Shawnee and Cherokee Indian Burials and What they Teach

SHAWNEE INDIAN BURIALS AND WHAT THEY TEACH.

Shawnee Indian stone covered burial mound within the walls of Fort Ancient, Ohio. Universities continue to destroy these burial mounds by not recognizing the Shawnee as their builders and circumventing the Native American Graves Protection Act of 1993

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 Indiana stone graves or cists found in the mound builders area, some being of cobble stones, others of slabs; some round, others polygonal; some dome-shaped, others square, and others box shaped, or parallelograms. Reference is made at present only to the last mentioned—the box shaped type, made of stone slabs. If the evidence shows that this variety is found only in certain districts, pertains to a certain 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 attributable to the same people (or allied tribes) found using them at a later date. This conclusion will be strengthened by finding that certain peculiar types of art are limited to the regions where these graves exist, and are found almost exclusively in connection with them.

These graves, as is well known, are formed of rough and unhewn slabs or flat pieces of stone, thus: First, in a pit some 2 or 3 feet deep and of the desired dimensions, dug for the purpose, a layer of stone is placed to form the floor; next, similar pieces are set on edge to form the sides and ends, over which other slabs are laid flat, forming the covering, the whole when finished making a rude, box-shaped coffin or sepulcher. Sometimes one or more of the six faces are wanting; occasionally the bottom consists of a layer of water-worn bowlders; sometimes the top is not a single layer of slabs, but other pieces are laid over the joints, and sometimes they are placed shingle-fashion. These graves vary in length from 14 inches to 8 feet, and in width from 9 inches to 3 feet.

It is not an unusual thing to find a mound containing a number of those cists arranged in two, three, or more tiers. As a general rule, those not in mounds are near the surface of the ground, and in some instances even projecting above it. It is probable that no one who has examined them has failed to note their strong resemblance to the European mode of burial. Even Dr. Joseph Jones, who attributes them to some "ancient race," was forcibly reminded of this resemblance, as he remarks:

In looking at the rude stone coffins of Tennessee, I have again and again been impressed with the idea that in some former age this ancient race must have come in contact with Europeans and derived this mode of burial from them. [Footnote: Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee, pp. 34,35]

The presence of stone graves of the type under consideration in the vicinity of the site of some of the "over hill towns" of the Cherokees on the Little Tennessee River, presented a difficulty in the way of the theory here advanced, as it is well known that the Cherokees and Shawnees were inveterate enemies from time immemorial. But by referring to Schoolcraft's History of the Indians the following statement solves the riddle and confirms the theory:

A discontented portion of the Shawnee tribe from Virginia broke off from the nation, which removed to the Scioto country, in Ohio, about the year 1730, and formed a town known by the name of Lulbegrud, in what in now Clark County [Kentucky], about 30 miles east of this place [Lexington]. This tribe left this country about 1730 and went to East Tennessee, to the Cherokee Nation. [Footnote: Vol. 1, p. 301.]

Some years ago Mr. George E. Sellers discovered near the salt spring in Gallatin County, Ill., on the Saline River, fragments of clay vessels of unusually large size, which excited much interest in the minds of antiquarians, not only because of the size of the vessels indicated by the fragments, but because they appeared to have been used by some prehistoric people in the manufacture of salt and because they bore impressions made by some textile fabric. In the same immediate locality were also discovered a number of box-shaped stone graves. That the latter were the work of the people who made the pottery Mr. Sellers demonstrated by finding that many of the graves were lined at the bottom with fragments of these large clay "salt pans." [Footnote: Popular Science Monthly, vol. II, 1877, pp. 573-584.]

Mention of this pottery had been made long previously by J. M.
Peck in his "Gazetteer of Illinois." [Footnote: 1834, p. 52.]

He remarks that "about the Gallatin and Big Muddy Salines large fragments of earthenware are very frequently found under the surface of the earth. They appear to have been portions of large kettles used, probably, by the natives for obtaining salt."

The settlement of the Shawnees at Shawneetown, on the Ohio River, in Gallatin County, in comparatively modern times, is attested not only by history but by the name by which the town is still known. There is evidence on record that there was an older Shawneetown located at the very point where this "salt-kettle" pottery and these stone graves were found. This is mentioned in the American State Papers [Footnote: Public Lands, Class VIII, vol.2, p. 103, Gales and Seaton ed.] in the report relating to the famous claim of the Illinois and Wabash Land Companies. The deed presented was dated July 20, 1773, and recorded at Kaskaskia, September 2, 1773. In this mention is made of the "ancient Shawnee town" on Saline Creek, the exact locality of the stone graves and suit-kettle pottery. The modern Indian village at Shawneetown on the Ohio River had not then come into existence, and was but in its prime in 1806, when visited by Thomas Ashe. [Footnote: Travels in America, 1808, p. 265.]

As proof that the people of this tribe were in the habit of making salt the following evidence is presented: Collins, in his "History of Kentucky", [Footnote: Vol. 2, p. 55.] 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, nee Draper, who, in 1756 with her two little boys, her sister-in-law, Mrs. Draper, and others was taken prisoner by the Shawnee Indians, from her home on the top of the great Allegheny ridge, is 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, 1803, 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 laud 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." [Footnote: Treaties of United States with Indian tribes, p. 97.]

Another very significant fact in this connection is that the fragments of large earthen vessels similar in character to those found in Gallatin County, Ill., 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 the salt-lick near Saint Genevieve, Mo., a section inhabited for a time by Shawnees and Delawares. [Footnote: C.C. Royce in American Antiquarian, vol. 3, 1881, pp. 188, 189.]

Stone graves have been found in Washington County, Md. [Footnote: Smithsonian Report for 1882 (1884), p. 797.] History informs us that there were two Shawnee settlements in this region, one in the adjoining county of Maryland (Allegany), and another in the neighborhood of Winchester, Va. [Footnote: C. C. Royce in American Antiquarian, vol. 3, 1881, p. 186. Virginia State Papers, 1. p. 63.]

Mr. W. M. Taylor [Footnote: Smithsonian Report for 1877, p. 307. Mentions only known instance of mound with Delaware Village.] mentions some stone graves of the type under consideration as found on the Mahoning River, in Pennsylvania. An 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 a cache 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 (Delaware) village of Kush-kush-kee.

Graves of the same type have been discovered in Lee County, Va. [Footnote: Eleventh Report of the Peabody Museum, 1878, p. 208.] Others have been found in a mound on the Tennessee side, near the southern boundary of Scott 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 accounted 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 description of one of these cists found in a mound in the eastern part of Montgomery County. Mr. Royce, 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 occupied at various times by the Shawnees.

Similar graves have been discovered in Ashland County. [Footnote: Smithsonian Report for 1877, pp. 261-267.] These, as will be seen by reference to the same report (page 504), are precisely in the locality of the former Delaware villages.

The evidence is deemed sufficient to show that the Shawnees and Delawares were accustomed to bury in stone graves of the type under consideration, 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 month 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 persons in this neighborhood [Monroe County, III.] that the Indians who inhabited this region during the early part of the present century (probably Kickapoos) buried their dead in stone coffins." [Footnote: Antiquities So. Indians, p. 220.]

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. [Footnote: Reynolds's Hist. Illinois, p. 20.] 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 Tumlin'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 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 comparatively 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 Cumberland Valley, and their extreme eastern outposts in northeastern Georgia, where both tradition and stone graves indicate their settlement. The tradition regarding this settlement has been given elsewhere. [Footnote: Am. Antiq, vol. 7, 1885, p. 133]

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 [Footnote: Science, vol. 3, 1884, pp. 436-438.] and by myself [Footnote: Ibid., pp. 779-785.] 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 Prof. F. W. Putnam; in a stone grave in a mound at Mill Creek, southern Illinois, by Mr. Earle; in a stone grave in Jackson County, Ill., by Mr. Thing; in a mound of Madison County, Ill., 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 [Footnote: American State Papers, Land Affairs, Appendix, p. 20.] is a statement giving a list of articles furnished the Indians, among 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 historic 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.

The Mound Builders Origins of Native American, Shawnee, Cherokee, Creek and Choctaw

The Mound BuildersOrigins of Native Americans

Origins of many Native American Indian tribes like the Choctaw, Creeks, Shawnee and Cherokee can be traced back to the mound builders.

REMOVAL OF THE FLESH BEFORE BURIAL.—This practice appears to have been followed quite generally by both Indians and mound-builders.

That it was followed to a considerable extent by the mound builders of various sections is shown by the following evidence:

The confused masses of human bones frequently found in mounds show by their relation to each other that they must have been gathered together after the flesh had been removed, as this condition could not possibly have been assumed after burial in their natural state. Instances of this kind are so numerous and well known that it is scarcely necessary to present any evidence in support of the statement. The well-known instance referred to by Jefferson in his "Notes on Virginia" [Footnote: Fourth Am. ed., 1801, p. 143; p. 146, in 8th ed.] is one in point. "The appearance," he tells us, "certainly indicates that it [the barrow] has derived both origin and growth from the customary collections of bones and deposition of them together."

Notices of similar deposits have been observed as follows: In Wisconsin, by Mr. Armstrong; [Footnote: Smithsonian Rept., 1879, p. 337] in Florida, by James Bell [Footnote: Smithsonian Rept., 1881, p. 636.] and Mr. Walker; [Footnote: Smithsonian Rept., 1879, p. 398] in Cass County, Ill., by Mr. Snyder; [Footnote: Smithsonian Rept., 1881, p. 573.] in Georgia, by C. C. Jones. [Footnote: Antiq. So. Inds., p. 193.] Similar deposits have also been found by the assistants of the Bureau of Ethnology in Wisconsin, Illinois, northern Missouri, North Carolina, New York, and Arkansas.

Another proof of this custom was observed by Mr. J. D. Middleton and Colonel Morris in Wisconsin, northeastern Missouri, and Illinois. In numerous mounds the skeletons were found packed closely side by side, immediately beneath a layer of hard, mortar- like substance. The fact that this mortar had completely filled the interstices, and in many cases the skulls also, showed that it had been placed over them while in a plastic state, and as it must soon have hardened and assumed the condition in which it was found, it is evident the skeletons had been buried after the flesh was removed.

As additional evidence we may mention the fact that in stone graves, so small that the body of a full-grown individual could not by any possible means be pressed into them, the bones of adult individuals are sometimes found. Instances of this kind have occurred in Tennessee, Missouri, and southern Illinois.

From personal examination I conclude that most of the folded skeletons found in mounds were buried after the flesh had been removed, as the folding, to the extent noticed, could not possibly have been done with the flesh on them, and the positions in most cases were such that they could not have been assumed in consequence of the decay of the flesh and settling of the mound.

The partial calcining of the bones in vaults and under layers of clay where the evidence shows that the fire was applied to the outside of the vault or above the clay layer, can be accounted for only on the supposition that the flesh had been removed before burial.

Other proofs that this custom prevailed among the mound builders in various sections of the country might be adduced.

That it was the custom of a number of Indian tribes, when first encountered by the whites, and even down to a comparatively modern date, to remove the flesh before final burial by suspending on scaffolds, depositing in charnel-houses, by temporary burial, or otherwise, is well known to all students of Indian habits and customs.

Heckewelder says, "The Nanticokes had the singular custom of removing the bones from the old burial place to a place of deposit in the country they now dwell in." [Footnote: Hist. Manners and Customs Ind. Nations, p. 75.]

The account by Breboeuf of the communal burial among the Hurons heretofore referred to is well known. [Footnote: Jesuit Relations for 1636. Transl. in Fifth Ann. Rept. Bur. Ethnol., p. 110.] The same custom is alluded to by Lafitau. [Footnote: Moeurs des Sauvages, vol. 2, pp. 420-435.] Bartram observed it among the Choctaws. [Footnote: Travels, p. 516.] It is also mentioned by Bossu, [Footnote: Travels through Louisiana, p. 298.] by Adair,[Footnote: Hist. Am. Indians, p. 183.] by Barnard Romans,[Footnote: Nat. Hist. Florida, p. 90.] and others.

Burial beneath or in dwellings.—The evidence brought to light by the investigations of the Bureau of Ethnology, regarding a custom among the mound-builders of Arkansas and Mississippi, of burying in or under their dwellings, has been given, in part, in an article published in the Magazine of American History. [Footnote: February, 1884.] It is a well-attested historical fact that such was also the custom of the southern Indian tribes. Bartram affirms it to have been in vogue among the Muscogulgees or Creeks,[Footnote: Travels, p. 505.] and Barnard Romans says it was also practiced by the Chickasaws.[Footnote: Nat. Hist. Florida, p. 71] C C. Jones says that the Indians of Georgia "often interred beneath the floor of the cabin, and then burnt the hut of the deceased over his head;"[Footnote: Antiq. So. Indians, p. 203.] which furnishes a complete explanation of the fact observed by the Bureau explorers, mentioned in the article before alluded to.

Burial in a sitting or squatting posture.—It was a very common practice among the mound-builders to bury their dead in a sitting or squatting posture. The examples of this kind are too numerous and too well known to require repetition. I may add that the yet unpublished reports of the Bureau show that this custom prevailed to a certain extent in Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, and West Virginia. Instances have also been observed elsewhere. [Footnote: Jones's Antiq. So. Indians (Georgia and Florida). pp. 183-185.] That the same custom was followed by several of the Indian tribes is attested by the following authorities: Bossu, [Footnote: Travels, vol. 1, p. 251.] Lawson, [Footnote: Hist. Carolina, p. 182.] Bartram, [Footnote: Travels, p. 515.] and Adair.[Footnote: Hist. Am. Indians, p. 182.]

The use of fire in burial ceremonies.—Another observance in which the burial customs of mound-builders corresponded with those of Indians was the use of fire in funeral ceremonies. The evidences of this custom are so common in mounds as to lead to the supposition that the mound-builders were in the habit of offering human sacrifices to their deities. Although charred and even almost wholly consumed human bones are often found, showing that bodies or skeletons were sometimes burned, it does not necessarily follow that they were offered as sacrifices. Moreover, judging from all the data in our possession, the weight of evidence seems to be decidedly against such conclusion.

Among the Indians fire appears to have been connected with the mortuary ceremonies in several ways. One use of it was to burn the flesh and softer portions of the body when removed from the bones. [Footnote: Barnard Romans, Nat. Hist. Florida, p. 90.] Breboeuf also mentions its use in connection with the communal burial of the Hurons. [Footnote: Jesuit Relations for 1636, p. 135.] According to M. B. Kent [Footnote: Yarrow's Mort. Customs N. A. Indians, 1st Ann. Rept. Bur. Ethnology (1881), P. 95.] it was the ancient custom of the Sacs and Foxes to burn a portion of the food of the burial feast to furnish subsistence for the spirit on its journey.

Pickett says [Footnote: Hist. Alabama, 3d ed., vol. 1, p. 140.] the Choctaws were in the habit of killing and cutting up their prisoners of war, after which the parts were burned. He adds further, in reference to their burial ceremonies: [Footnote: Ibid., p. 142] "From all we have heard and read of the Choctaws, we are satisfied that it was their custom to take from the bone- house the skeletons, with which they repaired in funeral procession to the suburbs of the town, where they placed them on the ground in one heap, together with the property of the dead, such as pots, bows, arrows, ornaments, curiously-shaped stones for dressing deer skins, and a variety of other things. Over this heap they first threw charcoal and ashes, probably to preserve the bones, and the next operation was to cover all with earth. This left a mound several feet high." This furnishes a complete explanation of the fact that uncharred human bones are frequently found in Southern mounds imbedded in charcoal and ashes.

Similarity of their stone implements and ornaments.—In addition to the special points of resemblance between the works of the two peoples, of which a few only have been mentioned, we are warranted in asserting that in all respects, so far as we can trace them correctly, there are to be found strong resemblances between the habits, customs, and arts of the mound-builders and those of the Indians previous to their change by contact with Europeans. Both made use of stone implements, and so precisely similar are the articles of this class that it is impossible to distinguish those made by the one people from those made by the other. So true is this that our best and most experienced archaeologists make no attempt to separate them, except where the conditions under which they are found furnish evidence for discrimination. Instead of burdening these pages with proofs of these statements by reference to particular finds and authorities, I call attention to the work of Dr. C. C. Abbott on the handiwork in stone, bone, and clay of the native races of the northern Atlantic sea board of America, entitled "Primitive Industry." As the area embraced in this work, as remarked by its author, "does not include any territory known to have been permanently occupied by the so-called mound- builders," the articles found here must be ascribed to the Indians unless, as suggested by Dr. Abbott, some of a more primitive type found in the Trenton gravel are to be attributed to an earlier and still ruder people. Examining those of the first class, which are ascribed to the Indians, we observe almost every type of stone articles found in the mounds and mound area; not only the rudely chipped scrapers, hoes, celts, knives, and spear and arrow heads, but also the polished or ground celts, axes, hammers, and chisels, or gouges.

Here we also find drills, awls, and perforators, slick stones and dressers, pipes of various forms and finish, discoidal stones and net sinkers, butterflys tones and other supposed ceremonial objects, masks or face figures and bird-shaped stones, gorgets, totems, pendants, trinkets, etc. Nor does the resemblance stop with types, but it is carried down to specific forms and finish, leaving absolutely no possible line of demarkation between these and the similar articles attributed to the mound-builders. So persistently true is this that had we stone articles alone to judge by, it is probable we should be forced to the conclusion, as held by some writers, that the former inhabitants of that portion of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains pertained to one nation, unless possibly the prevalence of certain types in particular sections should afford some data for tribal districting.

This strong similarity of the stone articles of the Atlantic coast to those of the mound area was noticed as early as 1820 by Caleb Atwater, who, knowing that the former were Indian manufactures, attributed the latter also to the same people although he held that the mounds were the work of the ancestors of the civilized nations of Mexico and Central America.

Mound and Indian Pottery.—The pottery of the mound-builders has often been referred to as proof of a higher culture status, and of an advance in art beyond that reached by the Indians. The vase with a bird figure found by Squier and Davis in an Ohio mound is presented in most works on American archaeology as an evidence of the advanced stage of the ceramic art among the mound-builders; but Dr. Rau, who examined the collection of these authors, says:

Having seen the best specimens of "mound" pottery obtained during the survey of Messrs. Squier and Davis, I do not hesitate to assert that the clay vessels fabricated at the Cahokia Creek were in every respect equal to those exhumed from the mounds of the Mississippi Valley, and Dr. Davis himself, who examined my specimens from the first-named locality, expressed the same opinion. [Footnote: Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 349.]

The Cahokia pottery which he found along the creek of that name (Madison County, Ill.) he ascribes to Indians, and believes it to be of comparatively recent origin.

Most of the mound pottery is mixed with pulverized shells, which is also true of most Indian pottery. [Footnote: Dumont, Mem. Hist. La., vol. 2, 1753, p. 271; Adair, Hist. Am. Indians, p. 424; Loskiel, Gesell. der Miss., p. 70, etc.] Du Pratz says that "the Natchez Indians make pots of an extraordinary size, cruses with a medium-sized opening, jars, bottles with long necks holding two pints, and pots or cruses for holding bear's oil;" [Footnote: Hist. La., p. 79.] also that they colored them a beautiful red by using ocher, which becomes red after burning.

As is well known, the bottle-shaped vase with a long neck is the typical form of clay vessels found in the mounds of Arkansas and southeastern Missouri, and is also common in the mounds and stone graves of middle Tennessee. Those colored or ornamented with red are often found in the mounds of the former sections. It is worthy of notice in this connection that the two localities—near Saint Genevieve, Mo., and near Shawneetown, Ill.—where so many fragments of large clay vessels used in making salt have been found, were occupied for a considerable time by the Shawnee Indians. As will hereafter be shown, there are reasons for believing this pottery was made by the Shawnees.

The statement so often made that the mound pottery, especially that of Ohio, far excels that of the Indians is not justified by the facts.

Much more evidence of like tenor might be presented here, as, for example, the numerous instances in which articles of European manufacture have been found in mounds where their presence could not be attributed to intrusive burials, but the limits of the paper will not admit of this. I turn, therefore, to the problem before us, viz, "Who were the authors of the typical works of Ohio?"

As before stated, the answer is, "These works are attributable in part at least to the ancestors of the modern Cherokees."

As a connecting link between what has been given and the direct evidence that the Cherokees were mound-builders, and as having an important bearing upon both questions, the evidence derived from the box-shaped stone graves is introduced at this point.