22 THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. 



flesh and softer portions of the body when removed from the bones.^ 

 BrebcBiif also mentions its use in connection with the communal burial 

 of the Ilurons.-^ According- to M. B. 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 cuiting 

 up their prisoners of war, after which tlie parts were burned. lie 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 (uistom 

 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 p/ro))erty of the dead, 

 such as pots, bows, arrows, ornauients, 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 b!)nes, and the 

 next operation was to cover all with earth. This left a mouiul several 

 feet high." This furnishes a complete ex[tlaiiation of the fact that un- 

 charred human bones are frequently found in Soul hern mounds imbed- 

 ded in charcoal and ashes. 



Siniilarify of their stone ImpJcmentH and ornaments. — Tn addilion to the 

 special points of resemblance between the works of the two peoples, of 

 which a few only have been mentioned, we arc warranted in asserling 

 that in all respects, so far as we can trace them correctly, ther<.'. are to 

 be found strong resemblances between the habits, imstoms, 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 imi)ossible to 

 distinguish those made by the one people from those made by the other. 

 So true is this that our best and most experienced arcl geologists make 

 no attempt to separate them, except where the coiulitions under winch 

 they are fouiul furnish evidence for discrimination. Instead of bur- 

 dening these pages with proofs of these statements by reference to 

 particular fiiuls and authorities, I call attention to the work of Dr. 0. 

 (J. Abbott on the handiwork in stone, bone, and clay of the native 

 racesof the northern Atlantic- sea boaid of Anu>rica, entitled "rrimitive 

 Industry." As the area embraced in this work, as remarked by its 

 author, "do.'s not include any territory known to have been perma- 

 n(^/itly occupied by the so-called mound-builders," the articles found 

 luM-e must be ascribed to the Indians unless, as suggested by Dr. Ab])ott, 

 some of a more i)rimitive typo fouiul in the Trenton gravel arc to be 

 attributed to an earlier and still ruder peo])le. Exannuing those of the 



' I5;iiii,ir(l ]»'oiiiaiis, Nat. Hist. Florida, j). 'JO. 



■^.Jesuit R(^la^i()ll.s for 1(;;5(), ]>. l:?.^. 



•' Yarro\v'.s Mort. (histoiiis N. A. Iiulia-iis, l.st Ami. Ri^pt. Hiir. l^tbiiolDgy (1>!S1), p. D.'t. 



■* Hi.st. Alaltaiiia, :{(! (■<!., vol. 1, p. MO. 



6 Ibid., p. ll-J. 



