•im.MAs.j SIMILARITY OF HABITS AND CUSTOMS. 683 



xVikaiisas and sou tbe:i stern Missoiii'i, and is also common to the mounds 

 and stone gravesofmiddle Tennessee. Tliosecolored or ornamented with 

 red are also often found in tlie mounds of this section. The lonji-necked 

 bottles aud colored pottery form very important items of evidence in 

 the present discussion, for the description given by Du Pratz of these 

 vessels and Dumont's account of the method of manufacture leave but 

 scant room for doubt that those found in the mounds were nnide by the 

 same x>eople that made those of which the above named authors speak. 



It is also worthy of notice in this connection that the two localities, 

 near St. Genevieve, Missouri, and near Slmwneetown, Illlinois, where 

 so many fragments of large clay vessels supposed by many to have 

 been used in " making salt" have been foun<l, were occupied for a con- 

 siderable length of time by the Shawnees. Nor should the fact be 

 overlooked that that they are marked with those impressions, so com- 

 mon in mound pottery, which are usually attributed to basketwork in 

 •which the vessels are sujjposed to have been placed while drying pre- 

 vious to burning, tliough in reality in these instances tliey are due to 

 a textile fabric or pattern -markers. 



The statements so often made that the mound pottery, esiiecially that 

 of Ohio, far excels anything made by the Induins is a mistake and is 

 not justified by the facts. Wilson, carried away with this supposed 

 superiority of the Ohio mound pottery, goes so far in his comparison 

 with other mound ])ottery as to ascribe the ornamented ware found in 

 the mounds of Mississippi to the "red Indian," yet asserts in the same 

 pariigraph that it suggests "no analogy to the finer ware of the Ohio 

 mounds."' On the other hand, Nadaillac affirms that the i)ottery of 

 Missouri (that found in the southeastern part of the state) "is superior 

 to that of Ohio." ^ 



So far as I can ascertain, the supposed superiority of the Ohio mound 

 pottery, maintained by so many writers, is based on the description of 

 two vessels by Sciuier and Davis, and, as we have seen from what is 

 stated by Dr. Ran, a competent witness, is uot supported by evidence. 



Mound-bHilderH and TiuJiaiis rnlti rated maize. — A resemblance between 

 the customs of the mounil-builders and Indians is to be found in the 

 fa<'t that both cultivated and relied, to a certain extent, upon maize or 

 Indian corn for subsistence. As proofs have already been presented 

 showing that this statement is true in regard to the latter, it is only 

 necessary to add liere the evidence that it is also true as to the former. 

 That the mound-builders must have relied greatly upon agricultural 

 products for subsistence is maintained, as heretofore shown, by those 

 who contend they were not Indians, and is admitted by all. It is also 

 generally admitted that maize was their chief food product, but this is 

 uot left to inference alone, as there are proofs of it from the mounds. 

 Not only are there prints of the cobs on many clay vessels, but lumjis 

 of clay bearing the impress of the ears; also charred cobs, ears, and 



' Proli. M.in.. II. p. 2;t. ' I/AmiTique Prehistoviqne, p. 141. 



