I must here observe, that every Indian traveller as he passes that way
throws a stone on the place, according as he likes or dislikes the
occasion, or manner of the death of the deceased.[80]
In the woods we often see innumerable heaps of small stones in those
places, where according to tradition some of their distinguished people
were either killed, or buried, till the bones could be gathered: there
they add _Pelion_ to _Ossa_, still increasing each heap, as a lasting
monument, and honour to them, and an incentive to great actions.
Mercury was a favourite god with the heathens, and had various
employments; one of which was to be god of the roads, to direct
travellers aright—from which the ancient Romans derived their _Dii
Compitales_, or _Dei Viales_, which they likewise placed at the meeting
of roads, and in the high ways, and esteemed them the patrons and
protectors of travellers. The early heathens placed great heaps of
stones at the dividing of {184} the roads, and consecrated those heaps
to him by unction[XLVII], and other religious ceremonies. And in honour
to him, travellers threw a stone to them, and thus exceedingly increased
their bulk: this might occasion Solomon to compare the giving honour to
a fool, to throwing a stone into a heap, as each were alike insensible
of the obligation; and to cause the Jewish writers to call this custom a
piece of idolatrous worship. But the Indians place those heaps of stones
where there are no dividings of the roads, nor the least trace of any
road[XLVIII]. And they then observe no kind of religious ceremony, but
raise those heaps merely to do honour to their dead, and incite the
living to the pursuit of virtue. Upon which account, it seems to be
derived from the ancient Jewish custom of increasing Absalom’s tomb; for
the last things are easiest retained, because people repeat them
oftenest, and imitate them most.[81] {185}
Footnote XLVII:
They rubbed the principal stone of each of those heaps all over with
oil, as a sacrifice of libation; by which means they often became
black, and slippery; as Arnobius relates of the idols of his time;
Lubricatum lapidem, et ex olivi unguine fordidatum, tanquam inesset
vis presens, adulabar. _Arnob. Advers. Gent._
Footnote XLVIII:
Laban and Jacob raised a heap of stones, as a lasting monument of
their friendly covenant. And Jacob called the heap _Galeed_, “the heap
of witness.” Gen. xxxi. 47.
Though the Cheerake do not now collect the bones of their dead, yet they
continue to raise and multiply heaps of stones, as monuments for their
dead; this the English army remembers well, for in the year 1760, having
marched about two miles along a wood-land path, beyond a hill where they
had seen a couple of these reputed tombs, at the war-woman’s creek, they
received so sharp a defeat by the Cheerake, that another such must have
inevitably ruined the whole army.
Many of those heaps are to be seen, in all parts of the continent of
North-America: where stones could not be had, they raised large hillocks
or mounds of earth, wherein they carefully deposited the bones of their
dead, which were placed either in earthen vessels, or in a simple kind
of arks, or chests. Although the Mohawk Indians may be reasonably
expected to have lost their primitive customs, by reason of their great
intercourse with foreigners, yet I was told by a gentleman of
distinguished character, that they observe the aforesaid sepulchral
custom to this day, insomuch, that when they are performing that
kindred-duty, they cry out, _Mahoom Taguyn Kameneh_, “Grandfather, I
cover you.”
ARGUMENT XX.
The Jewish records tell us, that their women MOURNED for the loss of
their deceased husbands, and were reckoned vile, by the civil law, if
they married in the space, at least, of ten months after their death. In
resemblance to that custom, all the Indian widows, by an established
strict penal law, mourn for the loss of their deceased husbands; and
among some tribes for the space of three or four years. But the
East-India Pagans forced the widow, to sit on a pile of wood, and hold
the body of her husband on her knees, to be consumed together in the
flames.
The Muskohge widows are obliged to live a chaste single life, for the
tedious space of four years; and the Chikkasah women, for the term of
three, at the risque of the law of adultery being executed against the
recusants. Every evening, and at the very dawn of day, for the first
year of her widowhood, she is obliged through the fear of shame to
lament her loss, in very intense audible strains. As _Yah ah_ signifies
weeping, lamenting, mourning, or Ah God; and as the widows, and others,
in their grief bewail and cry _Yo He (ta) Wah, Yohetaweh_; _Yohetaha
Yohetahe_, the origin is sufficiently clear. For the Hebrews reckoned it
so great an evil to die unlamented, like Jehoiakim, Jer. xxii. 18. “who
had none to say, Ah, my brother! Ah, my sister! Ah, my Lord! Ah, his
glory!” that it is one of the four judgments they pray against, and it
is called the burial of an ass. With them, burying signified lamenting,
and so the Indian widows direct their mournful cries to the author of
life and death, insert a plural note in the sacred name, and again
transpose the latter, through an invariable religious principle, to
prevent a prophanation.
Their law compels the widow, through the long term of her weeds, to
refrain all public company and diversions, at the penalty of an
adulteress; {186} and likewise to go with flowing hair, without the
privilege of oil to anoint it. The nearest kinsmen of the deceased
husband, keep a very watchful eye over her conduct, in this respect. The
place of interment is also calculated to wake the widow’s grief, for he
is intombed in the house under her bed. And if he was a war-leader, she
is obliged for the first moon, to sit in the day-time under his mourning
war-pole[XLIX], which is decked with all his martial trophies, and must
be heard to cry with bewailing notes. But none of them are fond of that
month’s supposed religious duty, it chills, or sweats, and wastes them
so exceedingly; for they are allowed no shade, or shelter. This sharp
rigid custom excites the women to honour the marriage-state, and keeps
them obliging to their husbands, by anticipating the visible sharp
difficulties which they must undergo for so great a loss. The three or
four years monastic life, which she lives after his death, makes it her
interest to strive by every means, to keep in his lamp of life, be it
ever so dull and worthless; if she is able to shed tears on such an
occasion, they often proceed from self-love. We can generally
distinguish between the widow’s natural mourning voice, and her tuneful
laboured strain. She doth not so much bewail his death, as her own
recluse life, and hateful state of celibacy; which to many of them, is
an uneligible, as it was to the Hebrew ladies, who preferred death
before the unmarried state, and reckoned their virginity a bewailable
condition, like the state of the dead.
Footnote XLIX:
The war-pole is a small peeled tree painted red, the top and boughs
cut off short: it is fixt in the ground opposite to his door, and all
his implements of war, are hung on the short boughs of it, till they
rot.
The Choktah Indians hire mourners to magnify the merit and loss of their
dead, and if their tears cannot be seen to flow, their shrill voices
will be heard to cry, which answers the solemn chorus a great deal
better[L]. However, they are no way churlish of their tears, for I have
seen them, on the occasion, pour them out, like fountains of water: but
after having {187} thus tired themselves, they might with equal
propriety have asked by-standers in the manner of the native Irish, Ara
ci fuar bass—“And who is dead?”
Footnote L:
Jer. ix. 17. 19. Thus saith the Lord of hosts: consider ye, and call
for the mourning-women, that they may come; and send for cunning
women, that they may come. For a voice of wailing is heard out of
Zion, how are we spoiled? we are greatly confounded, because we have
forsaken the land, because our dwellings have cast us out.
They formerly dressed their heads with black moss on those solemn
occasions; and the ground adjacent to the place of interment, they now
beat with laurel-brushes, the women having their hair disheveled: the
first of which customs seems to be derived from the Hebrew custom of
wearing sack-cloth at their funeral solemnities, and on other occasions,
when they afflicted their souls before God—to which divine writ often
alludes, in describing the blackness of the skies: and the laurel being
an ever-green, is a lively emblem of the eternity of the human soul, and
the pleasant state it enters into after death, according to antiquity.
They beat it on the ground, to express their sharp pungent grief; and,
perhaps, to imitate the Hebrew trumpeters for the dead, in order to make
as striking a sound as they possibly can on so doleful an occasion.
Though the Hebrews had no positive precept that obliged the widow to
mourn the death of her husband, or to continue her widowhood, for any
time; yet the gravity of their tempers, and their scrupulous nicety of
the law of purity, introduced the observance of those modest and
religious customs, as firmly under the penalty of shame, as if they bore
the sanction of law[LI]. In imitation of them, the Indians have copied
so exactly, as to compel the widow to act the part of the disconsolate
dove, for the irreparable loss of her mate. Very different is the custom
of other nations:—the Africans, when any of their head-men die, kill all
their slaves, their friends that were dearest to them, and all their
wives whom they loved best, that they may accompany and serve them, in
the other world, which is a most diabolical Ammonitish sacrifice of
human blood. The East-India widows may refuse to be burned on their
husbands funeral piles, with impunity, if they become prostitutes, or
public women to sing and dance at marriages, or on other occasions of
rejoicing. How superior {188} is the virtuous custom of the savage
Americans, concerning female chastity during the time of their
widowhood?
Footnote LI:
Theodosius tells us, Lib. I. Legum de fecundis nuptiis, that women
were infamous by the civil law, who married a second time before a
year, or at least ten months were expired.
The Indian women mourn three moons, for the death of any female of their
own family or tribe. During that time, they are not to anoint, or tie up
their hair; neither is the husband of the deceased allowed, when the
offices of nature do not call him, to go out of the house, much less to
join any company: and in that time of mourning he often lies among the
ashes. The time being expired, the female mourners meet in the evening
of the beginning of the fourth moon, at the house where their female
relation is intombed, and stay there till morning, when the nearest
surviving old kinswoman crops their fore-locks pretty short. This they
call _Ehó Intànáah_, “the women have mourned the appointed time.” _Ehó_
signifies “a woman,” _Inta_ “finished by divine appointment,” _Aà_
“moving” or walking, and _Ah_, “their note of grief, sorrow, or
mourning:” the name expresses, and the custom is a visible certificate
of, their having mourned the appointed time for their dead. When they
have eaten and drank together, they return home by sun-rise, and thus
finish their solemn _Yah-ah_.[82]
ARGUMENT XXI.
The surviving brother, by the Mosaic law, was to RAISE SEED to a
deceased brother who left a widow childless, to perpetuate his name and
family, and inherit his goods and estate, or be degraded: and, if the
issue he begat was a male child, it assumed the name of the deceased.
The Indian custom[83] looks the very same way; yet it is in this as in
their law of blood—the eldest brother can redeem.
Although a widow is bound, by a strict penal law, to mourn the death of
her husband for the space of three or four years; yet, if she be known
to lament her loss with a sincere heart, for the space of a year, and
her circumstances of living are so strait as to need a change of her
station—and the elder brother of her deceased husband lies with her, she
is thereby exempted {189} from the law of mourning, has a liberty to tie
up her hair, anoint and paint herself in the same manner as the Hebrew
widow, who was refused by the surviving brother of her deceased husband,
became free to marry whom she pleased.
The warm-constitutioned young widows keep their eye so intent on this
mild beneficent law, that they frequently treat their elder
brothers-in-law with spirituous liquors till they intoxicate them, and
thereby decoy them to make free, and so put themselves out of the reach
of that mortifying law. If they are disappointed, as it sometimes
happens, they fall on the men, calling them _Hoobuk Wakse_, or
_Skoobále, Hassé kroopha_, “Eunuchus præputio detecto, et pene brevi;”
the most degrading of epithets. Similar to the Hebrew ladies, who on the
brother’s refusal loosed his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face,
(Deut. xxv. 9.); and as some of the Rabbies tell us they made water in
the shoe, and threw it with despite in his face, and then readily went
to bed to any of his kinsmen, or most distant relations of the same line
that she liked best; as Ruth married Boaz. Josephus, to palliate the
fact, says she only beat him with the shoe over his face. David probably
alludes to this custom, Psal. lx. 8. “Over Edom I will cast out my
shoe,” or detraction.
Either by corruption, or misunderstanding that family-kissing custom of
the Hebrews, the corrupt Cheerake marry both mother and daughter at
once; though, unless in this instance, they and all the other savage
nations observe the degrees of consanguinity in a stricter manner than
the Hebrews, or even the Christian world. The Cheerake do not marry
their first or second cousins;[84] and it is very observable, that the
whole tribe reckon a friend in the same rank with a brother, both with
regard to marriage, and any other affair in social life. This seems to
evince that they copied from the stable and tender friendship between
Jonathan and David; especially as the Hebrews had legal, or adopted, as
well as natural brothers. {190}
ARGUMENT XXII.
When the Israelites gave names to their children or others, they chose
such appellatives as suited best with their circumstances, and the
times. This custom was as early as the Patriarchal age; for we find
Abram was changed into Abraham; Sarai into Sarah, Jacob into Israel;—and
afterwards Oshea, Joshua, Solomon, Jedidiah, &c. &c. This custom is a
standing rule with the Indians, and I never observed the least deviation
from it. They give their children names, expressive of their tempers,
outward appearances, and other various circumstances; a male child, they
will call _Choola_, “the fox;” and a female, _Pakahle_, “the blossom, or
flower.” The father and mother of the former are called _Choollingge_,
and _Choollishke_, “the father and mother of the fox;” in like manner,
those of the latter, _Pakahlingge_, and _Pakahlishke_; for _Ingge_
signifies the father, and _Ishke_ the mother. In private life they are
so termed till that child dies; but after that period they are called by
the name of their next surviving child, or if they have none, by their
own name: and it is not known they ever mention the name of the child
that is extinct. They only faintly allude to it, saying, “the one that
is dead,” to prevent new grief, as they had before mourned the appointed
time. They who have no children of their own, adopt others, and assume
their names, in the manner already mentioned. This was of divine
appointment, to comfort the barren, and was analogous to the kindred
method of counting with the Hebrews: instead of surnames, they used in
their genealogies the name of the father, and prefixed _Ben_, “a son,”
to the person’s name. And thus the Greeks, in early times. No nation
used surnames, except the Romans after their league and union with the
Sabines. And they did not introduce that custom, with the least view of
distinguishing their families, but as a politic seal to their strong
compact of friendship; for as the Romans prefixed Sabine names to their
own, the Sabines took Roman names in like manner. A specimen of the
Indian war-names, will illustrate this argument with more clearness.
{191}
They crown a warrior, who has killed a distinguished enemy, with the
name, _Yanasabe_, “the buffalo-killer;” _Yanasa_ is a buffalo,
compounded of _Yah_, the divine essence, and _Asa_, “there, or here is,”
as formerly mentioned: and _Abe_ is their constant war-period,
signifying, by their rhetorical figure “one who kills another.” It
signifies also to murder a person, or beat him severely. This proper
name signifies, the prosperous killer, or destroyer of the buffalo, or
strong man—it cannot possibly be derived from אבה, _Abeh_, which
signifies good-will, brotherly love, or tender affection; but from אבל,
_Abele_, grief, sorrow, or mourning, as an effect of that hostile act.
_Anoah_, with the Indians, is the name of a rambling person, or one of
unsettled residence, and _Anoah ookproo_, is literally a bad rambling
person, “a renagadoe:” likewise _Anoah ookproo’shto_ makes it a
superlative, on account of the abbreviation of _Ishto_, one of the
divine names which they subjoin. In like manner, _Noabe_ is the war-name
of a person who kills a rambling enemy, or one detached as a scout, spy,
or the like. It consists of the patriarchal name, _Noah_, and _Abe_, “to
kill,” according to the Hebrew original, of which it is a contraction,
to make it smoother, and to indulge a rapidity of expression. There is
so strong an agreement between this compounded proper name, and two
ancient Hebrew proper names, that it displays the greatest affinity
between the warfaring red and white Hebrews; especially as it so clearly
alludes to the divine history of the first homicide, and the words are
adapted to their proper significations.
Because the Choktah did not till lately trim their hair, the other
tribes through contempt of their custom, called them _Pas’
Pharáàh_,“long hair,”[85] and they in return, gave them the contemptuous
name, _Skoobálè’shtó_, “very naked, or bare heads,” compounded of
_Skooba_, _Ale_, and _Ishto_: the same word, or _Waksishto_, with
_Hasseh_ prefixed, expresses the _penem præputio detecto_; which shews
they lately retained a glimmering, though confused notion of the law of
circumcision, and the prohibition of not polling their hair. They call a
crow, _Pharah_; and _Pas’pharáàbe_ is the proper name of a warrior, who
killed an enemy wearing long hair. It is a triple compound from _Pásèh_,
“the hair of one’s head,” _Pharaah_ “long,” and _Abe_, “killing,” which
they croud together. They likewise say, their tongue is not {192}
_Pharakto_, “forked,” thereby alluding probably to the formerly-hateful
name of the Egyptian kings, Pharaoh.
When the Indians distinguish themselves in war, their names are always
compounded,—drawn from certain roots suitable to their intention, and
expressive of the characters of the persons, so that their names joined
together, often convey a clear and distinct idea of several
circumstances—as of the time and place, where the battle was fought, of
the number and rank of their captives, and the slain.[86] The following
is a specimen: one initiating in war-titles, is called _Tannip-Abe_, “a
killer of the enemy;”—he who kills a person carrying a kettle, is
crowned _Soonak-Abe-Tuska_; the first word signifies a kettle, and the
last a warrior. _Minggáshtàbe_ signifies “one who killed a very great
chieftain,” compounded of _Mingo_, _Ash_, and _Abe_. _Pae-Máshtàbe_, is,
one in the way of war-gradation, or below the highest in rank, _Pae_
signifying “far off.” _Tisshu Mashtabe_ is the name of a warrior who
kills the war-chieftain’s waiter carrying the beloved ark.
_Shulashum-mashtabe_, the name of the late Choktah great war-leader, our
firm friend _Red-shoes_, is compounded of _Shulass’_, “Maccaseenes,” or
deer skin-shoes, _Humma_, “red,” _Ash_, “the divine fire;” _T_ is
inserted for the sake of a bold sound, or to express the multiplicity of
the exploits he performed, in killing the enemy. In treating of their
language, I observed, they end their proper names with a vowel, and
contract their war-titles, to give more smoothness, and a rapidity of
expression. _Etehk_ is the general name they give to any female
creature, but by adding their constant war-period to it, it signifies
“weary;” as _Chetehkabe_, “you are weary:” to make it a superlative,
they say _Chetehkabe-O_: or _Chetehkabeshto_.
The Cheerake call a dull stalking fellow, _Sooreh_, “the
turkey-buzzard,” and one of an ill temper, _Kana Cheesteche_, “the
wasp,” or a person resembling the dangerous Canaan rabbit, being
compounded of the abbreviated name of Canaan, and _Cheesto_ “a rabbit,”
which the Israelites were not to meddle with. One of our chief traders,
who was very loquacious, they called _Sekakee_, “the grass-hopper,”
derived from _Sekako_, “to make haste.” To one of a hoarse voice, they
gave the name, _Kanoona_, “the bull-frog.” {193}
The Katahba Indians call their chief old interpreter, on account of his
obscene language, _Emate-Atikke_, “the smock-interpreter.” The
“_raven_,” is one of the Cheerake favourite war-names. Carolina and
Georgia remember _Quorinnah_, “the raven,” of _Huwhase-town_; he was one
of the most daring warriors of the whole nation, and by far the most
intelligent, and this name, or war-appellative, admirably suited his
well-known character. Though with all the Indian nations, the raven is
deemed an impure bird, yet they have a kind of sacred regard to it,
whether from the traditional knowledge of Noah’s employing it while he
was in the ark, or from that bird having fed Elijah in the wilderness
(as some suppose) cannot be determined; however with our supposed red
Hebrews the name points out an indefatigable, keen, successful warrior.
ARGUMENT XXIII.
Although other resemblances of the Indian rites and customs to those of
the Hebrews, might be pointed out; not to seem tedious, I proceed to the
last argument of the origin of the Indian Americans, which shall be from
their own traditions,—from the accounts of our English writers—and from
the testimonies which the Spanish writers have given, concerning the
primitive inhabitants of Peru and Mexico.
The Indian tradition says, that their forefathers in very remote ages
came from a far distant country, where all the people were of one
colour; and that in process of time they moved eastward, to their
present settlements. So that, what some of our writers have asserted is
not just, who say the Indians affirm, that there were originally three
different tribes in those countries, when the supreme chieftain to
encourage swift running, proposed a proportionable reward of distinction
to each, as they excelled in speed in passing a certain distant river;
as, that the first should be polished white—the second red—and the third
black; which took place accordingly after the race was over. This story
sprung from the innovating superstitious {194} ignorance of the popish
priests, to the south-west of us. Our own Indian tradition is literal,
and not allegorical, and ought to be received; because people who have
been long separated from the rest of mankind, must know their own
traditions the best, and could not be deceived in so material, and
frequently repeated an event.[87] Though they have been disjoined
through different interests, time immemorial; yet, (the rambling tribes
of northern Indians excepted) they aver that they came over the
Missisippi from the westward, before they arrived at their present
settlements. This we see verified by the western old towns they have
left behind them; and by the situation of their old beloved towns, or
places of refuge, lying about a west course from each different nation.
Such places in Judea were chiefly built in the most remote parts of the
country; and the Indians deem those only as beloved towns, where they
first settled.