THE MOUNDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY. 557 
and earthworks seem to prevail in different sections, as, for instance, 
the animal mounds in Wisconsin, the inclosures in Ohio, and the trun- 
cated mounds in the States farther to the south. All kinds however 
are represented in the Ohio Valley, and it is probably safe to say that, 
within that basin, they are more numerous, of larger size, and more 
complicated patterus than can be found elsewhere in the United States. 
Taken as a whole, they may be roughly divided into two grand divis- 
ions—mounds and enbankments,—and these can again be sub-divided 
into numerous groups. Beginning with the embankments or inclosures, 
we find that they are generally of earth—rarely of stone,—and that they 
are situated on the level river terraces, or else occupy the tops of hills 
or other naturally strong positions. According to their situation, they 
have been divided into works of defense and sacred inelosures, or as I 
prefer to call them, hill-forts and fortified villages. The former of these 
almost always followed the outlines of the hill, and are henee more or 
less irregular in shape. In some of them the whole top of the hill is 
inclosed by a wall, whilst in others only the more exposed points are 
so defended. The fortified villages are usually found on a level plain— 
one of the river benches or terraces being generally selected. They are 
of various sizes and shapes, though the square and circle predominate, 
and are often found united in a seemingly arbitrary manner. The 
height of the wall around the inclosure, measured from the bottom of 
the ditch that usually accompanies it, varies from a few feet up to 30. 
In many instances it is now, and must always have been, too insignifi- 
‘ant to offer any serious obstacle to an attacking force; and this has 
given rise to the suggestion that these embankments were formerly 
surmounted by stockades, as was the case with the villages of the recent 
Indians. Without stopping now to inquire into the probability of this 
explanation, it is sufficient to say that there cannot be the slighest 
doubt as to its truth in regard to some of them. Brackenridge* states 
the fact positively, and Atwater tells us that half-way up, on the out- 
side of the inner wall that surrounded the cirele, or as he ealls it the 
“round fort,” which formed a part of the large and complicated series 
of works that once occupied the site of the present town of Circleville, 
Ohio, ‘‘there is a place distinctly to be seen where a row of pickets 
once stood, and where it was placed when this work of defense was 
originally erected.” + In point of size these works varied greatly. 
Some of the smaller circles—probably the ruins of mud lodges or tem- 
* Views of Louisiana, pp. 21 and 182-5: Pittsburg, 1814. 
t Archwologia Americana, vol. 1, p. 145: Worcester, Mass., 1820. As these works 
will be referred to hereafter, I add a description from the same book, pp. 141-2: 
“There are two forts which are joined together, one being an exact circle, the other 
an exact square. The former is surrounded by two walls, with a deep ditch between 
them. The latter is encompassed with one wall, without any ditch. The former 
was 69 rods in diameter, measuring from outside to outside of the circular outer 
wall; the latter is exactly 55 rods square measuring the same way. The walls of the 
circular fort were at least 20 feet in height, measuring from the bottom of the ditch, 
