Thomas Jefferson’s Excavation of an Indian Burial Mound

By
Book of Mormon Evidence
-
5021

First of all I want to apologize to all the faithful readers of this blog. Some of my blogs are VERY long and I know this. I just can’t help it. Once I get on an idea, I always over research it. I love getting the whole story and I like sharing as much as I can at one time. I guess the reason is, if I give you all the information you can read portions at a time or skip over some of it. I could put just a paragraph or two and then have you read the entire article, but I like having all the information in one place for future reference.

I found so much great information about Thomas Jefferson and his love of the Country and love of Native Americans and ancient Indian Artifacts, that I just have to share it. Enjoy!

Thomas Jefferson and Native Americans

“Thomas Jefferson believed Native American peoples to be a noble race who were “in body and mind equal to the white man” and were endowed with an innate moral sense and a Indians setting marked capacity for reason.

Jefferson never removed any Native Americans. However in private letters he did suggest various ideas for removing tribes from enclaves in the East to their own new lands in lands west of the Mississippi. Indian Removal was passed by Congress in 1831, long after he died. Before and during his presidency, Jefferson discussed the need for respect, brotherhood, and trade with the Native Americans, and he initially believed that causing them to adopt European-style agriculture and modes of living would allow them to quickly “progress” from “savagery” to “civilization”. Beginning in 1803, Jefferson’s private letters show increasing support for the idea of removal. Jefferson maintained that Indians had land “to spare” and, he thought, would willingly exchange it for guaranteed supplies of food and equipment.

Jefferson’s view of the aboriginal people

Jefferson was fascinated with Indian cultures and languages. His home at Monticello was filled with Indian artifacts obtained from the Lewis and Clark expedition. He collected information on the vocabulary and grammar of Indian languages.

In Jefferson’s day the theory of “environmentalism”, which maintained that the Native peoples of America were inferior to Europeans due to climate and geography, was generally accepted. Jefferson refuted these notions in his book, Notes on the State of Virginia, where he defended American Indians and their culture.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_Native_Americans

Research in the Heartland to Locate the “Menorah” Earthworks in Clermont County Ohio
John C. Lefgren, PhD -Draft #4 – August 2, 2018

Figure 1 National Archives Photograph RG77 144.20

In 1803 the United States Congress asserted that the Constitution did not contain provisions for acquiring new territory. President Thomas Jefferson declared that his presidential powers were sufficient to negotiate treaties for the purchase of land from foreign countries. So, in 1803 he negotiated and signed the largest land purchase in the history of the world. President Jefferson bought from France 827,000 square miles of land for 15 million dollars in gold. In that same year President Jefferson was impressed when he saw General William Lytle’s maps1 which had “those works of antiquity” on the East Fork in Clermont County Ohio. He requested more information about these works.2 This was the first historical reference about earthworks which President Jefferson recognized were designed in the likeness of a Jewish “Menorah”. The ancient features of these works were surveyed in the early nineteenth century but by the late nineteenth century these same works were lost and buried under row crops, streets and houses in Ohio. These works have since become known as the lost earthworks. There exists today a technology which makes it possible to rediscover the exact locations of these earthworks.3

Figure 2 Panel 2B of Plate 34 of Squire and Davis, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, 1847.

First let’s outline what we know from the National Archives. Figure 1 is a portion of one map drawn in 1823 which Warden in 1834 attributed to Major Isaac Roberdeau, the Head of the Bureau of Topographical Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The complete original map is still preserved in the Cartographic and Architectural Branch of the Military Archives Division of the U.S. National Archives in Alexandria, Virginia, Record Group 77 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fortifications File), Drawer 144, Sheet No. 20. The map consists of two sheets of identical paper glued together, so it is not entirely clear whether the scale pertains only to the Milford Works on the left panel, or to the entire map, including the East Fork Works on the right panel. A less detailed survey of the same works depicted by the Roberdeau Map, was made in 1803 by General William Lytle of Cincinnati and was published in 1811 in the book, Observations on the Climate in Different Parts of America 4.

It seems clear that Roberdeau’s 1823 Survey is the ultimate source of Panel 2B of Plate 34 of Squire and Davis, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, 1847.5

Sometime during the last half of nineteenth century farmers plowed over the East Fork Works and planted row crops so that since the late nineteenth century the features of the “Menorah” Earthworks have not been noticeable. Perhaps in the mid-nineteenth century some wanted to destroy the large earthworks to disassociate any link to the idea that in ancient times Hebrews were in North America. By making the “Menorah” Earthworks unknown the European settlers diminished the cultural heritage of the native peoples of America.

Cyrus Thomas was an ethnologist and entomologist prominent in the late nineteenth century. He was noted for his studies of the natural history of the American West. However, Thomas is best known for his work in archaeology and ethnology — specifically, his contributions to the question of the origins of the mound builders and Mayan hieroglyphics. Thomas was not a field archaeologist. He visited the sites on which he reported, but did little if any field work. He had permanent and temporary field assistants and one clerical assistant. They provided him with their notes, which he organized, formed into a report, and published.

When Thomas began his investigations into the origins of the mound builders, he was under the impression that the mounds were made by a more advanced race that no longer existed. He argued that America had once been settled by a people who tended to stay in one place. In his mind the archaeological record had been produced by the same people of that area throughout history.6 The Bureau of American Ethnology commissioned Cyrus Thomas to find answers to some of the riddles which troubled many minds. In 1882, Thomas set out to collect as much information as he could about the mound builders; he investigated 2,000 mound sites in 21 states and collected over 40,000 artifacts from these mounds.

In 1894 Cyrus Thomas (left) was apparently unaware of the original survey made in 1823 and he dismissed the 1847 drawings which Squier and Davis had made with respect to the “Menorah” Earthworks in Clermont County as “largely imaginary.”7 From 1803 to 1897 the history of the existence of the “Menorah” Earthworks goes from found to lost. Here is the sequence of events.

(a) 1803. General William Lytle (right), Surveyor General of the Northwest Territory, identified and made drawings of the features of the “Menorah” Earthworks. These drawings came to the attention of President Thomas Jefferson as he was negotiating the Louisiana Purchase.

(b) 1811. The “Menorah” Earthworks were identified in a book published in New York by Hugh Williamson.

(c) 1823. Major Isaac Roberdeau, head of the Bureau of Topographical Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers made a survey of the “Menorah” Earthworks. This original survey is currently found in the National Archives.

d) 1847. Squire and Davis (right) confirmed in the first book ever published by the Smithsonian Institute that the “Menorah” Earthworks existed.

(e) 1894. Cyrus Thomas claimed that the “Menorah” Earthworks do not exist and that they are “imaginary”.

The nineteenth century began with the sure knowledge the earthworks existed and ended with the claim that they did not exist.

Heartland Research intends to use German technology to rediscover the exact place of these earthworks.

The 1823 survey showed that the ancient “Menorah” Earthworks existed along the waters of the East Fork of the Little Miami River in Ohio, about 20 miles above its mouth near Milford, and about 25-30 miles east of Cincinnati. The works have long since been under the plow zone. Their orientation and exact locations are today unknown.

Heartland Research wants to locate the existence of the “Menorah” Earthworks. That which was once known by the second President of the United States should now become known to every American citizen. It is time to bring back into the light that which has been hidden for 150 years.

The Heartland Research Group seeks to fund this research with large and small donations which will total at least $100,000. A main purpose of the research is to re-establish the idea that at least one of the ancient earthworks in Ohio was associated Hebrews who were living in America.

NOTES

1 William Lytle, (1770-1831) amassed a fortune surveying the lands of Revolutionary War veterans granted land in Ohio, and was a good friend of Andrew Jackson, serving in his “kitchen cabinet”.

2 Anthony F.C. Wallace, Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999, p. 139 and n. 18.

3 SENSYS of Germany designs and manufactures equipment which uses non-destructive methods to digitize thousands of acres of land in a short time. There are nearly a billion data points for each acre and each data point has GPS coordinates which are within a precision of one quarter of an inch. With the use of this technology it is possible to identify ancient features which are under the plow zone. The speed of the technology allows for the search and discovery of ancient features which are now lost.

4 Hugh Williamson, Observations on the Climate in Different Parts of America, New York: T & J Swords, 1811.

5 E.G. Squier and E.H. Davis, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, Washington, D.C.: The Smithsonian Institution, June 1847.

6 Bennie C. Keel, “Cyrus Thomas and the Mound Builders”, Southern Indian Studies, Chapel Hill, NC: The Archaeological Society of North Carolina, Vol. XXII, October 1970, pp. 3-16.

7 Cyrus Thomas, Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology, Twelfth Annual Report, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1894.

Thomas Jefferson’s Archaeological Dig
July 26, 2010 by Frances Hunter

Mammoth tooth from Jefferson’s fossil collection

Thomas Jefferson was fascinated by fossils. There are several accounts of his asking Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and George Rogers Clark to search for fossils for him at Big Bone Lick in Kentucky, and some of the items he collected are on display at Monticello to the present day. However, Jefferson was not just a collector. He was a practicing field archaeologist.

From a young age, Jefferson was intrigued by the Monacan Indians he saw around his childhood home in Albemarle County, Virginia. He wrote about a party of Indians who passed through his father’s property at Shadwell and to visit an earthen mound nearby. The Indians lingered at the mound for some time, and young Jefferson noted their mournful expressions, “which were construed to be those of sorrow.” Jefferson drew the conclusion that the mound was a burial ground, perhaps of ancient origin, and that the Monacan Indians were visiting the mound to grieve.

Reconstructed Monacan Indian Village, Natural Bridge, VA

Intrepidly curious, Jefferson noted a number of other mounds (or “barrows,” as he called them) around the area that he suspected contained human remains. In the 1770’s, when he was in his late 20s or early 30s, he decided to investigate one on a hill in the Blue Ridge Mountains, at a location near Monticello he described as “a few miles north of Wood’s gap.” There he conducted an extensive and scientifically ambitious archaeological dig. Jefferson wrote about what he found in Notes on the State of Virginia in 1787…

Jefferson and Science, by Silvio Bedini

Caught up in the spirit of scientific inquiry, Jefferson appears to have felt no squeamishness or sentiment about digging into a human grave. From a scientific standpoint, he found the presence of children’s bones in the barrow particularly significant. “Every one will readily seize the circumstances above related, which militate against the opinion that it covered the bones only of persons fallen in battle,”  he wrote. Also, the jumbled arrangement of the bones also seemed to rule it out as being common sepulcher of an Indian town, in which bodies were generally placed upright, touching one another other. He determined to investigate further.

Jefferson concluded that “appearances certainly indicate that it has derived both origin and growth from the accustomary collection of bones, and deposition of them together.” He conjectured that “the first collection had been deposited on the common surface of the earth, and few stones put over it, and then a covering of earth, that the second had been laid on this, had covered more or less of it in proportion to the number of bones, and was then also covered with earth; and so on.” In other words, the barrow consisted of a number of mass graves, slowly added to and built up over time.

In his methods and observations of the archaeological strata, Jefferson displays his characteristic brilliance. His conclusions about the mounds were worlds ahead of the general state of archaeological science at that time, and have been borne out by more modern scientific investigation of similar burial structures. As Silvio Bedini writes in his monograph Jefferson and Science, “By applying his innate sense of order and detail, he anticipated modern archaeology’s basis and methods by almost a full century.” The dig also demonstrated Jefferson’s intense interest in–and unsentimental view of–Native American cultures.

Jefferson’s Excavation of an Indian Burial Mound

Mather Brown (American, 1761—1831) Thomas Jefferson, 1786 Oil on canvas National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution;

In 1780, the secretary of the French legation in Philadelphia, François Marbois, submitted to various members of the Continental Congress a list of questions concerning the thirteen American states.1  Joseph Jones, a member of the Virginia delegation, believed Thomas Jefferson the most capable person to answer these queries for the state of Virginia and put Marbois’s questionnaire in his hands. The answers composed by Jefferson to twenty-three queries make up his Notes on the State of Virginia, which has been called the “most important scientific and political book written by an American before 1785.”2 Among the queries submitted by Marbois was one asking for a description of the Indians in the state (Query XI). Jefferson long had an interest in the Indian population of his native Virginia and his response to Query XI constitutes an impressive description of Indian tribes, their number, history, and geographical location, as well as their languages. As part of this response, Jefferson described in detail his exploration of an Indian burial mound in the “neighbourhood” of Monticello. He stated that it was “situated on the low grounds of the Rivanna, about two miles above its principal fork, and opposite to some hills, on which had been an Indian town.”3

Ely Mound in Lee County Source: Wikipedia, Ely Mound

Jefferson and others were aware of “many” barrows, as he called them, in the area.4 This particular mound or barrow was known locally as “the Indian Grave.”5 Jefferson excavated the barrow in order to ascertain which of several views of the Indian burial customs was correct: “That they were repositories of the dead, has been obvious to all: but on what particular occasion constructed, was matter of doubt. Some have thought they covered the bones of those who have fallen in battles fought on the spot of interment. Some ascribed them to the custom, said to prevail among the Indians, of collecting, at certain periods, the bones of all their dead, wheresoever deposited at the time of death. Others again supposed them the general sepulchres for towns, conjectured to have been on or near the grounds; and this opinion was supported by the quality of the lands in which they are found, (those constructed of earth being generally in the softest and most fertile meadow-grounds on river sides) and by a tradition, said to be handed down from the Aboriginal Indians, that, when they settled in a town, the first person who died was placed erect, and earth put around him, so as to cover and support him; that, when another dies, a narrow passage was dug to the first, the second reclined against him, and the cover of earth replaced, and so on.”6

Jefferson wrote that the mound was “of spheroidal form, of about 40 feet diameter at the base, and had been of about twelve feet altitude …. I first dug superficially in several parts of it, and came to collections of human bones, at different depths, from six inches to three feet below the surface. These were lying in the utmost confusion, some vertical, some oblique, some horizontal, and directed to every point of the compass, entangled, and held together in clusters by the earth. … to give the idea of bones emptied promiscuously from a bag or basket, and covered over with earth, without any attention to their order.”7

Monasukapanough, the main Monacan town, was located across the South Fork of the Rivanna River from the mound that Thomas Jefferson excavated

Jefferson proceeded to “make a perpendicular cut through the body of the barrow, that I might examine its internal structure. This passed about three feet from its center, was opened to the former surface of the earth, and was wide enough for a man to walk through and examine its sides.” He observed several strata of bones with those nearest the surface the least decayed and “conjectured that in this barrow might have been a thousand skeletons.”8 There was no evidence of violence to the bones such as holes made from bullets or arrows. The latter finding argued against the view that the remains in the mounds were of warriors killed in battle; nor did Jefferson find that the bodies had been placed upright as others had speculated based on local Indian lore.

Leesville Mound had five burial layers Source: Archeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin

Jefferson added that “about thirty years ago” he observed a party of Indians visiting the barrow. They “went through the woods directly to it, without any instructions or enquiry, and having staid about it some time, with expressions which were construed to be those of sorrow, they returned to the high road, which they had left about a dozen miles to pay this visit, and pursued their journey.”9 Jefferson submitted a draft of the Notes to Marbois in 1781, and it has been suggested that Jefferson’s sighting of the Indians at the barrow “about thirty years ago” would have been, therefore, when he was about eight years old.10 However, this estimate, given Jefferson was born in 1743, is valid only if the passage was included in the Marbois draft and not added to a later copy, and, of course, that Jefferson remembered accurately the number of years past. The original manuscript delivered to Marbois in 1781 has never been found and may no longer exist, and it is known that Jefferson continued work on the 1781 manuscript over the next few years.11

Jefferson did not record exactly when he made his excavation of the Indian mound, and numerous dates have been suggested: C.G. Holland says “about 1780.”12 Silvio Bedini suggests it was “around 1782,” but may have been undertaken in the 1770s.13 Marie Kimball argues that Jefferson’s “observations were, in all probability, made before 1773, the year Jefferson began to become so involved in the Revolutionary movement that he had little thought or time for anything else.”14 The Monticello and Jamestown archaeologist, William Kelso, writes: “It is certain that Jefferson, at some time in his twenties, organized an archaeological expedition to that mound, directed archaeological fieldwork, analyzed what he found, and published his conclusions.”15 Thus Kelso, too, believed the excavation likely to have taken place before 1773…

In addition to mounds that were removed for farming or construction, others were destroyed by people seeking artifacts rather than information Source: Judith H. Dobrzynski, A Wider View of Grandeur: Restoring an American Treasure

Evidence presented by Douglas Wilson, however, makes a strong case for an excavation date in the summer or early fall of 1783.16  As part of his investigation into the evolution of the Notes, Wilson points out that Jefferson’s account of the dig was a primary addition to the draft he completed in the summer or early fall of 1783. Since Jefferson left Virginia for Philadelphia on October 16 of that year, Wilson argues that the dig was made between the completion of the draft and his departure for Philadelphia. Moreover, based on an analysis of Charles Thomson’s comments made in the spring of 1784, Wilson suggests that Thomson had not seen a first-hand account of the dig as it appears in the later draft and that “Jefferson was prompted to describe his dig, many months after the dig itself by Thomson’s spring 1784 commentary.”17

Thomas Jefferson: Father of American Archaeology

Tthe Rapidan Mound was constructed next to the town of Stegara in territory of the Mannahoacks, and the Rivannna (Jefferson) Mound was at Monasukapanough in Monacan territory Source: Library of Congress, Virginia (by John Smith, 1624)

Archaeological studies have identified thirteen mounds in the Piedmont, Ridge, and Valley regions of central Virginia, including that described by Jefferson. These burial mounds date to the late prehistoric and early contact era (ca. A.D. 900-1700), vary in size and composition (e.g., earth-stone and conical), and may contain the bones of more than a thousand individuals; also, interestingly, these collective burial mounds typically are bereft of artifacts.18

The site of Jefferson’s mound is on the right (south) bank of the South Fork of the Rivanna River just north of Charlottesville and has been explored by archaeologists on several occasions, most recently by members of the Anthropology Department of the University of Virginia.19 However, as early as 1911, Bushnell explored the area and reported that the mound had “entirely disappeared,” most likely washed away due to flooding in the lowland where Jefferson found it.20 On the other hand, scholars agree that the “Indian Town” mentioned by Jefferson was the Monacan village of Monasukapanough, which probably occupied both banks of the South Fork at this point.21 Research at this site is ongoing.22

A supposed burial mound of Delawares is in Loudoun County Source: ESRI, ArcGIS Online

The original territory of the Monacan Indians and their allies once “comprised more than half the state of Virginia, including almost all of the Piedmont region and parts of the Blue Ridge Mountains.” These indigenous people were mound builders, placing the remains of their dead over time in sacred earthen graves.23 Charles Thomson gave an eyewitness account of these burial rituals as part of his extensive comments on a draft of Jefferson’s Notes, which Jefferson included as an appendix to the Notes.24

Jefferson’s excavation of the Indian mound earned him the title of “Father of American Archaeology” and “first American archaeologist.”25 His systematic trenching and use of stratigraphy (i.e., stratigraphic observation) as part of his exploration of the Indian mound, “anticipates the fundamental approach and the methods of modern archaeology by about a full century.”26  

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-excavation-indian-burial-mound

– Gene Zechmeister, 11/2010

Further Sources

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-excavation-indian-burial-mound

North American Mounds Kayleigh Speirs University of Winnipeg

“Thomas Jefferson exhibited great interest in the mounds, excavating one on his property in Monticello, Virginia in 1784. His aim was to examine the contents of the mound in an attempt to determine their origin. Jefferson cut a trench through a small mound, observing layers of human bones at different depths which were separated by sterile layers of soil. He recorded the internal structure, and determined
that there were around 1,000 skeletons which had been deposited over the course of hundreds of years.
Jefferson’s excavation was unique in its time; he was not interested in looting the mound, he simply wanted to gather information to better understand who had the built the mounds (Garlinghouse 2001)…

Thomas Jefferson is now credited with conducting the first scientific excavation in the history of archaeology (Renfrew and Bahn 2004). Since that time, archaeological methods have undergone significant changes and improvements, from excavation methods to dating methods. In more recent
years, there has been a shift from excavating mounds to a focus on protecting and preserving them. There has also been a shift toward multidisciplinary approaches which will be explored further in discussing the Watson Brake site.” North American Mounds Kayleigh Speirs University of Winnipeg UMASA Journal Volume 32 (2014)

Mode of Burial among North American Indians

The mound—builders were accustomed to dispose of their dead in many different ways; their modes of sepulture were also quite varied. The same statements will apply with equal force to the Indians.
“The commonest mode of burial among North American Indians,” we are informed by Dr. H. C. Yarrow, [Footnote: First Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, 1879—’80 (1881), p. 93.] “has been that of interment in the ground, and this has taken place in a number of ways.” The different ways he mentions are, in pits, graves, or holes in the ground; in stone graves or cists; in mounds; beneath or in cabins, wigwams, houses or lodges, and in caves.

Mode of Burial among North American Indians

The most common method of burial among the mound—builders was by inhumation also, and all the different ways mentioned by Dr. Yarrow as practiced by the Indians were in vogue among the former. It was supposed for a long time that their chief and almost only place of depositing their dead was in the burial mounds, but more thorough explorations have revealed the fact that near most mound villages are cemeteries, often of considerable extent.

The chief value of this fact in this connection is that it forms one item of evidence against the theory held by some antiquarians that the mound—builders were Mexicans, as the usual mode of disposing of the dead by the latter was cremation. [Footnote: Clavigero, Hist. Mex., Cullen’s transl., I, 325; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., I, p.60, etc.] According to Brasseur de Bourbourg the Toltecs also practiced cremation. [Footnote: H.H. Bancroft, Native Races, vol. 2, 1882, p. 609.]

Removal of the flesh before burial.—This practice appears to have been followed quite generally by both Indians and mound—builders.

That it was followed to a considerable extent by the mound builders of various sections is shown by the following evidence:

The confused masses of human bones frequently found in mounds show by their relation to each other that they must have been gathered together after the flesh had been removed, as this condition could not possibly have been assumed after burial in their natural state. Instances of this kind are so numerous and well known that it is scarcely necessary to present any evidence in support of the statement. The well—known instance referred to by Jefferson in his “Notes on Virginia” [Footnote: Fourth Am. ed., 1801, p. 143; p. 146, in 8th ed.] [pg 20] is one in point. “The appearance,” he tells us, “certainly indicates that it [the barrow] has derived both origin and growth from the customary collections of bones and deposition of them together.”  THE PROBLEM OF THE OHIO MOUNDS. BY CYRUS THOMAS. Government Printing Office 1889

Seven Bends of the Shenandoah River

An aerial photograph shows the locations of Indian mounds dating back to the Late Woodland Period (AD 900–1650) in the seven bends area of the Shenandoah River between Woodstock and Strasburg, Virginia. After some 250 years of plowing by settlers, the mounds have largely disappeared from sight, though traces of them can be detected with aerial photography.

Courtesy of Access Geneaology

Featured In Jefferson’s Mound Archaeological Site

Ely Mound

The nineteen-foot rise in the landscape visible next to the barn in this photograph is Ely Mound, an ancient Indian burial mound in Lee County that dates to the latter part of the Mississippian Period (ca. AD 1200–1650). This view is taken from U.S. Route 58, which runs near the archaeological site. Ely Mound was placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and National Register of Historic Places in 1983

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons Featured In Jefferson’s Mound Archaeological Site Ely Mound Archaeological Site

 

Table on the Status of Virginia Indians

Thomas Jefferson gives an accounting of the Indian tribes in Virginia—the location of their settlements and the population of their warriors in 1607 and 1669—in a foldout page from his Notes from the State of Virginia (1785). The page shown here is from Jefferson’s personal copy of the 1787 London edition.

Original Author: Thomas Jefferson Courtesy of University of Virginia Special Collections Featured In Jefferson’s Mound Archaeological Site

The Human Face

This illustration depicts shell gorgets, carved decorative shells worn around the neck, a Native American art form that most often dates to the Middle Woodlands Period (ca. 200 BC–AD 500) and the Mississippian Period (ca. AD 1200–1650). Carved to look like human faces, these gorgets were excavated at Indian sites in Tennessee as well as at locations in Stafford County (Aquia Creek) and Lee County (Ely Mound). A key at bottom indicates where each carving was found. The archaeologist William Henry Holmes used this illustration in his “Art in Shell of the Ancient Americans,” an article that appeared in the Smithsonian Institution’s Second Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology (1883).

Original Author: William Henry Holmes, author Created: 1881 Courtesy of University of Virginia Library Featured In Ely Mound Archaeological Site

Additional Resource Burial Mounds in Virginia

Do the Indians have any order of the Priesthood? Letter to John Adams from Thomas Jefferson.

“You ask further, if the Indians have any order of priesthood among them, like the Druids, Bards or Minstrels of the Celtic nations? …”

“And, even here, Adair might have kept up his parallel, with ennobling his Conjurers. For the ancient Patriarchs, the Noahs, the Abrahams, Isaacs and Jacobs, and, even after the consecration of Aaron, the Samuels and Elijahs, and we may say further every one for himself, offered sacrifices on the altars. The true line of distinction seems to be, that solemn ceremonies, whether public or private, addressed to the Great Spirit, are conducted by the worthies of the nation, Men, or Matrons, while Conjurers are resorted to only for the invocation of evil spirits…”

“Before the revolution they were in the habit of coming often, and in great numbers to the seat of our government, where I was very much with them. I knew much the great Outassete [i.e., Outacity], the warrior and orator of the Cherokees. He was always the guest of my father, on his journeys to and from Williamsburg. I was in his camp when he made his great farewell oration to his people, the evening before his departure for England…”

“That nation, consisting now of about 2000. warriors, and the Creeks of about 3000. are far advanced in civilisation. They have good Cabins, inclosed fields, large herds of cattle and hogs, spin and weave their own clothes of cotton, have smiths and other of the most necessary tradesmen, write and read, are on the increase in numbers, and a branch of the Cherokees is now instituting a regular representative government…”  Full Article Here: Letter To John Adams Monticello, June 11, 1812 rom Thomas Jefferson about the Indians

Post Views: 2,646

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR