Previous to the exam we talked a lot about the Moundbuilders. We mainly discussed different myths surrounding their origin and debates about whether they were actually the builders of the mounds. We all learned that the Moundbuilders were found to be ancestors of the Native Americans by Cyrus Thomas. We also know that their largest mound center was Cahokia in East St. Louis however many other mounds existed throughout the East. I wanted to talk a little about their presence in the Midwest, specifically Michigan. It should be noted that their mounds are also present in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. They are believed to be the first people to inhabit the lower peninsula of Michigan. A 1956 news article with an interview from archaeologist Clair Reynolds tells of the Native American’s experience with the Moundbuilders in Michigan. One Ottawa Native American describes his fear of the mounds. He feared that the ghosts of the “Yam-Ko-Desh” still roamed the mounds and would not take the reporter there. “Yam-Ko-Desh” was the name the Ottawa Indians assigned to the moundbuilders, meaning “the prairie people” (http://www.detroittechnomilitia.com/main/index.php/techno-history/detroit-history/120-detroits-curse-indian-burial-mounds). The Michigan Moundbuilders are known for their building of two different kinds of mounds. The first being a conical-shaped mound that was used for burials. The other was pyramid-shaped with a flat top. This kind was believed to be used as a lookout or as a communication post. One of the most well-known mounds in the Michigan is the “Great Mound on the Rouge.” It is said to be 200 feet long, 300 feet wide, and 20 feet tall. Unfortunately, it was destroyed for industrial development and no longer exists today. However, when it was destroyed many valuable artifacts were found inside. It is also believed that the Moundbuilders of Michigan engaged in some mining in the Lake Superior region (http://publications.newberry.org/indiansofthemidwest/people-places-time/eras/moundbuilders/). In an article about the Moundbuilders it is stated, “Colonel Charles Whittlesey, one of the best authorities on this point, believes the Mound-Builders worked the copper-beds of that region during “a great length of time.”(http://moundbuilder.blogspot.com/p/history-about-michigan-mound-builders.html) However, I could not find much information on this claim. Dr. W.B Hinsdale from the University of Michigan did some of the most extensive mapping of mounds in Michigan. He published his findings in a book titled, “Primitive Man in Michigan” in 1925. As you can see there is a lot of information about the Moundbuilders in Michigan. However, for some reason the state of Michigan did a very poor job preserving the mounds in comparison to other states. It really makes you wonder what the difference was. Was it the rapid industrialization of Detroit because of the auto industry? Or was it simply just neglect on the states part?
One thought on “Moundbuilders in Michigan”
Comments are closed.
Being from Illinois, one of the first things we talked about in our social studies classes was our Native American heritage. Of course, we mentioned Cahokia and the legacy of the Moundbuilders. The thing is that while Cahokia is around St. Louis, there is no major urban development in that area. So to answer you questions, I think a possible answer might be population density. If lots of people wanted to settle in Cahokia before an appreciation for archaeology took place, or if Southern Illinois had any chance at attracting people to live there, I wouldn’t be surprised then if it had been paved over and cleared. The fact is that southern Illinois is sparsely populated. Southern Michigan, on the other hand, I believe is more populated, so there was a need for space and thus whatever remained of the Moundbuilders in Michigan was probably removed. Also I think Mr. Watrall touched upon it that the Moundbuilders may have only had colonies in Michigan and not fully established settlements. I’d imagine it would’ve been hard not to notice a Cahokia-like settlement in Michigan. But like you said, there were mounds around in Michigan at the time, so they had a permanent establishment there. Ultimately, I think you answered your own question. I think the state did not care. Possibly because of the rapid industrialization of Michigan as a whole and the patterns of settlement in southern Michigan, the state government probably didn’t see the need to preserve the mounds. Instead, their focus was economic and if they hindered any economic expansion then they would lose a good deal of cash.