5G2 MOUND KXPLORATIONS. 



As the principal works of tbis district have betyi often described and 

 are well known, a brief nieutioii of tlie distingnishing features and 

 notice of some types not so well known is all that is deemed necessary 

 here. 



.' INCLDSUIiES. 



The works of this kind found in the district are generally and justly 

 considered its distinguishing arclnJological feature. These may, in a 

 general sense, be treated under three heads: First, the hill forts; sec- 

 ond, the geometrical inclosureS; and third, the defensive walls foruiiug 

 partial indosures. 



The first class, which corresponds witli Sijuier "and Davis's '' works of 

 defense," includes those works built unquestionably for defense on ele- 

 vated an'd luitnrally strong positions. The localiHes selected are usually 

 bluii' headlands, isolated. hills, and elevated points .defended ou either 

 hand by deep ravines, leaving only a narrow neck connecting the upper 

 level witli the level of the high i)latean. Tlie sides of these elevations 

 are geneially steep and ditticnlt of access, in some cases precipitous 

 and apparently inaccessible to any attacking party. 



If We examine the works figured on Pis. iv, V, Vi, Vil, Tin (Nos. 1, 3, 

 and-1), ri. IX (JSios. 1 and 2), and (No. 3) PL xii of "Ancient Monuments," 

 • we find evidence of deliberate and tlioughtful attempts to fortify posi- 

 tions naturally very s"trong. In nearly all of these instances the l)osi- 

 tions chosen are elevated, isolated, or nearly isolated, areas with pre- 

 cii)it()us descents on two or more ^ides. Along the margin of the descent, 

 usually following the windings and indentations of the bluff, a wall of 

 stone, of stones and earth, or earth alone, has been thrctwn up, a ditch, 

 running algng the inner side furnishing the earthy material. In some 

 cases where the conmiencement of the descent from the upper area is 

 not abrflpt the wall it? carried along the slope a short distance below 

 theui)iier level, as, for exapiple, at "Fortified Hill," in P>utler cqiinty, 

 Ohio.' ■ 



It is true, as the authors of " Ancient Monuments " state, that works 

 of this ])articiilar type "are never commanded from neighboring posi- 

 tiouvS," a fact no doubt of some significance when we come to compare 

 these works with other inclosures which seem to have been intended 

 for.a similar purpose, tha't of defense. This, however, will be referred to 

 hereafter. 



Some of these works pi'esent indications of growth or change subse- 

 quent to their erection. For example, the smaller area of Fort Ancient, 

 occupying the point of the bluff, appears to be somewhat older than tlie 

 remaining portion, a theory advanced by the author in an article in 

 "Science," in 188G,- and .ivdo]ited by Mr. Moorehead in his "Fort An- 

 cient,'' in which he rei)eatedly uses the terms "Old Fort!' and " New 

 Fort" for the two parts, and in the sense here indicated.* The-iu- 



' Auc. Mon., PI. VI. . '' Vol. s, Dec. 10, 1886, p. 538. 



