W R K S F I) E F E N C E . 43 



which projected beyond the walls, and answered the double purj)Ose of bastions 

 and watch-towers. The very regular intervals between these openings, particu- 

 larly in the great work on the Little Miami, (Plate VII,) and the Fortified Hill in 

 Highland county, just mentioned, (Plate V,) would seem to favor this hypothesis. 

 Of course we cannot now expect to find any traces of wooden structures, even 

 if such entered into the original defences. 



The walls of earth and stone which constitute all that remains to us of these 

 aboriginal fortifications, although often high and heavy, would nevertheless, in 

 themselves, furnish very imperfect means of protection and resistance. Earth 

 cannot be heaped up so as very much to impede an assailant ; and the stone works, 

 as far as noticed, do not appear to have been constructed of stone regularly laid," 

 so as to present a vertical or inaccessible front to an enemy. These circumstances 

 render it sufficiently obvious that the walls were surmounted by palisades, or by 

 something equivalent. We are sustained in this conclusion by the concurrent 

 practices of all nations, known to construct permanent works of this description. 

 The ramparts of the Roman camps were strengthened by stakes fixed on the top ; 

 and to this day, the walls of E^Pas, or entrenched hills of the New Zealanders, are 

 surmounted by palisades. Such also is the present practice of some of the tribes 

 on the Missouri, — the Minatarees, Rickarees, and others. The walls of some works, 

 which, from their position and other circumstances, are manifestly of defensive 

 origin, are so slight that it would be absurd to suppose them designed for protec- 

 tion, unless crowned with palisades. ' Most of those of northern Ohio are subject 

 to this remark. It has been asserted by certain writers on American antiquities, 

 that traces of palisades are yet to be seen in some of them. Aside from the 

 palpable improbability of anything of the sort, it is proper to remark that no 

 such evidences have been observed in the course of our OAvn investigations. A 

 very few years of exposure would suffice to obliterate all traces of wood in these 

 constructions. 



We have already had occasion to remark the skill with which the gateways or 

 entrances to these enclosures arc sometimes protected by over-lapping or 

 concentric walls, horn-works, etc. It is rational to conclude that means were 

 made use of by the builders to close the entrances effectually, when desired. How 

 this object was accomplished is, of course, entirely a matter of conjecture. The 

 A.ustralians, in case of alarm, completely close their entrenchments with stones or 

 other obstructions. Entrance is effected only by a succession of posts of different 

 lengths, like a stile, or by the aid of notched ti'ees. 



In connection with many of the defensive structures, mounds are occasionally to 

 be found, so placed as to suggest the ])urposes of watch-towers, look-outs, or alarm- 

 posts. They are sometimes exterior, and sometimes interior to the walls of the 

 enclosures, and occasionally incorporated with them. Plate XI (Nos. 1 and .3) 

 affords examples. It is possible that this was not the primary, perhaps not even 

 the secondary purpose of these mounds. Proper excavations would settle the 

 question. In the absence of these, we can only appeal to such light as analogy 

 affords us in our inquiry. Such mounds were erected by the ancient Britons for 

 purposes of observation, both in advance of their other defences and within them ; 



