We give a map of a locality which has been referred to before, namely, that at Indian Prairie, a few miles north of Milwaukee. The name is taken from the fact that there were cornfields here, and that the Indians were accustomed, even after the settlement of the country by the whites, to return to the ground and camp here. There are in the vicinity, the traces of former cultivation, and in the midst of these, groups of effigies the location of which suggests the idea that they were placed here with a view to defense. The peculiarity of the spot is that there was an open prairie here in the midst of a forest, showing that it had been long occupied, and that the fields were not merely the fields of the Indians, but of the Mound-builders as well.

Dr. Lapham describes it as follows: "We next find in S. 29 and 30, in T. 8, R. 22, on the west side of the river, at a place usually known as Indian Prairie, about five miles north of the city of Milwaukee, a very interesting system or group of works. They are situated on a beautiful level plain elevated about thirty feet above the river, which runs along the eastern border. The bank of the river is nearly perpendicular, forming a safe protection against attack from that direction. It may be seen from the map presented, that these works are further protected on the north and south by deep ravines. The works are all included within these natural defenses. Whether they were ever protected on the west seems doubtful. No trace of embankment or ditch could be found nor any indication of other modes of defense usually adopted by uncivilized nations. There may have been defenses of wood long since decayed. There are two principal mounds situated near the middle of this space. They are both fifty-three feet in diameter at the base, where they almost touch each other, and eight feet high. The southern one has a level area of twenty-five feet in diameter at the top. It often occurs in a group of works like this that one mound is erected on the

highest position, from the top of which the whole may be seen. These may be called the 'observatories,' a name that in this case belongs to the mound with the level area. It may also have been the place of sacrifice or altar mound; but of this we can only judge from the analogy in form and position to similar works, which elsewhere were undoubtedly used for that purpose. Surrounding these were numerous tumuli of a circular form, the exact relative positions of which were ascertained by survey, and represented on the map. No definite system or order of arrangement was observed, as will be evident on inspection. But what marks this locality as one of peculiar interest is the discovery of five works of excavation of regular form, being the reverse of the usual works. Instead of an embankment of earth thrown up we have here a cavity in the ground. Four of the excavations lie in a southwest direction from the two larger central mounds. In approaching the former from the latter a small trail or path is discovered, which gradually becomes larger and deeper until it leads into a sunken area, composed, probably, of the earth thrown out of the earth at the excavation. Upon looking back it is perceived that this pathway goes direct to the mounds. (See figure IOI.) There are usually three curved entrances to each excavation, as shown in the figures. One excavation in the group differs from the rest in that it lacks the long guarded way or approach leading toward the mounds, though the principal openings are toward the "observatories." With our present limited knowledge of the people who constructed these works it would be idle to attempt to conjecture to what purposes they were made."

The description by Dr. Lapham is given at length, because the locality is an important one, and because it illustrates the point which we have in mind. We connect the effigies with the gardenbeds, Dr. Lapham says, "that the mounds were covered with these peculiar signs of cultivation," and thinks that this proves the garden-beds to have been of a different age, but the association of the Intaglios with the beds illustrates our point. The cornfields were remote from the Intaglios, but the garden-beds were in the immediate vicinity, and we think were contemporaneous. We consider that the object of the pits was to protect the gardenbeds, and that they were placed in the midst of the field, with their accompanying observatories, for this purpose. We hold that the protection of the beds was secured in this way.

We have referred to defense of agriculture as one object when speaking of the mounds near Kilbourn City. The same may have been the object of placing the effigies around the edge of the bluff at Honey Creek. These effigies surround enclosures which may have been occupied for cornfields. They would answer the purpose of walls or fences, but there was another method of protecting the fields, and that is by digging pits in the midst of them where hunters could conceal themselves and watch

the wild animals as they made incursions upon the crops and then shoot them.

By this means they would not only secure their crops from the marauding denizens on the forest, but would also secure game, without the trouble of hunting for it. Nothing shows the stupidity of certain animals, such as the bear and the coon, as the persistency with which they will return to cornfields in order to satisfy hunger. Other animals can be driven away and hedged out, but nothing will keep off these depredators. The only way is to watch for them and shoot them. A cornfield is to them what a sheep fold is to the wolf, and a pig pen is to the panther. Early settlers know what boldness all of these animals of the forest have when their appetite is tempted. The explanation of the pits or Intaglio effigies is found here. It is well known that Intaglio effigies formerly existed in various parts of the state.

Figure 102.

Intaglio Effigy at Indian Prairie- Lapham.

The description of the works by Dr. Lapham confirms the point, but we add our explanation. The map will exhibit the arrangement of the effigies in relation to one another and to the surrounding region. The accompanying cut will also illustrate the manner in which these intaglios were constructed. (See figures 102 and 103.) It will be noticed that there are excavations which reverses the order of construction of the effigies. The shapes of the animals are clearly seen, but the effigies are intaglio rather than bas relief. They are as correct in their imitations of animal shapes as are the embossed effigies, but they are altogether below the surface of the ground. There are, to be sure, embankments which rise above the surface, but these embankments only assist in bringing out the figure, as they make the relief more distinct. The embankments, however, served a double purpose. They made the effigy more distinct, and at the same time served as screens to persons who might be hiding in the pits. The imitative character of these intaglios are very marked. If an animal had been placed upon its side and pressed down into soft ground, and then taken up again, the mould which would be left would represent the form of the body and head and

tail, there would be a portion of the mud displaced, and this would project above the surface, forming a slight ridge around the body, but the tail would not displace anything. Such is the appearance of the effigies; the earth mould retains the shape of the animal, but the embankment is without any definite form. The intaglio is as purely imitative as if it was a mould, but the wall is merely a fragmentary heap of earth. The distinctively fetichistic character of the pits may be seen in the care with which the effigies were constructed. The mechanical contrivance was also admirable. The hunter could hide himself in the excavation and place his head at the openings between the embankments, and there watch the animals as they passed over the adjoining plats

of ground. The connection of the pit with the observatory would indicate that the hunter was in the habit of standing on the summit of the mound and watching the animals as they came out from the forest, but while the animals were passing down into the valley and up the hill he would go down the path and hide himself, so that the field would be apparently unoccupied. The number of the intaglio effigies would indicate the fact that more than one hunter was engaged in watching the game, and that a number of animals were in the habit of visiting the place. The shape of the effigies would indicate the kind of animals which were in the habit of committing depredations. The panther and bear are seen in the Intaglios. The same is true of the locality at Ft. Atkinson. Here, however, the Intaglio is in the shape of a panther and the mound is in the shape of a bear. The bear did not require as much secrecy, and was not as dangerous. Here the hunter was in the habit of running out and hiding behind a long mound or ridge, making the ridge a screen, but in the other place the whole process was conducted with stealth and by the excavations only. The protection of the garden-beds we consider to be the main object of the Intaglio effigies.

S. D. P.

CORRESPONDENCE.

FOOTMARKS IN KENTUCKY.

Editor American Antiquarian:

The following information was given me by Prof. J. F. Brown, of Berea College, Ky., who personally examined the locality. It may prove of some interest: Sixteen miles in an easterly direction from Berea, Ky., on what is known as Big Hill, in Jackson county, one of the spurs of the Cumberland Mountains, is a strata of carboniferous sandstone on the very summit. A wagon road now crosses it, and in ancient times a trail crossed the hill in the same locality. Recent removal of debris, consisting of dirt and leaves, exposed a new section of this ledge, and showed very distinctly marked in the stones a series of tracks. Two of these are the tracks of a human being, good sized, toes well spread, and very distinctly marked; one or more bear tracks, and two resemble the tracks of a horse of large size. E. A. ALLEN.

CONICAL MOUNDS IN EUROPE.

[Translated by A. S. Gatschet.]

Editor American Antiquarian:

Being an attentive reader of your AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN, I beg you to accept some published studies upon some conical hills, frequent also in Europe and Asia. In one of these Schliemann pretends to have discovered Troy. Between these cones and the mounds, cones and pyramids of America there exists a connection, and it is of the highest importance to establish the natural and casual connection between these structures of both hemispheres. But the classical (Roman and Greek) archæology is moving in a too narrow circle, never lifting its horizon above the two classic countries. America was never discovered for our philologists! They are deaf for everything brought to light by prehistoric archæology. Even prehistoric archæology is still tied up to the belief derived from the Old Testament, that the largest part of the earth's surface had to be peopled by emigration. Nobody knows how often a country may have changed its inhabitants before the beginning of history; but all these nations have left relics of their manufacture on the soil. Our business is to classify this material with correctness, and divide it with its historic periods. Europe does not study enough what is discovered in America in this respect; men, beasts and plants may have immigrated from there into our European countries.

I propose to institute a comparison between our conic hills, tombs and pyramids with those of America, and would be much obliged to you for sending materials for the purpose. What I have sent is destined for publication in the AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN, and more of my writings will follow. The Museum Journal (inclosed) contains in each of its bi-monthly numbers a summary of all publications of the best known archæological periodicals. E. BOETTICHER. BERLIN, GERMANY, March 5, 1884.