SIMILARITY OF THE ARTS AND CUSTOMS OF THE MOUND
BUILDERS TO THOSE OF INDIANS.
The historical evidence is, as we have seen, conclusive that some
of the tribes of Indians were mound builders.
The explorations by the Bureau of Ethnology in the South and West
have also brought to light so many corroborative facts that the
question may be considered settled. These will shortly be given to
the public; only a few can be noticed here, and that in a very
brief and general way.
As the country was inhabited only by Indians at the time of its
discovery, and as we have no evidence, unless derived from the
mounds, of its having ever been occupied by any other people,
every fact indicating a similarity between the arts, customs, and
social life of the mound-builders and those of the red Indians, is
an evidence of the identity of the two peoples. The greater the
number of these resemblances, the greater the probability of the
correctness of the theory, so long as we find nothing
irreconcilable with it.
Architecture.--One of the first circumstances which strike the
mind of the archaeologist who carefully studies these works as
being very significant, is the entire absence of any evidence in
them of architectural knowledge and skill approaching that
exhibited by the ruins of Mexico and Central America, or even
equaling that exhibited by the Pueblo Indians.
It is true that truncated pyramidal mounds of large size and
somewhat regular proportions are found in certain sections, and
that some of these have ramps or roadways leading up to them. Yet
when compared with the pyramids or teocalli of Mexico and Yucatan
the differences in the manifestations of architectural skill are
so great, and the resemblances are so faint and few, as to furnish
no grounds whatever for attributing the two classes of works to
the same people. The facts that the works of the one people
consist chiefly of wrought and sculptured stone, and that such
materials are wholly unknown to the other, forbid the idea of any
relationship between the two. The difference between the two
classes of monuments indicates a wide divergence--a complete step
--in the culture status.
Mexico, Central America, and Peru are dotted with the ruins of
stone edifices, but in all the mound-building area of the United
States not the slightest vestige of one attributable to the people
who erected the earthen structures is to be found. The utmost they
attained in this direction was the construction of stone cairus,
rude stone--walls, and vaults of cobble-stones and undressed
blocks. This fact is too significant to be overlooked in this
comparison, and should have its weight in forming a conclusion,
especially when it is backed by numerous other important
differences.
Though hundreds of groups of mounds marking the sites of ancient
villages are to be seen scattered over the Mississippi Valley and
Gulf States yet nowhere can there be found an ancient house. The
inference is therefore irresistible that the houses of the mound-
builders were constructed of perishable materials; consequently
that the builders were not sufficiently advanced in art to use
stone or brick in building, or else that they lived a roving,
restless life that would not justify the time and trouble
necessary to erect such permanent structures. As the last
inference is irreconcilable with the magnitude and extent of many
groups of these remains we are forced to the conclusion that the
first is true.
One chief objection to the Indian origin of these works is, as
already stated, that their builders must have been sedentary,
depending largely upon agriculture for subsistence. It is evident,
therefore, that they had dwellings of some sort, and as remains of
neither stone nor brick structures are found which could have been
used for this purpose, we must assume that their dwellings were
constructed of perishable material, such as was supplied in
abundance by the forest region in which they dwelt. It is
therefore apparent that in this respect at least the dwellings of
mound-builders were similar to those of Indians. But this is not
all that can be said in reference to the houses of the former, for
there still remain indications of their shape and character,
although no complete examples are left for inspection. In various
places, especially in Tennessee, Illinois, and southeast Missouri,
the sites of thousands of them are yet distinctly marked by little
circular depressions with rings of earth around them. These
remains give the form and size of one class of dwellings that was
common in the regions named. Excavations in the center usually
bring to light the ashes and hearth that mark the place where the
fire was built, and occasionally unearth fragments of the vessels
used in cooking, the bones of animals on whose flesh the inmates
fed, and other articles pertaining to domestic use.
During the explorations of the Bureau in southeastern Missouri and
Arkansas, finding the remains of houses in low, flat mounds was a
common occurrence. Although the wood in most cases had
disappeared, what had not been converted to coals and ashes having
rotted away, yet the size and form, and, in part, the mode of
construction, were clearly indicated. The hard-tramped, circular,
earthen floor gave the size and form; the numerous fragments of
burnt clay forming a layer over the floor--often taken by
explorers for brick-revealed the method of plastering their
dwellings; the charred remains of grass and twigs showed that it
had been strengthened by this admixture; the impressions left on
the inner face of these lumps of burnt plastering revealed the
character of the lathing, which was in some cases branches and
twigs, but in others split cane. The roof was thatched with grass
or matting, the charred remains of which were found in more than
one instance. In probably nine cases out of ten it was apparent
these dwellings had been burned. This was found to be due to the
custom of burying the dead in the floor and burning the dwelling
over them, covering the remains with dirt often before the fire
had ceased burning.
As a general rule the strata are found in this order: (1) a top
layer of soil from 1 foot to 2 feet thick; (2) a layer of burnt
clay from 3 to 12 inches thick (though usually varying from 4 to 8
inches) and broken into lumps, never in a uniform, unbroken layer;
immediately below this (3) a thin layer of hardened muck or dark
clay, though this does not always seem to be distinct. At this
depth in the mounds of the eastern part of Arkansas are usually
found one or more skeletons.
Take, for example, the following statement by Dr. Edward Palmer in
regard to these beds:
As a general and almost universal rule, after removing a foot or
two of top soil, a layer of burnt clay in a broken or fragmentary
condition would be found, sometimes with impressions of grass or
twigs, and easily crumbled, but often hard, and stamped,
apparently, with an implement made of split reeds of comparatively
large size. This layer was often a foot thick, and frequently
burned to a brick-red or even to clinkers. Below this would be
found more or less ashes, and often 6 inches of charred grass
immediately over the skeletons. These skeletons were found lying
in all directions, some with the face up, others with it down, and
others on the side. With each of these were one or more vessels of
clay.
Remains of rectangular houses were also discovered, though much
less frequent than other forms. These consisted of three rooms,
two in front and one in rear. For example, Dr. Palmer found in a
broad platform like elevation not more than 3 feet high the
remains of a house of this form which he traced by the burnt clay.
The lines of the upright walls were very apparent, as also the
clay which must have fallen from them, and which raised the outer
marginal lines considerably higher than the inner area. Dr. Palmer
remarks:
The fire must have been very fierce, and the clay around the edges
was evidently at some height above the door, as I judge from the
irregular way in which it is scattered around the margins.
Excavations in the areas showed that they were covered with a
layer of burnt clay, uneven and broken; immediately below this a
layer of ashes 6 inches thick, and below this black loam. On these
areas large trees were growing, one a poplar 3 feet in diameter.
Below one of these floors were found a skeleton, some pottery, and
a pipe. A large oak formerly stood at this point, but it has been
blown down.
Subsequently the remains of another dwelling of precisely the same
form, that is, two square rooms joined and a third of the same
size immediately behind these two, were discovered in the same
region by Colonel Norris. In this case remnants of the upright
posts and reed lathing forming the walls were found, also the clay
plastering.
Prof. G. C. Swallow [Footnote: 8th Rept. Peabody Museum, 1875, pp.
17, 18.] describes a room formed of poles, lathed with split cane,
plastered with clay both inside and out, which he found in a mound
in southeastern Missouri. Colonel Norris found parts of the
decayed poles, plastering, and other remains of a similar house in
a large mound in the same section.
From the statements of the early writers, a few of which are given
here, it is evident that the houses of the Indians occupying this
region when first visited by the whites were very similar to those
of the mound-builders.
La Harpe, speaking of the tribes in some parts of Arkansas, says:
"The Indians build their huts dome-fashion out of clay and reeds."
Schoolcraft says the Pawnees formerly built similar houses. In
Iberville's Journal [Footnote: Relation in Margry, Deconvertes,
4th part (March, 1699), p. 170] it is stated that the cabins of
the Bayogoulas were round, about 30 feet in diameter, and
plastered with clay to the height of a man. Adair says: "They are
lathed with cane and plastered with mud from bottom to top within
and without with a good covering of straw."
Henri de Tonty, the real hero of the French discoveries on the
Mississippi, says the cabins of the Tensas were square, with the
roof dome-shaped, and that the walls were plastered with clay to
the height of 12 feet and were 2 feet thick. [Footnote: Relation
of Henry de Tonty in Margry, Decouvertes, vol. 1, 1876, p. 600]
A description of the Indian square houses of this southern section
by Du Pratz [Footnote: Hist. La., vol. 2, French ed., 1758, pp.
173-175; English ed., 1764, p. 359.] is so exactly in point that I
insert a translation of the whole, passage:
The cabins of the natives are all perfectly square; none of them
are less than 15 feet in extent in every direction, but there are
some which are more than 30. The following is their manner of
building them: The natives go into the new forest to seek the
trunks of young walnut trees of 4 inches in diameter and from 18
to 20 feet long; they plant the largest ones at the four corners
to form the breadth and the dome; but before fixing the others
they prepare the scaffolding; it consists of four poles fastened
together at the top, the lower ends corresponding to the four
corners; on these four poles others are fastened crosswise at a
distance of a foot apart; this makes a ladder with four sides, or
four ladders joined together.
This done, they fix the other poles in the ground in a straight
line between those of the corners; when they are thus planted they
are strongly bound to a pole which crosses them within each side
[of the house]. For this purpose large splints of stalks are used
to tie them at the height of 5 or 6 feet, according to the size of
the cabin, which forms the walls; these standing poles are not
more than 15 inches apart from each other; a young man then mounts
to the end of one of the corner poles with a cord in his teeth; he
fastens the cord to the pole, and as he mounts within, the pole
bends, because those who are below draw the cord to bend the pole
as much as is necessary; at the same time another young man fixes
the pole of the opposite corner in the same way; the two poles
being thus bent at a suitable height, they are fastened strongly
and evenly. The same is done with the poles of the two other
corners as they are crossed over the first ones. Finally all the
other poles are joined at the point, which makes altogether the
figure of a bower in a summer-house such as we have in France.
After this work they fasten sticks on the lower sides or walls at
a distance of about 8 inches across, as high as the pole of which
I have spoken, which forms the length of the wall.
These sticks being thus fastened, they make mud walls of clay, in
which they put a sufficient amount of Spanish moss; these walls
are not more than 4 inches thick; they leave no opening but the
door, which is only 2 feet in width by 4 in height; there are some
much smaller. They then cover the frame-work which I have just
described with mats of reeds, putting the smoothest on the inside
of the cabin, taking care to fasten them together so that they are
well joined.
After this they make large bundles of grass, of the tallest that
can be found in the low lands, and which is 4 or 5 feet long; this
is put on in the same way as straw which is used to cover thatched
houses; the grass is fastened with large canes, and splints, also
of canes. When the cabin is covered with grass they cover all with
a matting of canes well bound together, and at the bottom they
make a ring of "bind-weeds" all around the cabin, then they trim
the grass evenly, and with this defense, however strong the wind
may be, it can do nothing against the cabin. These coverings last
twenty years without being repaired.
Numerous other references to the same effect might be given, but
these are sufficient to show that the remains found in the mounds
of the South are precisely what would result from the destruction
by fire of the houses in use by the Indians when first encountered
by Europeans.
It is admitted now by all archaeologists that the ancient works of
New York are attributable to Indians, chiefly to the Iroquois
tribes. This necessarily carries with it the inference that works
of the same type, for instance those of northern Ohio and eastern
Michigan, are due to Indians. It is also admitted that the mounds
and burial pits of Canada are due, at least in part, to the
Hurons. [Footnote: David Boyle, Ann. Rept. Canadian Institute,
1886-1887, pp. 9-17; Ibid., 1888, p. 57.]
Tribal divisions.--As the proofs that the mound-builders pertained
to various tribes often at war with each other are now too
numerous and strong to be longer denied, we may see in them
evidences of a social condition similar to that of the Indians.
Similarity in burial customs.--There are perhaps no other remains
of a barbarous or unenlightened people which give us so clear a
conception of their superstitions and religious beliefs as do
those which relate to the disposal of their dead. By the modes
adopted for such disposal, and the relics found in the receptacles
of the dead, we are enabled not only to understand something of
these superstitions and beliefs, but also to judge of their
culture status and to gain some knowledge of their arts, customs,
and modes of life.
The mortuary customs of the mound-builders, as gleaned from an
examination of their burial mounds, ancient cemeteries, and other
depositories of their dead, present so many striking resemblances
to those of the Indians when first encountered by the whites, as
to leave little room for doubt regarding their identity.
[Footnote: Evidence bearing on this point will be found in the
paper on The Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections, by C. Thomas,
in the Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology.] Nor is
this similarity limited to the customs in the broad and general
sense, but it is carried down to the more minute and striking
peculiarities.
Among the general features in which resemblances are noted are the
following:
The mound-builders were accustomed to dispose of their dead in
many different ways; their modes of sepulture were also quite
varied. The same statements will apply with equal force to the
Indians.
"The commonest mode of burial among North American Indians," we
are informed by Dr. H. C. Yarrow, [Footnote: First Annual Report
Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, 1879-'80 (1881), p.
93.] "has been that of interment in the ground, and this has taken
place in a number of ways." The different ways he mentions are, in
pits, graves, or holes in the ground; in stone graves or cists; in
mounds; beneath or in cabins, wigwams, houses or lodges, and in
caves.
The most common method of burial among the mound-builders was by
inhumation also, and all the different ways mentioned by Dr.
Yarrow as practiced by the Indians were in vogue among the former.
It was supposed for a long time that their chief and almost only
place of depositing their dead was in the burial mounds, but more
thorough explorations have revealed the fact that near most mound
villages are cemeteries, often of considerable extent.
The chief value of this fact in this connection is that it forms
one item of evidence against the theory held by some antiquarians
that the mound-builders were Mexicans, as the usual mode of
disposing of the dead by the latter was cremation. [Footnote:
Clavigero, Hist. Mex., Cullen's transl., I, 325; Torquemada,
Monarq. Ind., I, p.60, etc.] According to Brasseur de Bourbourg
the Toltecs also practiced cremation. [Footnote: H.H. Bancroft,
Native Races, vol. 2, 1882, p. 609.]
REMOVAL OF THE FLESH BEFORE BURIAL.--This practice appears to have
been followed quite generally by both Indians and mound-builders.
That it was followed to a considerable extent by the mound
builders of various sections is shown by the following evidence:
The confused masses of human bones frequently found in mounds show
by their relation to each other that they must have been gathered
together after the flesh had been removed, as this condition could
not possibly have been assumed after burial in their natural
state. Instances of this kind are so numerous and well known that
it is scarcely necessary to present any evidence in support of the
statement. The well-known instance referred to by Jefferson in his
"Notes on Virginia" [Footnote: Fourth Am. ed., 1801, p. 143; p.
146, in 8th ed.] is one in point. "The appearance," he tells us,
"certainly indicates that it [the barrow] has derived both origin
and growth from the customary collections of bones and deposition
of them together."
Notices of similar deposits have been observed as follows: In
Wisconsin, by Mr. Armstrong; [Footnote: Smithsonian Rept., 1879,
p. 337] in Florida, by James Bell [Footnote: Smithsonian Rept.,
1881, p. 636.] and Mr. Walker; [Footnote: Smithsonian Rept., 1879,
p. 398] in Cass County, Ill., by Mr. Snyder; [Footnote:
Smithsonian Rept., 1881, p. 573.] in Georgia, by C. C. Jones.
[Footnote: Antiq. So. Inds., p. 193.] Similar deposits have also
been found by the assistants of the Bureau of Ethnology in
Wisconsin, Illinois, northern Missouri, North Carolina, New York,
and Arkansas.
Another proof of this custom was observed by Mr. J. D. Middleton
and Colonel Morris in Wisconsin, northeastern Missouri, and
Illinois. In numerous mounds the skeletons were found packed
closely side by side, immediately beneath a layer of hard, mortar-
like substance. The fact that this mortar had completely filled
the interstices, and in many cases the skulls also, showed that it
had been placed over them while in a plastic state, and as it must
soon have hardened and assumed the condition in which it was
found, it is evident the skeletons had been buried after the flesh
was removed.
As additional evidence we may mention the fact that in stone
graves, so small that the body of a full-grown individual could
not by any possible means be pressed into them, the bones of adult
individuals are sometimes found. Instances of this kind have
occurred in Tennessee, Missouri, and southern Illinois.
From personal examination I conclude that most of the folded
skeletons found in mounds were buried after the flesh had been
removed, as the folding, to the extent noticed, could not possibly
have been done with the flesh on them, and the positions in most
cases were such that they could not have been assumed in
consequence of the decay of the flesh and settling of the mound.
The partial calcining of the bones in vaults and under layers of
clay where the evidence shows that the fire was applied to the
outside of the vault or above the clay layer, can be accounted for
only on the supposition that the flesh had been removed before
burial.
Other proofs that this custom prevailed among the mound builders
in various sections of the country might be adduced.
That it was the custom of a number of Indian tribes, when first
encountered by the whites, and even down to a comparatively modern
date, to remove the flesh before final burial by suspending on
scaffolds, depositing in charnel-houses, by temporary burial, or
otherwise, is well known to all students of Indian habits and
customs.
Heckewelder says, "The Nanticokes had the singular custom of
removing the bones from the old burial place to a place of deposit
in the country they now dwell in." [Footnote: Hist. Manners and
Customs Ind. Nations, p. 75.]
The account by Breboeuf of the communal burial among the Hurons
heretofore referred to is well known. [Footnote: Jesuit Relations
for 1636. Transl. in Fifth Ann. Rept. Bur. Ethnol., p. 110.] The
same custom is alluded to by Lafitau. [Footnote: Moeurs des
Sauvages, vol. 2, pp. 420-435.] Bartram observed it among the
Choctaws. [Footnote: Travels, p. 516.] It is also mentioned by
Bossu, [Footnote: Travels through Louisiana, p. 298.] by
Adair,[Footnote: Hist. Am. Indians, p. 183.] by Barnard
Romans,[Footnote: Nat. Hist. Florida, p. 90.] and others.
Burial beneath or in dwellings.--The evidence brought to light by
the investigations of the Bureau of Ethnology, regarding a custom
among the mound-builders of Arkansas and Mississippi, of burying
in or under their dwellings, has been given, in part, in an
article published in the Magazine of American History. [Footnote:
February, 1884.] It is a well-attested historical fact that such
was also the custom of the southern Indian tribes. Bartram affirms
it to have been in vogue among the Muscogulgees or
Creeks,[Footnote: Travels, p. 505.] and Barnard Romans says it was
also practiced by the Chickasaws.[Footnote: Nat. Hist. Florida, p.
71] C C. Jones says that the Indians of Georgia "often interred
beneath the floor of the cabin, and then burnt the hut of the
deceased over his head;"[Footnote: Antiq. So. Indians, p. 203.]
which furnishes a complete explanation of the fact observed by the
Bureau explorers, mentioned in the article before alluded to.
Burial in a sitting or squatting posture.--It was a very common
practice among the mound-builders to bury their dead in a sitting
or squatting posture. The examples of this kind are too numerous
and too well known to require repetition. I may add that the yet
unpublished reports of the Bureau show that this custom prevailed
to a certain extent in Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina,
Missouri, Ohio, and West Virginia. Instances have also been
observed elsewhere. [Footnote: Jones's Antiq. So. Indians (Georgia
and Florida). pp. 183-185.] That the same custom was followed by
several of the Indian tribes is attested by the following
authorities: Bossu, [Footnote: Travels, vol. 1, p. 251.] Lawson,
[Footnote: Hist. Carolina, p. 182.] Bartram, [Footnote: Travels,
p. 515.] and Adair.[Footnote: Hist. Am. Indians, p. 182.]
The use of fire in burial ceremonies.--Another observance in which
the burial customs of mound-builders corresponded with those of
Indians was the use of fire in funeral ceremonies. The evidences
of this custom are so common in mounds as to lead to the
supposition that the mound-builders were in the habit of offering
human sacrifices to their deities. Although charred and even
almost wholly consumed human bones are often found, showing that
bodies or skeletons were sometimes burned, it does not necessarily
follow that they were offered as sacrifices. Moreover, judging
from all the data in our possession, the weight of evidence seems
to be decidedly against such conclusion.
Among the Indians fire appears to have been connected with the
mortuary ceremonies in several ways. One use of it was to burn the
flesh and softer portions of the body when removed from the bones.
[Footnote: Barnard Romans, Nat. Hist. Florida, p. 90.] Breboeuf
also mentions its use in connection with the communal burial of
the Hurons. [Footnote: Jesuit Relations for 1636, p. 135.]
According to M. B. Kent [Footnote: Yarrow's Mort. Customs N. A.
Indians, 1st Ann. Rept. Bur. Ethnology (1881), P. 95.] it was the
ancient custom of the Sacs and Foxes to burn a portion of the food
of the burial feast to furnish subsistence for the spirit on its
journey.
Pickett says [Footnote: Hist. Alabama, 3d ed., vol. 1, p. 140.]
the Choctaws were in the habit of killing and cutting up their
prisoners of war, after which the parts were burned. He adds
further, in reference to their burial ceremonies: [Footnote:
Ibid., p. 142] "From all we have heard and read of the Choctaws,
we are satisfied that it was their custom to take from the bone-
house the skeletons, with which they repaired in funeral
procession to the suburbs of the town, where they placed them on
the ground in one heap, together with the property of the dead,
such as pots, bows, arrows, ornaments, curiously-shaped stones for
dressing deer skins, and a variety of other things. Over this heap
they first threw charcoal and ashes, probably to preserve the
bones, and the next operation was to cover all with earth. This
left a mound several feet high." This furnishes a complete
explanation of the fact that uncharred human bones are frequently
found in Southern mounds imbedded in charcoal and ashes.
Similarity of their stone implements and ornaments.--In addition
to the special points of resemblance between the works of the two
peoples, of which a few only have been mentioned, we are warranted
in asserting that in all respects, so far as we can trace them
correctly, there are to be found strong resemblances between the
habits, customs, and arts of the mound-builders and those of the
Indians previous to their change by contact with Europeans. Both
made use of stone implements, and so precisely similar are the
articles of this class that it is impossible to distinguish those
made by the one people from those made by the other. So true is
this that our best and most experienced archaeologists make no
attempt to separate them, except where the conditions under which
they are found furnish evidence for discrimination. Instead of
burdening these pages with proofs of these statements by reference
to particular finds and authorities, I call attention to the work
of Dr. C. C. Abbott on the handiwork in stone, bone, and clay of
the native races of the northern Atlantic sea board of America,
entitled "Primitive Industry." As the area embraced in this work,
as remarked by its author, "does not include any territory known
to have been permanently occupied by the so-called mound-
builders," the articles found here must be ascribed to the Indians
unless, as suggested by Dr. Abbott, some of a more primitive type
found in the Trenton gravel are to be attributed to an earlier and
still ruder people. Examining those of the first class, which are
ascribed to the Indians, we observe almost every type of stone
articles found in the mounds and mound area; not only the rudely
chipped scrapers, hoes, celts, knives, and spear and arrow heads,
but also the polished or ground celts, axes, hammers, and chisels,
or gouges.
Here we also find drills, awls, and perforators, slick stones and
dressers, pipes of various forms and finish, discoidal stones and
net sinkers, butterflys tones and other supposed ceremonial
objects, masks or face figures and bird-shaped stones, gorgets,
totems, pendants, trinkets, etc. Nor does the resemblance stop
with types, but it is carried down to specific forms and finish,
leaving absolutely no possible line of demarkation between these
and the similar articles attributed to the mound-builders. So
persistently true is this that had we stone articles alone to
judge by, it is probable we should be forced to the conclusion, as
held by some writers, that the former inhabitants of that portion
of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains pertained to one
nation, unless possibly the prevalence of certain types in
particular sections should afford some data for tribal
districting.
This strong similarity of the stone articles of the Atlantic coast
to those of the mound area was noticed as early as 1820 by Caleb
Atwater, who, knowing that the former were Indian manufactures,
attributed the latter also to the same people although he held
that the mounds were the work of the ancestors of the civilized
nations of Mexico and Central America.
Mound and Indian Pottery.--The pottery of the mound-builders has
often been referred to as proof of a higher culture status, and of
an advance in art beyond that reached by the Indians. The vase
with a bird figure found by Squier and Davis in an Ohio mound is
presented in most works on American archaeology as an evidence of
the advanced stage of the ceramic art among the mound-builders;
but Dr. Rau, who examined the collection of these authors, says:
Having seen the best specimens of "mound" pottery obtained during
the survey of Messrs. Squier and Davis, I do not hesitate to
assert that the clay vessels fabricated at the Cahokia Creek were
in every respect equal to those exhumed from the mounds of the
Mississippi Valley, and Dr. Davis himself, who examined my
specimens from the first-named locality, expressed the same
opinion. [Footnote: Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 349.]
The Cahokia pottery which he found along the creek of that name
(Madison County, Ill.) he ascribes to Indians, and believes it to
be of comparatively recent origin.
Most of the mound pottery is mixed with pulverized shells, which
is also true of most Indian pottery. [Footnote: Dumont, Mem. Hist.
La., vol. 2, 1753, p. 271; Adair, Hist. Am. Indians, p. 424;
Loskiel, Gesell. der Miss., p. 70, etc.] Du Pratz says that "the
Natchez Indians make pots of an extraordinary size, cruses with a
medium-sized opening, jars, bottles with long necks holding two
pints, and pots or cruses for holding bear's oil;" [Footnote:
Hist. La., p. 79.] also that they colored them a beautiful red by
using ocher, which becomes red after burning.
As is well known, the bottle-shaped vase with a long neck is the
typical form of clay vessels found in the mounds of Arkansas and
southeastern Missouri, and is also common in the mounds and stone
graves of middle Tennessee. Those colored or ornamented with red
are often found in the mounds of the former sections. It is worthy
of notice in this connection that the two localities--near Saint
Genevieve, Mo., and near Shawneetown, Ill.--where so many
fragments of large clay vessels used in making salt have been
found, were occupied for a considerable time by the Shawnee
Indians. As will hereafter be shown, there are reasons for
believing this pottery was made by the Shawnees.
The statement so often made that the mound pottery, especially
that of Ohio, far excels that of the Indians is not justified by
the facts.
Much more evidence of like tenor might be presented here, as, for
example, the numerous instances in which articles of European
manufacture have been found in mounds where their presence could
not be attributed to intrusive burials, but the limits of the
paper will not admit of this. I turn, therefore, to the problem
before us, viz, "Who were the authors of the typical works of
Ohio?"
As before stated, the answer is, "These works are attributable in
part at least to the ancestors of the modern Cherokees."
As a connecting link between what has been given and the direct
evidence that the Cherokees were mound-builders, and as having an
important bearing upon both questions, the evidence derived from
the box-shaped stone graves is introduced at this point.