Essays of an Americanist: I. Ethnologic and Archæologic. II. Mythology and Folk Lore. III. Graphic Systems and Literature. IV. Linguistic.Brinton, Daniel G. (Daniel Garrison)
Philosophy
Essays of an Americanist: I. Ethnologic and Archæologic. II. Mythology and Folk Lore. III. Graphic Systems and Literature. IV. Linguistic.
Brinton, Daniel G. (Daniel Garrison)
America -- Antiquities; Indians
[The following Essay is reprinted without alteration. It appeared in
the _American Antiquarian_ for October, 1881, and has a certain
degree of historic value as illustrating the progress of archæologic
study in the United States. It is, I believe, the first reasoned
argument that the constructors of the mounds of the Ohio Valley were
the ancestors of tribes known and resident not remote from the sites
of these ancient works. Though this opinion has not yet been fully
accepted, the tendency of later studies is unquestionably in its
favor.]
The question, Who were the Mound-builders? is one that still remains
open in American archæology. Among the most recent expressions of
opinion I may quote Prof. John T. Short, who thinks that one or two
thousand years may have elapsed since they deserted the Ohio valley, and
probably eight hundred since they finally retired from the Gulf
coast.[46] Mr. J. P. MacLean continues to believe them to have been
somehow related to the “Toltecs.”[47] Dr. J. W. Foster, making a
tremendous leap, connects them with a tribe “who, in times far remote,
flourished in Brazil,” and adds: “a broad chasm is to be spanned before
we can link the Mound-builders to the North American Indians. They were
essentially different in their form of government, their habits and
their daily pursuits. The latter were never known to erect structures
which should survive the lapse of a generation.”[48]
On the other hand, we have the recent utterance of so able an
ethnologist as Major J. W. Powell to the effect that, “With regard to
the mounds so widely scattered between the two oceans, it may be said
that mound-building tribes were known in the early history of discovery
of this continent, and that the vestiges of art discovered do not excel
in any respect the arts of the Indian tribes known to history. There is,
therefore, no reason for us to search for an extralimital origin through
lost tribes for the arts discovered in the mounds of North America.”[49]
Between opinions so discrepant the student in archæology may well be at
a loss, and it will therefore be worth while to inquire just how far the
tribes who inhabited the Mississippi valley and the Atlantic slope at
the time of the discovery were accustomed to heap up mounds, excavate
trenches, or in other ways leave upon the soil permanent marks of their
occupancy.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account