38 BURIAL MOUNDS OF THE NORTHERN SECTIONS

life,while in other places

we

see the iiieiiil)er8 of a family lying side

by

side,and inothers the bones, possibly oftlieordinarypeople,heaped togetherin a

common

^ossuary.

The

timber-covered vaultⁱⁿ

mound

No. ^Ifi calls to

mind

very vividly thesimilar vaultsmentioned

by

Squier and Davis,' foundiu the valley of the Sciotoin Ohio. In the latter the walls as wellas the covering were of logs, instead of stone, but the adaptation to circumstances may, ])erliaps, form a sufBcient explanation of this difference.

While

there are several vei\v

marked

distinctions between the Ohioworks

anl

those of the district

now

underconsideration, there arealso

some

resemblances, as

we

shall see as

we

proceed, which cannot be over- looked,and which

seem

to indicate relationship, contact, or intercourse betweenthe people

who

^wei'ethe authors of these different structures.

In additional support of this view, I call attention to the carved pipesfound

by members

ofthe

Davenport Academy

^{ofNaturalSciences,}

Fig. 13.

—

PipefromIllinoismound.

(AftorSniitli.'iOniiinliepoit.)

Fic.14.

—

Pipe finmllbnoismound,^.

(AfterSmithsonianReport.)

Fig.15.

—

^{PipefromIllinoiamound,}i.

(AfterSmithsonianReport.)

in the

mounds

near Davenport, Iowa, already referred to, which are represented ou Plates

IV and XXXIV

of Vol. I of the Proceedings of that society,

and

to others obtained

by Judge

J. G. Henderson

'Aiicii'ntMoniiiiH'i.ts,]i. ir>'2.

TMoius]

MOUNDS NEAR

NAPLES, ILLINOIS.

39

from

some

moiuuls near Naples, Illinois, and described in the Smith- sonian IJeport for 1SS2.

The

latter are

shown

inFigs. 13,

M,

and ^15.

The

relation of theseto the pipes foundin the Ohio works

by

Squier

and

Davis is too apparent tobeattributedtoaccident,

and

forcesusto the conclusion that there

was

intercourse of

some

kind between the two peoples,

and

hence that the works of the two localities are rela- tivelyof the

same

age.

The mode

of burial in one of the

mounds

near Naples is so sug- gestive in this connection that I quote liere

Judge

Henderson's de- scription^:

The oval inouud No. 1 waa cxiilorcil in April, 1881,bybeginninga trench at tbo north end and cari"j'ing it to the original surface and through to the south end.

Lateral trencheswereopened at intervals,and fnnn theseand themainonea com- pleteexplorationwasmadebytunneling.

Nearthe center of themoundasingleskeletonwaafoundⁱⁿasitting position,and noobjectswere aboutitexcept asinglesea-shellrestingonthe earthjust overthehead, andanumberof theboneawls,already described, sHcldnginthesand aroundthe skeleton.

The individual had been seated upon the sand, these awlsstuck around himin a circle4or 5inchesin the.sand, andtheworkof carryingdirtbegun.

Whenthemound had beenelevated aboutGinches abovethe headthe shellwas

hiidonandthework continued.

The

shell alluded toisa finespecimenofBusyconperrerfium, withthe columella

removed

in order toform a drinking cup.

The

particularpoint to which I call attentionis this: InPlate XI, PartIIof

De

^TJry,' wliich is reproduced in the annexed Plate IV, is

represented a very small

mound,

on the top of which ^is a large shell,

and

about the base a circle of arrows sticking in the ground.

The

artist,

Le Moyne

de Morgues, remarks, in reference to it,

"Sometimes

thedeceased king of this province isburied with great solemnity,

and

hisgreat cup from which he

was

accustomed to drink is placed on a tumulus with iiumy arrows set about it."

The

tumulus in this caseis

evidently very small,and,as

remarked by

Dr. Brinton,^ "scarcelyrises to the dignity of a

mound." Yet

^itwill correspond in size with

what

the Naples

mound was when

the shell

was

placed

upon

^it; nevertheless thelatter,

when

completed,formed an ovaltumulus132feetlong,98feet wide, and 10 feet high.

It istherefore quite probable that

Le Moyne

figures the

mound

at thetime itreached the point where the shell cup

was

to bedeposited, when, in all likelihood, certain ceremonies wei'e tobe observed

and

a

])au.sein the

work

occurred.

Whether

this suggestionbecorrect or not, thecut

and

thestatement of

Judge Henderson

furnish

some

evidence in regard to the presence of thesearticles inthe mounds, and point to thepeople

by whom

they wereplaced there.

Colonel Norris openeda

number

oftheordinary smallburial

mounds

found on the blufls

and

higher grounds of Pike

and Brown

Counties,

'Brevis Narratio, Tab.XI.

''AmericanAntiquarian, October, 1881,p. 14.

40

^lUJRrAL

MOUNDS OF THE NORTHERN

SECTIONS.

Illinois, wliicli were I'ound tobeeoii.structed in the usual uictliod oftbis district; tbat is, with a layer of hard, mortar-like substance, or clay and ashes mixed, covering the skeletons.

The

positions of the skele- tonsvaried,as

we

have seen ^is the easein other localities.

The num-

m

M

mm.

.^^

% ^ ^{m -^tW}

™«%g:

ber of intrusive burials

was

unusually large here. In a

number

of cases where there wereintrusive burialsnear the surface, no bones, or but theslightest fragments ofthe bones of the original burial, couldbe found, although there weresure indications that the

mounds

werebuilt

THE WELCH MOUNDS, BROWN COUNTY,

ILLINOIS.

41

and had appiirentlybeen used for this purpose. These luoiiuds also present evidence of the intrusion of an element from one people into the country of another.

On

the farm of Mr.

Edward

Welch,

Brown

County, Illinois,is the group of

mounds shown

in Fig. 16. This con- sists of conical

and

pyramidal mounds,

and the small earthen rings designated house sites.

The

form of the larger

mounds

is

shown

in Fig. 17. Although standing on a bluft"

some

200 feet above the riverbottom, it isevident at thefirst

glance that these works belong to the southern type

and

werebuilt

by

the people

who

erected those oftheCahokia groupor farther south.

Xo

opportunity

was

allowed to investigate the burial

mounds

orhouse

sites,but slight explorations

made

in the larger

mounds

sutliced to reveal thefire-

beds so

common

iu southern mounds,thus confirming the impression given by their form. It is probable that these

mark

the point of theextremenorthern extension of the southeru mound-building tribes.

A

colony, probably from the numerous

and

strong tribe located on (Jahokia Creek around the giant Monk's mound, pushed

its

way

thus far

and

formed asettlement, but, after contendingfor a time with the

liostile tribes which pressed

upon

it from

tlienorth,

was

compelledtoreturntowards the south.

Passing to the northeastern portion of Missouri, which, as heretofore stated,

we

include iu the Xorth Mississippi orIllinois district,

we

find a material change in the character ofthe burialmounds,so marked,

in fact, that it is very doubtful whether they should l)c

embraced

in the district

named.

Although

differing in juinor par- ticulars, the custom of inclosing the re-

mains of the deadin

some

kind_{of a}recep- tacleof stone,over which

was

heapedthe earth Ibrming the

mound,

appears to have l>revailed very generally.

The

regionhas been but partially explored, yet it is probable thefol-

lowing examples will furnish illustrationsof

most

of the types to be foundin it.