34 BULLETIN, PUBLIC MUSEUM, MILWAUKEE. [Vol. III. 



nature of the country and its remains there is as great a likelihood 

 of juxtaposition of different cultural remains as there is of superpo- 

 sition of these remains. This is due to peoples of different periods 

 occuping the same favorable localities but not the identical spots 

 chosen by their predecessors. This juxtaposition of cultures is more 

 difficult to recognize than is superposition but it is certain that a 

 considerable chronological range must exist in a country where 

 such widely different objects are found in the mounds as archaic 

 flaked points on the one hand and silver trade crosses and other 

 historical objects on the other. 



When sufficient information is available it may be possible to 

 establish certain more or less continuous lines of diffusion from 

 culture centers in the Great Lakes and Mississippi valley regions. 

 This may show not only the sources of these three mound and 

 surface cultures but also their relation to the larger problem of 

 mound distribution and chronology in America. 



In addition to this larger problem, certain subordinate features 

 present themselves for solution. These are : 



1. Are effigy mounds elsewhere, especially those of the panther 

 form, built first as intaglios, and then filled in stratum upon stratum, 

 or is this practice confined to certain localities only? Further, are 

 all effigy mounds elsewhere as carefully stratified as those in the 

 Kratz Creek group? 



2. Are small conical mounds used in outlining effigies? If so 

 is this a later method than the intaglio and an attempt to imitate 

 the more complex work of the earlier builders? 



3. Are all effigy mounds built for mortuary and sacrificial pur- 

 poses? 



4. What were the sources of the sacrificial earths used in these 

 mounds? Was the use of such earths restricted to the mounds of 

 this region? 



5. What were the property sacrifices, evidently largely cre- 

 mated or consisting of perishable articles, evidences of which are 

 still found in some of the mounds? 



6. Were wooden implements used in the construction of such 

 mounds, as the only evidence found in the present work tends to 

 show? How otherwise may we account for the entire absence of 

 stone digging implements? 



