SwANTON] INMA^^S OP THE SOUTHEASTEHN UNITED STATES 805 



usually reckoned in the female line, and if there were exogamous sub- 

 divisions, they were transmitted in the same way. There were, how- 

 ever, many tribal variations which we will take up presently. In 

 so far as we are acquainted with them, the terms of relationship and 

 names followed similar patterns. This similarity extended to other 

 social usages, but the burial customs, which are of exceptional impor- 

 tance to the archeologistj show certain marked regional differences. 

 Finally, the background of the religious beliefs of these tribes and 

 their medical practices were also similar, but the religious attitude 

 seems to have varied considerably from one tribe to another and 

 the ceremonial patterns were often markedly distinct. 



CTJLTURAI. DIFFERENCES 



So much for the resemblances. Now let us consider the more 

 important divergencies from the norm. The head types, which we 

 know, of course, from the investigations of modern students, not 

 from early authorities, leave us in considerable uncertainty. There 

 was a brachycephalic element particularly in evidence along the Mis- 

 sissippi and one or two seemingly earlier dolichocephalic elements 

 widely extended and increasing in prominence toward the Atlantic 

 coast. 



All early writers describe the Indians as tall, particularly the 

 Cherokee, but there was a short female type among the Creeks. Du 

 Pratz observed a single dwarf in the Natchez nation and says that 

 he measured four and a half feet. Lawson saw one hump-backed 

 Indian and one blind man. Garcilaso reported a tribe containing 

 many blind men. The head hair is described as long, deep black, 

 and lustrous but the body hair scanty and usually removed carefully. 

 Nevertheless De Soto met one chief in southern Georgia with a beard, 

 Blande and his companions reported that the Indians on Roanoke 

 River wore beards, and Lawson noted that the Keyauwee had 

 mustaches. 



Early writers sought to find differing psychical characteristics in 

 the several tribes but are not very consistent or convincing. Un- 

 doubtedly these apparent differences were due to the tribal mores as, 

 for instance, when the Creeks, a warlike and aggressive people, are 

 accused of an overbearing disposition, and a corresponding mildness 

 is attributed to the Choctaw. 



Language was evidently a powerful unifying factor, but it may 

 be doubted whether related but mutually unintelligible tongues 

 tended to keep the cultural patterns of two tribes similar any more 

 than wholly unrelated tongues. If they show closer resemblances, the 

 fact may be explained by the more recent contact of the peoples con- 

 cerned, not by the mere fact of related speech. 



