104 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 179 



In view of the paucity and the random nature of much of the 

 Coralville mound data, it seems most practical to consider Sites 

 13JH3 and 13JH4 as a total comparative unit. As implied above, 

 the most satisfactory body of suggestively related data comes from 

 Jo Daviess County, 111., and from the Effigy Mound sites of Wis- 

 consin. In light of the inadequacy of physically contiguous Iowa 

 materials, the major comparative reference will be to the former areas. 



Suggested traits of Sites 13JII3 and 13JH4 are: 



Conical mounds: 



1. Conical form, small 



2. Topsoil removed prior to construction 



3. Structure in a single layer 



4. Structure stratified or laminated 



5. Pottery : Lake Michigan ware, conical pipe 



6. Projectile points 



a. Triangular, plain? 

 6. Corner-notched 



7. Occupation debris included in mound fill 



8. Fragments and slabs of limestone included in mound fill 



9. No burials present 

 Linear mounds: 



1. Linear (rectangular) form 



2. Topsoil removed prior to construction 



3. Structure in a single layer 



4. No burial present 



In general, the observed and putative traits are not definitive and 

 offer slight basis for a detailed comparison. In southern Wisconsin, 

 Rowe considers conical and linear mounds, found in the Effigy Mound 

 Culture, as related units of a large and complex series of mound 

 types (Rowe, 1956, pp. 14, 69) . No site contains all the known forms, 

 but repeated associations are such as to make a relationship tenable. 

 With one exception, conical mounds are present in all the site group- 

 ings (ibid., table 1, pp. 15-17). In all cases, they are many times 

 more frequent than linear forms (ibid.). Linear mounds occur at 

 all but four sites and then always as a minority feature (ibid.). 

 Conical mounds are present in contexts lacking linears at three sites, 

 but linear mounds without conicals were found only once (ibid.). 



In describing the effigy, linear, and conical mounds of north- 

 western Illinois, Bennett (1945, p. 95) has considered the structures 

 as falling into two groupings: (1) Linear-Effigy, and (2) Conical. 

 In view of the scarcity of data and the random overlap of many 

 traits, Bennett concludes that with one possible exception, "The 

 linears represent a single manifestation" (ibid., p. 99). In addition, 

 "Pending further excavation, the effigies must be considered as sim- 

 ilar to the linears in all respects save form" (ibid.). The conicals 



