og CEOS
Thre oT
AN SSO Sercrh

A see - ets
; oe : . pr. Sones
an te 2 aye Ne ¥ ee PRET

ui
vale

p NN
Uh
a)

{

bY ice
iy

ee ae ie Ti | en uf yh '6 6) -_
~ he Seria a ee ant : 1}
i f ah hy oie wr dd i 7. ie 7 : :
ie ae ee Pe Rese eee

oe re

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY: J. W. POWELL, DIRECTOR

1S) es Ue bh

PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS

BY

BRARY. |
Crt Uo EO Mi Ass

WASE INGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1889

CON EEN

NY

Page.
JUTOCINC@WION 5 ScceSteke bdo d bo Snee ee Sacer Carnee ae eee Ee Bert arise eee ea amer 7
PULIURem lem LUIS UOLICAlPEVICEN CO: o2:2 vie. csieis tins Cocina = ek, sincees cemncetcieew ose 9
CuarTer II. Similarity of the arts and customs of the mound-builders to those
(IP MAAS Sescteoe ctice ACE cele ane eer-aeee an eae eae sisters ier ere ens Eres 14
PAM CIMIUE CLINT Cerner atte eye wtciote a nluid Saco ctesnint fiefoeres oie ao wale osc ee woae eee es 14
PT UIECVASION Set rseee ce Se nics aes ois sores hace eiave cise soe Semiceneiviie ee cesar 18
SMIMNU Ib ye TOGO UT AIC US COMSE cease =o tein wiaicle win co Sisieraie Se cijae eee coe wens Sac 18
Remove Omunetieshwbetoresburializcec.cececets asec s see eec eo. le eeu occ ee 19
Un aD eMe ag OLNEY CLIUMOS ys soe ce sate see cisiclajeee cl Saeisisw, sete siete whic 2s ere 21
BULIVeMvasitNeOrsquavting POStUre:....-.-s.-s5 -4-=<. secenis sccm esee e=c- 21
iresuseroteliresime wHtaleceLeMONIeS =i sce. = soe eee eee oe = sees os nicloinci= 22 21
Similarity of the stone implements and ornaments of various tribes. ....-... 22
Mound and Indian pottery.....---..---- Be a eae oes Save sa tc eee ree eres 23
CmArrER Il. Stone graves and what they teach....-..-.......2--.-..--:..-s5: 25
UNE LV. ule) Cherokees as) mound-builders -.- 2. .2.<.-.-.<-sctees cece --22ee 3
CHAPTER Y. The Cherokees and the Tallegwi ......--. n QOS Seb eoaacuubeoses 38

Fig. 1.—Part of an iron blade from a North Carolina mound ...-...-..---....---
Fic. 2.—Engraved shell gorget from a Tennessee mound ......----.-----.------
Fig. 3.—Shell gorget with engraving of coiled serpent. ....-..----..-----.-----
Fig. 4.—Twined fabric impressed on a piece of pottery obtained from a mound

INgJ emerson. COuM tyes CNN CSSCOkecw cm olejsc acs cas = society alse seein ae ers
HiGw>.—Pipetromeilamilton County, Ohio <2 x. 1c, s2c2ceccceces= anecicnes seee
iGO. —-ipenromebamiltont County, Olior aoc... sas sites sso ea eee acre
Rice <a—Pipe trom sullivan:County, Mennessee 2 2). 2 smc sce sisicna eccc 22 ole
Fic. 8.—Pipe from Caldwell County, North Carolina....... ...--.-.----.--+----

IEEUSIR ATION S.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

By Cyrus THOMAS.

INTRODUCTION.

No other ancient works of the United States have become so widely
known or have excited so much interest as those of Ohio. This is due
in part to their remarkable character but in a much greater degree to
the “Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley,” by Messrs. Squier
and Davis, in which these monuments are described and figured.

The constantly recurring question, ‘* Who constructed these works?”
has brought before the public a number of widely different theories,
though the one which has been most generally accepted is that they
originated with a people long since extinet or driven from the country,
who had attained a culture status much in advance of that reached by
the aborigines inhabiting the country at the time of its discovery by
Europeans.

The opinion advanced in this paper, in support of which evidence
will be presented, is that the ancient works of the State are due to In-
dians of several different tribes, and that some at least of the typical
works, were built by the ancestors of the modern Cherokees. The dis-
cussion will be limited chiefly to the latter proposition, as the limits of
the paper will not permit a full presentation of all the data which might
be brought forward in support of the theory, and the line of argument
will be substantially as follows:

First. A brief statement of the reasons for believing that the Indians
were the authors of all the ancient monuments of the Mississippi Val-
ley and Gulf States; consequently the Ohio mounds must have been
built by Indians.

Second. Evidence that the Cherokees were mound builders after
reaching their historic seats in East Tennessee and western North

~
4

8 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

Carolina. This and the preceding positions are strengthened by the
introduction of evidence showing that the Shawnees were the authors
of a certain type of stone graves, and of mounds and other works con-
nected therewith.

Third. A tracing of the Cherokees, by the mound testimony and by
tradition, back to Ohio.

Fourth. Reasons for believing that the Cherokees were the Tallegwi
of tradition and the authors of some of the typical works of Ohio.

CHAPTER I
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.

Space will not permit any review here of the various theories in re-
gard to the builders, or of the objections made to the theory that they
were Indians, or of the historical evidence adducible in support of this
theory. Simple declaration on these points must suffice.

The historical evidence is clear and undisputed that when the region
in which the mounds appear was discovered by Europeans it was inhab-
ited by Indians only. Of their previous history nothing is known ex-
cept what is furnished by vague and uncertain traditions or inferred
from the study of their languages and customs. On the other hand
there is no historical or other evidence that any other race or people
than the Indians ever occupied this region, or any part of it, previous
to its discovery by Europeans at the close of the fifteenth century.

We enter the discussion, therefore, with at least a presumption in
favor of the conclusion tliat these works were built by the Indians—
a presumption which has not received the consideration it deserves ;
indeed, it is so strong that it can be overcome only by showing that
those mounds, or the specimens of art found in them, which were un-
questionably the work of the builders, indicate an advancement in skill
and knowledge entirely beyond that reached by the Indians previous
to contact with Huropeans. But all the genuine discoveries so far made
in the explorations of the mounds tend to disprove this view.

If it can be shown that tribes occupying the mound region at the
time they were first visited by Europeans used mounds, and in some
cases built them, it will be a fair inference that all these structures are
due to the same race until the contrary is proved.

The objection urged by many that the Indian has always been a rest-
less nomad, spurning the restraints of agriculture, has been effectually
answered, especially by Mr. Lucien Carr.! History also bears us out
in the assertion that at the time of the discovery nine tenths of the
tribes in the mound district had fixed seats and local habitations, de-
pending to a great extent for sustenance upon the cultivation of the
soil. So far as the southern districts, now comprising the Gulf States,
are concerned, it goes further and asserts over and over again that the
tribes of that enn were mound-builders when first encountered by
the whites. To verify this assertion it is only necessary to read the

| Mounds of the Mississippi Valley Historic ally Considered.

10 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

chronicles of De Soto’s expedition and the writings of the pioneer trav-
elers and French missionaries to that section. This evidence proves
conclusively not only that this had been a custom, but that it was con-
tinued into the eighteenth century.

Such statements as the following, attested by various contemporane-
ous authors, should suffice on this point:

The caciques of this country make a custom of raising near their dwellings very
high hills, on which they sometimes build their houses.!

The Indians try to place their villages on elevated sites, but inasmuch as in Florida
there are not many sites of this kind where they can conveniently build, they erect
elevations themselves in the following manner, ete.?

The chief’s house stood near the beach upon a very high mount made by hand for
defense.”

The last, which was on Tampa Bay, was most likely near Phillippi’s
Point, where tradition fixes De Soto’s landing place, and where a num-
ber of mounds and shell heaps have been found. One of these, opened
by Mr. S. T. Walker,‘ was found to consist of three layers. In the
lower were “no ornaments and but little pottery, but in the middle
and top layers, especially the latter, nearly every cranium was encircled
by strings of colored beads, brass and copper ornaments, trinkets, ete.
Among other curious objects were a pair of scissors and a fragment of
looking-glass.”

An earlier exploration is thus described: “The governor {De Soto}
opened a large temple in the woods, in which were buried the chiefs
of the country, and took from it a quantity of pearls * * * which
were spoiled by being buried in the ground.”®

Another chronicler says: ‘¢ This house stood ona high mound (cerro),
similar to others we have already mentioned. Round about it was a
roadway sufficiently broad for six men to walk abreast.”® (There are
good reasons for believing this to be the Etowah mound near Carters-
ville, Ga.)?

The town of Talise is described as being strong in the extreme, in-
closed by timber and earth.’

Werrera speaks of “‘a town of 400 houses, and a large square, where
the cacique’s house stood upon a mound made by art.” ®

Father Gravier!’ speaks of mounds of the Akansea and “ Tounika”
villages.

M. La Harpe says “the eabins of the Yasous, Courois, Offogoula,
and Ouspie [along the Yazoo about 1700] are dispersed over the coun-

1 Biedma, Hist. Coll. La., vol. 2, p. 105.

*Garcilasso de la Vega, Hist. Fla., ed. 1723, p. 69.
*Gentleman of Elvas. Bradford Club series, vol. 5, p. 23.
‘Smithsonian Report, 1879 (1880), pp. 392-422.

6 Biedma, Hist. Coll. La., vol. 2, p. 101.

“Garcilasso de la Vega, Hist. Fla., ed. 1723, p. 139.

7 Thomas, Mag. Am. Hist., May, 1884, pp. 405, 406.
®Garcilasso, Hist. Fla., p. 144.

‘Hist. Am., Stevens’s transl., vol. 6, p. 5.

Shea’s Early French Voyages, pp. 126, 136.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. el

try upon mounds of earth made with their own hands, from which it is
inferred that these nations are very ancient and were formerly very
numerous, although at the present time they hardly number two hun-
dred and fifty persons.”! (This seems to imply that there were numer-
ous mounds unoccupied.) ‘In one of the Natches villages,” says Du-
mont, ‘the house of the chief was placed on a mound.” ?

Another writer says: ‘When the chief [of the Natchez] dies they
demolish his cabin and then raise a new mound on which they build
the cabin of him who is to replace him in this dignity.”°

According to Bartram, in the Cherokee town of Stico the council-
house was on a mound, as also at Cowé.‘

The same writer says ° the Choctaws raised mounds over their dead
in case of communal burials.

It is apparent from Jefferson’s language ° that the burial mounds of
Virginia were of Indian origin.

These references, which might be indefinitely multiplied, are suffi-
cient to bear out the assertion that history testifies that the southern
tribes were accustomed to build mounds.

It is a matter of surprise that so little is to be found regarding the
mounds in the older records of the Northern States. There is but one
statement in the Jesuit Relations and no mention in the writings of the
Recollects, so far has been found, and yet one of the missionaries
must have passed a good portion of the winter of 1700 in the very midst
of the Cahokia group. Colden notes that *¢a round hill was sometimes
raised over the grave in which a corpse had been deposited.”* Carver
noticed ancient earthworks on the Mississippi near Lake Pepin, but knew
nothing of their origin.? Heckewelder observed some of these works
near Detroit, which he was informed had been built by the Indians. An
account of them was published in a Philadelphia periodical in 1789 or
1790. This description was afterwards given briefly in his “ History of
the Manners and Customs of the Indian Nations.”

These older records mention facts which afford a reasonable explana-
tion of some of the ancient monuments found in the northern section
of the country; as for example the communal or tribal burials, where
the bones and remains of all the dead of a village, region, or tribe, who
had died since the last general burial (usually a period of eight to ten
years) were collected and deposited in one common grave. This method,
which was followed by some southern tribes, has been described by Bar-

‘La Harpe, Hist. Coll. La., part 3, p. 106, New York, 1851.
2Mém. Hist. La., vol. 2, p. 109.
3 La Petit, Hist. Coll. La., vol. 3, pp. 141, 142, note. Also Lettres édifiantes et curioses,
vol. 1, pp. 260, 261. See Du Pratz, Histoire Louisiane, 1758, vol. 3, p. 16.
‘Bartram’s Travels, pp. 345, 367.
'Tbid., p. 516.
® Notes on Virginia, 4th Aim. ed., 1801, pp. 142-147.
7 Hist. Five Nations, introd., vol. 1, London, 1755, p. 16.
8 Travels, ed. 1796, Phila., p. 36; ed. 1779, London, p. 57.

LZ THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

tram,! Dumont,? Romans,’ and others, but most fully by Jean de Brebeuf.4

It is a well-attested fact that northern as well as southern Indians
were accustomed to erect palisades around their villages for defense
against attack.

Some evidences of mound building by northern Indians may be found
in the works of comparatively modern writers. Lewis C. Beck °® affirms
that *‘one of the largest mounds in this country has been thrown up on
this stream [the Osage] within the last thirty or forty years by the Osages,
near the great Osage village, in honor of one of their deceased chiefs.”
It is probable this is the mound referred to by Major Sibley,’ who says
an Osage Indian informed him that a chief of his tribe having died
while all the men were off on a hant, he was buried in the usual man-
ner, with his weapons, ete., and a small mound was raised over him.
When the hunters returned this mound was enlarged at intervals, every
man carrying materials, and so the work went on for a long time, and the
mound, when finished, was dressed off to a conical form at the top. The
old Indian further said he had been informed, and believed, that all
the mounds had a similar origin.

Lewis and Clarke mention not only the erection of a mound over a
modern chief, but also numerous earthworks, including mounds, which
were known to be the work of contemporaneous Indians.’

L. V. Bierce® states that when Nicksaw, an old Wyandotte Indian
of Summit County, was killed, “the Indians buried him on the ground
where he fell, and according to their custom raised a mound over him
to commemorate the place and circumstances of his death. His grave
is yet to be seen.”

Another writer says: ‘‘ Itis related by intelligent Indian traders that
a custom once prevailed among certain tribes, on the burial of a chief or
brave of distinction, to consider his grave as entitled to the tribute of a
portion of earth from each passer-by, which the traveler sedulously car-
ried with him on his journey. Hence the first grave formed a nucleus
around which, in the accumulation of the accustomed tributes thus paid,
& mound was soon formed.” ®

? Mémoires Hist. La., vol. 1, p. 246.

3 Nat. and Civil Hist. Fla., pp. 88-90.

‘Tn his account “Des cérémonies qu’ils [les Hurons] gardent en leur sépulture et
de leur deuil,” and ‘‘ De la Feste solemnelle des morts.’—Jesuit Relations for 1636,
pp. 129-139. See translation in Thomas’s “ Burial Mounds of the Northern Section
of the United States,” Fifth Annual Rept. Bur. Ethnol., p. 110. See alse Lafitan,
‘*Moeurs des Sauvages,” vol. 2, pp. 447-455.

* Gazetteer of the States of Ill. and Mo., p. 308.

"Featherstonhangh, Excur. through Slave States, p. 70.

7 Travels, Dublin ed., 1817, pp. 30,31, 55, 67, 115, 117, 122-125, ete.

* Historical Reminiscences of Summit County, Ohio, p. 128.

*Smith’s History of Wisconsin, vol. 8, 1854, p. 245.
40M Tbids, p.262.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 13

(Great Hill of the Dead) was raised over the bones of Outagami (Fox
Indian) warriors stain in battle with the French in 1706.

According to a Winnebago tradition, mounds in certain localities in
Wisconsin were built by that tribe, and others by the Sacs and Foxes.!

There is another Indian tradition, apparently founded on fact, that
the Essex mounds in Clinton County, Mich., are the burying places of
those killed in a battle between the Chippewas and Pottawatomies,
which oceurred not many generations ago.”

2 Smithsonian Report, part 1, 1e84, p, 848.

CHAPTER II.

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 bere, and that in a very brief and general way.

As the country was inhabited only by Indians at the time of its dis-
covery, and as we have no evidence, unless derived from the mounds,
of its having ever been occupied by any other people, every fact indi-
cating 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 peopies. The greater the number of these resem-
blances, 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 archeologist who carefully studies these works as being very
significant, is the entire absence of any evidence in them of architeet-
ural 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 some-
what reguwar proportions are found in certain sections, and that some
of these have ramps or roadways leading up to them. Yet when com-
pared with the pyramids or teocalli of Mexico and Yucatan the differ-
ences 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 sculp-
tured 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

14

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 15

earthen structures is to be found. The utmost they attained in this
direction was the construction of stone cairns, rude stone walls, and
vaults of cobble-stones and undressed blocks. This fact is too signifi-
cant 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 con-
structed 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 tbe 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. Itis evident, therefore, that they had
dwellings of some sort, and as remains of neither stone nor brick struct-
ures 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 dwell-
ings 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, espec-
ially in Tennessee, [linois, and southeast Missouri, the sites of thou-
sands of them are yet distinetly 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 disap-
peared, 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

16 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

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 breken
into lumps, never in a uniform, unbroken layer; immediately below
this (5) a thin layer of hardened muck or dark clay, though this does
not always seem to be distinet. 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:

Asa general and almost universal rule, after removing a foot or two of top soil, a
Jayer 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.

selow 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 onein rear. For example, Dr. Palmer found in a broad plat-
forin-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. Paliner remarks:

The fire must have been very fierce, aid the clay around the edges was evidently
at some height above the floor, as I judge from the irregular way in which it is scat-
tered around the margins.

lixcavations 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

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 1G

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! 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 de-
cayed 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 Iber-
ville’s Journal? it is stated that the cabins of the Bayogoulas were
round, about 30 feet in diameter, and plastered with clay to the height
of aman. 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 Mis-
sissippi, 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.’

A deseription of the Indian square houses of this southern section
by Du Pratz‘ 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 Jine 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

18th Rept. Peabody Museum, 1875, pp. 17, 18.

2?Relation in Margry, Découvertes, 4th part (March, 1699), p. 170.
3Relation of Henry de Tonty in Margry, Découvertes, vol. 1, 1876, p. 600.
‘Hist. La., vol. 2, French ed., 1758, pp. 173-175; English ed., 1764, p. 359.

9009 2

18 THE PROBLEM OF TITE OHIO MOUNDS.

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 tigure 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 de-
scribed 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 bundlesof grass, of the tallest that can be found in the
low lands, and which is 4 ov 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 witha
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 cover-
ings 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 Euro-
peans.

It is admitted now by all archwologists 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. Itis also admitted that the mounds and burial pits of Can-
ada are due, at least in part, to the Hurons.!

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 con-
dition 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 concep-
tion 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 ex-
amination of their burial mounds, ancient cemeteries, and other depos-
itories of their dead, present so many striking resemblances to those of
the Indians when first encountered by the whites, as to leave little

1 Dayid Boyle, Aun, Rept. Canadian Institute, 1886-87, pp. 9-17 ; Ibid., 1888, p, 57,

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 19

room for doubt regarding their identity.!. 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,? “has been that of interment in
the ground, and this has taken place in a number of ways.” The dif-
ferent 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. Yar-
row 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.? According to Brasseur de Bour-
bourg the Toltees also practiced cremation.*

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. In-
stances 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”?

1 Evidence bearing on this point will be found in the paper ou The Burial Mounds
of the Northern Sections, by C. Thomas, in the Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau
of Ethnology.

?First Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, 1879-30
(1881), p. 93.

3Clavigero, Hist. Mex., Cullen’s transl., I, 325; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., I, p. 60,
ete.

+H. H. Bancroft, Native Races, vol. 2, 1882, p. 609.

5Fourth Am, ed., 1801, p. 143; p. 146, in 8th ed,

20 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

isonein 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 Wis-
consin, by Mr. Armstrong;' in Florida, by James Bell? and Mr. Walker ;?
in Cass County., Ill, by Mr. Snyder;* in Georgia, by C. C. Jones.
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 Norris 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 pos-
sible 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 persenal examination I conclude that most of the folded skele-
tons 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 suppo-
sition 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 en-
countered by the whites, and even down to a comparatively modern
date, to remove the flesh before final burial by suspending on seaf-
folds, 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 re-
moving the bones from the old burial place to a place of deposit in the
country they now dwell in.” ®

1 Smithsonian Rept., 1879, p. 337. 4Smithsonian Rept., 18381, p.573.
2 Smithsonian Rept., 1&8, p. 636. 5 Antiq. So. Inds., p. 193.
’Smithsonian Rept., 1879, p. 393, 6 Hist. Manners and Customs Ind. Nations, p. 75.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. ml

The account by Brebeouf of the communal burial among the Hurons
heretofore referred to is well kuown.'! The same custom is alluded to
by Lafitau.2 Bartram observed it among the Choctaws.? It is also
mentioned by Bossu,! by Adair,’ by Barnard Romans,’ 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.7. 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,®
and Barnard Romans says it was also practiced by the Chickasaws.®
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 ;”!° 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 prac-
tice among the mound-builders to bury their dead in a sitting or squat-
ting 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 ex-
tent in Wisconsin, Iowa, [linois, North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, and
West Virginia. Instances have also been observed elsewhere." That
the same custom was followed by several of the Indian tribes is attested
by the following authorities: Bossu,” Lawson,” Bartram," and Adair.’

The use of fire in burial cer oe her penance in which the
burial customs of mound-builders corresponded with those of Indians
was the use of fire in funeral ceremonies. The evidenees 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 ana 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. More-
over, 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 barn the

! Jesuit Relations for 1636. Transl. in 8Tr -avels, p. 505.
Fifth Ann. Rept. Bur. Ethnol., p. 110. 9 Nat. Hist. Florida, p. 71.
?Moeurs des Sauvages, vol. 2, pp. 420- 10 Antiq. So. Indians, p. 203.
435. 1 Jones’s Antiq. So. Indians (Georgia
3 Travels, p. 516. and Florida), pp. 183-185.
*Travels through Louisiana, p. 202. 12 Travels, vol. 1, p. 251.
© Hist. Am. Indians, p. 183. 13 Hist. Carolina, p. 182.
§ Nat. Hist. Florida, p. 90. 14‘Travels, p. 515.

7Febrwary, 1884. 16 Hist. Am. Indians, p. 182.

22 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

flesh and softer portions of the body when removed from the bones.!
Brebceuf also mentions its use in connection with the communal burial
of the Hurons2 According to M. Bb. Kent? 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! 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:° “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 dress-
ing 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 un-
charred human bones are frequently found in Southern mounds imbed-
ded 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 archeologists make
no attempt to separate them, except where the conditions under which
they are found furnish evidence for discrimination. Instead of bur-
dening 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 perma-
neatly 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 &@ more primitive type found in the Trenton gravel are to be
attributed to an earlier and still ruder people. Examining those of the

' Barnard Romans, Nat. Hist. Florida, Deo:

2 Jesuit Relations for 1636, p. 135.

* Yarrow’s Mort. Customs N. A. Indians, Ist Ann. Ropt. Bur. Ethnology (1881), p. 95.
‘Hist, Alabama, 3d ed., vol. 1, p. 140.

5Tbid., p. 142.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 23

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, trink-
ets, 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 bigher 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 archeology 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.!

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.2. 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

1 Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 349.
2Dumont, Mém. Hist. La., vol. 2, 1753, p. 271; Adair, Hist. Am, Indians, p. 424;
Loskiel, Gesell. der Miss., p. 70, ete.

24 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

cruses for holding bear’s oil;”! also that they colored them a beautifal
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, Il —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 Kuropean manu-
facture 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 evi-
dence that the Cherokees were mound-builders, and as having an im-
portant bearing upon both questions, the evidence derived from the
box-shaped stone graves is introduced at this point.

-- 1 Hist. La, p. 79.

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, per-
tains to a certain class 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 assuming
that there was a continuity of custom from the mound-building age to
historic times, or that graves found in the mounds are probably attrib-
utable to the same people (or allied tribes) found using them at a later
date. This conclusion will be strengthened by finding that certain pe-
culiar 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 unbewn
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; occa-
sionally the bottom consists of a layer of water-worn bowlders; some-
times 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
these 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

€

~

[es
od

re

26 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

examined them has failed to note their strong resemblance to the Eu-
ropean 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 rede stone coffins of Tennessee, I have again and again been im-
pressed with the ideaethat in some former age this ancient race must have come in
contact with Europeans and derived this mode of burial from them.!

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 Shaw-
nees were inveterate enemies from time immemorial. But by referring
to Schooleraft’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 Lulbegrad, in what is now Clark County
[Kentucky], about 30 miles east of this place [Lexington]. This tribe left this coun-
try about 1750 and went to East Tennessee, to the Cherokee Nation.?

Some years ago Mr. George HE. 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
prehistorie people in the manufacture of salt and because they bore im-
pressions 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.’”’?

Mention of this pottery had been made long previously*by J. M. Peck
in his “ Gazetteer of Illinois.” +

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, js 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? in the report relating to the famous claim of the Hlinois and

| Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee, pp. 34, 35.

2 Vol. 1, p. 301.

* Popular Science Monthly, vol. 11, 1877, pp. 573-584.

41834, p. 52.

5 Public Lands, Class VIII, vol. 2, p. 103, Gales and Seaton ed.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. AE

Seo

Wabash Land Companies. The deed presented was dated July 20, 1773,
and recorded at Kaskaskia, September 2, 1775. In this mention is
made of the “ancient Shawnee town” on Saline Creek, the exact locality
of the stone graves and salt-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.!

As proof that the people of this tribe were in the habit of making
salt the foilowing evidence is presented: Collins, in his “History of
Kentucky,”? gives an account of the capture and adventures of Mrs.
Mary Ingals, the first white woman known to have visited Kentucky.
In this narrative occurs the following statement:

The first white woman in Kentucky was Mrs. Mary Ingals, née Draper, who, in 1756
with her two little boys, her sister-in-law, Mrs. Draper, and others was taken pris-
oner by the Shawnee Indians, from her home on the top of the great Allegheny ridge,
in now Montgomery County, W.Va. The captives were taken down the Kanawha,
to the salt region, and, after a few days spent in making salt, to the Indian village at
the mouth of Scioto River.

By the treaty of Fort Wayne, June 7, 1503, between the Delawares,
Shawnees, and other tribes and the United States, it was agreed that
in consideration of the relinquishment of title to “the great salt spring
upon the Saline Creek, which falls into the Ohio below the mouth of
the Wabash, with a quantity of land surrounding it, not exceeding 4
miles square,” the United States should deliver “yearly, and every year
for the use of said Indians, a quantity of salt not exceeding 150 bushels.” °

Another very significant fact in this connection is that the fragments
of large earthen vessels similar in character to those found in Gallatin
County, I[ll., have also been found in connection with the stone graves
of the Cumberland Valley, and, furthermore, the impressions made by
the textile fabrics show the same stitches as do the former. Another
place where pottery of the same kind has been found is about t Salt
lick near Saint Genevieve, Mo., a section inhabited for a tine’ by
Shawnees and Delawares.* Ae

Stone graves have been found in Washington County Mas TIlistory
iforms us that there were two Shawnee settlements im this region, one” /
in the adjoining county of Maryland eran and another in th 7
neighborhood of Winchester, Va.° <9 ee

Mr. W. M. Taylor’? mentions some stone graves of the type inder
consideration as found on the Mahoning River, in I ees An

1Travels in America, 1808, p. 265. Rade F —

2Vol.2, p. 55.

Treaties of United States with Indian tribes, p. 97.

4C.C. Royce in American Antiquarian, vol. 3, 1881, pp. 188, 189.

Smithsonian Report for 1882 (1884), p. 797.

6C.C. Royce in American Antiquarian, vol. 3, 1881, p.186. Virginia State Papers,

1, p63.
7 Smithsonian Report for 1877, p.307. Mentions only known instance of mound with

Delaware village.

/

28 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

important item in this connection is that these graves were in a mound,
He describes the mound as 35 feet in diameter and 5 feet high, having
on one side a projection 35 feet long of the same height as the mound.
Near by acache was discovered containing twenty one iron implements,
such as axes, hatchets, tomahawks, hoes, and wedges. He adds the
significant statement that near the mound once stood the Indian (Del-
aware) village of Kush-kush-kee.

Graves of the same type have been discovered in Lee County, Va.!
Others have been found in a mound on the Tennessee side, near the
southern boundary of Seott County, Va. Allusion has already been
made to the occasional presence of the Shawnees in this region. In
the map of North America by John Senex, Chaonanon villages are
indicated in this particular section.

The presence of these graves in any part of Ohio can easily be ae-
counted for on the theory advanced, by the well-known fact that both
Shawnees and Delawares were located at various points in the region,
and during the wars in which they were engaged were moving about
from place to place; but the mention of a few coincidences may not be
out of place.

In the American Antiquarian for July, 1881, is the deseription of one
of these cists found in a mound in the eastern part of Montgomery
County. Mr. Royee, in the article already referred to, states that there
was a Shawnee village 3 miles north of Xenia, in the adjoining county,
on Mad River, which flows into the Miami a short distance above the
location of the mound.

Stone graves have been found in great numbers at various points along
the Ohio from Portsmouth to Ripley, a region known to have been oc-
cupied at various times by the Shawnees.

Similar graves have been discovered in Ashland County These, as
will be seen by reference to the same report (page 594), are precisely in
the locality of the former Delaware villages.

The evidence is deemed sufficient to show that the Shawnees and Del-
awares were accustomed to bury in stone graves of the type under con-
sideration, and to indicate that the graves found south of the Ohio are
to be attributed to the former tribe and those north to both tribes.

As graves of this kind are common over the west side of southern
Illinois, from the mouth of the Illinois to the junction of the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers, attention is called to some evidence bearing on their
origin.

Hunter, who traveled in the West, says that some of the Indians he
met with during his captivity buried their dead in graves of this kind.

According to a statement made by Dr. Rau to Mr. C. C. Jones, and
repeated to me personally, “it is a fact well remembered by many per-
sons in this neighborhood [Monroe County, H1.] that the Indians who

'Kleventh Report of the Peabody Museuin, 1878, p. 208.
*Smithsonian Revort for 1877, pp. 261-267.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 29.

inhabited this region during the early part of the present century (prob-
ably Kickapoos) buried their dead in stone coffins.” !

Dr. Shoemaker, who resided on a farm near Columbia, in 1861, showed
Dr. Rau, in one of his fields, the empty stone grave of an Indian who
had been killed by one of his own tribe and interred there within the
memory of some of the farmers of Monroe County. An old lady in
Jackson County informed one of the Bureau assistants that she had
seen an Indian buried in a grave of this kind.

It is doubtful whether Dr. Rau is correct in ascribing these graves to
the Kickapoos, as their most southern locality appears to have been in
the region of Sangamon County.’ It is more probable they were made
by the Kaskaskias, Tamaroas, and Cahokias. Be this as it may, it is
evident that they are due to some of the tribes of this section known
as Illinois Indians, pertaining to the same branch of the Algonquin
family as the Shawnees and Delawares.

That the stone graves of southern Illinois were made by the same
people who built those of the Cumberland Valley, or closely allied
tribes, is indicated not only by the character of the graves but by other
very close and even remarkable resemblances in the construction and
contents as well as in the form and size of the mounds; the presence
of hut-rings in both localities, and the arrangement of the groups.

Taking all the corroborating facts together there are reasonable
grounds for concluding that graves of the type now under consideration,
although found in widely-separated localities, are attributable to the
Shawnee Indians and their congeners, the Delawares and Illinois, and
that those south of the Ohio are due entirely to the first named tribe:
That they are the works of Indians must be admitted by all who are
willing to be convinced by evidence.

The fact that in most cases (except when due to the Delawares, who
are not known to have been mound-builders) the graves are connected
with mounds, and in many instances are in mounds, sometimes in two,
three, and even four tiers deep, proves beyond a doubt that the authors
of these graves were mound-builders.

The importance and bearing of this evidence does not stop with what
has been stated, for it is so interlocked with other facts relating to the
works of the ‘‘ veritable mound-builders” as to leave no hiatus into
which the theory of a lost race or a ‘ Toltec occupation” can possibly
be thrust. It forms an unbroken chain connecting the mound-builders
and historical Indians which no sophistry or reasoning can break. Not
only are these graves found in mounds of considerable size, but they
are also connected with one of the most noted groups in the United
States, namely, the one on Colonel Tumliw’s place, near Cartersville, Ga.,
known as the Etowah mounds, of which a full description will be found
in the Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology.

In the smallest of the three large mounds of this group were found

1 Antiquities So. Indians, p- 220, 3 Reynolds’s Hist. Illinois, p. 20.

30 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

stone graves of precisely the type attributable, when found south of
the Ohio, to the Shawnees. They were not in a situation where they
could be ascribed to intrusive burials, but in the bottom layer of a com-
paratively large mound with a thick and undisturbed layer of hard-
packed clay above them. It is also worthy of notice that the locality
is intermediate between the principal seat of the Shawnees in the Cum-
berland Valley, and their extreme eastern outposts in northeastern
Georgia, where both tradition and stone graves indicate their settle-
ment. The tradition regarding this settlement has been given else-
where.!

In these graves were found the remarkable figured copper plates and
certain engraved shells, of which mention has been made by Mr. W.
H. Holmes? and by myself* in Science. It is a singular corroboration
of the theory here advanced that the only other similar copper plates
were found at Lebanon, Tenn., by Piof. F. W. Putnam; in a stone
grave ina mound at Mill Creek, southern Illinois, by 1 me Karle; ina
stone grave in Jackson County, Hl., by Mr. Thing; in a mound of Mad-
ison County, Hl., by Mr. H. R. Howland; and in a small mound at
Peoria, Ill., by Maj. J. W. Powell. All, except the specimens found by
Professor Putnam and Mr. Howland, were secured by the Bureau of
Ethnology, and are now in the National Museum.

There can be but little doubt that the specimens obtained from simple
stone graves by Professor Putnam and Mr. Thing are to be attributed
to Indian burials, but surely not to Indian manufacture.

We have, therefore, two unbroken chains connecting the Indians of
historic times with the “ veritable mound builders,” and the facts which
form the links of these chains throw some additional light on the history
of that mysterious people, the Shawnees.

It may be stated here that in the report relating to the claim of the
Wabash Land Company?‘ is a statement giving a list of articles fur-
nished the Indians, arnong which we notice nine ear-wheels. These we
suppose to be the same as the spool-shaped ear ornaments found in
stone graves and elsewhere.

The engraved shells also form a link which not only connects the
mound-builders with historie times but corroborates the view advanced
in regard to the Shawnees, and indicates also that the Cherokees were
mound-builders. But before introducing this we will give the reasons
for believing that the mounds of eastern Tennessee and western North

Carolina are due to the last-named tribe.

aa 1 Am, Antigq., _ vol. he 1885, De 133.
2 Science, vol. 3, 1884, pp. 436-438.
3 Tbid., pp. 779-785.
4American State Papers, Land Affairs, Appendix, p. 20,

CHAPTER IV.

THE CHEROKEES AS MOUND-BUILDERS.

As the evidence on this point has toa large extent been presented in
my article on ‘Burial Mounds of the Northern Section,”! also in articles
published in the Magazine of American History? and in the American
Naturalist,’ it will be necessary bere only to introduce a few additional
items.

The iron implements which are alluded to in the above-mentioned
articles also in Science,‘ as found in a North Carolina mound, and which
analysis shows were not meteoric, furnish conclusive evidence that the
tumulus was built after the Europeans had reached America; and as
it is shown in the same article that the Cherokees must have occupied
the region from the time of its discovery up to its settlement by the
whites it is more than probable they were the builders. <A figure of
one of the pieces is introduced here.

Fic. 1. Part of an iron blade from a North Carolina mound.

Additional and perhaps still stronger evidence, if stronger be needed,
that the people of this tribe were the authors of most of the ancient
works in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee is to be found
in certain discoveries made by the Bureau assistants in Monroe County,
Tenn.

_ A careful exploration of the valley of the Little Tennessee River, from
the point where it leaves the mountains to its confluence with the Hol-
ston, was made, and the various mound groups were located and sur-
veyed. ‘These were found to correspond down as far as the position of

1 Fifth Ann. Rept. Bur. EKthnol, pit 3 Vol. 18, 1884, pp. 232-240.
* May, 1884, pp, 396-407. *Science, vol. 3, 1884, pp. 308-310.
ol

B14 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

Fort Loudon and even to the island below with the arrangement of
the Cherokee “over-hill towns” as given by Timberlake in his map of
the Cherokee country called ‘¢ we er Sys Hills,”! a group for each town,
and in the only available spots the valley for this distance affords. As
these mounds when explored yielded precisely the kind of ornaments
and implements used by the Cherokees, it is reasonable to believe they
built them.

Ramsey also gives a map,” but lis list evidently refers to a date cor-
responding with the close of their occupancy of this section. Bartram?
gives a more complete list applying to an earlier date. This evidently
includes some on the Holston (his ‘‘Cherokee”) River and some on the
Tellico plains. This corresponds precisely with the result of the ex-
plorations by the Bureau as will be seen when the report is published.
Some three or four groups were discovered in the region of Tellico
plains, and five or six on the Little Tennessee below Fort Loudon and
on the Holston near the junction, one large mound and a group being
on the “Big Island” mentioned in Bartram’s list.

The largest of these groups is situated on the Little Teunessee above
Fort Loudon and corresponds with the position of the ancient ‘ beloved
town of Chota” (“Great Chote” of Bartram) as located by tradition and
on both Timberlake’s and Ramsey’s maps. According to Ramsey,‘ at
the time the pioneers, following in the wake of Daniel Boone near the
close of the eighteenth century, were pouring over the mountains into
the valley of the Watauga, a Mrs. Bean, who was captured by the Cher-
okees near Watauga, was brought to their town at this place and was
bound, taken to the top of one of the mounds and about to be burned,
when Naney Ward, then exercising in the nation the functions of the
Beloved or Pretty Woman, interfered and pronounced her pardon.

During the explorations of the mounds of this region a peculiar type
of clay beds was found in several of the larger mounds. These were
always saucer-shaped, varying in diameter from 6 to 15 feet, and in
thickness from 4 to 12 inches. In nearly every instance they were found
in series, one above another, with a layer of coals and ashes between.
The series. usually consisted of from three to five beds, sometimes only
two, decreasing in size from the lower one upward. These apparently
marked the stages of the growth of the mound, the upper one always
being near the present surface.

The large mound which is on the supposed site of Chota, and pos-
sibly the one on which Mrs. Bean was about to be burned, was thor-
oughly explored, and found to contain a series of these clay beds, which
always showed the action of fire. In the center of some of these were
found the charred remains of a stake, and about them the usual layer
of coals and ashes, but, in this instance, immediately around where the
stake stood were ch: ured fragments of human bones.

| Memoirs, 1765. 3 Travels, pp. 373, 374,
* Annals of Tennessee, p. 376, 4 Annals of Tennessee, p. 157.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 3a

As will be seen, when the report which is now in the hands of the
printer is published, the burials in this mound were at various depths,
and there is nothing shown to indicate separate and distinct periods,
or to lead to the belief that any of these were intrusive in the true sense.
On the contrary, the evidence is pretty clear that all these burials were
by one tribe or people. By the side of nearly every Skeleton were one
or more articles, as shell masks, engraved shells, shell pins, shell beads,
perforated shells, discoidal stones, polished celts, arrow-heads, spear-
heads, stone gorgets, bone implements, clay vessels, cr copper hawk-
bells. The last were with the skeleton of a child found at the depth
of 33 feet. They are precisely of the form of the ordinary sleigh-bell
of the present day, with pebbles and shell-bead rattles.

That this child belonged to the people to whom the other burials are
due will not be doubted by any one not wedded to a preconceived
notion, and that the bells are the work of Europeans will also be
admitted.

In another mound a little farther up the river, and one of a group
probably marking the site of one of the “over-hill towns,” were found
two carved stone pipes of a comparatively modern Cherokee type.

The next argument is founded on the fact that in the ancient works
of the region alluded to are discovered evidences of habits and customs
Similar to those of the Cherokees and some of the immediately sur-
rounding tribes.

In the article heretofore referred to allusion is made to the evidence
found in the mound opened by Professor Carr of its once having sup-
ported a building similar to the council-house observed by Bartram on
amound at the old Cherokee town Cowé. Both were built on mounds,
both were circular, both were built on posts set in the ground at equal
distances from each other, and each had a central pillar. As tending
to confirm this statement of Bartram’s, the following passage may be
quoted, where, speaking of Colonel Christian’s march against the Cher-
okee towns in 1776, Ramsey! says that this officer found in the center
of each town “a circular tower rudely built and covered with dirt, 30
feet in diameter, and about 20 feet high. This tower was used asa
council-house, and as a place for celebrating the green-corn dance and
other national ceremonials.” In another mound the remains of posts
apparently marking the site of a building were found. Mr. M. C. Read,
of Hudson, Ohio, discovered similar evidences in a mound near Chat-
tanooga,’ and Mr. Gerard Fowke has quite recently found the same
thing in a mound at Waverly, Ohio.

_ The shell ornaments to which allusion has been made, although occa-
Sionally bearing designs which are undoubtedly of the Mexican or Cen.
tral American type, nevertheless furnish very strong evidence that the
ounds of east Tennessee and western North Carolina were built by
he Cherokees.

‘Annals of Tennessee, p. 169. 3 Smithsonian Rept. for 1367 (1863), p.401.

9009. 3

34 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

Lawson, who traveled through North Carolina in 1700, says’ * they
[the indians] oftentimes make of this shell [a certain large sea-shell] a
sort of gorge, which they wear about their neck in a string so it hangs
on their collar, whereon sometimes is engraven across or some odd sort
of figure which comes next in their fancy.”

According to Adair, the southern Indian priest wore upon his breast
‘an ornament made of a white conch-shell, with two holes bored in the
middle of it, through which he ran the pads of an otter-skin strap, and
fastened to the extremity of each a buck-horn white button.” ”

Beverly, speaking of the Indians of Virginia, says: ‘ Of this shell
they also make round tablets of about 4 inches in diameter, which they
polish as smooth as the other, and sometimes they etch or grave thereon
circles, stars, a half-moon, or any other figure suitable to their fancy.”

Now it so happens that a considerable number of shell gorgets have
been found in the mounds of western North Carolina and east Tennes-
see, agreeing so closely with those brief descriptions, as may be seen
from the figures of some of them given here (see Figs. 2 and 3), as to

Kil 1) PRR RC ty
Nan ni ij ——- 1 (4)
i OF Fe\ ue Yi
AS 7 4g [Ww
RA A me Sy
Nei LUNG ait ZB

Fic. 2. Engraved shell eee from a Tennessee mound.

leave no doubt that they belong to the same type as those alluded to
by the writers whose words have just been quoted. Some of them were
found in the North Carolina mound from which the iron articles were
obtained and in connection with these articles. Some of these shells
were smooth and without any devices engraved upon them, but with
holes for inserting the strings by which they were to be held in posi-
tion; others were engraved with figures, which, as will be seen by ref-
erence to the cuts referred to, might readily be taken for stars and half-
moons, and one among the number with @ Cross engrav ed upon it.

‘Hist. of N. Ce Raleigh, reprint 1260, p. 315.
? Hist, Am. Indians, p. 34.
3 Hist. Virginia, London, 1705, p. 58.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 35)

The evidence that these relics were the work of Indians found in
possession of the country at the time of its discovery by Europeans, is
therefore too strong to be put aside by mere conjectures or inferences.
If they were the work of Indians, they must have been used by the
Cherokees and buried with their dead. It is true that some of the en-

raved figures present a puzzling problem in the fact that they bear
unmistakable evidences of pertaining to Mexican and Central Ameri-
can types, but no explanation of.this which contradicts the preceding
evidences that these shells had been in the hands of Indians can be
accepted.

Fic. 3. Sheil gorget with engraving of coiled serpent.

In these mounds were also found a large number of nicely carved soap-
stone pipes, usually with the stem made in connection with the bowl,
though some were without this addition, consisting only of the bow]
with a hole for inserting a cane or wooden stem. While some, as will
hereafter be shown, closely resemble one of the ancient Oliio types, others
are precisely of the form common a few years back, and some of them
have the remains of burnt tobacco yet clinging to them.

Adair, in his “ History of the North American Indians,”! says:

They inake beautiful stone pipes, and the Cherokees the best of any of the Indians,
for their mountainous country contains many different sorts and colors of soils proper
for such uses. They easily form them with their tomahawks and afterwards finish
them in any desired form with their knives, the pipes being of a very soft quality
till they are smoked with and used with the fire, when they become quite hard. They
are often full a span long, and the bowls are about half as large again as our English
pipes. The fore part of each commonly runs out with a sharp peak 2 or 3 fingers
broad and a quarter of an inch thick.

Not only were pipes made of soapstone found in these mounds, but
two or three were found precisely of the form mentioned by Adair, with
the fore part running out in front of the bowl (see Fig. 5, p. 39).

TP, 432.

36 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

Jones says:!

It has been more than hinted at by at least one person whose statement is entitled
to every belief, that among the Cherokees dwelling in the mountains there existed
certain artists whose professed occupation was the manufacture of stone pipes, which
were by them transported to the coast and there bartered away for articles of use
and ornament foreign to and highly esteemed among the members of their own tribe.

This not only strengthens the conclusions drawn from the presence of
such pipes in the mounds alluded to, but may also assist in explaining
the presence of the copper and iron ornaments in them.

During the fall of 1886 a farmer of east Tennessee while examining a
cave with a view to storing potatoes in it during the winter unearthed
a well preserved human skeleton which was found to be wrapped in a
large piece of cane matting. This, which measures about 6 by 4 feet,
with the exception of a tear at one corner is perfectly sound and pliant
and has a large submarginal stripe running around it. Inclosed with
the skeleton was a piece of cloth made of flax, about 14 by 20 inches,
almost uninjured but apparently unfinished. The stitch in which it is
woven is precisely that imprinted on mound pottery of the type shown
in Fig. 96 in Mr. Holmes’s paper on the mound-builders’ textile fabries
reproduced here in Fig. 4.?

UL. LEELA A. fa La y's; Magy

MMMM
Le -
WV VU :

WLLL WWW X@]X0@—@# i

SILO PROPRIA KGPIV ON ON Voy

Fic. 4. Twined fabric impressed on a piece of pottery obtained from a mound in Jefferson Cornty,
Tennessee.

Although the earth of the cave contains salts which would aid in pre-
serving anything buried in it, these articles can not be assigned to any
very ancient date, especially when it is added that with them were the
remains of a dog from which the skin had not all rotted away.

These were presumably placed here by the Cherokees of modern times,
and they form a link not easily broken between the prehistoric and his-
toric days.

It is probable that few persons after reading this evidence will doubt
that the mounds alluded to were built by the Cherokees. Let us there-
fore see to what results this leads.

In the first place it shows that a powerful and active tribe in the in-
terior of the country, in contact with the tribes of the North on one
side and with those of the South on the other, were mound-builders.
it is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that they had derived this cus-

1 Autig. So. Indians, p. 400.. 2 Fifth Ann. Rept. Bur. Ethnol., p. 415, Fig. 96.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. a

tom from their neighbors on one side or the other, or that they had, to
some extent at least, introduced it among them. Beyond question it
indicates that the mound-building era had not closed previous to the
discovery of the continent by Europeans.!

| Since the above was in ‘type one of the assistants of the Ethnological Bureau dis-
covered in a small mound in east Tennessee a stone with letters of the Cherokee
alphabet rudely carved upon it. It was not an intrusive burial, hence it is evident
that the mound must have been built since 1820, or that Guess was not the author of
the Cherokee alphabet.

CHAPTER V.

THE CHEROKEES AND THE TALLEGWI.

The ancient works of Ohio, with their “altar mounds,” “sacred en-
closures,” and ‘mathematically accurate” but mysterious circles and
squares, are still pointed to as impregnable to the attacks of this Indian
theory. That the rays of light falling upon their origin are few and
dim, is admitted; still, we are not left wholly in the dark.

If the proof be satisfactory that the mounds of the southern half of
the United States and a portion of those of the Upper Mississippi Val-
ley are of Indian origin, there should be very strong evidence in the
opposite direction in regard to those of Ohio to lead to the belief that
they are of a different race. Even should the evidence fail to indicate
the tribe or tribes by whom they were built, this will not justify the
assertion that they are not of Indian origin.

If the evidence relating to these works las nothing decidedly opposed
to the theory in it, then the presumption must be in favor of the view
that the authors were Indians, for the reasons heretofore given. The
burden of proof is on those who deny this, and not on those who
assert it.

It is legitimate, therefore, to assume, until evidence to the contrary
is produced, that the Ohio works were made by Indians.

The geographical position of the defensive works connected with
these remains indicates, as has been often remarked by writers on this
subject, a pressure from northern hordes which finally resulted in driv-
jng the inhabitants of the fertile valleys of the Miami, Scioto, and
Muskingum, southward, possibly into the Gulf States, where they be-
came incorporated with the tribes of that section.! If this is assumed
as correct it only tends to confirm the theory of an Indian origin.

dsut the decision is not left to mere assumption and the indications
mentioned, as there are other and more direct evidences bearing upon
this point to be found in the works of art and modes of burial in this
region. That the mound-builders of Ohio made and used the pipe is
proven by the large number of pipes found in the mounds, and that
they cultivated tobacco may reasonably be inferred from this fact.

The general use of the pipe among the mound-builders is another

38

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. og

this fact and the forms of the pipes indicate that they were not con-
nected with the Nahua, Maya, or Pueblo tribes.

Although varied indefinitely by the addition of animal and other fig-
ures, the typical or simple form of the pipe of the Ohio mound-builders
appears to have been that represented by Squier and Davis! in their Fig.
68, and by Rau in Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, No. 287.2
The peculiar feature is the broad, flat, and slightly-curved base or stem,
which projects beyond the bowl to an extent usually equal to the per-
forated end. Reference has already been made to the statement by
Adair that the Cherokees were accustomed to carve, from the soft Stone
found in the country, ‘ pipes, full a span long, with the fore part com-
monly running out with a short peak two or three fingers broad and
a quarter of an inch thick.” But he adds further, as if intending to
describe the typical form of the Ohio pipe, ‘on both sides of the bow!
lengthwise.” This addition is important, as it has been asserted? that
no mention can be found of the manufacture or use of pipes of this
form by the Indians, or that they had any knowledge of this form.

E. A. Barber says: *

The earliest stone pipes from the mounds were always carved from a single piece,
and consist of a flat curved base, of variable length and width, with the bowl rising
from the center of the convex side (Anc. Mon., p. 227), * * *

The typical mound pipe is the Monitor form, as it may be.termed, possessing a short,
cylindrical urn, or spool-shaped bow], rising from the center of a flat and slightly-
curved base.°

Accepting this statement as proof that the ‘‘ Monitor” pipe is gen-
erally understood to be the oldest type of the mound-builders’ pipe, it
is easy to trace the modifications which brought into use the simple
form of the modern Indian pipe. Forexample, there is one of the form
shown in Fig. 5, from Hamilton County, Ohio; another from a large
mound in Kanawha Valley, West
Virginia;® several taken from In-
dian graves in Essex County, Mass. ;7
another found in the grave of a
Seneca Indian in the valley of the
Genesee;’? and others found by the
representatives of the Bureau of
Ethnology in the mounds of western
North Carolina.

So far, the modification consists in simply shortening the forward
1 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, 1847, p. 179.

21876, p. 47, Fig. 177.

> Young Mineralogist and Antiquarian, 1885, No. 10, p. 79.

4Am. Nat., vol. 16, 1882, pp. 265, 266.

'For examples of this form see Rau: Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, No.
Mevin wae 4 ele Lower, Dee

®6Science, 1884, vol. 3, p. 619.

7 Abbott, Prim. Industry, 1881, Fig. 313, p. 319; Bull. Essex Inst., vol. 3, 1872, p. 123.

8’ Morgan, League of the Iroquois, p. 356.

Fic. 5. Pipe from Hamilton County, Obio.

AO THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

projection of the stem or base, the bowl remaining perpendicular. The
next modification is shown in Fig. 6,
which represents a type less common
than the preceding, but found in sey-
eral localites, as, for example, in Hamil-
ton County, Ohio; mounds in Sullivan
County, east Tennessee (by the Bu-
reau); and in Virginia.’ In these, al-
though retaining the broad or winged
stem, we see the bow! assuming the
forward slope and in some instances (as
some of those found in the mounds in Sullivan County, Tenn.) the pro-
jection of the stem is reduced to a simple rim or is entirely wanting.

Fit. 7. Pipe from Sullivan County, Tennessee.
I My

The next step brings us to what may be considered the typical form
of the modern pipe, shown in Fig. 8. This pattern, according to Dr.

Fic. 8. Pipe from Caldwell County, North Carolina

Abbott,’ is seldom found in New England or the Middle States, “ ex-
cept of a much smaller size and made of clay.” He figures one from
Isle of Wight County, Va., “made of compact steatite.” A large num-
ber of this form were found in the North Carolina mounds, some with
stems almost or quite a foot in length.

It is hardly necessary to add that among the specimens obtained from
various localities can be found every possible gradation, from the an-
cient Ohio type to the modern form last mentioned. There is, there-

‘Ran: Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, No, 287, p. 50, Fig. 190.
?Prim. Industry, 1861, p. 329.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 41

fore, in this peculiar line of art and custom an unbroken chain connect-
ing the mound-builders of Ohio with the Indians of historic times, and
in the same facts is evidence, which strengthens the argument, discon-
necting the makers from the Mexican and Central American artisans.

As this evidence appears to point to the Cherokees as the authors of
some of the typical mounds of Ohio, if may be as well to introduce here
a summary of the data which bear upon this question.

Reasons which are thought well-nigh conclusive have already been
presented for believing that the people of this tribe were mound-build-
ers, and that they had migrated in pre-Columbian times from some
point north of the locality in which they were encountered by Euro-
peans. Taking up the thread of their history where it was dropped,
the following reasons are offered as a basis for the conclusion that their
home was for a time on the Ohio, and that this was the region from
which they migrated to their historic locality.

As already shown, their general movement in historic times, though
limited, has been southward. Their traditions also claim that their
migrations previous to the advent of the whites had been in the same
direction from some point northward, not indicated in that given by
Lederer, but in that recorded by Haywood, from the vailey of the
Ohio. But it is proper to bear in mind that the tradition given by
Lederer express'y distinguishes them from the Virginia tribes, which
necessitates looking more to the west for their former home. Haywood
connects them, without any authority, with the Virginia tribes, but the
tradition he gives contradicts this and places them on the Ohio.

The chief hostile pressure against them of which we have any knowl-
edge was from the Iroquois of the north. This testimony is further
strengthened by the linguistic evidence, as it has been ascertained that
the language of this tribe belongs to tbe Iroquoian stock. Mr. Horatio
Hale, a competent authority on this subject, in an article on Indian
migrations published in the American Antiquarian, ' remarks as follows:

Following the same course of migration from the northeast to the southwest, which
leads us from the Hurons of eastern Canada to the Tusearoras of central North Caro-
lina, we come to the Cherokees of northern Alabama and Georgia. <A connection
between their language and that of the Iroquois has long been suspected. Gallatin,
in his ‘‘ Synopsis of Indian Languages,” remarks on this subject: ‘‘ Dr. Barton thought
that the Cherokee language belonged to the Iroquois family, and on this point I am
inclined to be of the same opinion. The affinities are few and remote, but there is a
similarity in the general termination of the syllables, in ee pronunciation and
accent, which has struck some of the native Cherokees. * *

The difficulty arising from this lack of knowledge is now removed, and with it all
uncertainty disappears. The similarity of the two tongues, apparent enough in
many of their words, is most strikingly shown, as might be expected, in their grain-
matical structure, and especially in the affixed pronouns, which in both languages
play so important a part.

More complete vocabularies of the Cherokee language than have
hitherto been accessible have recently come into possession of the Bu-

‘Am. Antiquarian, vol. 5, 1883, p. 26.

42 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

reau of Ethnology, and their study serves to confirm the above con-
clusion that the Cherokees are an offshoot of Lroquoian stock.

On the other hand, the testimony of the mounds all taken together
or considered generally (if the conclusion that tle Cherokees were the
authors of the North Carolina and East Tennessee mounds be accepted)
seems to isolate them from all other mound-building people of that
portion of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. Neverthe-
less there are certain remains of art which indicate an intimate relation
with the authors of the stone graves, as the engraved shells, while there
are others which lead to the opinion that there was a more intimate
relation with the mound-builders of Ohio, especially of the Scioto Val-
ley. One of these is furnished by the stone pipes so common in the
Ohio mounds, the manufacture of which appears also to have been a
favorite pursuit of the Cherokees in both ancient and modern times, _

In order to make the force of this argument clear it is necessary to
enter somewhat further into details. In the first place, nearly all of
the pipes of this type so far discovered have been found in a belt com-
mencing with eastern Lowa, thence running eastward through northern
Illinois, through Indiana, and embracing the southern half of Ohio;
thence, bending southward, including the valley of the Great Kanawha,
sastern Tennessee, and western North Carolina, to the northern bound-
ary of Georgia. It is not known that this type in any of its modifica-
tions prevailed or was even in use at any point south of this belt.
Pipes in the form of birds and other animals are not uncommon, as may
be seen by reference to Pl. XXIII of Jones’s Antiquities of the Southern
Indians, but the platform is a feature wholly ‘unknown there, as are
also the derivatives from it. This is so litefally true as to render it
strange, even on the supposition here advanced; only a single one (near
Nashville, Tenn.), so far as known, having been found in the entire
South outside of the Cherokee country.

This fact, as is readily seen, stands in direct opposition to the idea
advanced by some that the mound-builders of Ohio when driven from
their homes moved southward, and became incorporated with the tribes
of the Gulf States, as it is scarcely possible such sturdy smokers as
they must have been would all at once have abandoned their favorite
pipe.

Some specimens have been found north and east of this belt, chiefly
in New York and Massachusetts, but they are too few to induce the |
belief that the tribes occupying the sections where they were found
were in the habit of manufacturing them or accustomed to their use;
possibly the region of Essex, Mass., may prove to be an isolated and
singular exception.

How can we account for the fact that they were confined to this belt
except upon the theory that they were made and used by a single tribe,
or at most by two or three cognate tribes? If this be admitted it gives
as aresult the line of migration of the tribe, or tribes, by whom they

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 43

were made; and the gradual modification of the form indicates the di-
rection of the movement.

In the region of eastern Iowa and northern Illinois, as will be seen
by reference to the Proceedings of the Davenport Academy of Natural
Sciences,' and the Smithsonian Report for 1882, the original slightly-
eurved platform base appears to be the only form found.

Moving eastward from that section, a break occurs, and none of the
type are found until the western border of Ohio is reached, indicating
a migration by the tribe to a great distance. From this point eastward
and over a large portion of the State, to the western part of West Vir-
ginia, the works of the tribe are found in numerous localities, showing
this to have long been their home.

Yn this region the modifications begin, as heretofore shown, and con-
tinue along the belt mentioned through West Virginia, culminating in
the modern form in western North Carolina and East Tennessee.

As pipes of this form have never been found in connection with the

stone graves, there are just grounds for eliminating the Shawnees from
the supposed authors of the Ohio works. On the other hand, the en-
graved shells are limited almost exclusively to the works of the Shaw-
nees and Cherokees (taking for granted that the former were the au-
thors of the box-shaped stone graves south of the Ohio and the latter
of the works in western North Carolina and East Tennessee), but are
wanting inthe Ohio mounds. It follows, therefore, if the theory here
advanced (that the Cherokees constructed some of the typical works of
Ohio) be sustained, that these specimens of art are of Southern origin,
as the figures indicate, and that the Cherokees began using them only
after they had reached their historical locality.

Other reasons for eliminating the Shawnees and other Southern tribes
from the supposed authors of the typical Ohio works are furnished by
the character, form, and ornamentation of the pottery of the two see-
tions, which are readily distinguished from each other.

That the Cherokees and Shawnees were distinct tribes, and that the
few similarities in customs and art between them were due to vicinage
and intercourse are well-known historical facts. But there is nothing
of this kind to forbid the supposition that the former were the authors of
some of the Ohio works. Moreover, the evidence that they came from a
more northern locality, added to that furnished by the pipes, seems to
connect them with the Ohio mound-builders. In addition to this there
is the tradition of the Delawares, given by Heckewelder, which appears
to relate to no known tribe unless it be the Cherokees. Although this
tradition has often been mentioned in works relating to Indians and kin-
dred subjects, it is repeated here that the reader may judge for himself
as to its bearing on the subject now under consideration :

The Lenni Lenape (according to the tradition handed down to them by their ances-

* Smithsonian Report for 1832 (1884), Figs. 4-5, pp. 689-692.

44 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

the American continent. Forsome reason which I do not tind accounted for, they de-
termined on migrating to the eastward, and accordingly set out together in a body.
After a very long journey and many nights’ encampments! by the way, they at length
arrived on the Namaesi-Sipu,? where they fell in with the Mengwe,° who had likewise
emigrated from a distant country, and had struck upon this river somewhat higher up.
Their object was the same with that of the Delawares; they were proceeding on to the
eastward, until they should find a country that pleased them. The spies which the
Lenape had sent forward for the purpose of reconnoitring, had long before their arrival
discovered that the country cast of the Mississippi was inhabited by a very powerful
nation who had many large towns built on the great rivers flowing through their
land. Those people (as I was told) called themselves Talligew or Tallegewi. * 3
Many wonderful things are told of this famous people. They are said to have been
remarkably tall and stout, and there is a tradition that there were giants among
them, people of a much larger size than the tallest of the Lenape. It is related that
they had built to themselves regular fortifications or intrenchments, from whence
they would sally out, but were generally repulsed. I have seen many of the fortifi-
cations said to have been built by them, two of which, in particular, were remarkable.
One of them was near the mouth of the river Huron, which empties itself into the
Lake St. Clair, on the north side of that lake, at the distance of about 20 miles north-
east of Detroit. This spot of ground was, in the year 1776, owned and occupied by a
Mr. Tucker. The other works, properly intrenchments, being walls or banks of earth
regularly thrown up, with adecp ditch on the outside, were on the Huron River, east
of the Sandusky, about six or cight miles from Lake Erie. Outside of the gateway of
each of these two intrenchments, which lay within a mile of each other were a
number of large flat mounds in which, the Indian pilot said, were buried hundreds
of the slain Talligewi, whom I shall hereafter, with Colonel Gibson, call Alligewi.
Of these intrenchments Mr. Abraham Steiner, who was with me at the time when I
saw them, gave a very accurate description, which was published at Philadelphia
in 1789 or 1790, in some periodical work the name of which I can uot at present
remember.

When the Lenape arrived on the banks of the Mississippi they sent a message to the
Alligewi to request permission to settle themselves in their neighborhood. This was
refused them, but they obtained leave to pass through the country and seek a settle-
ment farther to the eastward. They accordingly began to cross the Namaesi-Sipu,
when the Alligewi, seeing that their numbers were so very great, and in fact they con-
sisted of many thousands, made a furious attack upon those who had crossed, threat-
ening them all with destruction, if they dared to persist in coming over to their side
of the river, Fired at the treachery of these people, and the great loss of men they
had sustained, and besides, not being prepared for a conflict, the Lenapi consulted
on what was to be done; whether to retreat in the best manner they could, or to try
their strength, and let the enemy see that they were not cowards, but men, and too
high-minded to suffer themselves to be driven off before they had made a trial of
their strength and were convinced that the enemy was too powerful for them. The
Mengwe, who had hitherto been satisfied with being spectators from a distance,
offered to join them, on condition that, after conquering the country, they should be
entitled to share it with them; their proposal was accepted, and the resolution was
taken by the two nations, to conquer or die.

Having thus united their forces the Lenape and Mengwe declared war against the
Alligewi, and great battles were fought in which many warriors fell on both sides.
The enemy fortified their large towns and erected fortifications, especially on large
rivers and near lakes, where they were successfully attacked and sometimes stormed
by the allies. An e ngagement took place in which hundreds fell, w ho were e after-

an Man ny Nights’ ene ampment. ” ig a halt of one year at a place.
* The Mississippi or The River of Fish; Namaes, a fish, and Sipu a river.
5 The Iroquois, or Five Nations,

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. A5

wards buried in holes or laid together in heaps and covered over with earth. No
quarter was given, so that the Alligewi at last, finding that their destruction was
inevitable if they persisted in their obstinacy, abandoned the country to the con-
querors and fled down the Mississippi River, from whence they never returned.

The war which was carried on with this nation lasted many years, during which
the Lenape lost a great number of their warriors, while the Mengwe would always
hang back in the rear leaving them to face the enemy. In the end the conquerors
divided the country between themselves. The Mengwe made choice of the lands
in the vicinity of the great lakes and on their tributary streams, and the Lenape took
possession of the country to the south. Fora long period of time, some say many
hundred years, the two nations. resided peacefully in this country and increased very
fast. Some of their most enterprising huntsmen and warriors crossed the great
swamps, and falling on streams running to the eastward followed them down to the
great bay river (meaning the Susquehanna, which they call the great bay river from
where the west branch falls into the main stream), thence into the bay itself, which
we call Chesapeake. As they pursued their travels, partly by land and. partly by
water, sometimes near and at other times on the great salt-water lake, as they call
the sea, they discovered the great river which we call the Delaware.

This quotation, although not the entire tradition as given by Hecke-
welder, will suffice for the present purpose.

The traces of the name of these mound-builders, which are still pre-
served in the name “ Allegheny,” applied to a river and the mountains
of Pennsylvania, and the fact that the Delawares down to the time
Heckewelder composed his work called the Allegheny River “‘Allegewi
Sipu,” or river of the Allegewi, furnish evidence that there is at least
a vein of truth in this tradition. If it has any foundation in fact there
must have been a people to whom the name ‘Tallegwi”! was applied,
for on this the whole tradition hangs. Who were they? In what tribe
and by what name shall we identify them? That they were mound-
builders is positively asserted, and the writer explains what he means
by referring to certain mounds and inclosures, which are well known
at the present day, which he says the Indians informed him were built
by this people.

It is all-important to bear in mind the fact that when this tradition
was first made known, and the mounds mentioned were attributed to
this people, these ancient works were almost unknown to the investi-
gating minds of the country. This forbids the supposition that the
tradition was warped or shaped to fit a theory in regard to the origin
of these antiquities.

Following the tradition it is fair to conclude, notwithstanding the
fact that Heckewelder interpreted ‘* Namaesi Sipu” by Mississippi, that
the principal seats of this tribe or nation were in the region of the Ohio
and the western slope of the Allegheny Mountains, and hence it is not
wholly a gratuitous supposition to believe they were the authors of some
of the principal ancient works of eastern Ohio (including those of the
Scioto Valley) and the western part of West Virginia. Moreover, there

‘There appears to be no real foundation for the name Allegewi, this form being a
mere supposition of Colonel Gibson, suggested by the name the Lenape applied to
the Allegheny River and Mountains.

46 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS

is the statement by Haywood, already referred to, that the Cherokees
had a tradition that in former times they dwelt on the Ohio and built
mounds.

These data, though slender, when combined with the apparent simi-
larity between the name Tallegwi and Cherokee or Cliellakee, and the
character of the works and traditions of the latter, furnish some ground
for assuming that the two were one and the same people. But this as-
sumption necessitates the further inference that the pressure which
drove them southward is to be attributed to some other people than the
Iroquois as known to history, as this movement must have taken place
previous to the time the latter attained their ascendancy. It is proba-
ble that Mr. Hale is correct in deciding that the “ Namaesi Sipu” of
the tradition was not the Mississippi.!. His suggestion that it was that
portion of the great river of the North (the St. Lawrence) which con-
nects Lake Huron with Lake Erie, seems also to be more in conformity
with the tradition and other data than any other which has been offered.
if this supposition is accepted it would lead to the inference that the |
Talamatan, the people who joined the Delawares in their war on the —
Tallegwi, were Hurons or Huron-Iroquois previous to separation. That
the reader may have the benefit of Mr. Hale’s views on this question,
the folowing auotation from the article mentioned is given:

The country from which the Lenape migrated was Shinaki, the ‘land of fir trees,”
not in the West but in the far North, evidently the woody region north of Lake Su-
perior, The people who joined them in the war against the Allighewi (or Tallegwi,
as they are called in this record), were the Talamatan, a name meaning ‘‘not of them-
selves,” whom Mr. Squier identifies with the Hurons, and no doubt correctly, if we
understand by this name the Huron-Iroquois people, as they existed before their sep-
aration. The river which they crossed was the Messusipu, the Great River, beyond
which the Tallegwi were found “ possessing the East.” That this river was not our
Mississippi is evident from the fact that the works of the mound-builders extended
far to the westward of the latter river, and would have been encountered by the
invading nations, if they had approached it from the west, long before they ar-
rived at its banks. The ‘Great River” was apparently the upper St. Lawrence, and
most probably that portion of it which flows from Lake Huron to Lake Erie, and
which is commonly known as the Detroit River. Near this river, according to Hecke-
welder, at a point west of Lake St. Clair, and also at another place just south of Lake
Erie, some desperate conflicts took place. Hundreds of the slain Tallegwi, as he
was told, were buried under mounds in that vicinity. This precisely accords with
Cusick’s statement that the people of the great southern empire had “ almost pene-—
trated to Lake Erie” at the time when the war began. Of course in coming to the
Detroit River from the region north of Lake Superior, the Algonquins would be ad-
vancing from the west to the east. It is quite conceivable that, after many genera-
tions and many w anderings, they may themselves have for zotten which was the true |
Messusipu, or Great River, of their traditionary tales.

The passage already quoted from Cusick’s narrative informs us that the contest
lasted ‘perhaps one hundred years.” In close agreement with this statement the
Delaware record makes it endure during the terms of four head-chiefs, who in suc-
cession presided in the Lenape councils. From what we know historically of Indian |
customs: the average terms of such chiefs may be computed at about twenty-five —

' Am, Antiquarian, vol. D, 1883, p. 117.

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 47

years. The following extract from the record! gives their names and probably the
fullest account of the conflict which we shall ever possess:

‘*Some went to the East, and the Tallegwi killed a portion.

‘Then all of one mind exclaimed, War! War!

‘The Talamatan (not-of-themselves) and the Nitilowan [allied north-people] go
united (to the war).

‘‘Kinnepehend (Sharp-Lcooking) was the leader, and they went over the river.
And they took all that was there and despoiled and slew the Tallegwi.

‘*Pimokhasuwi (Stirring-about) was next chief, and then the Tallegwi were much
too strong.

‘**Tenchekensit (Open-path) followed, and many towns were given up to him.

‘‘Paganchihiella was chief, and the Tallegwi all went southward.

‘¢South of the Lakes they (the Lenape) settled their council-fire, and north of the
Lakes were their friends the Talamatan (Hurons?).”

There can be no reasonable doubt that the Alleghewi or Tallegwi, who have given
their name to the Allegheny River and Mountains, were the mound-builders.

This supposition brings the pressing hordes to the northwest of the
Ohio mound-builders, which is the direction, Colonel Force concludes,
from the geographical position of the defensive works, they must have
come.

The number of defensive works erected during the contest shows it
must have been long and obstinate, and that the nation which could
thus resist the attack of the northern hordes must have been strong in
numbers and fertile in resources. But resistance proved in vain; they
were compelled at last, according to the tradition, to leave the graves of
their ancestors and flee southward in search of a place of safety.

Here the Delaware tradition drops them, but the echo comes up from
the hills of East Tennessee and North Carolina in the form of the Cher-
okee tradition already mentioned, telling us where they found a resting
place, and the mound testimony furnishes the intermediate link.

[f they stopped for a time on New River and the head of the Holston,
as Haywood conjectures,” their line of retreat was in all likelihood up
the valley of the Great Kanawha. This supposition agrees also with
the fact that no traces of them are found in the ancient works of Ken-
tucky or middle Tennessee. In truth, the works along the Ohio River
from Portsmouth to Cineinnati and throughout northern Kentucky per-
tain to entirely different types from those of Ohio, most of them to a
type found in no other section.

On the contrary, it happens precisely in accordance with the theory
advanced and the Cherokee traditions, that we find in the Kanawha
Valley, near the city of Charleston, a very extensive group of ancient
works stretching along the banks of the stream for more than two miles,
consisting of quite large as well as smali mounds, of circular and rectan-
gular inclosures, etc. <A careful survey of this group has been made,
and a number of the tumuli, including the larger ones, have been ex-
plored by the representatives of the Bureau.

!'The Bark Record of the Leni Lerape.
2? Nat. and Aborig. Hist. Tenn., p. 223.—See Thomas, ‘‘ Cherokees probably mound-
builders,” Magazine Am. Hist., May, 1884, p. 398.

48 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

The result of these explorations has been to bring to light some very
important data bearing upon the question now under consideration. In
fact we find here what seems to be beyond all reasonable doubt the
connecting link between the typical works of Ohio and those of East
Tennessee and North Carolina ascribed to the Cherokees.

The little stone vaults in the shape of bee-lhives noticed and figured
in the articles in Science and the American Naturalist, before referred
to, discovered by the Bureau assistants in Caldwell County, N. C., and
Sullivan County, Tenn., are so unusual as to justify the belief that they
are the work of a particular tribe, or at least pertain to an ethnic type.
Yet under one of the large mounds at Charleston, on the bottom of
a pit dug in the original soil, a number of vaults of precisely the same
form were found, placed, like those of the Sullivan County mound, in
acirele. But, though covering human remains moldered back to dust,
they were of hardened clay instead of stone. Nevertheless, the simi-
larity in form, size, use, and conditions under which they were found
is remarkable, and, as they have been found only at the points men-
tioned, the probability is suggested that the builders in the two sections
were related.

There is another link equally strong. In a number of the larger
mounds on the sites of the “ over-hill towns,” in Blount and Loudon
Counties, Tenn., saucer-shaped beds of burnt clay, one above another,
alternating with layers of coals and ashes, were found. Similar beds
were also found in the mounds at Charleston. These are also unusual,
and, so far as I am aware, have been found only in these two localities.
Possibly they are outgrowths of the clay altars of the Ohio mounds, and,
if so, reveal to us the probable use of these strange structures. They
were places where captives were tortured and burned, the most common
sacrifices the Indians were accustomed to make. Be this supposition
worthy of consideration or not, it is a fact worthy of notice in this con-
nection that in one of the large mounds in this Kanawha group one
of the so-called “clay altars” was found at the bottom of precisely the
Same pattern as those found by Squier and Davis in the mounds of
Ohio.

In these mounds were also found wooden vaults, constructed in ex-
actly the same manner as that in the lower part of the Grave Creek
mound; also others of the pattern of those found in the Ohio mounds,
in which bark wrappings were used to enshroud the dead. Hammered
copper -bracelets, hematite celts and hemispheres, and mica plates, so
characteristic of the Ohio tumuli, were also discovered here; and, as in
Kast Tennessee and Ohio, we find at the bottom of mounds in this
locality the post-holes or little pits which have recently excited consid-
erable attention. We see another connecting link in the circular and
rectangular inclosures, not combined as in Ohio, but analogous, and,
considering the restricted area of the narrow valley, bearing as strong
resemblance as might be expected if the builders of the two localities
were one people,

THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 49

It would be unreasonable to assume that all these similarities in cus-
toms, most of which are abnormal, are but accidental coincidences due
to necessity and environment. On the contrary it will probably be
conceded that the testimony adduced and the reasons presented justify
the conclusion that the ancestors of the Cherokees were the builders
of some at least of the typical works of Ohio; or, at any rate, that they
entitle this conclusion to favorable consideration. Few, if any, will
longer doubt that the Cherokees were mound-builders in their historic
seats in North Carolina and Tennessee. Starting with this basis, and
taking the mound testimony, of which not even a tithe has been pre-
sented, the tradition of the Cherokees, the statement of Haywood, the
Delaware tradition as given by Heckewelder, the Bark Record as pub-
lished by Brinton and interpreted by Hale, and the close resemblance
between the names Tallegwi and Chellakee, it would seem that there
can remain little doubt that the two peoples were identical.

It is at least apparent that the ancient works of the Kanawha Valley
and other parts of West Virginia are more nearly related to those of
Ohio than to those of any other region, and hence they may justly be
attributed to the same or cognate tribes. The general movement, there-
fore, must have been southward as indicated, and the exit of the Ohio
mound-builders was, in all probability, up the Kanawha Valley on the
same line that the Cherokees appear to have followed in reaching their
historical locality. It is a singular fact and worthy of being mentioned
here, that among the Cherokee names signed to the treaty made be-
tween the United States and this tribe at Tellico, in 1798, are the fol-
lowing:! Tallotuskee, Chellokee, Yonaheguah, Keenakunnah, and Tee-
kakatoheenah, which strongly suggest relationship to names found in
the Allegheny region, although the latter come to us through the Del-
aware tongue.

If the hypothesis here advanced be correct, it is apparent that the
Cherokees entered the immediate valley of the Mississippi from the north-
west, striking it in the region of Iowa. This supposition is strength-
ened not only by the similarity in the forms of the pipes found in the
two sections, but also in the structure and contents of many of the
mounds found along the Mississippi in the region of western Illinois.
So striking is this that it has been remarked by explorers whose opin-
ions could not have been biased by this theory.

Mr. William McAdams, in an address to the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, remarks: *“* Mounds, such as are here
described, in the American Bottom and low-lands of Illinois are seldom,
if ever, found on the bluffs. On the rich bottom lands of the Illinois
River, within 50 miles of its mouth, I have seen great numbers of them
and examined several. The people who built them are probably con-
nected with the Ohio mound-builders, although in this vicinity they

1 Treaties between the United States of America and the several Indian tribes
(1837), p. 182.
9009-——4

50 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS.

seem not to have made many earthen embankments, or walls inclosing
areas of land, as is common iv Ohio. Their manner of burial was sim-
ilar to the Ohio mound-builders, however, and in this particular they
had customs similar to the mound-builders of Europe.”! One which
he opened in Calhoun County, presented the regular form of the Ohio
oltar.”

A mound in Franklin County, Ind., described and figured by Dr. G.
W. Homsher,’? presents some features strongly resembling those of
the North Carolina mounds.

The works of Cuyahoga County and other sections of northern Ohio
bordering the lake, and consisting chiefly of inclosures and defensive
walls, are of the same type as those of New York, and may be attrib-
uted to people of the Iroquoian stock. Possibly they may be the
works of the Eries who, we are informed, built inclosures. If such
conclusion be accepted it serves to strengthen the opinion that this
lost tribe was related to the Iroquois. The works of this type are also
found along the eastern portion of Michigan as far north as Ogemaw
County.

The box-shaped stone graves of the State are due to the Delawares
and Shawnees, chiefly the former, who continued to bury in sepulchers
of this type after their return from the East. Those in Ashland and
some other counties, as is well known, mark the location of villages of
this tribe. Those along the Ohio, which are chiefly sporadic, are prob-
ably Shawnee burial places, and older than those of the Delawares.
The bands of the Shawnees which settled in the Scioto Valley appear
to have abandoned this method of burial.

There are certain mounds consisting entirely or in part of stone, and
also stone graves or vaults of a peculiar type, found in the extreme
southern portions of the State and in the northern part of Kentucky,
which can not be connected with any cther works, and probably owe
their origin to a people who either became extinct or merged into some
other tribe so far back that no tradition of them now remains.

Recently a resurvey of the remaining circular, square, and octagonal
works of Ohio has been made by the Bureau agents. The result will
be given in a future bulletin.

' Proc. Am. Assoc. Ady. Sci., 29th (Boston) meeting, 1880 (1381), p. 715.
* Smithsonian Report for 1882 (1884), p. 722.

DN DE:

SAG
Page

Abbott, C.C.,on Indian handiwork ........ 22
ONGpIPES ae ae sear econ 39, 40

Aboriginal remains of Tennessee, Joseph
DONS VClLeC pees sens seen nase = cleis.cine 26
Adair on plastered houses ..-.--.-..-------- 17
OMMMOUNCEDULIAl Meee ses ease scse= 21
Onmativeipoblenyyoo= 1s. -ececrs soem 23
omshelliormaments).<-=- 210 -=.--- 2- = 34
ONGDIDGSE cece a sjesieee oa sleeene sain == 35

Allegewi, Alligewi, Alleghewi, Allegwi,
Tallegewi, or Tallegwi-.-...-.-...------ 8, 38-50

Ancient monuments of the Mississippi Val-

ley, Squier and Davis, cited.....--..----- 763

Annals of Tennessee, Ramsay, cited. ..-.--- 32, 33

Antiquities of the Southern Indians, C. C.
RONESNCLLCC Se ote lanieetmette ac aie 21, 29, 36, 42

Architecture of Indians and mound-build-
Ge GET aoe etdeos Aaceond sacusseecdeeee 14-18
Arkansas, house remains or mounds in .--. 15
barial:monunds)in --.2.--..------ 20, 24
Armstrong on burial mounds ........-.---. 20
Ashe, Thomas, cn Shawnee village -.--..-... 27
Atwater, Caleb, cited on stone articles .... 23

B.

Bancroft, H. H., cited on Toltec cremation. - 19
Bal Der whneAs ON DIDeSte-nase) ese one aoe el 39

Bartram, William, on Cherokee and Choc-
taw mounds .......... 11

on Creek burial ard
Ibuildingst=-ssoc.ssc- 21

on location of Chero-
GOS 2 2cticisc 2 dale sae 32, 33

Bean, Mrs., rescued from burning on a
@herokeommoundecce- oss -aes ese see 32
Beck, Lewis C., on Osage burial mounds. -. 12
Bee-hive burial stone vaults .....--........ 48
Bell, James, on burial mounds ..-...-....-.. 20
Beverly on shell ornaments..--.-.--.------ 34
Biedma on mound-building by Indians..... 10
Bierce, L. V.,on Wyandotte burial mound.. 12
Bossa on mound burial ca. 2. s-s2—~\9=-52 > 21
Bottle-shaped vases in mounds...........-. 24

Bourbourg, Brasseur de, on Toltec crema-
UNG 5c 8 SIRE GOS AOR DAD ORCS OC BOSE OCOMAAacee 19

Boyle, David, cited on Huron burial
INOUWNS |= o5(oioere cto o/o/relein sisicinkie => = :eiaieuteels 2% 18

Page.
Brebeuf, Jean de, on Indian burial mounds. 18

on Huron communal
burials jo. see ee ae 21

on Huron mortuary use
offre sess se Ss esac 21

Burial customs of Indians and mound-build-
GLSisiMiUlariss. see eee ee ene ne 18,19
MOUNdS*. sence cee ct esse 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21
TUNGSL/NOUSES tees oe sores cee ace 16

C.
8

Cahokia origin of certain stone graves prob-

B16, Fee scorcss se cle cess scictele << elelealreetests 29
Canada mounds partly Huron .....-...---- 18
Carr, Lucien, cited against nomadic life of

Indians'.cwhe cspeacenedeee 9
on council-house mound ..-.. 33

Cartersville, Ga., Etowah burial mounds... 10, 29
Carver, Jonathan, on ancient earthworks

Nearsluake Pepin ke = erio 2 aes erste selnersictcaals il
Cass County, Ill., burial mounds in ........ 20
Charleston, W. Va., mounds near, connect

those of Ohio and Tennessce........-..-- 47, 48
@hellakederesesces a: eet cae eoelen caieeioe 49
C@herokeermicrationGcesss.ss-e senses oss 49

letters on a stone in a Tennessee
TNGUMN Cite ear cee steer Str ets 37
SLONC STAVES sec ee cceen me aeseicioee 26
Cherokees and the Tallegwi ... .......--. 8, 38-50
distinct from Shawnees.......-.. 43.
probable mound-builders -..---- 7,8

probable mound-builders of Ohio 8
probable mound-builders of Ten-
nessee and North Carolina. 30, 31-37

Chickasaw burial under dwellings..-...-..- 21
Chippeway and Pottawatomie — burial
MOUNC Sfeeceesce Sect eas sete emscciseeeesemet 13
Choctaw, burialimounds = S22. ecn= scree 11
mortuary use of fire.....-.......- 22
Clavigero cited on Mexican cremation..... 19
Clinton County, Michigan, mounds.....--. 13
Colden.on burial mounds) 2222.2 - 2 seca ae 11
Collinsionisalt-emakin @rooce- cesses amare ee 2
Copper bells, European, in burial mounds - 3:
Cowé, Cherokee mound at .-..-...-.--.---- 0
Creek burial under dwellings...........-.. 21

Cuyahoga County, Ohio, mounds, Iroquoian 50

ol

52 INDEX.
Page Page.
D. History of Alabama, Pickett, cited........ 22
; Carolina, Lawson, cited .....-.-. 21, 34
Davis. See Squier and Davis. Illinois, Reynolds, cited ......-.. 29
Delaware salt-kettle pottery.-------------- 7 27 Kentucky, Collins, cited.....-.. 27
stone (ee iC Sepoceac gene eases 28, 50 the Five Nations, Colden, cited. 11
tradition of migration applies to the Indians, Schoolcraft, cited . 26
} Cherokees... --<- -<-00a--0's a the Manners and Customs of the
De Soto cited on mound. ...-..------+------ Indian Tribes, John Hecke-
Dumont on Natchez mounds ......--------- 11 welder ‘clted) seamen 11, 20, 43-45
on pie reaie les= ivisiineinl= oie cia a the North American Indians,
Stee J. css emeerseis ae Be
Du Pratz on pete eate nas Adair, cited ............ 21, 23, 34, 35
Se ee aie or te Gaon oanaee ; os Virginia, Beverly, cited......... 34
on mae ROUGE YS ae anaes “° | Holmes, W.H., on engraved shells .-..-. sap ED
Dwellings of Indians and mound-builders on Tidian tapiaee ee 36
BUT es Deacon eae aye or eene ae Homsher, G. W., on Indian mounds.......- 50
E. Houses of Indians and mound-builders per-
IShable: ssa cenecces.ceseeme eee 15
Earle found a copper plate in Ilinois...--. 30 rectangular... -..--..--.- SC aeceeee 16
Early French voyages, Shea, cited .--.----. 10 BOMALG qc -sascn sys eco oe eee racecar 17,18
Eries possible builders of some works in Howland, H. R., found a copper plate in
ORO Betracees ote adultes ats se- bees taseews 50 Din O18 62 en cceencasccecc< ces ceiecspeecess 30
Essex County, Mass., pipes from graves in. 39 | Hunter on stone graves.........----------- 28
Essex mounds, Clinton County, Mich.--.-.- 139 mroniburialimounds:22ccseeees seen eae 18, 21
Btowals burialih Mounds... ss.0scccce + a22=-- 10, 29
European articles in mound graves. ...---- 33 Ts
Excursion through Slave States, Feather-
stonhaugh, cited .-..-.- Pree nee 12 | Illinois, sites of houses identified in ....... 15
burialsmoundstinsssecees snes e es 20, 21, 24
F. BLONGLOTAVOS AMecac ose seee sees 28
Featherstonhaugh on burial mounds. ...--. 12 COs plate found MO se eee Vane BY
pe ; aimee : Are and Ohio, mound-builders in, prob-
Fire in mortuary ceremonies. .-...-..--..--- 22 : :
: : - : ablevidentityiotesss.e-e--eoresac= 49
Florida, residence meunds in ......---.---- 10 : . :
: . On fe LndlansmMicraAllOns tame cc cam cise eeemee eee 41-50
DULisAMOUNCSMM: <= 5221. crate ote se 20 noe a ata f Mississipi Wal
Force on direction of Indian migration. --. 47 hg: ak a = colar Oy
Fort Wayne treaty as to salt grant... ...--- 27 ; ley and Gulf States. --..-----..--- i
Fowke, Gerard, found conncil-house mound — 53 Indiana, LD a Lb ‘la C370 po tame teal oe
Fox burial mound pec ecwesscwcccuesene acanea 13 con a a Seat pA ms j
TMOLUU ALY USOlOL MNO. see ae sea sieer nee 22 i a Pa ahaa ea dE = 2 BRR :
in burial customs .......-. 18, 19, 22, 23
G. in‘ Use'Of StONG ac. ose se ese 22, 23
IN POLLEY Sass Se acinie gee ceee 22, 23
Gallatin County, UL, salt-kettle pottery .24, 26,27 | Ingals, Mary, first white woman in Ken-
Garcilasso de Vega on mound-building..... 10 tuck yi Captive .-c-ccss seseseccceteeeeeee Meow
Gazetteer of Illinois, J. M. Peck, cited... . 26) Towa, Mounds ineseeooec-s ee ceee eee eee 21
the States of Illinois and Mis- PIPOSHN 7 -Sos. ce ease. aoeee eee 42
souri, Lewis C. Beck, cited.. 12 | Tron blade from North Carolina mound.... 31
Georgia, burial mounds in .-.-.......--. 19, 20,29 | Iroquoian works in New York ...........-. 18
burial under dwellings in......... 21 connection of Cherokees .....--. 42
Gravier on wound-building ...--....--...-. 10
J.
18%
Hale, Horatio, on Indian migrations..-.... 41, 42 baoticer Thomas On a Dae
on identit of the Nama Virginia EE ee eee ee ee eee ts ee hee ch 11, 19, 20
: SA y ae Jesuit Relations cited\.c..-..2..can-ccce-- 11, 21, 22
Spm RIVeres--te2 ss ws coe 46, 47 .
‘ ae z i Jones, C.C., on burial mounds ..........-.. 20
Haywood on Cherokee tradition of mounds : :
: f on burial under dwellings... -... 21
OntheOMiOnsemteeas cs sceecee. 46 c
: ; d ONStone eTavesis----wieeeseee ee 28, 29
on Indian migration............. 47 A
' t ONIPIDES sec ece cnsese viaccess 36, 42
Heckewelder, Jchn, on Indian works...... 11 r
Jones, Joseph, on Tennessee stone graves. . 26
on removal of bones
for burial. .--2c. se 20 K
on Delaware tradition R
of migration........ 43,45 | Kanawha mounds connect those of Ohio and
Herrera on mound-building................ 10 ARENNESSEE sessccce ces tical dee sete eee 47,48
Historical reminiscences of Summit Kent, M. B.,on Sac and Fox mortuary use
County, Ohio, L. V. Bierce, cited ........ 12 ofifireccscenwcace cosaee pede oe teen 22

INDEX. 53
Page. * Page.
Kaskaskia origin of certain stone graves North Carolina, Cherokees mound-builders
MEODAD CO enseaeiniasiiseccisciecmeeewclesisciesies 29 ADs rec orate oreo renee 7
Kickapoo origin of stone graves doubtful... 29 burial mounds in ......-.. 20, 21
Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson,
L. Cited er noe cae ee tenet mene cance 10, 11,19
Hafitad.on burial mounds ........-..-.<..--. 12,21 O.
La Harpe on mound-building -......---...- 10,11 | Ohio, mounds in, built by Indians ......... 7,8
on house-building .....--...----. 17 burialimoundsrnnss.-cressece-cccese. 21
Lake Pepin, ancient earthworks near...... 11 atone eravosin 2-62 eee 28
La Petit on Natchez burial mounds.......-. 11 Councilhousermonndiness eee 3
Lawson on Indian burial................--. 21 Pipestingseecc Ae eee 39, 40, 42
on shell ornament ......----------- 34 and Illinois mound-builders, identity
League of the Iroquois, Lewis H. Morgan, Ofer ee ne es 49, 50
Cited -..-. ++. e ee veer e eee ee eee eee tenes 39 | Ornaments, similar among Indians and
Lederer on Indian migrations.......-...... 41 mound -buildersts. 6 hee ee 99
Lewis and Clarke on Indian earthworks... 12 Osage burial mounds...........-..eee pets 2
Loskiel cited on native pottery ............ 23 4 i
M. Palmer, Edward, on house mounds ........ 16
Pawnee clay and reed houses .............. 17
McAdanns, William, on identity of Ohio and Peck, J. M., on native pottery............. 26
Tlinois mound-builders ................-- 49, 50 Pennsylvania, stone graves in .........---- 27, 28
Mahoning River, stone graves on the...... 27,28 | Peoria, Ill., copper plate found near......- 30
Maryland, Shawnee settlements in......-.. 27 | Pickett on Choctaw mortuary use of fire.. 22
Massachusetts, pipes in...---.......--.---- 39 | Pipes, modern Cherokee stone, inmound.. 33
Mexicans and Central Americans not In- inamoundsee 2 ee 33, 38-43
dians......------- +++ --- see seeeeee reese eee 41 | Pottawatomie and Chippeway burial
Michigan, mounds in ......---.---.-.-.-..- 13 MOUNUS!ss dacs secceeee ese cane seeee eee 13
Middleton, J. D., observed burial mounds . 20 | Pottery, Indian and mound-builder, similar 23
Moora tions; in Wanxaec-sca-sc-cccccence © 41-50 salt-keitlomeee oe ee 24, 26, 27
Cherokee......--....-----+---- 49 | Powell, J. W., found a copper plate in Dli-
Delaware, traditions of......-- 43 OLS See. ee a eee 30
Mississippi and Namaes Sipu of doubtful Primitive Industry, C. C. Abbott, cited 22, 39, 40
identity......-----+-----------------e0--- 45,46 | Putnam, F. W., found a copper plate in
Mississippi Valley and Gulf States, Indians TONES SOR ah eee et ae 30
EHO MOUNA-DULLGErS Of vscomaccecws csieeiccs.s 7
Missouri, remains of houses in mounds.... 15,17 R.
buriai mounds in....--.-.-.-- 20, 21,24 | Ramsey on Cherokee mounds.............. 32, 33
Monroe County, Lll., stone graves in....... 28, 29 Map Citediee ees scctece es comes 32
Morgan, Lewis H., on pipes.....-.-.--..... 39 | Rau, Charles, on native ceramic art........ 23
Mound-builders— ON SLONGSTAVESs< cecin- ce sos ee 28, 29
unlike Mexicans, €te-...... ssc. cecsce 14 OM pipeset se eee ee eee 39
and Indians similar— Read, M. C., on council-house mound ...... 33
socially .......-----.--.-------- +--+ 18 | Romans, Barnard, 6n mound burial ..... 12, 21, 22
in burial customs .....--..... 18, 19, 22,23 | Royce, C. C., on Stone graves......-..-.--- 27
AMUSE OL 8 LOU = em aicleje «eiels/= aa close slate 22, 23 on Shawnee locations ........ 2
AME OLLOLY Aeeminasscer cociee eee eee ces 22, 23
Mounds of the Mississippi Valley Histor- 8.
ically Considered, Lucien Carr, cited..... 9,33 | Sac and Fox moundS.ceccec cece ccccccccccee 13
mortuary use of fire.......... 24,27
NG Saint Genevieve, salt-kettle pottery at. ... 24,27
Salt-kettle! pottery. \-c2-+sceeec oe ceeeeee O4, 26, 27
Namaes Sipu of doubtful identity with Schooleraft, H. R., on Pawnee houses...-... 17
IMISSISSIPPlaeais-ceseses cet cce cciense ca scece 45, 46 on Shawnee stone graves 26
Nanticokes removed hones of the dead .... 20 | Sellers, George E., found primitive pottery
Natural History of Florida, Barnard Ro- AMV in Oi gee o st saewisisecweenccoteeecinns 26
MANS #CUtOM ee. cewe soscicise ooee ene ee sieve cine 21,22 | Senex, John, map of North America, cited 28
New York, ancient works in, of Indian ori- Shawnee salt-kettle pottery............. 24, 26, 27
fib a so GENO BO Sa BEBE SOOESOCHDE 18 settlements in Maryland ......... 27
Durialimoundsin) cscs. sces- cee 20 SLONGR ST AV OS som amia(-ooaicceoescem oe 50
pipesfinbeses seers eos 427e ShawneesanyOhioseercesseeeeereeeee seers 28
Nicksaw, a Wyandotte, buried under a _ distinct from Cherokees.......-. 43
mound -...c.< Seleleteatsmininiateliee Gina ciate sone 12 | Shawneetown, Ill., Indian salt works at.... 24
NOR ONIN OTNGD Gocq6 ossnodseaseabeaHSsoe 17,20 | Shea's Early French Voyages cited ........ 10

54 INDEX.
Page. Page.
Shoemaker showed stone graves ..-.-.------ 29")|“Dimberlake, mapicited=-s. 2. <ssceess= sso 32
Sibley on Osage burial mounds..-...--..--. 12%) Woltec cremation semen qn occ lawieieet-tne tains 19
Smith, History of Missvuri, cited......-.-- 12 | Tonty, Henry de, on cabins of the Tensas.. 17,
Snyder on burial mounds ............-.-..- 20 | Travels in America, Thomas Ashe, cited .. 27
Squier and Davis cited on mounds ..--....-. 7 | Treaty of Fort Wayne on salt grant ..-.-..- 27
on ceramic collection 23
OUSP IPG Ree eee eee 39 Vv.
Stone graves.-.--..---+2-+-2eeeeee eee eee 20, 25-30 | Virginia, burial mounds in............... 11, 19, 20
implements and ornaments among In- stone graves in........-22.2...06- 27, 28
dians and mound-builders similar. . 22 pipes iis. oe eee 40
Swallow, G. C., on plastered houses ......-.. 17
Ww.
Ae
Tallegwi, the Cherokees and the..........8, 38-50 bree Dey Onn a inn
Ss Raat ce ee te eae aa ||) SODCNCOIDYamer ae eee manatee ee eneeeen eter ne
ee, origin of certain stone graves prob- e Ward, Nancy, rescued Mrs. Bean from
hie Sirsa ia ae aka See, * burning on a Cherokee mound .........-. 32
Taylor, W. M.,on stone graves in Pennsyl- A
ana 27 Washington, Md., stone graves at ......... 27
Bie ace se eee sece secre sleisis= siaisjeiere eon : -
Tennessee, Cherokees mound-builders in -. if Wess Vareinis; ear aM See tte trae o eee 5 -
sites of houses identitied in .... 15 ecient ONS
; ; Bs mounds connect those of
burial mounds in......-....-.-- 20 : 2
‘ Ohio and Tennessee ....- 47,45
salt-kettle pottery in........... 27 7
A Ps Winnebago mounds....... siceacmateneneaseer 13
ALONG STAVES Ulan sma seea=s 26, 28 F : fi
F Wisconsin burial mounds............. 12, 13, 20, 21
copper plate found in .......-.. 30 ;
: Wyandotte burial mound..........-....... 12
MOUNASAN wise cca. ccemaecceceee 31-37
PIPES IN Aeieeeiacisd emia <jeictenye oisie <iaie 40, 42 Y.
MenSASICADING eo asciose cis ccsceemeaeciete snes 17
Thing found a copper plate in Ilinois...... 30 | Yarrow, H. C., on Indian burial ...-....... 19

\

by ater
Py in ne
a ae iat hate ie

Tiga
Bi Wh one
% "

= aie Ai

; a ie ae

ri ne iA ie oe,” iin oh m, lose ee ie ‘

qi ia Se Wess ¥ s a Sy a
ft :

Pad “
yah

9 ‘ 7 he an :

tas 4 i mA) ms ve af aan

oy bat a wee te cir
ee a ne ee ;
Oe laa ac BRAN i
eee ay ne ‘a (hii isa pie

iy Wh) Fy om re ia
Sil a aye,

may ed

oF in
ae ‘ ali

Pet : ™
eae hes i ie
a a nes

ity eet
J wis ve
chin ae ne ie ;
aie. 4, Y :
‘ 7 -
pa ae eon = ¥ i ; Aya
a oo ar Agee oe
tr au =

a sie
“i Ba fs

7 . . a i
7 : fF a" ‘.

wees von pe

tot. &
Kec wi, ae
‘ue iene - re
" Ley ‘hy me
We itoy Ye: Ss eat
i

Sake. a fe) r
i ie aw me ae
i iw % : ne

=

aA sf ;
bese a

raf Si

&
Mie

i)

i we

HS
" i”
ens eg

WARD ele ah
aS aD te, aa bs aie

ea, 4 ei ne irs

ae ee Rat ee

Way oA 7

sity Poe

% vr
jaune ee :
a a

as
Nene wee
i de ait 1a) pre
Bye Ne ‘i
tae ‘ae

- bo
; Pa

hc a a ‘< om

a

re

er _

e Pee a ioe b
sen Gr ar y ; mtr,

ae te iP

‘ie ink fe

yal ieee”
él aie aa

ct ee

Tena
a >

oy , Pa rt : ia
2 og es ‘

aa \ PG
La. Hiab PA me aN
seme ide int ni Me Ne cog tly — cs a May
YY 7 te) q 7
ua lig Asay st f di be
rH nie beh

anit
a

oe e

MA oe

is
ee eet
in Say
. ue Nig a
ae i 1

in A 1

x0 A

: ie,
ne 7s ee
oh

fd,

wi’ Ns Bee
My SRG

ce ee ete, FA
e

IP oh" 0 he

eae a

> = a.
agp! - -
VWs oe
v1 0 ar aty

ne v2, ae San De

Ver. :
eye oe apr
ees wal, the ‘iar ae 7
fe
x

a eet

:
Fe
‘

+

.

ote a ie re
‘ae ay ete sg

Ss oh an eh 7
hee fee a

=

7

AY eee!

NIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES

iT

|

|

ee? *
» meee

Me
Geen oot
een