Scattered through Ohio, but especially abundant in the northern part of the State, is a class of works which has excited considerable comment. This cut illustrates a work of this kind. It was located near where Cleveland now stands. The defense consists mainly in the location. The wall seems to have been rather of a secondary affair. The hill was too steep to admit approach to it except from the rear, where the double wall was placed. With both of these works a ditch was dug outside the wall. These works did not always consist simply of fortified headlands. This cut is of a portion of the works formerly existing near Norwalk, Ohio. The circular work, D, is shaped much like the sacred inclosures, though not on so large a scale. In the larger work, at B, we notice a truncated mound. The ditch is on the outside of the circles. This cut is of a work formerly on the banks of the Black River. Here we have a square inclosure, defended by two embankments and a ditch.

This class of works was formerly common not only in Ohio and Western New York, but they were also to be observed in other sections of the country. They existed alike in the valley of the two Miami Rivers, and in that of the Scioto. They were also found throughout the South. Even Wisconsin, the home of the effigy Mound Builders, is not destitute of this class of remains. The peculiar interest attaching to them arises from the fact that in some places, at least, we have good reason to assign their construction to Indian tribes. Those of Western New York were very thoroughly studied by Mr. Squier. When he commenced his investigations, he was under the impression that he was dealing with the remains of a people very similar, at least, to those who built the massive works in the Ohio Valley and elsewhere, but he was led to the conviction that they were the works of the Iroquois Indians, and as further proof that such was the case, we are told that since the palisades that once inclosed places known to be villages of the Iroquois have disappeared, there is no difference to be observed between the appearance of the ruins of such a village site and any of the earthworks in Western New York. But we have just stated that the remains last mentioned are identical with those found in Northern Ohio, and indeed over a wide extent of country. The conclusion seems to be, then, that one large class of works in many points resembling Mound Builders’ works, found widely distributed throughout the Mississippi Valley, were really the works of Indians.75 But we are approaching a subject we do not wish to discuss just yet. We simply point out that not all the remains of prehistoric people in the Mississippi Valley are referable to the Mound Builders.

We have tried to point out the more important works that are ascribed to them. It must of necessity occur in a work of this nature that the review should be very brief, yet we have touched on the different classes of their works. But before leaving this part of our field we must mention some anomalous works, and refer to others which, if they can be relied on as works of the same people, certainly imply a great advance on their part.

Our next cut is named by Mr. Pidgeon the “Sacrificial Pentagon.” Writing in 1850, he states, “This remarkable group . . . has probably elicited more numerous conjectures as to its original use than any other earth-work yet discovered in the valley of the Mississippi. . . . It is situated on the west highlands of the Kickapoo River, in Wisconsin.”76 Mr. Pidgeon claims to have discovered two of these pentagons. We are not aware that any one else has verified these discoveries, and it is difficult to decide what value to give to his writings. He claims to have made extensive researches around the head-waters of the Mississippi as early as 1840, and there to have met an aged Indian—the last of his tribe—who gave him many traditions as to the mounds in that locality. Most of our scholars think his writings of no account, whatever, and yet Mr. Conant says, “He seems to have been a thoroughly conscientious and careful observer, faithfully noting what he saw and beard.”77