THE COUNTY OF ROSS.
CHAPTER I.
ROSS COUNTY ANTIQUITIES.
THE far-famed Valley of the Scioto derives its name from the river which traverses it. The name is that given it by the Wyandots, whose language is allied closely to that of the Iroquois, and the signification of the name is, according to the best authorities, "deer." The early students of Indian tongues, such as Zeisberger, give Scenoto or Scenonto or Skanodo as forms of the Mohawk and Onondaga words for "deer." In Howe's Historical Collections John Johnston, an Indian agent of the Miami valley, is quoted as saying that the name of the Sei-on-to river is from the Wyandot, but its meaning is unknown, yet he gives "Ough-Scanoto" as Wyandot for "deer." "Unknown" seems also to have been the meaning of the word to Mrs. Mary Inglis, a captive after 1755 at the Shawanee town at the mouth of the Scioto. But the fact that she was among the Shawanees may explain her ignorance of the meaning. She gives the name as "Siotha," "Sonhioto," and "Sioto seepee," the latter word meaning river. Father Bonnecamp, the chronicler of Celeron's expedition down the Ohio in 1749, called the river "Sinhioto," which was pronounced like Sankioto, whence another form to be found in early narratives--"St. Yoto." Christopher Gist, who visited it in 1751, called it "Sciodoe." The Rev. David Jones, who traveled through the valley in 1772, said "The name which the Shawnese give Scioto has slipped my memory, but it signified Hairy river. The Indians tell its the deer were so plenty when they came to drink, the stream would be thick with hairs." Whatever the Shawanee name was, the Wyandot name for the stream, the name that has been perpetuated, was Deer river.
In direct line from source to mouth, the Scioto is one hundred and
18 - THE COUNTY OF ROSS.
thirty miles in length, traversing the counties of Auglaize (its source), Hardin, Marion, Delaware, Franklin, Pickaway, Ross, Pike and Scioto, emptying into the Ohio at Portsmouth. Throughout its meanderings, the Scioto drains a vast extent of territory, embracing lands unsurpassed in fertility and adaptability to the wants of the inhabitants. The stream, from its source, flows through a country either level or gently undulating, until it reaches Chillicothe, where it enters the hilly sandstone region, through which it passes to the Ohio, in a wide and fertile valley, bounded by lofty hills and wild, romantic scenery. The Ross county tributaries to the Scioto are Paint creek, Deer creek and Stony creek, with their several tributaries, entering the river from the west. Those flowing into it from the east are Salt creek, Kinnickinnick creek and Rattlesnake creek, all smaller than the western tributaries, though not lacking in historical interest. The Scioto drains a scope of country averaging seventy miles in width and passes through a territory picturesquely beautiful and historically interesting.
The Scioto valley is renowned for its natural beauty as well as for the historical interest which centers about it. The land is in a high state of improvement, yielding abundant returns in all phases of diversified farming. Magnificent homes and a happy and prosperous people evince the wisdom of the pioneer fathers in locating in this "garden spot of Ohio." But the white man was not the only one of God's creatures who recognized the peculiar attractions of the Scioto valley. The Shawanee or "Southern" Indians loved the locaion, and though driven from it by stronger tribes of savages, they returned at the first opportunity from far-distant regions. Before them another family of people, possibly those of whom there is some-thing told in the traditions and the ancient painted record of the Delawares, had their homes in this fertile valley at a time when it was more populous than at any time between their dispersal and the white settlement.
The evidences of their existence are scattered throughout the Scioto valley in the greatest profusion ; and Ross county stands second to none in this respect. Volumes have been written, and will continue to grace our library shelves, until the end of time, in the effort to prove the origin and fate of the "Mound Builders." It. is not the purpose of this volume to make any attempt at a decision of the vexed question, but, rather, to give the reader a brief resume of the theories and discoveries of those who have spent years of patient toil, and a great deal of money, in the investigation. That an ancient race, possibly different from the Indians known to the white pioneer, and possessing a certain degree of civilization, once inhabited the central portion of the United States, has long been an established fact. They left no written history, and all that is known concerning them is gathered from the mounds, enclosures, and implements which
ROSS COUNTY ANTIQUITIES. - 19
they left behind. They have been called "Mound Builders," simply because of the innumerable mounds which they have erected, and which remained until the coming of the white man. These earth-works are very generally distributed from western New York, along the southern shore of Lake Erie, through Michigan, to Nebraska, thence north from this line to the southern shore of Lake Superior. From this line they extend south to the Gulf of Mexico. Mounds occur in great. numbers in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. They are found in less numbers in western New York, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Iowa and portions of Mexico. In choosing this vast region, extending from the Alleghanies to the Rocky Mountains, and from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, the Mound Builders took possession of the great system of plains, controlling the long inland water courses of the continent. Along the broad levels drained by this vast river system, the remains of prehistoric man are found. It is authoritatively stated that. there are not less than thirteen thousand mounds and enclosures in the state of Ohio. Archaeologists have no difficulty in locating the places which were most densely populated, by reason of the irregular distribution of the works. In Ohio these are found in the vicinity of Marietta, Athens, Portsmouth, Chillicothe, Circleville, Newark, Springfield, Alexandersville, Middletown, Eaton, Oxford, Hamilton and Cincinnati. It is interesting to note that in the selection of sites for these earthworks, the Mound Builders were influenced by the same motives, apparently, which governed their European successors. It is a well established fact that nearly every town of importance in the valleys of the Ohio and Mississippi, and their tributaries, is located on the ruins left by this ancient people. Of these we may mention Norwalk, Dayton, Xenia, in addition to the others previously named in our own State; Frankfort, Ky., St. Louis, Mo., Chicago, Ill., and Milwaukee, Wis. The sites selected by the Mound Builders for their most pretentious works were on the river terraces, or bottoms, no doubt because of the natural highways thus rendered available, besides the opportunities for fishing, and the cultivation of the war in, quick soil, easily tilled.
In Ross county there are one hundred prehistoric enclosures, varying in degrees of completeness, which have long been recognized by archaeologists as the handiwork of the Mound Builders. No other county in the State contains as great a number of these ancient relics. Many of the enclosures are of great size. In addition to the enclosed works, there are about five hundred mounds. The valley of the Scioto embraced within the county limits and the beautiful valley of Paint creek are most clearly shown to have been the favorite localities of the Mound Builders, as they were in a later day, the chosen resorts of the Indians. Here was a seat of the most dense population of the
20 - THE COUNTY OF ROSS.
ancient race. Within a radius of twelve miles from Chillicothe are located ten groups of large works, besides innumerable mounds. Within the enclosure of "Mound City" there are twenty-four tumuli, and the whole surface of the country in that vicinity may be said to be dotted with them. Some of these works enclose a hundred acres or more, while others embrace very extensive areas. Four of them have two and a half miles of embankment each. In the Paint creek valley, a section six miles in extent contains three works about equal in size to those in the Scioto valley, while there are a number of smaller ones. A full description of these ancient works, or even a mention of them, would require more space than can be accorded to it in this work. The patient student must avail himself of the opportunities presented in the perusal of the elaborate works published on this interesting and fascinating subject, while the casual reader has little interest beyond a superficial view. The field, however, is rich in archaeological lore.
The principal ancient enclosures of Ross county are as follows: In Franklin township--Big Bottom Canal; Chillicothe; twelve miles north of Chillicothe; three miles south of Chillicothe ; Mound city, three miles north of Chillicothe ; "Dunlaps"--three miles north of the Mound City works ; Hopetown, and another on east bank of the Scioto, opposite the Hopetown group ; near Bourneville on Paint creek; Stone fort, one and a half miles south of Bourneville; and Harp-shaped works, two and a half miles southeast of Bourneville. In Liberty township--southeast of Chillicothe; the Frankfort group, fifteen miles west of Chillicothe, and others in that vicinity; the Stone circle, two miles west of the Stone fort, near Bourneville; the Bainbridge, Alderson and Kilgore groups. In addition to these, there are Many mounds which were apparently designed as auxiliaries, having either remote or direct connection with the principal enclosures, some of which present interesting features for study and investigation.
In the surveys and explorations of many of the Ross county mounds, they were found to be similar in all important characteristics, though apparently designed for different purposes. Some appeared to be for defense against the encroachments of an enemy, and show that some knowledge of military fortification was possessed by the designers and builders. There are also what are known as "sacred enclosures ;" a class of mounds very numerous in southern Ohio, and particularly in the Scioto valley. One distinctive difference between the "defensive" and "sacred" inclosures is in the fact that the latter are usually located on the level river bottoms and seldom occur on the table lands, or where the surface of the surrounding country is broken or undulating. They are usually square or circular in form, and frequently the two forms are combined in one figure. Sometimes they are found in groups, but often are separate or iso-
ROSS COUNTY ANTIQUITIES. - 21
lated. The dimensions of the circular ones are nearly uniform in extent, being from two hundred and fifty to three hundred feet in diameter. They usually have one gateway, often (though not always) opening to the east. Mounds are usually found within these circles, which archaeologists have termed "sacrificial" mounds.
The square or rectangular works, found in combination with the circles, are of various dimensions ; but it has been noticed that certain groups are distinguished by an uniformity in size that has persuaded archaeologists to claim that the builders had a standard of measurement. These squares have almost invariably eight gateways, all of which are covered or protected by small mounds. A few have been discovered which are octagonal in form. There is one of this class near Chillicothe. These are also considered as belonging to the general division known as "sacred" inclosures. In addition to the works previously mentioned as "defensive" and "sacred," there are also those designated as "sacrificial," "sepulchral," "temple" and "memorial" mounds the latter also termed "monumental;" and in connection with these may also be classed the anomalous mounds, and mounds of observation. There is also a class, variously designated as animal, emblematic or symbolical mounds. These, as implied by their names, were crude representations of various animals, reptiles, birds, and even men; sometimes sufficiently accurate in their representations to plainly show the characters they were designed to represent. The peculiar and distinctive features of these various relies of past ages, are of little interest to the general reader; and yet the fact of their existence, and that they are the only remains of a race of human beings who passed away, possibly hundreds of years before the advent of the white man on the American continent, urges the effort to solve the mystery of the ancient people and their works. But the solution of the problem has baffled the skill, research and learning of the most noted scientists of two continents, since the existence of these "works of human hands" was first determined. True, we have theories, ably supported by argument; and these, in the absence of absolutely established facts, we must accept, weigh, adopt or discard, and still remain in darkness as to the origin, mission and final destiny of the Mound Builders.
Judging by the work which they have left--and that is in accord with Scriptural suggestion--they were a powerful race of slightly civilized and industrious people. The earth monuments, only, remain, these enclosing a. few relics of rude art, together with the last lingering remains of mortality--the crumbling skeleton--which the curious investigators have disturbed in their resting places. But even these have yielded to scientific minds strongly imaginative, some knowledge of the character and lives of the race. The twentieth century dawns in almost as great ignorance of the pre-historic race as did the nineteenth ; yet in the ever restless spirit of modern investi-
22 - THE COUNTY OF ROSS.
gation, efforts have been made to link the Mound Builders with some ancient and far distant race of civilized mankind.
As early as 1772, Rev. David Jones publicly noticed the existence of the mounds, and advanced his views concerning them. In 1784, Arthur Lee wrote a treatise on the lost race, and advanced some rather visionary ideas regarding them. But the first general survey of the works was made by Caleb Atwater, of Circleville, Ohio, in 1819, under the auspices, and at the expense, of the Archaeological Society of Worcester, Mass. It was left, however, to a Ross county man, and a native of Chillicothe, to be the instrument through whom a work should be produced which should in any way satisfy the growing interest in archaeology. About 1836, Dr. Edwin Hamilton Davis was employed with Col. Charles Whittlesey in explorations and surveys of the Newark antiquities. In this work he became greatly interested, and continued his investigations and collections ever afterward. A young man named Ephriam George Squier came from New York to accept a position on the editorial force of the Scioto Gazette of Chillicothe. He also became greatly interested in archaeological matters, and in 1846, he and Dr. Davis joined in the preparation of a work which formerly stood at the head of the archaeological literature of North America. Recognizing the merit of this work, the Smithsonian Institution, at Washington, D. C., assumed a protectorate over it, and in 1848 published the work of Squier and Davis, together with some plans and notes furnished by others, under title of "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley." This publication constituted the first systematic work with descriptions and figures of the numerous remains of the Mound Builders. From that day to the present, the Smithsonian Institution has continued to publish books and original papers relating to this subject. Stimulated by this national recognition, and in view of the absorbing interest of the subject, many original investigators have published manuscripts and hooks at private expense, some of which are very elaborate and complete. It seems eminently proper, though perhaps a little irrelevant, to here include a more extensive mention of Dr. Davis, a native of the county, and his co-laborer, Mr. Squier, both of whom were well known to the residents of Ross county at the time mentioned in this connection. Edwin Hamilton Davis was born January 22, 1811, and died May 15, 1888. He was educated for the medical profession, and was graduated from Cincinnati Medical College, in 1838. He practiced medicine in Chillicothe about twelve years, during which time, and the period of his student life, he became associated, first with Col. Charles Whittlesey, in 1836, in the explorations and surveys of ancient mounds at Newark, and, subsequently, with Mr. E. G. Squier in the preparation of the work previously mentioned. This covered the years from 1845 to 1847, and involved the surveying and opening of nearly one hundred groups
ROSS COUNTY ANTIQUITIES. - 23
of aboriginal earthworks. Dr. Davis also opened two hundred mounds at his own expense. He gathered the largest collection of mound-relics that has been made in America. These now form part of the collection of Blackmore's Museum, at Salisbury, England. A second collection of duplicates from the results of subsequent investigations, is now in the possession of the American Museum of Natural History, in New York. The work of Squier and Davis, published in 1818, was characterized by the eminent Swiss archaeologist, A. Morlot, in a paper before the American Philosophical Society, in 1862, as being "as glorious a monument of American science, as Bunker Hill is of American bravery." In the spring of 1S54, Dr. Davis delivered a course of lectures on archaeology before the Lowell Institute, in Boston, which was repeated in Brooklyn and New York. The doctor removed from Chillicothe in 1850, and accepted the chair of materia medica and therapeutics in the New York Medical College, where he ended his days.
Ephraim George Squier was younger by ten years than Dr. Davis, having been born at Bethlehem. June 17, 1821. His was a busy life, full of adventure along the lines of his chosen work. He was a writer of distinguished ability; and, but for the few years spent in the field of exploration, spent his life, largely, in journalistic work, and in writing historical and archaeological books. He was the author of many valuable works, besides contributing articles to encyclopedias and foreign periodicals. His death occurred in Brooklyn, New York, April 17, 1888.
It is a noticeable feature of all the early publications in this department of archaeology, that they attach great antiquity to the Mound Builders. The variations in this regard are also very great. Some assume that thousands of years have elapsed since the building of these ancient relics, and all agree that they are very old. Eminent authorities are as widely at variance regarding their antiquity, as they are concerning their origin and purpose. In closing this chapter, we present the views of a number of recognized authorities, as tending to show that the Mound Builders were, or may have been, the immediate predecessors of the Indians found here on the advent of the white man.
The Marquis de Nadaillac, in his admirable work on "Prehistoric America," published in 1895, and edited and verified by W. H. Dall, sums up a voluminous discussion as follows: "What, it may be asked, are we to believe was the character of the race to which, for the purpose of clearness, we have for the time being, applied the term `Mound Builders ?' The answer must be, they were no more nor less than the immediate predecessors, in blood and culture, of the Indians described by De Soto's chroniclers, and other early explorers; the Indians who inhabited the region of the mounds at the time of their discovery by civilized men. As, in the far north, the Aleuts,
24 - THE COUNTY OF ROSS.
up to the time of their discovery, were, by the testimony of the shell heaps, as well as their language, the direct successors of the early Eskimo,--so in the fertile basin of the Mississippi, the Indians were the builders, or the successors of the builders, of the singular and varied structures attributed to the Mound Builders. It is true that a very different opinion has been widely entertained, chiefly by those who were not aware of the historical evidence. Even Mr. Spier, who, in his famous work on the ancient monuments of the Mississippi valley, makes no distinction in these remains, but speaks of the Mound Builders as an extinct race, and contrasts their progress in the arts with the supposed low condition of the modern Indians, in a subsequent publication felt compelled to modify his views, and distinguish between the earthworks of western New York, which he admits to be of purely Indian origin, and those found in southern Ohio. Further researches have shown that no line can be drawn between the two ; the differences are merely of degree. For the most part the objects found in them, from the rude knife to the carved and polished 'gorget,' might have been taken from the inmost recesses of a mound, or picked up on the surface among the debris of a recent Indian village, and the most experienced archaeologist could not decide which was their origin. Lucian Carr has recently reviewed the whole subject iii a manner which cannot but carry conviction to the impatient archaeologist, but the conclusions he arrives at have the weight of other, and, as all will admit, most distinguished authority. It is not asserted that the mounds were built by any particular tribe, or at any particular period, nor that each and every tribe of the Mississippi valley erected such structures, nor that there were not differences of culture and proficiency in the arts between different tribes of mound builders, as between the tribes of modern Indians now known. All that can be claimed is, that there is nothing in the mounds beyond the power of such people as inhabited the region when discovered ; that those people are known to have constructed many of the mounds now, or recently existing, and that there is no evidence that any other, or different people, had any hand in the construction of those mounds in regard to which direct historical evidence is wanting. Summing up the results that have been attained, it may be safely said that, so far from there being any a-priori reason why the red Indians could not have erected these works, the evidence shows, conclusively, that in New York and the Gulf states, they did build mounds and embankments that are essentially of the same character as those found in Ohio."
Lucian Carr says : "In view of the fact that these same Indians are the only people, except the whites, who, so far as we know, have ever held the region over which these works are scattered, it is believed that we are fully justified in claiming that the mounds and enclosures of Ohio, like those in New York and the Gulf states, were
ROSS COUNTY ANTIQUITIES. - 25
the work of the red Indians of historic times, or of their immediate ancestors. To deny this conclusion, and to accept its alternative, ascribing these remains to a mythical people of a different civilization, is to reject a simple and satisfactory explanation of a fact, in favor of one that is far-fetched and incomplete, and this is neither science nor logic."
We quote a few brief extracts from savings of other eminent students and scholars, and leave the determination of the question to the patient reader:
"The earthworks differ less in kind than. in degree from other remains respecting which history has not been entirely silent."-- Haven..
"There is nothing, indeed, in the magnitude and structure of our western mounds, which a semi-hunter and semi-agricultural population, like that which may be ascribed to the ancestors or Indian predecessors of the existing race, could not have executed."--Schoolcraft.
"All these earthworks--and I am inclined to assert the same of the whole of those in the Atlantic states, and the majority in the Mississippi valley--were the production, not of some mythical tribe of high civilization in remote antiquity, but of the identical nations found by the whites residing in these regions.''--Brinton..
"No doubt that they were erected by the forefathers of the present Indians."--Gen. Lewis Cass.
"Nothing in them which may not have been performed by a savage people." Gallatin.
"The old idea that the mound builders were peoples distinct from, and other than, the Indians of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and their progenitors, appears unfounded in fact, and fanciful."--C. C. Jones.
"Mound builders were tribes of American Indians of the same race with the tribes now living."--Judge M. F. Force.
"The progress of discovery seems constantly to diminish the distinction between the ancient and modern races; and it may not be very wide of the track to assert that they were the same people."--Lapham.
The preceding pages give the views of well known scientists and explorers, both early and recent. It is not the purpose of this work to decide controverted questions, but to give both sides, and allow the reader to form his own opinions, based upon authorities cited.
In concluding this chapter, it may be stated that Ross county has been, and still is, a rich field in archaeological research. Many ancient works have been opened, notably by Squier and Davis, Moorehead, and local investigators. The results of these are shown in connection with the history of the townships in which the investigations took place.
Judging from the mass of published information on the subject,
26 - THE COUNTY OF ROSS.
the Mound Builders were a race--or races--of people, somewhat nomadic in their habits, yet more centralized in habitation than the Indians of historic times. They were semi-agricultural in pursuits, given to hunting and fishing, and schooled in the primitive arts of warfare. They had some knowledge of trade, or a system of rude barter, which brought them into possession of articles from far-distant localities, since in Ross county, mounds have been opened which contained copper from Lake Superior, mica from the old mines of North Carolina, and shells from the Gulf of Mexico.