THE MOUNDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY. 5g 
sider the nature of the position to be defended, and bear in mind the 
effective use of rifle pits in modern warfare, it may well be doubted 
whether the inside is not, under certain conditions, the proper place 
for it. 
In the material of which they were made these embankments varied 
but little. As has been well said by H. H. Bancroft, * “they are of 
earth, stones, or a mixture of the two, in their natural condition, thrown 
up from the material which is nearest at hand. There is no instance of 
walls built of stone that has been hewn or otherwise artificially pre- 
pared, of the use of mortar, of even rough stones laid with regularity, 
of adobes or earth otherwise prepared, or of material brought from any 
great distance. The material was taken from a diteh that often accom- 
panies the embankment, from excavations or pits in the immediate vi- 
cinity, or is scraped up from the surface of the surrounding soil. There 
is nothing in the present appearance of these works to indicate any dif- 
ference in their original form from that naturally given to earth-works 
thrown up from a ditch, with sides as nearly perpendicular as the nature 
of the material will permit. Of course any attempt on the part of the 
builders to give a symmetrical superficial contour to the works would 
have been long since obliterated by the action of the elements; but 
nothing now remains to show that they attached any importance what- 
ever to either material or contour. Stone embankments are rarely 
found, and only in localities where the abundance of that material 
would naturally suggest its use. Ina few instances clay has been ob- 
tained at a little distance, or dug from beneath the surface.” 
Turning now to our second grand division—the mounds,—we find 
them composed of earth and stone, and varying in location, size, shape, 
and contents. Divided according to their form, they may be classed 
as— 
First. “Temple” or truncated mounds, which as their name indi- 
‘ates are truncated cones, usually with graded ways to their tops, and 
in some instances with terraced sides. Their bases are of different 
forms, being indifferently either round, oval, square, or oblong; but 
whatever may have been their differences in these respects, they were 
all alike in having flat or level tops, which were no doubt used as sites 
for their rude temples, or the cabins of their chiefs. In size, they 
varied from a height of 5 feet to 90, and from a base of 40 feet in diame- 
ter to one covering an area of 12 acres.t Like the embankments, they 
are simply heaps of earth, some of them, it is true, of immense size, 
but all of them thrown up without much “care in the choice of material, 
and none at all in the order of deposit.” 
Second. The next class is composed of the “animal mounds,” or 
mounds in which the ground plan is more or less irregular, and is 
* Native Races of the Pacific States, vol. 1v, p. Td8. 
t See the account of the Cahokia Mound in 12th Annual Report of the Peabody Mu- 
seum, 
