494 ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS—II [ETH. ANN. 44 
Tre So-Catuep “ Bear” or “ Erricy ” 
Neither the map by Squier and Davis nor that by Lewis shows cor- 
rectly the parallel walls extending southwestward from the “ Old 
Fort.” Both represent the walls as ending at the bank of the ravine 
near their actual termination at the west. The northern parallel has 
been destroyed at this end by the railroad; the southern wall de- 
scends the slope of the ravine, crosses the level space between the 
two little streams which unite just below, and ascends the opposite 
bank. As constructed, the two walls were joined at their western 
extremity by a loop which extended beyond them toward the north, 
and on a sketch somewhat resembles the handle or butt of a pistol. 
These portions are still very distinct and it is singular that they 
should have been overlooked or omitted from the maps. Squier and 
Davis show the walls as terminating several feet from the eastern 
brink of the ravine, although they say in the text that the walls 
follow the inequalities of the surface; and on page 79 say traces of 
the walls can be seen on the declivities of the ravine. Squier and 
Davis make no reference to the “Effigy” within the curve at the 
junction of the walls, nor is there any indication of it in their illus- 
tration. No doubt it originally had some such shape as that ascribed 
to it by Lewis; although persons now living in Portsmouth, who 
were with Lewis at the time he made his survey, were unable to see 
it exactly as it appeared to him. It has been plowed over so often 
that it is now only a slight rise without any definite outline, and 
would be regarded as only an ordinary mound of elliptical outline. 
However, as portrayed, its close resemblance to the Tremper mound, 
5 miles north of Portsmouth, in which such extraordinary discoveries 
were made by Mills, led to the hope that somewhat similar results 
would reward its excavation. 
A fence crosses at the “ flank ”—to continue the use of the “ Bear ” 
simile—diagonally toward the rear, in such manner as to cut off 
the “hind lez” and a small portion of the “body.” The small 
part beyond the fence is densely overgrown and could not be fol- 
lowed; all from the “flank” forward to the extreme end was thor- 
oughly excavated, the area removed being 57 feet long by 35 feet at 
its greatest width, which included the “ fore leg.” There was not the 
slightest line of demarcation at any place between the artificial por- 
tion of the mound and the earth upon which it was built. Only an oc- 
casional fragment of charcoal, a flint chip, a scrap of pottery, or a 
dump containing enough burned earth. bone, or rock to be distin- 
guishable, furnished any evidence of human handiwork in its construe- 
tion. Test holes were dug at several places in the encircling ditch and 
in the field around, reaching in every instance the same yellowish 
sandy subsoil that was found under the mound. The excavation 
