STUDIES Volume XXII October, 1970 The Southern Indian Studies was established in April, 1949, as a medium of publication and discussion of information per­ taining to the life and customs of the Indians in the Southern states, both prehistoric and historic. Subscription is by mem­ bership in the North Carolina Archaeological Society (annual dues $3.00) or $1.00 per year to institutions and non-residents of North Carolina. PUBLISHED by THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SociETY OF NORTH CAROLINA and THE RESEARCH LABORATORIES OF ANTHROPOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA Box 561 Chapel Hill Volume XXII October, 1970 CONTENTS Cyrus Thomas and the Mound Builders ..... Bennie C. Keel 3 Excavations at the Reds Springs Mound Rb0 4, Robeson County 1971 ........... Bennie C. Keel 17 More Notes on Symbolism ........... Clemens de Baillou 23 CYRUS THOMAS AND THE MOUND BUILDERS by Bennie C. Keel Introduction Over the past ten years the author has been intimately involved in research in the Cherokee area of North Carolina conducted by the Research Laboratories of Anthropology under the direction of Dr. Joffre L. Coe. In reviewing the literature pertaining to this area, I have become greatly interested in the gradual growth of knowledge of the prehistory of the region and particularly inter­ ested in the individuals who, as pio neers, have contributed so much to our present understanding of the past cultures found here. Three facets of this interest have grown simultaneously: the investigator's basic contributions to knowledge., the theoretical foundation which influenced his interpretation of the data, and the biography of the investigator. In view of these interests this paper will describe the major contributions of Cyrus Thomas to American archaeology, examine his theoretical position, and present some information about his life. To properly evaluate his contributions it is necessary to know something about the problem with which he was most intimately involved- the solution of the mystery of the Mound Builders. The Mound Builder Myth By the time Cyrus Thomas was engaged to supervise the Bureau of American Ethnology's Division of Mound Exploration the common concensus was that the mounds were the products of a vanished civilization which was superior to the Indians contacted by the early settlers of the continent. The interested reader may wish to consult Robert Silverberg's Mound Builders of Ancient America for a thorough presentation of the growth of the Mound Builder idea. The present account will only touch upon some of the more fundamental writings on this subject that seem to fo rm the basis for much of the later dogmatic essays concerning the subject. 4 SO UTH ERN I DIA STU DI ES [XXII. 1970 Suggestions that the constructors of the mo unds, "sacred e nclo­ sures", and "forts" can be traced at least as fa r back as 1785 to Joh n F itch, a cartographer, who stated in his d escription o f Wis­ consin that the Northwest T erritory " has been settled by a people more ex pert in the art of war than the present inhabitants, regular fortifications, and some of these incredibly large a re frequently to be found. Also many graves and towers like pyramids of earth (Winsdor 1889:398)." Benjamin Smith Barto n, as earl y as 1787, suggested that the authors of these works were the T oltecs. Ac­ cording to him the Toltecs were in fact Danes who had spent several centuries in the Midwest before migrating to Mexico. This was based on the fact that the Danes (Vikings) buried their dead in mounds similar to those explored in Ohio and according to native histories of Mexico the To ltecs had arrived fro m the north. In 1775 James Adair ( 1940) suggested that the Indians were descen­ dants of the lost tribes of Israel. This claim was supported by Dr. Ezra Stiles, then president of Yale. Stiles suggested as feasible routes of migration an overland treak across Asia, or possibly across the Atlantic on Phoenician ships (Silverberg 1968:26). As the number of accounts describing the mounds and their conte nts grew, so did the number of different Old Wo rld ethnic gro ups responsible for the construction. In a earl y sy nthesis of the ava ilable data Caleb Atwater ( 1820) concluded that the a ntiquit_ies of the New Wo rld could be divid ed into three gro ups: " I. Those belo nging to Indians. - 2. to people of European origin.- 3. T hose of that people who raised our ancient forts and tumu li (Atwater 1820: I I I)." Atwater ( 1820: 120) correctly pointed out that the coin s, med­ als. and tablets with alphabetic c haracters which had been found in ancient contexts were in fact trade good of recent times or frauds. Despite numerous claims by others as to which people the mounds should be credited, Atwater chose the Hindu (Atwater 1820: 207-2 15). In 1833 Josiah Priest published American Antiquities in which he surveyed most of the conj ectures whi ch had been put forth and conclu ded: KEEL] CYRUS THOMAS 5 As it respects some of the ancient nations who may have found their way hither, we preceive a strong possibliity, that not only Asiatic nations, very soon after the fl ood, but that also, all along the different eras of time, different races of men, as Polynesians, Malays, Australasians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, lsraelities, Tartars, Scandinavians, Danes, Norwegians, Welch, and Scotch, have colonized different parts of the continent (Priest 1833: iv). Descendants of Jewish tribes were responsible for the mounds according to Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Latter Day Saints, who translated the golden plates given to him by angel Moroni. On their first encounter Moroni, according to Smith's testimony ... said there was a book deposited, written on golden plates, givi ng an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the sources from whkh they sprang (Smith I 9SO: iv). On September 22, 1827 the plates were turned over to Smith alo ng with the necessary aids to translate them. By Ma y 2, 1838 he had completed his translation and returned them to Moroni (Smith I 950: vi). The essential elements of the past history of the peoples of North America according to Smith's translation of the plates were that during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar a group of Jews fl ed from Jerusalem to the New World. After their arrival a schism occured which divided them into two tribes; the Nephrites and the Lamanites. The Nephrites retained a high civilization and were the builders of the monumental earthwo rk s. The Lanamites, because of their many abominations to God, were separated from the Nephrites and became the ancestors of the Ameri ca n Indians. Eventually the Nephrites also sinned and were destroyed as a natio n by the Lamanites. Perhaps the most famous source of the nineteenth century that promoted the theory that the earthworks of the United States were constructed by a vanished civilizatio n was the first volume of the Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge: "Ancient Monu­ ments of the Miss issippi Valley". The au thors concluded from the evidence they examined that the earthworks could not have been constructed by the Indians or their ancestors (Squier and Davis 6 SOUTHERN IN DIAN STU DIES [ XXII , 1970 1848: 42). Although this theory had been posited by previous writers it now gained a broader following because it had been printed in an official government book. For the next half century this theory was held by all but a few serious investigators. The preceeding paragraphs have attempted to show the develop­ ment of the theory which explained the presence of thousands of earthworks in the Eastern United States by referring them to a vanished civilization much superior to the Indians who occupied the land during the period of white settlement. The proponents of this theory offered abundant, but often conflicting evid ence to support this theory. The claims presented below were taken from a number of sources. The list does not reflect the position of any single writer but rather, reflects the range of evidence used by partisans of the vanished race theory to support their theory. l. The mounds were of great antiquity and therefore could not be the work of Indians. 2. The works show engineering and uniformity beyond the competence of Indians. 3. The mounds served religious purposes as did the "high places" of the Old Testament. 4. The inscriptions on the Grave Creek, Gass, and other stone tablets proved that the Mound-Builders had writing, a skill not possessed by Indians. 5. No mounds were known to have been built by historic tribes. 6. The presence of the "elephant effigy mound" in Wisconsin , the Davenp ort elephant pipes, and Gass tablets found in Iowa indicated great antiquity and perhaps use of elephants in construction of the mounds. 7. The presence of copper, bronze, brass and iron implements indicated that the mounds belonged to a vanished race because Indians had no knowledge of metallurgy. KEEL] CYRUS THOMAS 7 8. The technical level and aesthetic refinement of the Mound Builder artifacts far surpassed the competence and sensitivity of Indians. 9. The uniformity of mound forms over such a wide distribution was evidence of a central government; a phenomenon unknown among the Indians. I 0. Such works must have been based on a highly developed agricultural base. Such economy was not known for Indians in the Mid-west during historic times. Conse­ quently, Indians could not have been responsible for such grand developments. The Bureau of Ethnology, Cyrus Thomas and the Division of Mound Exploration Ethnographic research supported by the federal government had an informal beginning under the direction of Major John Wesley Powell and the United States Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region.