32 BULLETIN, PUBLIC MUSEUM, MILWAUKEE. [ViOl. III. 



to outline the form of the effigy and the intervening spaces are 

 later rilled in. One unusual example of the use of corneals in this 

 manner is seen in the panther mound superposed upon an original 

 bear form. Here the conical seems to have been employed to de- 

 limit the superposed panther, but the whole panther is largely de- 

 void of special stratification. 



Since the conical is presumably almost the only form of mound 

 built by fairly recent tribes it may be assumed that this method is 

 later than the intaglio method. In fact, it seems probable that the 

 outlining of the effigy by means of conicals may represent an at- 

 tempt by a later people to imitate the more elaborate structures of 

 the earlier builders, who employed the intaglio method. To a peo- 

 ple previously acquainted only with the construction of the conical 

 nothing would be more natural than to so utilize this simple form. 



Another proof of difference in age between these two divisions 

 is shown in the fact that certain of the effigies, in the older division 

 of the group, particularly those of the so-called bear form, are low, 

 simple in stratification, and do not contain original burials, charac- 

 teristics of the later effigies. The most striking evidence of this age 

 relation is shown in mound No. 5, where an original low bear 

 mound was later covered by a much larger panther mound. The 

 difference in chronology is clearly shown in the stratification as 

 well as in the superposition of these two. Originally there was 

 built a bear intaglio which was then made into a low cameo by fill- 

 ing with several strata. After its completion a pit was dug 

 in this bear, to a point below the bottom of the original intaglio, 

 and a special burial placed here. This marks an entirely differ- 

 ent stage in the mound and may indicate a considerable lapse of 

 time. That it was done by a people of similar culture if not by the 

 same people who built the bear effigy is shown by the fact that the 

 stratification above this burial is quite similar to that of the mound 

 itself. At this same time or possibly very much later there was 

 built over this bear a much larger and more simply constructed 

 mound of panther form. 



The low bear mounds mentioned above were found in the vicin- 

 ity of the large crematory altar mounds, which fact may explain the 

 absence of original burials in such effigies. These form part of the 

 extended, and presumably older, series along the immediate lake 

 shore, to which the detached bear mound covered by the later 

 panther may also belong. They all show very simple stratification, 



