•iii.,.MAs.i THE MOUND-BUILDKKS. ' 605 



from tlnwe anficiit ruius. "As iiicliiutinj;' the urigiu oC this huniod ihiy, it 

 is iui)M)rtant to state that it is usually mixiid with pieces of charcoal, i)artialiy 

 burned boues, etc. Kragaients of pottery are also found in the same connection.' 



If these eiiibaukinent.s are true walls, the places selected for cremat- 

 ing bodies would seem to be very unusual and wholly inappropriate. 

 Moreover, we find on tlu^ next page of his work proof that burial was 

 practiceil by the occupaTits. At the bottom of one of the mound-like 

 enlargements were found the remains of two bodies which he judged 

 had been buried in a sitting ])osturc. Near the surface of the same 

 mound were found fragments of pottery, charcoal, half-biirned human 

 bones, and masses of burned clay. If the theory advanced be correct, 

 we would have here evidence in the same mound of two methods of dis- 

 posing of the dead. If the object were to consume the body, it would 

 be very strange that it should be first inclosed in a mass of day and 

 the l)urned remains afterward left uncared-for. 



It is much more probable that the clay mixed with wild grass was 

 used as plastering for winter bouses which were built on these enlarge- 

 ments or mounds, oi' for wooden palisades. The presence of partially 

 buriR'd human bones may be easily ac«'ounted foi' without resorting to 

 the theory of human sacrifice or intentional cicmation, as will here- 

 after be shown. 



I am inclined, from personal examination, to accept Dr. Lapham's 

 suggestion tliat these supposed walls are only a series of mounds 

 united by embankments. iSimilar series are found in ("rawford county, 

 in the same State. 



In the latter case they seem to have been used only as house sites. 



Dr. Lapham was, beyond question, one of the most careful and con- 

 scientious students of our anticpiities, yet this idea of the predomi- 

 nance of religious ceremonies in the customs of the mound-builders 

 had taken such strong hold on his miud that the evidence of tire, even 

 in the inclosing walls, was sufficient to bring sacrifice forward as an 

 ex]ilanation of the coiulition observed, notwithstanding that he was in- 

 clined to the opinion tliat the mounil-l)uilders aiul Indians belonged to 

 the same race. 



Messrs. Squier and Davis in the explanation of their reasons for 

 designating certain woi'ks '> sacred inclosures'' remark- as follows: 



Thus, when we liud an inclosure cmitaiuiuj;' a uumbcr <<( nioiinds. all of which it 

 is capable of demonstration were religious in their purposes, or in some way con- 

 nected with the superstitions of the people who built tliem, the conclusion is irre- 

 sistible that the iuclosure itself was also deemed sacred. 



How are we to demonstrate that a mound was intended lor reli- 

 gious purposes'? The iinswer given by these authors is to be gathered 

 from their chapter on "altar or sacrificial nuiunds," and is in substance 

 as follows: If it has a (so-called) "altar " in it and is stratified, it has 

 been built for religious i)urposes, thongh the altar alone would doubt 



' Lapham. Antiquities of Wisconsin, p. 43. ^ Anc. Hon., p. 47. 



