Page images

quently not of primal importance. Even some who had visited and studied the ruins were carried away by the prevalent opinions. They taught the modern origin of the antiquities, and that the remains were made by people from Asia, some strongly affirming that they were constructed by a remnant of the ten lost tribes of Israel. Even the Indian was considered to be of Hebrew extraction. At this late date pamphlets are occasionally put into circulation asserting that certain Southern Indian tribes are the degenerate sons of the people who built the ancient monuments of the Mississippi valley. From all that is now known of our antiquities, it might be supposed that the wild dreams or speculations of the past would vanislı; but it may be safely affirmed that the number of this class has in no wise diminished. Even the appearance of able scientific works, which one inight think would cause speculation to give way to scientific discussion, rather increased than impeded this tendency.

Investigation once aroused gradually increased the desire for more accurate knowledge, and here and there the toiling men of science collected information, thus adding to the rapidly increasing storehouse of facts. Caleb Atwater, the great pioneer and father of American archæology, commenced his systematic labors in 1819, although he had been somewhat preceded by Prof. C. S. Rafinesque. It is probable that the publication of Atwater's work gave an impetus to original investigation, for as early as 1825, Col. Charles Whittlesey was at work in the field, followed eleven years later by James McBride, John W. Erwin, E. G. Squires, E. H. Davis, and others. Col. Whittlesey is the Nestor of American archæologists. While he has produced no great book, nor systematized his labors, yet he has written numerous fugitive essays and descriptions developing points of interest, and over his shoulders several have climbed to comparative distinction. The working or field archæologist does not always receive the credit he justly merits. In some respects many of them are not ambitious, and allow themselves to be robbed of the benefit of their services. It is probable they content themselves with

the practical study of that portion of the field which lies directly before them. Their labors, however, are appreciated by the select few, but to the multitude they are unknown. It is possible that this is necessary and all right in the nature of things ; because a man devoted to field work, especially in the early stages of a new science, has not at his command sufficient data in order to generalize his subject. Hence it becomes necessary to bring together the labors of different parties in order to compare and reduce to absolute knowledge. This generalizing or reducing to a connected whole creates a new class, or rather the summing up is performed by another class. These two have formed a third, called amateurs, who derive their knowledge wholly from books. The true author is one who is acquainted with the practical field of observation as well as the theoretical. He knows how to handle the spade, discern the different layers of earth, detect a fraud, or describe the material difference which separates implements into classes. The labors of the author class in the study may be easily estimated, but when this is combined with the field, the measure is increased.

The beginner, who has no assistance, in the field of archæ ology, either in the practical or literary department will have many obstacles to overcome. The reading of one book will introduce him to another, but by this method many worthless treatises will accumulate on his shelf. Books, like the remains, are many and various. The Smithsonian Institution has always taken a deep interest in the publication of original memoirs. Leading publishing houses are more or less engaged in placing antiquarian works on the market, while authors, at their own expense, vie with one another in elucidating the subject.

In making this attempt to review the literature of archeology, the difficulties of the task are fully appreciated. In a single article justice cannot be done to any one publication without injury to the rest. Brief reterences or notices alone must suffice. Not only are there many works wholly devoted to archæology, but there are others not written upon, or intended to treat of antiquities, which are of great value in forming a clear conception of the subject. It will be necessary to refer to some of these works. Then there are special dissertations on local or specific topics, such as the Dighton Rock inscription, Grave Creek tablet, Cincinnati tablet, &c., of more or less importance, all of which must be passed without farther notice. It is proposed to speak of works in the consecutive order of their publication. In this review, undoubtedly some meritorious works will be passed over, not intentionally, but on account of a want of knowledge concerning them. Many pamphlets and magazine articles must of necessity he omitted, that room may ve given to others. I have thought it best to confine myself to such works as I am acquainted with, and those especially consulted are given in the references. As in the previous article, I limit myself to the archæology of the United States.

The first epoch dates back to an early period when the antiquities of our country were noticed by travelers. In the year 1750, Peter Kalm, of the University of Abo, in Swedish Finland, then traveling in the United States, was led to the conclusion that America had been formerly inhabited by a race superior to the Indian. The earliest mention of Western antiquities was made by Jonathan Carver, who visited Lake Pepin in November, 1766. John Bartram and his son William discovered the remarkable works at Mt. Royal, Florida, in 1765. Rev. David Jones noticed the earth works on the Scioto in 1772–3. In the January number of the “Royal American Magazine " for 1775, he gave a plan and description of the Circleville works sketched by himselt on horseback in 1772. In 1775 James Adair published his “ History of the American Indians," the object of which was to demonstrate that the red man was of Israelitish origin. In this work, reference is made to the mounds and their configuration, but no details or measurements are given. In 1781 Jolin Filson gave a brief account of the earthworks near Lexington, Kentucky. The works at Marietta were the first which were carefully surveyed, and drawings made. This was in 1788. From that time on,

magazines and newspapers have abounded in accounts of antiquities. The early articles doubtless resulted in the organization of the “ American Antiquarian Society," of Worcester, Mass., which occurred in 1812. Under the auspices of this society, Hon. Caleb Atwater, of Circleville, Ohio, undertook the preparation of a work ou Western antiquities, containing plans of the principal earthworks and drawings of the most characteristic relics. This was published by the Society in 1820, in the first volume of their proceedings, entitled, “Archæologia Americana." This is the first connected and authentic account ever published on the mound builders, and was a work highly creditable to Mr. Atwater's industry and judgment. It was received with great interest and faror both at home and abroad. In 1833 Mr. Atwater republished this work together with both his tours to Prairie Du Chien and Washington City. The work contains ten plates and figures of eleven different objects. The plates represent the Newark works, Ancient Stone Fort in Perry Co., O., Marietta Works, Works at Circleville, Ancient Works on Paint Creek, Works at Portsmouth, "Fort Ancient," Works on North Fork of Paint Creek, Parallel Walls, and the Graded Way near Piketon. Considering the time when this work was written, the difficulties to overcome, and the state of knowledge, it should demand more than a passing notice. At that time attention was almost wholly given to speculating upon what people erected the monuments. Instead of being carried away with these theories, Mr. Atwater devoted his time to examining the works, and his faithful researches, as a whole, have been but little impaired by more recent investigations. It may be said without exaggeration that the germ of all that has been written, upon the Mound Builders is contained in this work. To some extent he indulged in speculation, but he did not force his facts to substantiate any peculiar theory of his own. Besides giving a description of the enclosures already enumerated the following subjects are more or less briefly treated ; antiquities

1 The writings of Caleb Atwater. Columbus. Published by the Author. 1833. pp. 408. Antiquities, pp. 165. Fictitious value, $3.2.1. VOL XVIII



of Indians; antiquities belonging to people of European origin; antiquities of the people formerly indiabiting the Western parts of the United States ; in what parts of the world ancient works of this kind are found ; ancient tumuli; remarks on uses of mounds; places of diversion ; conjectures respecting the origin and history of the ancient works; at what period the ancient race arrived in Ohio ; how long did they reside there; their number; state of arts ; scientific acquirements ; religious rites ; what became of them, and a description of the Teocalli of the Mexicans. The work was by no means an entirely original production. He had access to other papers on the subject, among them was probably the “ Western Gazeteer,” which, in 1817, contained an account of all the known antiquities of the States.

Soon after the appearance of the first number of the “Archeologia Americana," Judge Jolin Haywood published his History of Tennessce. This work is more remarkable for its misapprehension of facts and fanciful deductions than any. thing else. The first two chapters, consisting of 66 pages, are devoted to the physical history of the State ; the remaining portion relates to aboriginal history, excepting the “ Commentaries” (54 pages), which is a conglomeration of many things, both relevant and irrelevant. Chapter three gives a comparison of the political institutions, the religious practices, the cosmical history, and the vernacular customs between the Hindoos and Persians on the one hand, and the Mexicans and Peruvians on the other ; chapter four compares the astronomical learning of the Mexicans with the Hindoos, the practices of the worshippers of the sun with the phenomena in Tennessee; the lingual and nominal coincidences between the Southern Americans and the old world, and the characteristic practices of the Mexicans and Southern Indians; the next chapter compares the Natchez with the Mexicans and the ancient Tennesseans with both ; then follow the aborigines of Tennes

2 The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee, up to the First Settlements therein by the White People, in the year 1768. By John Haywood, of the County of Davidson, in the State of Tennessee. Nashville: Printed by George Wilson. 1823. pp. 444. Fictitious value, $50.00.

« PreviousContinue »