That it was followed to a considerable extent by the mound builders of various sections is shown by the following evidence:
The confused ma.s.ses 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 a.s.sumed 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 Ca.s.s 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 a.s.sistants 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 a.s.sumed 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 a.s.sumed 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 Nantic.o.kes 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 repet.i.tion. 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 a.s.serting 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 cla.s.s 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, ent.i.tled "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 cla.s.s, 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 sc.r.a.pers, 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, b.u.t.terflys 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 At.w.a.ter, 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 a.s.sert 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 sh.e.l.ls, 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.
CHAPTER III.
STONE GRAVES AND WHAT THEY TEACH.
In order to state clearly the argument based upon these works it is necessary to present a brief explanation.
There are several forms and varieties of stone graves or cists found in the mound area, some being of cobble stones, others of slabs; some round, others polygonal; some dome-shaped, others square, and others box shaped, or parallelograms. Reference is made at present only to the last mentioned--the box shaped type, made of stone slabs. If the evidence shows that this variety is found only in certain districts, pertains to a certain cla.s.s of works, and is usually accompanied by certain types of art, we are warranted in using it as an ethnic characteristic, or as indicating the presence of particular tribes. If it can be shown that graves of this form are found in mounds attributed to the so- called mound-builders, and that certain tribes of Indians of historic times were also accustomed to bury in them, we are warranted in a.s.suming that there was a continuity of custom from the mound-building age to historic times, or that graves found in the mounds are probably attributable to the same people (or allied tribes) found using them at a later date. This conclusion will be strengthened by finding that certain peculiar types of art are limited to the regions where these graves exist, and are found almost exclusively in connection with them.
These graves, as is well known, are formed of rough and unhewn slabs or flat pieces of stone, thus: First, in a pit some 2 or 3 feet deep and of the desired dimensions, dug for the purpose, a layer of stone is placed to form the floor; next, similar pieces are set on edge to form the sides and ends, over which other slabs are laid flat, forming the covering, the whole when finished making a rude, box-shaped coffin or sepulcher. Sometimes one or more of the six faces are wanting; occasionally the bottom consists of a layer of water-worn bowlders; sometimes the top is not a single layer of slabs, but other pieces are laid over the joints, and sometimes they are placed shingle-fashion. These graves vary in length from 14 inches to 8 feet, and in width from 9 inches to 3 feet.
It is not an unusual thing to find a mound containing a number of those cists arranged in two, three, or more tiers. As a general rule, those not in mounds are near the surface of the ground, and in some instances even projecting above it. It is probable that no one who has examined them has failed to note their strong resemblance to the European mode of burial. Even Dr. Joseph Jones, who attributes them to some "ancient race," was forcibly reminded of this resemblance, as he remarks:
In looking at the rude stone coffins of Tennessee, I have again and again been impressed with the idea that in some former age this ancient race must have come in contact with Europeans and derived this mode of burial from them. [Footnote: Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee, pp. 34,35]
The presence of stone graves of the type under consideration in the vicinity of the site of some of the "over hill towns" of the Cherokees on the Little Tennessee River, presented a difficulty in the way of the theory here advanced, as it is well known that the Cherokees and Shawnees were inveterate enemies from time immemorial. But by referring to Schoolcraft"s History of the Indians the following statement solves the riddle and confirms the theory:
A discontented portion of the Shawnee tribe from Virginia broke off from the nation, which removed to the Scioto country, in Ohio, about the year 1730, and formed a town known by the name of Lulbegrud, in what in now Clark County [Kentucky], about 30 miles east of this place [Lexington]. This tribe left this country about 1730 and went to East Tennessee, to the Cherokee Nation.
[Footnote: Vol. 1, p. 301.]
Some years ago Mr. George E. Sellers discovered near the salt spring in Gallatin County, Ill., on the Saline River, fragments of clay vessels of unusually large size, which excited much interest in the minds of antiquarians, not only because of the size of the vessels indicated by the fragments, but because they appeared to have been used by some prehistoric people in the manufacture of salt and because they bore impressions made by some textile fabric. In the same immediate locality were also discovered a number of box-shaped stone graves. That the latter were the work of the people who made the pottery Mr. Sellers demonstrated by finding that many of the graves were lined at the bottom with fragments of these large clay "salt pans." [Footnote: Popular Science Monthly, vol. II, 1877, pp. 573-584.]
Mention of this pottery had been made long previously by J. M.
Peck in his "Gazetteer of Illinois." [Footnote: 1834, p. 52.]
He remarks that "about the Gallatin and Big Muddy Salines large fragments of earthenware are very frequently found under the surface of the earth. They appear to have been portions of large kettles used, probably, by the natives for obtaining salt."
The settlement of the Shawnees at Shawneetown, on the Ohio River, in Gallatin County, in comparatively modern times, is attested not only by history but by the name by which the town is still known.
There is evidence on record that there was an older Shawneetown located at the very point where this "salt-kettle" pottery and these stone graves were found. This is mentioned in the American State Papers [Footnote: Public Lands, Cla.s.s VIII, vol.2, p. 103, Gales and Seaton ed.] in the report relating to the famous claim of the Illinois and Wabash Land Companies. The deed presented was dated July 20, 1773, and recorded at Kaskaskia, September 2, 1773.
In this mention is made of the "ancient Shawnee town" on Saline Creek, the exact locality of the stone graves and suit-kettle pottery. The modern Indian village at Shawneetown on the Ohio River had not then come into existence, and was but in its prime in 1806, when visited by Thomas Ashe. [Footnote: Travels in America, 1808, p. 265.]