THOMAS.] SIMILARITY IN BURIAL CUSTOMS. (571 



l)e liad auil luauy nativo villages cduUl lie brought to view. The villages are 

 described as seated " in a plain betwixt two streams, as nearly encircled by a deep 

 moat fifty paces in breadth, and where the moat did not extend was defended by a 

 strong wall of timber near a wicbi and rapid river. The largest they discovered iu 

 Florida." This was the Mississippi : "On a high artilieial monnd on one side of the 

 village stood the dwelling of the cacii|ne, which served as a fortre.ss.'' Thns throngh- 

 ont this whole region, froyi the seacoast at Tampa bay, in the states of Florida, 

 Sonth Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, the.se ancient villages 

 appeared occupied by the various tribes, such as Creeks, Catawbas, Cherokees, 

 Cboctaws, Chlckasaws, Quapaws, Kansas, and possibly Shawnees. 



At another point in the same series he remarks : 



We now turn to the mound-builders' works. The same .system of erecting military 

 inclosures and connecting them by lookout stations seems to have prevailed among 

 them that existed among the later Indians.' 



Thu,s it is seen that, when the architectural works of the mound- 

 builders are compared with those of the Indians, there is such a general 

 similarity as to render it unnecessary to look further for the authors. 



The mound-builders erected mounds, fortified their villages with 

 wooden palisades and ditches, dwelt in houses made of perishable 

 materials, many of which were plastered with clay. The Indians 

 erected similar mounds, surrounded thcirvillages with wooden palisades 

 and ditches, and dwelt iu houses made of perishable materials, which 

 in many cases were plastered with clay. 



It is true that, when Cortez invaded Mexic(i, he found .some of the 

 villages fortified by wooden palisades^ much like those built by the 

 Tiuliaus of the Atlantic and Gulf states, even to tlie overlapping of 

 the ends. But the similarity holds good no further, as the >isual Mexi- 

 can method was to protect with stone walls.'' Their pyramids or mounds 

 were of stone in whole or iu part and their houses, of which traces 

 remain, were chiefly of the same material. There is in fact nothing to 

 be found in the remains of the mound-builders which can, even by a 

 reasonable stretch of tlie imagination, be considered Mexican or Cen- 

 tral American architecture in embryo. 



SIMILARITY IN BURIAL CUSTOMS. 



There are perhaps no other remains of a barbarous or unenlightened 

 ])eoi)le which give us so clear a conception of their superstitions and 

 religious beliefs as those which relate to the disposal of their dead. 

 By the modes adopted for such disposal and relics found in the recep- 

 tacles of the dead, we are enabled, not only to understand something 

 of their superstitions and religious beliefs, but also to .judge of their 

 culture status and to gain some knowledge of their customs, modes of 

 life, and art. 



i.Iuly, 1883, p. 238. 



^ Herrera, Hist. Geu.. Bee. 11. Book u, Chap. [V, Stevens's Trans. 



5 Cortez, Cartas de Relaeion, pp. 59 to 60. 



