Archaeologica.org

"As to who were the prehistoric inhabitants of the Ohio River coun-
try, it is not the purpose of this book to conjecture. The volumes that
have been published about a supposed enlightened and cultivated race
called the "Mound Builders," have been many and marvellous. The
wonderful theories that have been evolved, and the elaborate structures
of past glories that have been, in fancy, reared over the remains of the
graves, forts, totem symbols, and burial mounds of those who were really
the not very remote ancestors of the Natchez, Cherokees, Shawnees, and
other historic Indians, would do credit to the imagination, if not to the
judgment, of the Divine Evangelist himself.

From either a scientific or historic standpoint, nine-tenths of this output is absolutely valueless. It was time, indeed, that such a book on the subject of the " Mound
Builders " should be issued, as has been recently prepared by Mr. Gerard
Fowke,» and published by the Ohio Archaeological and Historical So-
ciety. [ Archaological History of Ohio, Columbus, 1902].

Would that this book should also cause the elimination for a
time of the "Archaeological" part of the Ohio Society's title; since so
many crimes against good sense and proper historical research have
been committed in that word's name; while the rich collections of
really valuable documentary material relating to the eighteenth century
history of Western Pennsylvania and Ohio, to be found in the Manuscript
Archives of the Canadian Government, among the French, the Bouquet,
and the Haldimand Papers, have been entirely neglected.

...
The wars of the Five Nations with the Hurons (1634-49) the Neutral
Nation (1651), the Eries (1654-56), and the Andastes and Shawnees
(1660-76), may be studied at first hand in the Jesuit Relations covering
those periods. They are summarized in part by Parkman in his "Jesuits
in North America."
...
We have seen that the Iroquois completed their conquest of the
Eries about 1656, and expelled them from their home south of Lake Erie
so completely that it remained practically an uninhabited country for
nearly three-quarters of a century afterwards. Six years later, they
turned their arms against the Shawnees and other tribes of the Ohio
Valley, and waged an unrelenting war against them for more than a de-
cade. Charlevoix says the Iroquois completed the conquest of the
Shawnees in 1672.
...
The Onondaga chief, Outreouate, told Governor La Barre at Famine Bay in 1684,
that one reason the Five Nations waged
war against the Illinois and Miamis (in 1680), was, that "they have
engaged the Chaouanons in their interest, and entertained them in
their country." La Salle at La Chine in 1669 had been told by the
Senecas that he might find the villages of the Honniasontkeronon [?] and the
Chaouanons on the Ohio River, above "the Falls" [Louisville, KY]; and he lighted a fire for
some of the latter at his Fort of St. Louis on the Ilinois River in 1683.

During the years between, it is probable that the Iroquois had succeeded in
expelling the Shawnees from their earlier home in the Central Ohio
Valley, and driven them to its mouth, up the Cumberland and Ten-
nessee rivers, and across the Cumberland Gap into Carolina and Georgia,
where they seem to have had two or more villages during most of the
last quarter of the seventeenth century. From these villages the inhabitants
moved into Maryland and Pennsylvania between the years 1692
and 1710, while others were drawn there from the remnants of the tribe
still scattered through the Ohio Valley. They began to return to the Ohio
country soon after 1725, and shortly after the middle of that century
all but a small number had again seated themselves in the land of their
ancestors.

Charles Augustus Hanna, The Wilderness Trail, 1911

You know, in all seriousness, I have often wondered if the "mound-builder" culture did not result from the very logical need for people living along flood-prone rivers ( I assume the Mississippi and Ohio flooded then as they do now) to have a place of refuge when the water started to rise. One suspects that these people were far more in tune with nature than we are today and would have understood that when the rainy season started they needed a safe place for their food supplies and themselves to hang out until the water receded. Hell, they may have welcomed the floods in the same way as the denizens of Ancient Egypt?

How much more logical and reasonable than modern residents who, after every flood on the Mississippi show up on the TV news saying "glad that's over...now we'll rebuild!"

Perhaps the ancients were simply less stubborn than we are in the face of nature?

I think you may have a point for some of the constructions.
But there seem to be different kinds

Some mounds are obvious burial sites.
Not only the original construction, but also secondary burials on the outer slopes.

But some are more mysterious in there reason to be built.

I have visited Old Stone Fort in TN.
It seems well named.
A well built, easily defended perimeter.
A easily defended, single point entrance, and no evidence of long term occupation.
(It is literally swept clean. No artifacts found.)

Minimalist wrote: You know, in all seriousness, I have often wondered if the "mound-builder" culture did not result from the very logical need for people living along flood-prone rivers

Once again, min, kb, there were no "Moundbuilders".

Different of the First Peoples at different times used earth to build structures for different purposes. Some of them used stone as well.

In answer to your speculation, min, the answer is "No.", from what I know.

None of those peoples used earth to build structures simply for flood protection,
and that was not their origin.

Flooding was much rarer then, as the forest had not been cleared much
for agriculture or pasturage.

That broad generalization includes Poverty Point culture remains.

Several peoples did built moats for the protection of their villages.

If you discover anything different, please let me know.

Once again, E.P., you seem to be out of the mainstream.

http://www.squidoo.com/native-american- ... d-builders

One of the most interesting facets of Native American history in North America is the group of cultures collectively known as the Mound Builders. The Mound Builders are so named for their practice of constructing large earthen mounds.
These mounds were made in a variety of styles, for a variety of purposes, over a long period of time.

No one else seems to have a problem referring to them collectively as Mound Builders.

Indigenous excavators EP ?

Minimalist wrote:
Once again, E.P., you seem to be out of the mainstream.

http://www.squidoo.com/native-american- ... d-builders

One of the most interesting facets of Native American history in North America is the group of cultures collectively known as the Mound Builders. The Mound Builders are so named for their practice of constructing large earthen mounds.
These mounds were made in a variety of styles, for a variety of purposes, over a long period of time.

No one else seems to have a problem referring to them collectively as Mound Builders.

BONJOUR, min - You saw it on the internet, so it has to be true.

Take a look at Hanna's comments again:

"The volumes that have been published about a supposed enlightened and cultivated race
called the "Mound Builders," have been many and marvellous. The
wonderful theories that have been evolved, and the elaborate structures
of past glories that have been, in fancy, reared over the remains of the
graves, forts, totem symbols, and burial mounds of those who were really
the not very remote ancestors of the Natchez, Cherokees, Shawnees, and
other historic Indians, would do credit to the imagination, if not to the
judgment, of the Divine Evangelist himself.

"From either a scientific or historic standpoint, nine-tenths of this output is absolutely valueless."

The not very remote descendants of the Natchez, Cherokees, Shawnees, and
other historic Indians, generally do have a problem with the public using the mental construct of "The Mounbuilders." Think of it as cultural theft, following the theft of the lands.

As Vine DeLoria put it, "Red Earth, White Lies". (By the way, Vine's last book is setting in pieces, which need to be put together for publication.)

"The Moundbuilders" construct does not even come close to the material culture definitions used to justify the archaeological constructs (read "rationalizations") of "The Hopewell" and "The Adena". As I have told you before, show me the "Hopewell" or "Adena" casino or cigarettes; I have been searching for them, but I have not found them yet...
instead I just keep running into artifacts like those Shawnee glyphic inscriptions, and you seen the reaction of a few people to that here.

Well, my real thrill for the last few years has been and is locating or re-locating major structures. If the public needs to ascribe them to "The Moundbuilders" in order that they are not destroyed as part of the expropriation process... that says volumes about how U.S. archaeology works in the real world, as well as volumes about the colonists' current attitudes, and volumes about human nature more generally.

In my humble and unsolicited opinion, EP, your acute sensativity to anything you can construe as a disparagement of your ancestors has often been the source of fresh information and insights -- a valuable characteristic generally missing from discussions of them.

But there are times when it just gets tedious. Really.

If the people the Europeans encountered here included a minority of folks eight feet tall and with double rows of teeth, then well and good. If not, then their direct descentants (?) changed their physical makeup (a first rate historical curiosity that raises a lot of questions). If not, then the question of whether some of these cultures may have been shaped -- as the Inca Empire was -- by a superstratum of people genetically distinguished from the hewers-of-wood-and-drawers-of-water they ruled fairly rises.

Why is it such an unspeakable evil to refer to other people as Niggers/Greasers/Dagos/Paddys/Bohunks/Pollocks/Chinks/Camel Jockeys/Redskins and the rest of them ?

Because those are the terms the WASP (originally ; later, as more people joined the parade, White folks in general) used for them. The White race having long-ago been conclusively identified as being "the Cancer of History," it follows that every vestage of his mentality must be therefore erased lest, by using his terms, people come to resonate with his attitudes.

That gets as old as the belligerent insistence that there COULD NOT HAVE BEEN any other people here -- at least in numbers adequate to influence the ways things went. And this in the face of the fact that innovation typically appears on frontiers, at the interface of two distinct peoples.

Who in his right mind has a problem with subsuming complex cultures in Europe under generic headings like "Vandals," "Visigoths" and the rest of them ? If not, what's the issue with "Adena" (generic) and "Hopewell" Mound-Builders ?

[quote]“Different of the First Peoples at different times used earth to build structures for different purposes. Some of them used stone as well.”[/quote]

To my knowledge, there has been no evidence put forth that any of the current recognized tribes of so-called “First Nations” or “Native Americans” or “First Peoples” have any history of building anything with stone.

Not even stone fire rings.

The valleys of Utah do have rocks used to wall up natural caves and build towers, but those are acknowledged by the current tribes in the area to have not been built by them.

Somebody built them, E.P.

Unless you think they are natural formations.








Actual artifacts are always more interesting than folklore.

Actual artifacts are always more interesting than folklore.

That's probably the archaeological party line.

But counting pottery shards gets boring as hell.

http://www.examiner.com/article/are-sec ... ts_article

Tribal warfare in the 21st century.

And the beat goes on.

This article explains very well my compliant about the whole “First Peoples” concept.
It is all about money. Lots of money. Tax free money. Non-audited money.

I have no racial complaint about “red men.”
(“Some of my best friends.” Etc, etc, etc.)
I know they were here before the European invasion.
But I also have no problem with the idea that they came from somewhere and inhabited N A.
And in doing so they wiped out their predecessors.
It was ands is the way of the world.
History is full of such things.

But that is not the story line.
If you do any kind of probing into the history of the Indian Casino industry it becomes apparent that the idea laying a huge “white guilt trip” on the American population was a way to get around the various anti-gamboling laws. Both Federal and State.

In brief:

It wasn’t even an Indian idea.
It was the brainstorm of two New York City Jews!
(My apologies to any who are of Hebrew decent.)

They were trying to figure out how to build a casino close to New York City, and came up with 2 ideas to say those laws didn’t apply to any Indian tribe owned land.

The first idea was that since the Government had so often violated the terms of the various treaties, the Indians were legally owed “payback.” It was a law based argument. They were owed compensation for the property the white man stole while breaking their own treaties and laws.

But, in a twist of fate, this was right at the time Jesse Jackson was trying to push the idea that all black Americans were owed “compensation” just for being here since they were not here of their own free will.
That idea was a colossal failure.
So our two fell back to Plan B.

When they went to the Rhode Island reservation to talk to the elders they pushed the “We were here first and you stole everything you have from us” theme.
They promised almost unlimited amounts of tribal income to be used for reservation schools, roads, etc. They would be “managing partners” of course.

With nothing to lose, the elders bought into the plan. They had to put up nothing but read some prepared statements and pose for some photo ops.
And the publicity campaign began.

It wasn’t long before some of the do good, social groups fell in line. And soon we all began to say “You know, they have a point. We do owe them something. And what is a casino going to cost us? Let them build one. If you don’t like gamboling just don’t go to it.”

And now we have the Indian Casino Industry. It is a billion (with a B) dollar a year industry.
It is outside all federal, state and local gamboling and auditing laws.
It is a corruption cancer in every local it is in.
(Have you checked the condition of any reservation schools lately?)

And it is all built on the “We were here first" fantasy.

Which brings us back to archeology.
The whole house of cards falls down if it can be shown that the current, favored, tribes were not actually the “first.”
The money tree is chopped down.

Archeology needs funding. Making a profit from it is frowned upon.
If you control the purse strings by threatening to withhold contributions to schools, foundations, politicians, whatever, that do not hold to that “we were here first” concept you then control the whole consensus.

Maintaining that money tree has set back North American archeology in the US and Canada at least 100 years.

KBS2244 wrote:If you control the purse strings by threatening . . . schools . . . that do not hold to that “we were here first” concept you then control the whole consensus.

CBC wrote:In the spring of 2012, Dr. Pat Sutherland was dismissed from the Canadian Museum of Civilization after working there for 30 years. She was most recently the curator of Arctic Archeology. Dr. Sutherland is contesting the dismissal through her union, so she can regain access to her research. Currently the Helluland Project has been suspended.

And no updates since (that I can find).

Looks like the Norse in Canada have been "Memoy-holed."

Again.

Oceanna is at war with EastAsia. Oceanna has always been at war with EastAsia . . .

I think most of you are missing the point.

I have only a little over 1/8 Native Ancestry, and Hanna and his wife had none, to my knowledge.

Its not the racism, its the stupidity.

PS - kb, I seem to recall that your history of reservation gaming is wrong, but its not my area of expertise. You might want to check with the Seminoles on that.

My impression is that most of the First Nations would be very happy to give over the casinos, in exchange for the return of the land that was taken from them.

The Seminoles were relatively latecomers to the party.
But a great example of the story.
If you ignore the relative new Cuban influence, Miami is nothing if not “South New York” in culture and money.
The NYC concept went to the south very quickly.
There were lots of “managing partners” calling on the Seminoles.

Get the property back?
Maybe.
Depends on the area.
The Oklahoma oil country they would be happy to keep.
They woods of north Wisconsin and Michigan maybe not so much.

The loophole was “Tribal owned properties.”
This let tribes buy property in strategic spots that were not on reservations and put casinos on it.