Measuring Ancient Works

Presented by Don Teter, PS ©2015 Donald L. Teter Measuring Ancient Works

Cover page illustrations are a Scioto Valley burial mound and skull excavated therefrom by Squier and Davis

“I can testify to little beyond the giant Mounds that the Savages say they guard as Curators, for some more distant Race of Builders. I have fail’d to observe more in them, than their most impressive Size, tho’ Mr. Dixon swears to Coded Inscriptions, Purposive Lamination, and Employment, unto the Present Day, by Agents Unknown of Powers Invisible.” Charles Mason, in Mason and Dixon, by Thomas Pynchon

The Builders

Adena (Early Woodland), Mississippian 1,000 BC – 200 BC 800 – 1600 AD

Hopewell Fort Ancient 200 BC – 500 AD 1000 AD – 1750 AD

Late Woodland Monongahela 500 – 1000 AD 1050 - 1635

Page 2 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Page 3 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Page 4 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

The Armstrong Culture is named for a creek in Fayette County, their mounds are smaller and less complex than the Adena. During the same period the Wilhelm Culture, named for a mound in Brooke County, was prevalent in the northern Panhandle and nearby areas in Pennsylvania.

Page 5 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Hopewell variants replaced the Armstrong and Wilhelm Cultures. The Armstrong seems to have evolved into the Buck Garden, named for a creek in Nicholas County. They used stone burial mounds and rock overhangs for their dead. The Watson Farm Culture, named for a mound in Hancock County, lived in the northern part of West Virginia. Montane area mounds are smaller than others, but grave goods show a Hopewell influence.

Page 6 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Many of the groups in West Virginia in this period were influenced by the Mississippian Culture, with more agriculture and stockaded villages. Middle Woodland traits persisted in many areas, and the Fort Ancient Culture, named for a Hopewellian site in Ohio, was apparently a mixture of Middle Woodland and Mississippian cultures. The Monongahela Culture resembled the Fort Ancient, but with less Mississippian influence. The Potomac Monongahela Culture in the Eastern Panhandle was a later stage of the Monongahela, arising in about 1630.

Page 7 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

The “Discoverers”, 1845-48

Ephraim George Squier, 1821- 1888; studied engineering, edited Scioto Gazette

Edwin H. Davis, 1811- 1888; practiced medicine in Chillicothe Davis had been studying the works for some time when Squier arrived at Chillicothe, Ohio, in 1845. They began to cooperate and Squier later wrote “I had not proceeded far before I became satisfied that it was hopeless to enquire of residents for facts respecting [the earthworks], and finally that the only mode of acquiring information was to take the compass and chain in one hand and the mattock in the other and go into the field in person.”

Page 8 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

In 1848 the first Volume of the Smithsonian Institution’s Contributions to Knowledge series was published: Ancient Monuments of The Mississippi Valley: Comprising the results of extensive original surveys and explorations by E.G. Squier, A.M., and E.H. Davis, M.D., with a sample map of Marietta, Ohio shown below:

Page 9 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

The “Discoverers”, 1880’s-90’s

Cyrus Thomas, 1825-1910; Associated with the Smithsonian The work of Cyrus Thomas is generally considered to have proven that Native Americans were buried in and had constructed the mounds of the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys, rather than those monuments being the work of some mysterious vanished civilization of “Mound Builders”. He was often critical of the work of Squier and Davis, as he wrote in 1889 (in the Smithsonian Institution’s Bureau of Ethnology report The Circular, Square and Octagonal Earthworks of Ohio). Thomas said the work of the Mound Exploring Division including making new surveys, “and incidentally to call attention to some errors in … Squier and Davis in regard to them.” He noted that Squier and Davis had surveyed only 26 of the works themselves, relying on the manuscript work of others for the other two-thirds of their maps, and reported that: “So far as a comparison on the ground has been made … their figures appear, to the eye, generally to be correctly drawn, and in this fact lies the chief value of their work, as their descriptions are brief and usually void of minute details.” “The lack of these details, the fact that their measurements are in most cases given in round numbers, and their omission to state whether these measurements were taken from the middle, the inside, or the outside of the walls … “

Page 10 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Thomas plat of the Newark Octagon

Notes for Thomas plat

Thomas noted that “The southern portions, a to b, and b to c, remain almost uninjured, being still more or less covered by the original forest growth. The other lines of wall have been considerably worn by the plow, though they are still quite distinct, the height being not less at any point than 2 ½ feet ash shown by the figures of the field- notes. Nevertheless, the wearing makes it difficult, often impossible, to determine with absolute certainty the middle line, though there is never any good reason why the survey should vary from the middle line of this or any other of these Ohio inclosures, distinctly traceable, more than 3 feet at most.” Thomas reported diameters as: h to b – 1,218 ft.; d to f – 1,213 ft.; b to f – 1.708 ft.; a to e – 1,483 ft.; b to d – 1,219 ft.; f to h – 1,202 ft.; h to d – 1,720 ft.; g to c – 1,487 ft.

Page 11 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Thomas also noted “The angles at the crossings of the diagonals and diameters at the center o are so nearly right angles as to be worthy of notice … For instance, the angles at crossing of the diagonals bf and dh differ but 10’ from true right angles; while those at the crossing of the diameters ae and cg differ but 2’.”

Frederic Ward Putnam, 1839- 1914; Peabody Museum at Harvard University Putnam was instrumental in the preservation of the Great Serpent Mound.

Page 12 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

The “Moundbuilders” Myth Most people believed the mounds could not have been built by the ancestors of the Indian tribes now living there, and subscribed to the theory of a very ancient and superior race of Moundbuilders. As noted in the “Mound Builders” article of the West Virginia Encyclopedia: “It was thought that a lost race or civilization, such as the Lost Tribes of Israel, had built mounds in North America. Many people believed that American Indians were savage and primitive, and would have been incapable of constructing large earthworks.”

As The Cincinnati Chronicle put it on February 2, 1839, reporting on excavation of the Grave Creek Mound: “There are circumstances which go to show that the period of the world at which this gigantic monument was erected, was very remote, perhaps more than four thousand years before the flood.”

Squier and Davis subscribed to the same basic theory, as related by David J. Meltzer in the introduction to the 1988 reprint of Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley: “Squier and Davis had little doubt from the start that the moundbuilder race was separate and, in all ways, superior to that of the recent Indians of North America – even down to the sculpted nuances of stone pipes. Nothing in their research convinced them otherwise, and everything they saw confirmed the idea. The result is that Ancient Monuments is one long argument that the moundbuilders were a numerous, widespread, and homogeneous race of semi-civilized agriculturalists, deeply religious and of necessity militaristic, whose monuments, customs, symbols, artifacts, and cranial anatomy bore unmistakable traces of a deep historical connection to the semi-civilized peoples of Mexico and Peru.”

Apparently F.W. Putnam shared that view as late as 1890, when he published The Serpent Mound of Ohio in The Century Magazine (April 1890). He wrote: “Was this a symbol of the old serpent faith, here on the western continent, which from the earliest time in the religions of the East held so many peoples enthralled, and formed so important a factor in the development of succeeding regions?” He appears to at least partially answer when he says: “That the serpent was prominent in the religious faiths of the Americans is beyond question, and that, to a certain extent, in combination with phallic and solar worship, it extended from Central America to Peru and Mexico, cannot be doubted, whatever its origin. Its existence in Yucatan is shown, as in Cambodia, by sculptures on the ruined buildings which can only be properly designated as temples.” In speaking of the “egg” in the Great Serpent’s mouth he notes: “… here we have associated the several symbols which in Asia would be accepted without question as showing the place to be a phallo-solar shrine combined with the serpent faith.” He claimed that examination of the Great Serpent revealed that it had

Page 13 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

“all essential points in the fulfillment of special religious rites connected with the older faiths, which, so far as we know, had their greatest development in Asia, which is the land, more than any other, that we have reason to consider as the original home of the brachycephali, one of the early peoples of America.”

Adena Culture 1,000 BC – 200 BC

The Adena people occupied parts of present-day Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland. They hunted deer, bear, elk, bison and numerous small animals and birds; gathered seeds and nuts; and cultivated pumpkin, squash, sunflower and goosefoot.

They lived in small settlements of one or two structures, circular with 15-45 foot diameter, paired post walls were covered with bark or wickerwork, and a conical roof was apparently covered with bark. Several settlements were scattered around a mound site.

Adena House, Wikimedia, Siyajkak, 2005

Page 14 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Adena Mounds and Works

There were originally hundreds of Adena Mounds, but many have been destroyed. Generally 20 to 300 feet in diameter, they were apparently used as ceremonial sites and burial structures. Construction involved moving hundreds of thousands of baskets of sorted and graded earth, piled atop a burned mortuary structure. Successive layers of mortuary structures and earth would create large mounds.

Examples of Adena Mounds

Grave Creek Mound

Squier’s sketch of Grave Creek Mound, reportedly 69 feet high, 295 foot diameter

Page 15 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

“The Grave creek mound, although it has often been described, deserves, from is size and singularity of construction, more than a passing notice. It is situated on the plain, at the junction of Grave Creek and the Ohio River, twelve miles below Wheeling, in the State of Virginia. It occurs in connection with various works now much obliterated … It is one of the largest in the Ohio valley; measuring about seventy feet in height, by one thousand in circumference at the base. It was excavated by the proprietor in 1838. He sank a shaft from the apex of the mound to the base, … intersecting it at that point by a horizontal drift … It was found to contain two sepulchral chambers, on at the base, … and another thirty feet above … These chambers had been constructed of logs, and covered with stones, which had sunk under the superincumbent mass as the wood decayed, giving the summit of the mound a flat or rather dish-shaped form. The lower chamber contained two human skeletons (one of which was thought to be that of a female); the upper chamber contained but one skeleton in an advanced stage of decay. With these were found between three and fur thousand shell beads, a number of ornaments of mica, several bracelets of copper, and various articles carved in stone. After excavation of the mound, a light three-story wooden structure was erected upon its summit.” Squier & Davis, Ancient Monuments … , pp. 168-69.

In a letter in August 1846, Squier described his visit: “I visited also the celebrated Grave Creek Mound … From what I could learn, both at Crave Creek and at Wheeling, of the character of the younger Mr. Tomlinson who opened the mound, I am satisfied that very little reliance can be placed upon his word in matters when his interest is involved. He opened the mound, not through an enlightened, nor for that matter, unenlightened curiosity, but as a speculation; boarded it round, put on pad-locks, hung up his skeletons in horrible ghastliness, and sat down at the gate expecting that the universal Yankee native would come trooping to see it, at ‘a quarter a head, children half-price.’ He did not get over’ fifty thousand’ quarters, and has now moved away, and the skeletons ‘and things’ are once more all heaped over, beyond hope of recovery.” Squier and Davis, p. 75

In about 1846, a visitor reported described the “museum” built in the center of the mound: “This rotunda is … ceiled over with timbers and plastering. From its centre rises a circular hollow column of brick, which occupies the space of the shaft. Around the base of this column there is a circular shelf provided with wire cases, in which the bones, bead ornaments, and other objects of interest, found in the vaults are arranged. The place was dark, or but dimly lighted with a few tallow candles, which cast around a sepulchral glare on the wired skeleton and other bones spread around. Silence added its impressive influence to the panoramic display of so profound and humid a recess. It was warm August weather, yet the damp and acrid character of the atmosphere in this area, were suchf, as sensibly to affect the respiratory organs … But the most striking display hung from the ceiling. On casting the eye upward, there was seen depending from the plastered ceiling a white exuded mass … very white, and extended over a large part of the wall. It appeared to be the result of rainwater, slowly percolating from the surface and summit of the mound through earth, which, it map be supposed, was surcharged with residuary animal matter … Drops of this white mass fell frequently to the floor during my several visits.” Norona, p. 34

Page 16 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Delf Norona’s cross section (Moundsville’s Mammoth Mound, by Delf Norona, WV Archeology Society, 1962)

Street Map from National Historic Register Nomination, 1985

Page 17 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Grave Creek Mound, c. 1927

Grave Creek Mound, Feb. 2013

Page 18 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Up the walkway

View from the top. Why did they put the mound so close to the prison?

“Improvements” on the top

Page 19 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Seth Eastman map, 1845, from Norona, p. 4

Page 20 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Some Other Adena Works

South Charleston Mound, From 1970 Historic Register Nomination, originally 40 feet high, 525 foot diameter

Consolidation Coal Co., Ireland Mine Cresap Area Excavation of Gatt's Adena Indian Mound, 1958, West Virginia and Regional History Collection.

Page 21 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Contents of Indian Mound, Kanawha County, W. Va., 1958

Page 22 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Hopewell 200 BC – 500 AD

“… the Hopewell were a special people who, to a greater extent than any of the peoples in eastern North America who preceded them, unlocked the secrets of geometry, developed a sophisticated system of measurement, and even came to understand the great cycles of the sun and moon.” William F. Romain Mysteries of the Hopewell, Astronomers, Geometers, and Magicians of the Eastern Woodlands University of Akron Press, Akron, Ohio, 2000, p. 1

The Hopewell are often called Mound Builders, but that term is also used for the earlier Adena Indians and the later Mississippian Indians. They all built mounds, but the Hopewell lived from around 100 B.C. to about 400 or 500 A.D., in “small scattered hamlets that surrounded their great ceremonial centers. Most likely, each hamlet was made up of one or maybe a few extended families.” They were hunters and gatherers, but also accelerated the change from “food gathering to food producing”. They had trade networks reaching from Lake Superior to the Florida Gulf coast, from the Carolinas to the Rockies. “Only now … are we beginning to appreciate the full extent of their accomplishments in … plane geometry, measurement, arithmetic, and observational astronomy.” Romain, pp. 2-3

“… the Hopewell came to know something very special about the fabric of the universe. What they discovered was that this fabric can be described in the language of plane geometry, arithmetic, measurement, and observational astronomy. Using this knowledge, the Hopewell built tremendous symbols of their universe in the shape of the geometric enclosures. They then tied these symbols into the great solar and lunar cycles of time through a unique alignment system.” Romain, pp. 5-8

‘It would be worthy to investigate whether straight lines exist only in our brains.’ Eugẻne Delacroix, 1798-1863

Page 23 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

______

______

The same method was explained in 1688 by John Love in Geodaesia, as shown on the following page.

Page 24 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Page 25 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Four Fundamental Relationships Between a Circle and a Square

Romain, p. 49

Page 26 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Hopewell Geometric Figures

Squaring the circle Romain, p. 40

Page 27 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Squier & Davis, Plate XXV

Page 28 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Pi 3.1415

1.4142 diagonal

Incommensurate Ratios Romain, p. 40

Diameter of Circle = Length of side

. . . important . . . was the visual expression of such ideas . . . you do not need to be able to define what an incommensurate ratio is in order to make a circle and square that have components that are of equal length. Romain, p. 43

Page 29 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Squier & Davis, Plate XVII

Page 30 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Nested Squares

Romain, p. 47

Squier & Davis, Plate XXI, 4

Page 31 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Truncated Squares; Octagons Romain, p. 56

Romain, p. 57

Page 32 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

How the Hopewell Likely Guided the Work

Models or Plans We have no surviving remnants of any such models or plans, but surely they existed, if only in the form of stick-drawn figures scratched on the ground. On the other hand, remnants of what may be prehistoric drafting templates and tools have been found. Consider, for example, Warren K. Moorehead’s (1922) description of a group of artifacts he discivered in one of the burial mounds at the Hopewell site: “one mass of ten little copper circles … forty pieces of copper, squares, circles … eleven pieces showing semi- circles, straight edges, squares, etc., one small cross with two arms”. Romain, p. 66-67

… to translate smaller models or figures into full sized earthworks, three things would have been needed. First, a basic unit of measurement would have been necessary in order to express the idea of “how big.” This unit of measurement would have to be capable of expansion by multiples of itself and, conversely, capable of being made smaller by lesser multiples. Second, an agreed upon standard of measure would have been useful. And third, some method of counting would have been needed. Romain, p. 67

In 1891, excavating with horse-drawn scrapers for display at the 1893 Columbian World’s Exposition in Chicago, in Mound 25 of the Hopewell group, Moorehead reported finding “120 pieces of sheet copper. They were all laid flat, and occupied a space three feet long and two feet wide, with layers of bark above and below. There were no skeletal remains connected with this deposit, nor was any altar found near it.” … Many of the plates were worked into various patterns. Very few of them were of forms known to exist in Ohio, the greater part of the designs being unique. The field list is as follows: A long mass of copper, covered with wood on one side, squares and five other traceable things on the reverse; 18 single copper rings, two of which are small; double copper rings, one set of three and one set of two; five saucer-shaped disks; saw- shaped design, arrowhead and other unknown things massed together; one combination design of circles and bars; smaller mass of copper, wheels, etc.; two fragmentary fish and one whole fish, resembling the red-horse; two diamond-shaped stencils of copper; three long copper plates, one of them perforated; two swastika crosses; four copper spool- shaped ornaments; two with four holes in each; one mass of ten little copper circles; four comb-shaped or bear effigies; two spoon-shaped pieces of copper; 40 pieces of copper, square, circles, etc., many fragmentary; 11 pieces showing semi-circles, straight edges, squares, etc.; one small cross with two arms. Moorehead quoted in "Exploration of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric Earthworks," by H. C. Shetrone; 1 - 227 Volume 35/January 1926/Number 1; Ohio History Journal

Page 33 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Page 34 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Mound 25 today

Page 35 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Units of Measurement The Romain Theory

William F. Romain in Mysteries of the Hopewell, (Univ. of Akron, 2000), makes a strong case for having deduced the measurement units used by the Hopewell.

1053 feet Romain points to numerous instances of the length 1053 feet (+/- 2%) in various parts of geometrically shaped earthworks. See following table.

Page 36 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

First Order Enclosures

Romain, p. 72

Second Order Enclosures

Romain, p. 73

Page 37 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Third Order Enclosures

Romain, p. 74

Fourth Order Enclosures

Romain, p. 75

Page 38 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Fifth Order Enclosures

Romain, p. 76

Page 39 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Hopewell Basic Unit of Measure

… common sense tells us that the 1,053-foot unit of length was probably not the most fundamental or basic unit of measure. … would have been very awkward to use … One can hardly imagine the Hopewell people walking around with measuring devices that were 1,053 feet in length. Romain, pp. 78-9

Using formulas put forth by Patricia J. O’Brien and Hanne D. Christiansen in 1986 (in “An Ancient Maya Measurement System”, American Antiquity 51[1]), Romain concludes that the 1053 foot distance was most likely created by using 500 units of the basic unit of measure, which would thus be 2.106 feet. He is quick to add that he doesn’t mean that to be a precise number, but a derived value. Romain quoted O’Brien and Christiansen on the methodology: “Any dimension X is the product of some unit of measure (U) multiplied by some number (Y) of them: i.i., X = UxY. This being the case if one knows X then the unit can be found by the division of Y into X: i.e., X/Y = U. thus in theory one collects measurements from a structure, divides them by a series of whole numbers … and isolates the common values that emerge. The largest common value is then the unit sought or an integral multiple of it.”

X/Y = U

1053/500 = 2.106

Romain (pp. 79-80) says the full explanation is necessary for the reader to: “further recognize that the value of 2.106 feet is not some overly precise number that I arbitrarily pulled out of the air; rather it is a derived value that, like the 1,053-foot unit, also has a range. By derived, I mean that the 2.106 feet is an ideal length that finds actual physical expression in a somewhat less precise fashion, in that it varies by about plus or minus 10 percent from 2.106 feet. In this regard, it might be helpful to consider the following analogous situation.” “If someone in the future were to try to figure out what our basic unit of measurement is, and if that person were to try to do this by measuring the center-to-center distances of the beams in the walls of our houses, most likely he or she would find that the distance is an ideal, or average, or derived length of 16.000 inches, plus or minus 10 percent. In our world, carpenters may try to place their beams on 16-inch centers, but the reality is that there is a range to what is actually done. Some center-to-center distances may be 16.5 inches, some may be 15.75 inches, and so on.” In the same way we might look at a large Hopewell unit like the 1,053-foot length, and derive by calculation the smaller ideal unit of 2.106 feet. But when we look at the actual use of that smaller unit, we find it is manifested in a range that can be expressed either by saying “about 2 feet,” or alternatively, “2.106 feet, plus or minus 10 percent.”

Page 40 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Romain used maps of excavated charnel houses within mounds to confirm the apparent use of this measurement.

Page 41 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Ohio Archeological and Historical Society excavations in 1920’s at Mound City, beside WW1 Camp Sherman barracks

How Did They Choose This Standard? “… many people throughout history have based their systems of measurement on the human body. In North America, the Maya, Aztecs, and many of the Indians north of Mexico likewise used different parts of the body as physical standards. … What part of the human body is equal to the proposed basic unit of length of 2.106 feet? … it may be that the answer to this question is found in the length of the human arm.” Romain, pp. 92-3

Romain arrived at this conclusion by comparing height data (average 5’ 6”) from 36 excavated Hopewell adult male skeletons, and using forensic formulas to determine an arm length of 25.27”, or 2.106 feet, from the armpit to the “distal ends of the metacarpal bones”, He notes that ethnologist J. Peter Denny in 1986 reported the use of this standard to measure Cree Indian canoe building lengths, and “ … this is an important piece of information because it tells us that the standard of measure I proposed for the Hopewell is not some imaginary concept but a very real standard of measure used by other Native Americans.” Romain, p. 95

How Would They Have Measured?

“… To lay out … a line that is 1,053 feet in length, a Hopewell geometer would simply step off five hundred of the arm length units …” Romain, p. 96

Page 42 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

How Might They Have Counted the Units?

Fingers and toes “To establish … a straight line that was 1,053 feet in length, the following procedure might have been used. First, the basic Hopewell unit of length is established b the outstretched arm and plumb bob method … Next, a series of twenty basic Hopewell units of length are laid out either by use of a cord equals in length to 2.106 feet or by repeating the outstretched arm and plumb bob method. The twenty basic Hopewell units are kept track of by counting on all ten fingers and all ten toes. When the twenty units are reached, then one finger on the right hand is extended from a closed fist. Thus one outstretched finger is equal to 20 arm lengths, or twenty basic Hopewell units of length. This procedure is repeated, but this time, when we have counted, when we have counted twenty units or arm lengths on our fingers and toes, a second finger on our right hand is extended. Again and again the procedure is repeated until all the fingers on our right hand have been extended, thus accounting for 100 units of 2.106 feet. When all the fingers on the right hand have been extended, then we also extend one finger from the closed fist of our left hand. Thus, each extended digit on the left hand is equal to 100 units. When all five fingers of the left hand have been extended, we will have counted a total of five hundred units … or 1,053 feet. Thus by counting only on our fingers and toes, and only up to 20, we can generate huge multiples of the basic Hopewell unit of length. Equally significant, this method of counting yields the large, 1,053-foot unit of measure so often found in the Hopewell earthworks.” “The system of counting just described is not imaginary. It is known as the 5-20, or base 20 system. As we have seen, large numbers are built up by multiples of twenty. What makes this system especially relevant to the Hopewell is that the base 20 system of counting was used by a large number of diverse Native American groups throughout North America, including the Aztecs, Maya, and even the Eskimo. It is not unreasonable to think that perhaps the Hopewell used a similar system.” Romain, pp. 98-99

But Let’s Be More Precise!

Page 43 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Aligning With Celestial Phenomena

Romain, p. 103

Although there is at least one example of an earthwork (Seal Square) aligned with the cardinal directions, they were more commonly aligned with celestial phenomena. Alignments were generally accurate to less than one degree.

Some alignments: Dunlap Enclosure – summer solstice sunrise Hopeton Earthwork – winter solstice sunset Anderson Earthwork – summer solstice sunset Hopewell Earthwork – winter solstice sunrise Mound City Enclosure – summer solstice sunset

Page 44 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Great Serpent Mound

Illustration from F.W. Putnam article, The Century, April 1890

Looking westward toward the serpent’s head, May 2011

Page 45 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Squier & Davis, 1846

Page 46 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Romain, p. 248

Page 47 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Squier and Davis map overlain onto Romain survey

Page 48 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Page 49 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

1901 Clinton Cowan survey overlain onto Romain survey

Page 50 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

View in direction of summer solstice sunset, May 2011

Frederick Putnam believed these rocks, below the “egg”, may have inspired the builders

Page 51 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Romain, p. 243

Page 52 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

G. William Monaghan map of coring locations and radiocarbon dates, Journal of Archeological Science, 2014

Page 53 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Lidar Contour Map by William F. Romain

Ponding in convolution #3, photo by William F. Romain

Page 54 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Cahokia Mounds Mississippian Period (Occupied c. 700 A.D. – 1400 A.D.)

Page 55 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Central Cahokia c. 1200

Mural of Monks Mound, c. 1912

Monks Mound covers over 14 acres, stands 100 feet high, and contains about 22 million cubic feet of earth. It was built in eight to fourteen stages, between approximately 950 to 1200 A.D. Named Monks Mound because French Trappist Monks living on a nearby mound from 1808-1813 planted gardens, fruit trees and wheat on the terraces of the large mound.

Page 56 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

The Fourth Terrace building was probably the residence of the leader and the religious/political focus of this urban center. A fenced courtyard with a huge post in the center, enclosed the fourth terrace. In the 1830’s Amos Hill built his farm complex on the Third Terrace and removed a small mound on the southeast corner. He is buried on the northwest corner of the Fourth Terrace.

Atop Monks Mound, looking west, Feb. 2009

Monks Mound from the west, Feb. 2009

Page 57 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Archeological Surveying Model

What instrument is that?

Page 58 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

Woodhenge In the early 1960’s Dr. Warren Wittry was working on archeological excavations preceding an Interstate highway project. In looking at his maps, he noticed pits with post mold lying in arcs. Detecting a pattern, he calculated additional theoretical positions and found numerous additional holes. Evidence was eventually found of 5 different “Woodhenge” observatories. (the highway was re-routed)

Woodhenge III was reconstructed on its original site. Observer’s post is slightly east of center point to form an angle of 30.8 degrees needed to sight solstices at this latitude.

Reconstructed Woodhenge, 2009

Page 59 of 60

Measuring Ancient Works

That rule ain’t for us, we’re special!

Page 60 of 60