THOMAS.] DOUBTFUL REPORTS. HT? 



tioii is not necessary to the object at present in view, will mention very 

 briefly some reasons for tliis opinion. 



It is true Dorman, Wilson and many others believe that cremation 

 was a common practice with tlie mound-builders, but this theory is 

 founded, as before stated, almost wholly upon the presence of burned 

 bones and the evidences of lire in tlie Tnounds. Reference is made, by 

 those holding this theory, to the Indians who, it is affirmed in many 

 cases, followed this method of disposing of the dead, but after a some- 

 what thorough investigation I fail to find the data upon whiidi to base 

 this affirmation, except so far as the. tribes of the Pacific slojn' and of 

 Mexico and southward are concerned. Dr. Yarrow, in his able paper 

 on the "Burial Customs of our Indians,'" evidently leans to the same 

 view, V)ut it is apparent from the cautious manner in whicli he refers 

 to it that the proof is not entirely satisfactory. 



Du Pratz^ says: "There is no nation of Louisiana which follows the 

 custom of burning the body." Louisiana, as used by its author, in- 

 cluded all the Mississippi valley south of the Ohio, and all the Gulf 

 states excejit Florida. In this statement he agrees with Romans and 

 other early authors who mention the modes of burial and of disposing 

 of the dead. Pickett^ says the Choctaws were in the habit of killing 

 and cutting up their ijrisoners of war, after which the parts were burned. 

 The same writer says:" "From all we have read and heard of the Choc- 

 taws we are satisfied that it was their custom to take from the bone 

 liouse the skeletons, with which tliey re])aired in funeral procession to 

 the suburbs of the town, where they placed them on the ground in one 

 heaj), together with the property of the dead, such as pots, bows, 

 arrows, ornaments, curious-shaped stones for dressing deerskins, and a 

 variety of other things. Orer this heap the if 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 cor- 

 respond.s so well with what has been found in some southern mounds 

 that it seems to furnish a satisfactory explanation of the presence of 

 coal and ashes in some of the tumuli. 



By referring to the description of the N^orth Carolina mounds hereto- 

 fore given the reader will find that, in one of them, three skeletons were 

 imbedded in ashes and coal on an altar-shaped structure, yet none of 

 the bones were burned or even charred. Fire had also been applied to 

 the outside of some of the little beehive-shaped stone vaults to such an 

 extent as to show, in some cases, the ett'ect of the heat on the bones of 

 the inclosed skeletons, the burial having evidently taken place after 

 the tlesh was removed. In the mound opened in Sullivan county, east- 

 ern Tennessee, which is heretofore described and figured, the floor was 

 covered with charcoal and ashes, yet no evidence whatever of any burn- 

 ing of bodies or bones was found. 



' Fir.st AuniKil Report Bureau Ethn. ^ Hist. Alabama, 3(1 ed., vol. i, p. 140. 



2 Hist. Louisiiuiii, 1758, vi>l. in, p. 24. «Ibi(l., vol. I, p. 142. 



