Page:History of Southeast Missouri 1912 Volume 1.djvu/68

 8 HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST MISSOURI the most part owned by persons who do not wish them disturbed. It is quite probable that there exist large numbers of mounds, some of them not yet known, which contain many in- teresting remains such as those mentioned. So many bones are found in some of the mounds that they are classified as burial mounds. In some of them there are evidences of two or more distinct burials, leading us to believe that after the first bodies were placed in the mound and covered, other bodies were then placed above and the mound carried on to its completed form. The condition of the bones leads to the belief that most of the bodies were denuded of flesh before being placed in the mounds, and that frequently only a part of the bones were buried at all. Often only the skull and some of the large bones of the legs are found. In some cases a large number of bones are found together, comprising parts of a number of skeletons. The probability is that in such cases a large number of bones were gathered together and then put into the mound without separation. The tools and implements sometimes found in the mounds are often associated with bones, showing them to have been buried together, and suggesting some connection between their presence and the rites of burial. The pottery found in these mounds is of various shapes and sizes. A few large urns containing bones have been found, other and smaller vessels seem to have been made to hold food or water. As has been said, these mounds and their contents have given rise to a great deal of dis- cussion and many theories have been ad- vanced to explain their origin. Archaeologists believed for a long time that they were the work of a vanished race whom they called the "Mound Builders." These people w-ere re- garded as having lived in this country prior to the coming of the Indians and to have been a much superior race. The grouping of the mounds has suggested to some the arrange- ment of cities and villages about a center which was a great capital. It was insisted that the Indians could not have built the mounds for a number of rea.sons. One reason was that their arrangement indicated an or- ganization, a nation with a capital. This or- ganized national life the Indians did not have; conseciuently they did not build the mounds. Another reason was that the In- dians could not have built mounds of such great size as some of the works. Still another advanced was that the age of the mounds pre- cludes the idea that they were the work of the Indians. The balance of opinion inclines however, at this time, to the idea that the mounds are the work of Indians. It is difficult to accept the hypothesis of the Mound Builders, with their high state of civilization, their organized gov- ernment and their great capital. There is not sufficient evidence of .such a state of civiliza- tion. The excavation of the mounds did not disclose any evidence at all of a high state of civilization supposed by those who believe the Mound Builders to have existed. There has been little or nothing found in the mounds which was not entirely familiar to the Indian of this country. No such finds were made in these mounds as in the somewhat similar ap- pearing mounds of the Tigris-Euphrates val- ley. There the spade of the archaeologist turned up all the external evidences of a great civilization. Mighty palaces and temples ; the walls and streets of great cities, libraries, in- scriptions: the record of long years of exist- ence and civilization, were all uncovered, bear- ing silent but unmistakable evidence to the ex- istence of mighty and wealthy nations. Con- trast this with the meager contents, the im-