Amerindian Mound Culture and American Amnesia

A research paper by James Hutchison continued from page1.
        Morton's most extensive work, Crania Americana, published in 1839, was based on prejudice from the start as indicated in his writing:
They are crafty, sensual, ungrateful, obstinate and unfeeling, and much of their affection for their children may be traced to purely selfish motives. They devour the most disgusting aliments uncooked and uncleaned, and seem to have no ideas beyond providing for the present moment...Their mental faculties, from infancy to old age, present a continued childhood.
...In gluttony, selfishness and ingratitude, they are perhaps unequaled by any other nation of people. (Gould, 56)
From this it becomes obvious Morton was biased at the outset of his research and could explain some of his questionable findings. When his measurements are checked it is clear that he made a great deal of creative adjustments in his data to maintain his pre-conceived idea of Anglo-Saxon superiority. It is probably no coincidence that his findings directly correlated to the popular ranking of Whites, Jews, Native Americans, and Blacks in society and further examination indicates Morton's data was fitted to this popular will (Gould, 56-61).
        Morton had erroneously measured the mean cranial capacity of the Native American at 82 cubic inches. Even based on his own data the mean should have been 80.2 and this measurement is incorrect as well because of the way he grouped skulls. He had divided the skulls into two groups, one being "Toltecans" from Mexico and South America and the other he called "Barbarous Tribes" from North America. Both of these groups contained skulls from many other groups in unequal proportions. Because the size of the brain is more closely related to body size than any other factor, and considering the fact that he would simply assign the skull with the most bulbous crania to his favored white group, his entire data base was corrupted from the start.
        Morton had postulated that variations in species had occurred since primordial times and cited such evidence as the variations in dogs found in Egyptian tombs along with Negroid and Caucasoid remains. These finds strengthened his ideas that they had existed as separate species from the beginning of time. He had shaken the concept of origins held by the academia of the time and put himself in a precarious position. His entire reputation now rested on his collection of skulls and their use in proving his theory correct (Gould 51 - 61).
        The debates surrounding the origins of the mounds had been formerly proposed by T. M. Harris in 1810, ignoring the recent work of Jefferson, and the debate was still going strong in the 1880's. Then, in 1881, the modern method of archaeology of the ancient civilizations of North America began to develop. It began with the creation of an extensive and coordinated program of exploration and fact - finding by the Bureau of Ethnology known as The Division of Mound Exploration ultimately headed up by Cyrus Thomas (Thomas, 6).
        Powell, then director of the Bureau of Ethnology, did not think of the issue surrounding the Amerindian Civilizations as an isolated one nor as one that should be pursued just because it was popular or faddish. He felt the context belonged in the larger arena of historical Amerindian tribes. Powell was also frustrated because the Division of Mound Exploration was using up too many resources on non-productive research due to the scope of the field. Powell hoped that the department would prove once and for all that the Mound Builders and historic Amerindians were of one continuous, or at least related, culture.
If it could be proven that the prehistoric mounds had been constructed by the ancestors of the Indians, the questions relating to the objects and uses of these ancient works would be merged into the study of the customs and arts of the Indians. There would then be no more blind groping by archeologists (sic) for the thread to lead them out of the mysterious labyrinth. The chain that links together our historic and prehistoric ages of our continent would be complete; the thousand and one wild theories and romances would be permanently disposed of; and the relations of all the lines of investigation to one another being known, they would aid in the solution of many of the problems hitherto have seemed involved in complete obscurity. (Thomas 8)
It is evident that even as Powell named the specific problem to be solved by Thomas' research he was also looking beyond the issue itself to the potential beneficial impact that its resolution would have on North American Indian studies in general." This would also have the effect of consolidating federal monies into one field of Amerindian research, which was exactly what Powell wanted in the first place (Thomas 7 - 9).
        Whether or not the Mound Builders were Amerindians became an important and heated issue. If it were shown that Native Americans were a sovereign race and nation then the treaties and their land rights would have to be recognized. Neither the settlers nor the U.S. government wanted to acknowledge Amerindian sovereignty, and it wasn't until 1894 that Cyruss Thomas, after receiving a grant from the Bureau of Ethnology, proved that the contemporary Native American cultures were in fact the descendants of the Mound Builders. This put to rest the romantic notions of lost races being responsible for the mounds, but did little to improve the status of the Amerindian in relation to the
U. S. government. It is also important that Thomas be noted for his artifactual evidence that proves some of the Mound Building cultures had been in contact with Europeans. This is a major point now as it was then. Ideally, if it could be proven that the Cahochez Empires had existed through historical times and had been in contact with Europeans like De Soto as well as the French and English, then the myth of a mystery race would disappear forever (Thomas 18, & 603 - 610).
        The fact that the Spanish, French, and English had been in contact with these cultures and had themselves speculated on the origins of the Mississippi Valley earthworks was already forgotten. It was as though Thomas Jefferson and the others working in the field had never existed as far as American anthropology was concerned. This demonstrates the selective amnesia in American idealism, and anthropology. Thus, on February 24, 1881, the annual Bureau of American Ethnology appropriation was granted to the Smithsonian Institute in the amount of $25,000. After the clerk read back the proposal to the House of Representatives, J. Warren Kiefer, from Ohio, added an appendum; "five thousand dollars which shall be expended in continuing archaeological investigations relating to mound builders, and prehistoric mounds." (Thomas 6)
        The previous year, John Wesley Powell had opposed any funds marked for the Bureau of Ethnology to be spent on mound research. He had also received accusations that put his administrative talents in question where it concerned the Bureau of Ethnology. When the vote from the U. S. House of 51 to 29 came, Powell was quite surprised. Although he had been opposed to the expenditure of any funds on the mounds, Powell was nevertheless an adept politician. Recognizing the importance of the majority's will as well as seeing an opportunity to brighten his currently tarnished reputation, he responded by placing Wills de Haas, one of his strongest opponents on the matter, in charge of the program. Thus, Powell effectively cut off most of Congresse’s grounds for further criticism in regard to his leadership of the Bureau of Ethnology. Haas resigned within a year (to Powell's delight) and was replaced by Cyrus Thomas after which research began (Thomas 6).
        Congress gave no outline of procedures as to how the investigations into the Mound Cultures should be carried out. Powell, knowing full well what question needed to be settled, quickly remedied this problem. Powell gave Thomas no specific guidelines, but simply entrusted to him the task of determining the origins of the mounds. Powell obviously knew Thomas' capabilities and was confident he would produce an accurate result. He hoped this would settle once and for all the debates surrounding the Mound Culture. Thomas then set up his research plans and began research that would create the most extensive work of its kind to date( Thomas 7 - 8 ).
        One goal, that was very important to Thomas, was to establish a thorough data base from which future scientists could draw. This, Thomas accomplished splendidly, demonstrating a portentous aptitude for the task. Not only did he prove that the Mound Culture was the ancestor of many Amerindian Cultures, but in fact demonstrated that in some cases, Amerindians were still Mound Builders (Thomas 9). Thomas did some of the best research ever in the field of American archaeology, even when compared to modern times, but he also recognized the inherent problems in American archaeology that remain even to this day. "One reason why so little progress has been made in unraveling this riddle of the American Sphinx is that most of the authors who have written upon the subject of American archeology (sic) have proceeded upon certain assumptions which virtually closed the door against a free and unbiased investigation."(Thomas 601)
        Another reason Thomas gave for this lack of progress was one that Powell may have been alluding to as well. The last 130 pages of Thomas's report is laden with historical accounts that solved many of the mysteries surrounding the mound cultures. The amount of time and money that was being spent on solving these mysteries when the answer was in the library would have then and should now frustrate any director of the Bureau (Thomas 600 - 730).
        Although Thomas had given proof that the Cahochez Empires existed into historical times and settled the debates surrounding the culture, many of the old arguments have risen again in the 20th century. That the mysteries of the mound builders had been solved for many years seems to have been forgotten. Just as Jefferson's work had been forgotten in Thomas' time, Thomas' work, has been forgotten in modern times. As Thomas pointed out time and again, the historical records of this culture are not rare, and shed light on many aspects of Cahochez Empires (Thomas 600 - 730).
        Cyrus Thomas was an American who should be remembered. He is to Amerindian Archaeology what Albert Einstein is to physics. His accomplishment in, and contribution to American Archaeology remains, to this day, one of the most extensive and complete works in the field. His investigation into the Mound Building Culture was remarkably thorough and unprejudiced in spite of his preconceived ideas. His work overshadowed anything done up to that time, and rivals work being done in this field of study today. Thomas demonstrated a propensity to exercise scientific method in its truest and most literal form. The result not only proved once and for all that the Amerindians had built the mounds and why, but that the Mound Culture had, in fact, existed into historical times.
        There are, once again, books indulging romantic ideals of Amerindian origins such as "America B.C." and "Saga America" by Berry Fell. There are, once again, many books written by professional Anthropologist's that speculate on such things as the use of palisades and political methods of the Mississippian Platform Mound cultures. These oupled with the stream of romance novels and hollywood have left an image of the American Indian in the mind of America that is barely a shadow of the real thing. It is here that the torch takes on a new light. It is from here I will attempt to begin the restoration of the heritage of the American Indian. American amnesia must not be allowed to occur again. It is time that western academia purpetuate an accurate image of the first Americans.
Setting the Record Straight

        The methods and processes of carrying out Archaeology have steadily improved in the 20th century. However, there is no shortage of literature containing theories on the Mound Cultures that once again revert to speculation and conjecture about topics that are accounted and readily available in historical records as Thomas had pointed out some 100 years ago. A few examples are included here to prove the above statement.
        Should we rely solely on pure conjecture based on a small quantity of artifacts or should we apply the historical characteristics during interpretation? It is not uncommon to see this kind of speculation even today. Contemporary archaeologists are reluctant to associate historical accounts with non-historical groups despite of the overwhelming amount of similarities that exist between them. Historians will likewise endeavor to thwart such an attempt by slinging accusations of “stretching.” However, there are many cases that should encourage archaeologists and authors of Amerindian history to reconsider their positions and perhaps attempt some cross-discipline study.


Identifying the Problem

        Although Amerindian literature is gaining recognition in academia as true literature, there remains a fundamental problem that, as yet, needs to be reconciled. Until this is done, students will not receive the benefit of such study. This problem lies in the way in which Amerindian literature is classified. It is caused by the same fundamental and traditional problem that lays waste to most anthropological and historical positions on the Amerindians. In short, it is American amnesia. Contrary to the residual and popular image most conceive as accurate we have records that prove otherwise. In a recent survey I conducted the general consensus was that Amerindians are dark skinned, their women were subserviant to men and many still hold that a mystery race or Western culture group built the mounds. This demonstrates my thesis well and can quickly be corrected.
        In the survey I conducted it was found that out of 107 students surveyed, 102 described the typical Amerindian as having straight, black hair and tan or copper colored skin. This is a myth, pure and simple, perpetuated today by “Hollywood” amoung other media forms. 92 of those surveyed also commented that they believed Amerindians were unable to grow facial hair. On the basis that a picture is worth a thousand words I have included portraits from men like Catlin who knew Amerindians first hand and are noted for their ethnographic accuracy.




Note how quickly the commonly percieved image of Amerindian features is shattered. The above paintings demonstrate very quickly that some Amerindians had straight hair while others possesed curls in the extreme and every level of wavey hair in between. These portraits also show the ability to grow facial hair was not denied the Amerindian. In truth it was a preference matter, or one of hygine, as it is with any human male. What about the skin color?
        George Catlin commented on his surprise in regard to the skin tone of some Amerindians when he recorded in his journal:
There are a great many of these people whose complexions appear as light as half breeds; and amoungst the women particularly, there are many whose skis are almost white, with the most pleasing symmetry and proportion of features; with hazel, with gray, and with blue eyes, . . .
Obviously the Amerindian was as diverse in phenotypical characteristics as any human group. Catlin also notes that hair color ran the entire gammet (Catlin 1989 pgs. 87-89). In his final comments Catlin makes it clear that the Amerindians were extremely diverse not just in appearence, but in many aspects. He soundly shatters the tendancy people have, then as now, to ascribe a pan-indian image to the Amerindian (Catlin pgs. 465-467).
John Smith, while known as an inventor of adventures, still has some value in this area. When looking over his work it becomes obviouse that no love was lossed between Smith and the Amerindian and we would hardly attribute a civilized aspect out of the kindness of his heart. With this in mind consider his discription of the Amerindians he encountered:
Some being very great, as the Susquehannocks, others very little, as the Wighcocomocos; but generally tall and straight, of a comely proportion, and of a color brown when they are of any age, but they are born white. The hair is generaly dark and few wear beards. . .(Smith pg. 5)
Later in the account he comments that ointments were rubbed into the skin to protect the individual from sun burn.
        It should by now be obvious that the tan nature of many Amerindians was a result of life-long exposure to the sun rather than a genetic phenotype as is found in the Southwestern groups. Smith’s account also confirms the facial hair shown in Catlin’s paintings as well as others of the era. Simply put, the “typical” Amerindian does not exsist. Rather it is an amalgamation of Amerindian peoples of widely varying types that are the original inhabitants of the Americas.

Amerindian Women
        There is no doubt that traditional beliefs and customs possess an extraordinary tenacity and neither folkways or science are immune to the effects. Sherry B. Ortner, a noted anthropologist is of prime example. Clearly Ortner was inculturated with traditional beliefs when she offered an application of universal explanations as to how and why women are viewed as an inferior gender. Ortner writes, “The secondary status of women in society is one of the true universals, a pan-cultural fact” (Ortner 1974: 402). This statement of fact and theory foundation is soundly and completely defeated when actually applied, particularly to the many indigenous cultures of North America.
        The footnotes by McGee and Warms that are attached to Ortner’s paper claim that this position has been abandoned by anthropologists and was a result of “politically charged” writing (McGee and Warms 1996: 402). However, in conducting a survey I have found this phenomena to still be with us. In fact, of 107 students surveyed, 102 believed that women in Amerindian societies held an inferior position.
        Garcilaso de la Vega, a chronicler of the Hernado (Fernando) de Soto expedition records female rulers in a culture that is perceived by contemporary anthropologists to have been ruled by male “Sun Kings” proving conclusively Ortner’s universalism a fiction (Vega 1590: 300). It does not take an eight page paper or even a field survey to disprove Ortner’s thesis or dispell the misconceptions that plague Amerindian heritage in traditional history. This information has been available since 1590 and readily available in libraries since the 1950’s.
        As it might be construed that the above example is one of extraordinary exception, I offer one more mundane and of broader scope.
  One feature of the Southeastern Indian economic system which set them apart from Euro-Americans was that unlike their Euro-American counterparts, Indian women could own property over which their husbands had no control. Indeed, in the early colonial period, British traders and soldiers who went among the Cherokees bought food such as maize, chickens, wild fruit and pork from women, for they were the ones who produced and therefor owned it (Ried 1970: 124-125). Women also owned the house in which they lived and could dismiss their husband by simply refusing to shelter him. In fact, during the later half of the nineteenth century, American jurists used the Cherokee woman as a model in their arguments for the emancipation of white married women (Ried 140).
        Although there is extensive historical ethnographic data like the above examples to prove women were not always viewed as inferior, the traditional “belief” that this was so has lingered on and is now part of our culture. It is accepted by many as a well known fact, despite the evidence, because it has been passed on from generation to generation as such. In short it has become a traditional belief resilient to change in the extreme.

********* ADD CHEROKEE WOMAN COUNCIL (MOONEY? AND THE “OLD” BOOK) WOMEN WARRIORS FROM DE SOTO ETC> *******

The Mysterious Mound - Builders
        The Mississippian Temple Mound Culture was not a result of Phoenician colonists nor was it a lost tribe of Israel. The culture was a phase in Amerindian civilization just as the Pyramid era was of Egypt. However, based on the same survey 68 students expressed some form of doubt as to the origins of the mounds being of Amerindian culture. This too is quickly put to rest.
        Throughout American history people have speculated on the origins of civilization in the Americas. Folks just do not seem to be able to accept the idea that Amerindians could conceive of such a thing as civilization. There have been those like Thomas Jefferson and Cyrus Thomas who have had to produce redundant studies to prove this and in each case, among others, the public, media and academic mind insists on maintaining the myth over the fact.
        In the wake of romantic speculation on the origins of the Amerindians, particularly the Mound-Builders, Jefferson proved, in 1802, they were indeed Amerindians, yet T. M. Harris, in 1810, formerly re-proposed the question. This launched another era of amnesiatic romanticism until Cyrus Thomas, working for the Bureau of Ethnology, proved again, in 1894, that the Mound-Builders were Amerindians and not some mysterious lost race (Thomas, 6). This time it had taken an act of Congress, yet we still find romantic drivel repeating these speculations. What should be disturbing is that this material is not always from public forums or the media, but in fact, the most popular material today comes from a Harvard professor, Berry Fell, who wrote America B. C. and Saga America. However, it has been shown irrefutably that Amerindians come in all shapes, sizes and colors, that Amerindian women were not inferior to their men, and that the Mound - Builders were not some lost mystery race.
        By now there should be cast at least some skepticism on academia’s methods with regard to the Amerindian. Ideally a survey of Amerindian philosophy would preclude or accompany a study of the literature. However, this is beyond both the scope and ability of the average literature class, yet this simple point can be made and substantiated to the student in a short period of time, using the above examples, to remind them that the work they are studying does not come from the same cultural world as their own.

Continue to PAGE 3

We appreciate your comments and suggestions. Please E-MAIL us.

� 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 by Hutchison Research Center. All rights reserved.

Have a topic or question for discussion? Join our free discussion forum!

Back to Hutchison Research Center Contents Page
Back to Hutchison Research Center Home Page