Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United States

by Cyrus Thomas

In a mound situated in Clear Creek Township, Ashland County, a stone coffin or cist was discovered, constructed of flat stones set up edgewise. It contained six or eight skeletons, "neatly cleaned and packed, in a good state of preservation."[29]

A statement worthy of notice in this connection is made by Mr. H. B. Case in the Smithsonian Report for 1881.[30] The Delaware Indians formerly had a village in the northern part of Green Township, Ashland County, which was still occupied by them when the white settlers reached there in 1809. An examination of their graves in 1876 brought to light the fact that in some cases the dead were buried in stone cists; in others small, round, drift bowlders were placed around the skeletons.

One of the most satisfactory and most important accounts of Ohio burial mounds will be found in a "Report of Explorations of Mounds in Southern Ohio," by Prof. E. B. Andrews, published in the Tenth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum. Speaking of the George Connet mound, in Athens County, he says:

This is a low mound about 6 feet high with a broad base perhaps 40 feet in diameter. It has for years been plowed over and its original height has been considerably reduced. My attention was drawn to this mound by the burnt clay on its top. A trench 5 feet wide was dug through the center. On the east side much burnt yellow clay was found, while on the west end of the trench considerable black earth appeared, which I took to be kitchen refuse.

About 5 feet below the top we came upon large quantities of charcoal, especially on the western side. Underneath the charcoal was found a skeleton with the head to the east. The body had evidently been enclosed in some wooden structure. First there was a platform of wood placed upon the ground, on the original level of the plain. On this wooden floor timbers or logs were placed longitudinally, and over these timbers there were laid other pieces of wood, forming an enclosed box or coffin. A part of this wood was only charred, the rest was burnt to ashes. The middle part of the body was in the hottest fire and many of the vertebræ, ribs, and other bones were burnt to a black cinder, and at this point the enclosing timbers were burnt to ashes. The timbers enclosing the lower extremities were only charred.

I am led to think that before any fire was kindled a layer of dirt was thrown over the wooden structure, making a sort of burial. On this dirt a fire was built, but by some misplacement of the dirt the fire reached the timbers below, and at such points as the air could penetrate there was an active combustion, but at others, where the dirt still remained, there was only a smothered fire, like that in a charcoal pit. It is difficult to explain the existence of the charred timbers in any other way. There must have been other fires than that immediately around and above the body, and many of them, because on one side of the mound the clay is burned even to the top of the mound. In one place, 3 feet above the body, the clay is vitrified.

It is possible that fires were built at different levels, open fires, and that most of the ashes were blown away by the winds which often sweep over the plain. I have stated that there was first laid down a sort of floor of wood, on which the body was placed. On the same floor were placed about 500 copper beads, forming a line almost around the body.

In addition to these copper beads a number of shell beads, and also a hollow copper implement in the shape of a caulker's chisel, were found. The copper implement and beads were made of thin sheet-copper which, Professor Andrews says, had been "hammered out into so smooth and even a sheet that no traces of the hammer were visible. It would be taken indeed for rolled sheet copper." Some of the bones were pretty well preserved.

The professor closes his description with the remark: "The skeleton undoubtedly belonged to a veritable mound-builder." In this he is certainly correct, as the mode of burial in this case agrees so exactly with that observed by Squier and Davis in the larger mounds opened by them as to leave no doubt that both are to be attributed to one people, although the mound described by Professor Andrews is probably of much more recent date than those mentioned by Squier and Davis.

What explanation shall we give of the presence in this work of thin sheet-copper "hammered out into so smooth and even a sheet that no traces of the hammer were visible," and that "would be taken for rolled copper"?