THOMAS.] THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 651 



seuted (iu our PI. xlii) ; on top is placed a single univalve .shell and 

 around the base of the mound there is a circle of arrows thrust into the 

 ground. The accompanying note states that this represents the sepul- 

 ture of a chief or ruler of a province, and that the cup from which he 

 was accustomed to drink was placed on the " tumulus," and that many 

 arrows were planted about the "tumulus." It is true the mouud 

 appears so small that it is scarcely worthy of the name. But it is pos- 

 sible this is the core on which additional layers are to be placed, as is 

 often found to be the case with mounds. It is not an unusual thing to 

 find large univalve shells, especially Busycori perversum, in southern 

 mounds, and occasionally one of very large size converted into a drink- 

 ing cup is found, as for example that represented in Fig. 133. 



Another important fact observable iu this picture is that the large 

 building, which was undoubtedly the dwelling of the deceased chief, 

 and others, whi ?h probably belonged to the members of his family, are 

 on fire. As is well known, it was a custom among some tribes to burn 

 the houses of those who died. As no mention of this is made iu the 

 accompanying note, we have proof in this fact that the artist has tried 

 to reiH'esent faithfully Avhat he saw. 



We have taken for granted that the interested reader will make the 

 comi)arisou, as we proceed with these extracts, between the customs of 

 the Indians mentioned iu them and those of the mound-builders as re- 

 vealed by the exploration and study of the mounds. Still it may not 

 be amiss for us to call attention from time to time to some facts which 

 have special bearing upou the question under consideration. 



The frequent statements in the chronicles of De Soto's expedition 

 that houses stood on " mounts made by art," or hand, the positive as- 

 sertion that the natives were in the habit of building mounds, and the 

 total absence in these chronicles of any word or hint referring them to 

 any former inhabitants or other Y)eople, .leave no doubt that De Soto 

 and his followers understood clearly and beyond question that the 

 people they found occupying the country were the builders of these 

 mounds. 



The resemblances iu many respects of the fortifications and other 

 works of the Indians mentioned l>y these chroniclers to the works of 

 the mound-builders, are so many arguments in favor of the theory of 

 the identity of the two peoples. That such resemblances do not neces- 

 ■sarily imply relationship is admitted. But iu this discussion we must 

 constantly bear in mind the fact that the only people known to history 

 as inhabitants of the region under consideration, other than those 

 derived from the eastern continent in post-Columbian times, are 

 Indians in the limited sense heretofore noted. It follows, therefore, 

 that each of these resemblances is a fact that must be explained away 

 by those who deny the Indian origin of the mounds. 



After the termination of De Soto's fruitless expedition, but few and 

 slight glimpses are obtained of this southern region until the French 



