Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio.”

[12] This sandstone, it should be remarked, to prevent misapprehension, is the “Waverley sandstone,” underlying the coal series, and which is found capping most of the hills in this region. It occurs in successive layers, of from a few inches to several feet in thickness. It is quite friable, and quarries readily.

[13] “One of the mounds at Marietta must be more than eight hundred years old; for Dr. Hildreth counted eight hundred rings of annual growth in a tree which grew upon it.”—«Lyell’s Travels in North America», vol. ii. p. 29. «See also Second Geological Report of the State of Ohio», p. 268.

[14] De Solis describes this Tlascalan work as “a great wall which ran from one mountain to the other, entirely stopping up the way: a sumptuous and strong piece of building which showed the power and greatness of the owner. The outside was of hewn stone cemented with mortar of extraordinary strength. It was twenty feet thick and a fathom and a half high; and on the top was a parapet after the manner of our fortifications. The entrance was narrow and winding; the wall in that part dividing and making two walls, which circularly crossed each other for the space of ten paces.”—«History of the Conquest of Mexico, p.» 139.

[15] An account of this work, accompanied by a very good plan, appeared in the “Portfolio,” (a periodical published in Philadelphia,) for the year 1809. Both plan and description were copied by Mr. Atwater, in his memoir, in the first volume of the “Archæologia Americana.” It was also briefly described by Dr. Drake, in the chapter on Antiquities contained in his “View of Cincinnati.” Since that period, it has been the object of frequent visit and remark.

[16] Dr. Drake, in the chapter on antiquities, in his “View of Cincinnati,” has the following notice of this work:

“The adjacent hill, at the distance of half a mile, and at the greater elevation of about one hundred feet, is the site of a stone wall, mainly circular, and enclosing perhaps twenty acres. The valley of the river on one side, and a deep ravine on the other, render access to three-fourths of this fortification extremely difficult. The wall is carried generally along the brow of the hill, in one place descending a short distance, so as to include a spring. The silicious limestone of which it was built, must have been transported from the bed of the river, which, for two miles opposite these works, does not at present afford one of ten pounds weight. They exhibit no marks of the hammer or any other tool. The wall was laid up without mortar, and is now in ruins.”

[17] Long’s Second Expedition, vol. i, pp. 54–66.

[18] Surveyed by JAMES MCBRIDE, Esq and SAMUEL FORRER, Esq of the Ohio Board of Public Works.

[19] The above plan is copied from the map accompanying Harrison’s published Address before the Historical Society of Ohio.—«Transactions», vol. i. p. 217.

[20] Transactions Historical Society of Ohio, vol. i. p. 225.

[21] This work is not placed in the connection which it was designed to occupy. Its position in the text was determined by circumstances; and its character will be better understood in the progress of this chapter.

[22] This plan is from an original, minute survey by the authors. A plan and description of the same work were published by Mr. Atwater in the “Archæologia Americana.” It will be found to differ in some important respects.

[23] Two plans of this work exist among the MSS. of Rafinesque, which differ slightly from each other. One of them coincides, however, in all important particulars with a plan published some years ago in the “Western Messenger,” and has therefore been adopted as probably essentially correct. The description in the “Messenger,” which seems to have been written by an intelligent observer, is also adopted. It is amply sustained by the account of Judge Haywood, and by other evidence, and it is thought may be relied on in all respects.

[24] Haywood’s Tenn. vol. ii.

[25] This work is laid down from surveys made by S. T. OWEINS, surveyor of Greene county, and by L. K. DILLE, M.D. The survey by Mr. Oweins was kindly communicated by W. B. Fairchild, Esq. of Xenia. The work has also been personally examined by the authors.

[26] This work is marked C, in the map of a “«Section of six miles of the Miami valley»,” Plate III.

[27] These relics, as also the skeletons found with them, were probably those of the more recent Indians, and constituted a second and comparatively late deposit. The burned remains, doubtless, resulted from the original burial by fire. Incremation was extensively practiced by the mound builders.

[28] “There is a small enclosure on the south line of Franklin county, and another in Pickaway county, which closely resemble those along the lake shore.” See Plate XIV, Nos. 1 and 2.

[29] “The Ohio fortresses were not erected for defence against a casual invasion. The size of the walls, and the solidity of their construction, show that the danger which they were designed to arrest was of constant recurrence.”—«Harrison’s Discourse», «Transactions Ohio Historical Society», vol. i. p. 263.

[30] Charlevoix, Canada, vol. ii. p. 128; Loskiel, p. 53; Du Pratz, Louisiana, p. 375; Herrara, History of America, vol. v. p. 324.

[31] Catlin’s North American Indians, vol. i. p. 81; Lewis and Clark, «ubi supra».

[32] Travels in North America, pp. 173, 243.

[33] De Solis, History of Mexico, p. 54; Juarros, History Guatemala, p. 462; Stephens’s Yucatan, vol. i. pp. 165, 230; Molina, vol. ii. pp. 10, 68; Ulloa, vol. ii. p. 27.

[34] Ellis’s Polynesian Res. vol. i. pp. 313, 314; Cook’s Second Voyage, «ubi supra»; Pollack’s New Zealand, vol. ii. p. 26.

[35] Charlevoix, History of Paraguay, vol. i. p. 156.

[p047]