30 BULLETIN, PUBLIC MUSEUM, MILWAUKEE. [V,ol. III. 



plate XVI, figs. 2 and 3, are of the type usually found in the vil- 

 lage sites of the region. This fact, together with the position of 

 the burial and the well preserved condition of the bones, shows 

 quite conclusively that it was an intrusive burial of relatively re- 

 cent date and need, therefore, not be taken into account in a con- 

 sideration of the age of these mounds. 



Further, the fragments of what must have been whole pots 

 were found associated with burials and in close proximity to sacri- 

 ficial altars, as shown in plate XVIII, fig. 2, and occurred in both 

 conical and effigy mounds. These and scattered potsherds found in 

 the mounds were of three different classes of pottery. All were 

 quite different from that found on the surface in the village sites 

 about the lake. 



It is a remarkable fact that absolutely no implements which 

 could have been used in the construction of the mounds were found, 

 except the charred remains of a wooden implement which might 

 have been used as a shovel or which may have been a canoe paddle. 

 In the building of such extensive earthworks it is hardly conceiv- 

 able that some of the digging implements should not have been left, 

 either by accident or design. The total absence of such tools in 

 the mounds, with the exception of the single charred wooden im- 

 plement just mentioned, makes it seem quite possible that the 

 builders used wooden tools which were later thrown on the great 

 ceremonial fire topping the mound upon its completion and were 

 then consumed. 



Furthermore, no stone tools of any description were found 

 in these mounds. The construction of such intricate mounds 

 presupposes an elaborate ceremonial procedure. Consequently 

 it might be expected that the builders would make offerings of 

 various kinds of stone implements, in connection with the ar- 

 chaic points above mentioned or with the offerings of perishable 

 goods used as burned and unburned sacrifices to the dead. That 

 the builders of the mounds possessed such artifacts is hardly to be 

 questioned and the manner of their disposal is an interesting prob- 

 lem. There are certain explanations which suggest themselves as 

 possibilities. Owing to the natural disinclination of native peoples 

 to again use any object belonging to the deceased or anything used 

 in connection with the disposal of the dead, we should expect that 

 all such objects would receive some special disposition. Indian tribes 

 in general have four favorite methods of disposing of such ob- 



