by Terry Burns, Laurie Graney and Kristal Prohaska
Welcome to our third and final article on the mystery of “Indian Park,” the not-quite-an-acre of land just off fourth street in Platteville, Wisconsin. Our first article introduced the many mysteries of this place; our second article discussed the history we know for certain, particularly its history as a cholera burial ground and the seeming legal tug-of-war that’s occurred over the property since the 1850s.
[Note : we have added new information to this article as of January 31, 2022. That new information has been obtained as research performed as part of a Wisconsin Humanities Mini-Grant entitled “Unraveling the Mysteries of Indian Park and Developing a Vision for the Future.” We have also added a more formal separate page, “The History of Indian Park,” which includes references beyond what we refer to in this article.]
Finally we come to the legend that gives the park its name: the alleged “Indian buried in the middle.” We’ve already speculated that if there is truth to the legend, and we think there is, that the so-called “Indian” (no one has ever attached a tribe or nation) is not a recent burial. Elementary school teachers in the 1950s used to lead their classes out to the park from O.E. Gray elementary and instruct students that there was a mound in the middle of the park, and it needed to be treated with respect. If you grew up in Platteville and remember such a field trip, we want to say that your teacher was probably exactly right: that there likely is a conical mound in the center of the park, and perhaps were other mounds there too at one time. This article will explore that possibility and talk about how we might prove it.
So, is that a conical mound in the center? Was this area home to a mound complex? Could there even be a linear mound on the south side, perhaps one shaved off when the park was leveled?
As we explored this idea, we were told more than once that the kind of area “Indian Park” sits upon was not the kind of area that mounds were built upon. (Of course, we were only told this by other white people, as the “Mound Builders” are long gone. William Quackenbush, the Tribal Preservation Officer for the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, kindly informed us that this was sometimes but not always the case.1)
Conical mounds do NOT need to be located near water, but even if they did, that would not be a problem. The area now known as “Indian Park” was once very near not only water, but a plethora of natural springs. In fact the whole area of what is now Platteville has been described by of the early setters as a forested area filled with gorges and springs. The area to the east, towards Darlington, was prairie, and it was easy to see what is now Platteville because it stood out both because of the large Platte Mound (the one that now has a large “M”) and because it was forested and full of water.
The last post on this blog was a 1917 article by one of the early white settlers, Mr. J.E. Evans, entitled “Platteville Ninety Years Ago, as the Site Appeared to our Pioneers / Also Some Account of the Abundance of Water that Greeted Early Settlers.” As that article showed, the area looked vastly different then. It was a land full of ravines and springs. The area around Platteville was so plush, so full of resources and places for shelter, that its hard to believe it was not a meeting ground for Native American trade and ceremony.
Writers such as Wisconsin state archaeologist Robert Birmingham (in Indian Mounds of Wisconsin, co-authored with archaeologist Amy Rosebrough, and in Spirits of Earth: the Effigy Mound Landscape of Madison and the Four Lakes) and Anishinaabe professor Patty Loew (in Indian Nations of Wisconsin: Histories of Endurance and Renewal), along with on-the-ground educators like Effigy Mounds National Monument lead ranger David Barland-Liles, have discussed at length how the mounds connect to the cosmology of those who build them. For instance, bear effigy mounds are often associated with the bear clan; mounds occurring near springs are particularly significant since they were considered by some to be the opening to the underworld.
In one of the earliest histories of the area, C.W. Butterfield’s 1881 History of Grant County, Wisconsin, Butterfield introduced the area with a long discussion of the “Mound Builders” (pp. 442-449) and conveniently listed off the locations of those he was aware of.
Since then, literally hundreds more mound sites have been rediscovered and in many cases, destroyed. Sometimes the locations drift into mystery for purly financial reasons: for instance, each of us have been told stories by retired civic leaders that either one or several conical mounds once sat upon Platteville’s Legion field, but were leveled off to build the current playing fields. Is this true? We suspect it is, as those individuals had no motive to lie about such a thing, and the reason why the act allegedly occurred– wanting playing fields more than wanting to preserve an archaeological site–does not seem surprising. But the only way to prove it would be with ground-penetrating radar or to locate such mounds on in a study done before the park was built.
That’s just one of scores of examples. After our first presentation on Indian Park back in February 2020, two long-time residents shared similar stories about other places. One, a former colleague of mine from UW-Platteville, [permission needed to use name], said that as a boy the area nearby that he helped farm had what he took to be a mound, and when he returned there later, it was gone. He was sure it had been scraped off by farming equipment. This sort of story has no doubt repeated itself over and over in this area.
Therefore, we find it extremely safe to argue that although there’s no record of when the mounds in “Indian Park” were partially scraped off, it is almost certain this happened, since the area was once described as looking so different. Also, we know for certain that two or more feet of fill have been added to the park. As you can see from the photo, when the new sidewalk was put in to the park several years ago, the excavation plainly showed the older sidewalk beneath, under at least a foot and a half of fill. Additionally, if one walks along the south border of the park, you’ll find that the adjoining properties sit more than a foot lower than the park; whatever fill was used for the foundations of those houses years ago still left them sitting lower than the park. Taken together, this means that the mound in the center used to stand out much more than it did. (Indeed, the park once called “Hill Cemetery” used to be hilly, near springs, and reputedly had more than one mound.)
If there was a mound complex in the area, it’s not inconceivable–in fact, its predictable–that there would have been native gatherings here. In fact, that makes for a much more logical reason for people calling the place “Indian Park” than the story of an “Indian buried in the middle.” If someone or some people were buried there (if the mounds were burial mounds, as is often but not always the case), we’d be talking about someone buried there more than a thousand years ago, but peoples still visiting to the area to perform ceremony as late as the beginning of the last century.
Is that possible?
Yes. We will argue that it’s not only possible but likely. It matches the practice that continues (or in some cases has restarted) in places like Effigy Mounds National Monument. If we let ourselves be guided by those most familiar with the phenomena of mound-building– Ho-Chunk elders, Wisconsin state archaeologists who write about the “Mound Builders,” and others within the intersection of peoples who have studied and lived within native traditions–it starts to look more and more likely that there may have once been not just one mound but a mound complex in what is now called “Indian Park.” Discovering whether that is true requires archaeological excavation that is not permitted in catalogued state cemeteries, and as noted in our previous article “Indian Park cemetery” was catalogued as a state cemetery in 2021.
What we do know is that both articles and memoirs have referred to Native American gatherings at Indian Park. We also know that articles from the late 1800s and early 1900s
Let’s start with an article that appeared back in 1962, one we mentioned in our last article on Indian Park as a cholera burial ground.
In 1962, someone recalled enough to tell the reporter that native people from “miles around congregated there once a year for a pow-wow. They always gathered under a big oak tree for their ceremonials and it is assumed they moved the grapes [graves?!] during one of these times, since they stopped returning rather abruptly.”
The park used to contain several “big oak trees”– they have simply blown down in recent years (the last one coming down during the big storm in the summer of 2020.) But as you can see from this picture taken during the 1970s, the park once boasted several oak trees.
In addition, some residents at the turn of the last century recalled their being a multi-day Native American gathering in that park, though no one recalled, or perhaps knew at the time, the reason for the gathering.
Hopefully at some time in the future, ground penetrating radar will solve this mystery!
Notes
Often we have been asked if there are any Ho-Chunk or Potawatomi histories about the Mounds. Yes, the Ho-Chunk in particular consider themselves the living descendants of the “Mound Builders,” and have a plethora of histories concerning this. (Uniquely, the Ho-Chunk literally bought their way back in to the land of their ancestors by repurchasing some of their ancestral ground.) Because so much has been lost, it seems unlikely to tie a specific history to this one small patch of land. We did write to the Ho-Chunk Historic Preservation Officer, Mr. William Quackenbush, about the possibility of a mound complex in the park, and he said (on September 4, 2020) that this was not hte first time he had been asked. He also commented about whether or not a mound necessarily needed to be near water or on a bluff:
“You ask an interesting question in that there is no set distance from water or to water that determines burial placements. I believe in the field of archaeology there is this misconception that burial mounds for example, are placed in close proximity to water and that there are these set rules or guidelines that govern the placement of earthworks in general. This type of ideology originates within the field of archaeology for their use and it has now become generally accepted by their community to be the case. Traditionally speaking, burials are more apt to be placed where the individual and/or family preferred them to be placed, which doesn’t always include easy or short access to water. Ask a handful of archaeologists if earthen mounds were placed on sides of hills, or are there cultural resources such as burials on steep terrain, and they will have varying and differing viewpoints on the matter yet few if any conduct archaeological shovel tests across inclines or steep terrain. In short, their average standards & best practices dictate many thoughts on matters unless critically questioned. Bottom line is, there’s always an exception to the rules that need to be considered.”
Later in the letter, he mentioned other details that we have since asked him if we could publicly share. For now, we will just note that Burns’s inquiry was not the first one he’d received, but that “[w]e have heard others in your community through the years, have considered it as such – even going as far as including the recognition of the native community within the park’s name. Where these early thoughts originate would have to be researched to determine if they warrant consideration. I do know the Ho-Chunk People have been systematically displaced from most all of our ancestral lands since the mid 1800’s through various land cession treaties and ensuing series of forced removals to no less than four different reservation sites west of the Mississippi River. Many of those families associated with the Platteville area have likely succumbed to the genocide of our People that has taken place in our recent history.”
